Philosophy Of Religion Essays - Philosophy Of Religion, Secularism

Philosophy Of Religion Philosophy of Religion, by David Elton Trueblood is an attempt to fathom not religion as a whole, but the thought processes that are the basis of modern religious thought. The book makes no attempt to explain any individual religious preferences or motifs, only to gauge the reasons for religion in its entirety. While Trueblood doesn't pass judgment on other religions, his personal beliefs are apparent. He is a Protestant Christian, and has been writing books on religion since 1935. Philosophy of Religion is in the spirit of his other books, such as The Logic of Belief which merely serves to explain why persons believe what they do believe. 1957, the year of publication, was exactly in the middle of a period of great change in the world. The space age was developing, and new scientific discoveries were turning many people away from theistic explanations of everything from natural history to outer space. Communism was spreading over Eastern Europe like a wildfire, sweeping up millions into the not-so-comforting arms of spiritual agnosticism. I feel Trueblood has done an excellent job with this book, and anyone interested in the "Why's" of religion should find it an interesting manuscript. Religion has reached a previously unheard-of footing in this world, and it is impossible to simply ignore it. One is forced to agree with or oppose with religions, which of course has led to a great deal of friction, especially between radical sects. Unfortunately, many of the most stringent followers as well as opposers of religions suffer from the same malady: ignorance. The most devoted Islamic guerrilla may well be involved in an anti-Semitic movement only because his father was. He may actually have the same fundamental beliefs, i.e. the belief in one supreme God or Creator; as a Jew, but is blinded by his cause and can't see the similarities, or attempt to cohabitate in the world with an opposer of his religion. In religion, there is to much gray area for there to be just one possible solution. Even communism, always considered the antithesis of religion may well be one of the most dogmatic faiths in the world. The main fundamental in religion is commitment. Most commonly it is the faith in God or other supreme being, but dialectical materialism is most certainly built on total commitment . Another factor many people fail to realize, but which Trueblood points out more than adequately is that philosophy is not religion. Philosophy is the search for "knowledge for the sake of understanding, while religion seeks knowledge for the sake of worship." One may also be religious and scientific. While science has redefined a good deal of the natural world, the supernatural is still unchanged; more people are turning to a God for comfort and stability in a world of constant flux. Quite possibly one of the most important factors in religion is its reliance on faith. All religion is based on word of mouth, and there is no way of proving its validity. If any part of a religion is ever proved false, then the belief as a whole is thus untrue. One cannot maintain, or pretend to maintain, a religion merely because it is comforting, socially proper, or convenient. If there is no God, then to pray and worship is a waste of time, according to Trueblood. Indeed, he considers a false religion to be inherently evil! Of course, many people feel that something cannot be quantitatively evil, unless there is a supreme Good to compare to and fight the evil, so this There must be, then, room for ambiguity in religion, if not doubt. This requires the argument for realism, which Trueblood sufficiently provides. Realism is a theory that "holds that there are objects of knowledge which actually enjoy independent existence." These objects of knowledge are assumed by most religions to be the causation, directly or not, of all things. Their divinity or plurality has been the subject of great debate between separate religions, and religion as a whole and science. Platonists believe in a spontaneous, four-fold causation, while most Western religions believe in a singular, omnipotent God. Meanwhile, non-Theistic scientists feel that everything happens out of random chance, with no higher goals or creator. The next major topic that Trueblood explains is the nature of truth. Is something rendered true merely because it hasn't been disproved? Is positive evidence enough to classify something as true, or proved? If A implies B, and B is true, does that mean A is true as well? There is no definite answer