I think it has mostly to do with people's insecurity in their faith. When a person is secure in what they believe, they can blow off opposition to it- because their faith "works for them". But if a person has some inner conflict or doubt in their faith- they tend to attack any opposition to it to "protect" that insecurity. The sad reality IS, that alot of people are afraid to think very deeply- because they're afraid of what they'll find there.
2006-08-24 16:33:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Philosophy and religion consider many of the same questions but religion centers around theology. So we have the study of Wisdom on the one hand and the study of God on the other.
If you will really consider the two fields of study you should see that it isn't so much a question of narrow minds, or not reaching within, as it is a question of sources. In philosophy one seeks within and around for wisdom. In religion one finds wisdom centered in God if you are a thiest, in Nature if a panthiest and probably only in philosophy or science if you are a diest or athiest.
To make matters worse, over the past 50 years the idea of revelation, which used to be held as a source of knowledge in philosophy, at some point just disappeared. So revelation is now given little consideration outside some religions and even intuition is not food for epistemology.
You and I are late comers to the universal scene and the human scene. Whether you pick up your information from the street, home, classroom or church, you have picked up another's truth.
So forgive me, but I do not think you or any group you might know have done a pristine job of reaching inside themselves for inner truth - any more than others who took a religious path.
Philosophy and religion have similar questions. I find that many of the people who centered around what you call religion have done a better job of assessing workable answers than has philosophy.
St. Paul "argued" with the Epicureans and Stoic philosophers nearly 2,000 years ago quoting Greek poets saying of God:
"For in him we live and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
Here is an idea that existed with Greek poets and was not exclusive to Christianity.
There is room if you don't make your search mutually exclusive.
2006-08-25 01:27:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tommy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not everyone sees every question posed, be calm and when you are ready the answer to your question will appear as if from nowhere. If you look within yourself you will find the answers you seek in any case. The struggle to find Truth is a meaning to life that must be chosen just as some choose to acquire wealth or status. If you search for Truth others of like mind will appear from time to time but be aware that it is a lonely undertaking and one that brings much ridicule and suffering.
2006-08-25 00:02:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by thewolfskoll 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Could it possibly be that the "philosophy" of Christ is the best truth we have ever heard?
I have read all kinds of philosophy. Read all kinds of religious books. I went through a long time of spititual growth. I did whatever. I participated in all kinds of meditation, I took mushrooms, I used to smoke a lot of pot thinking it had me connected. I conversed with people about belief over and over. I examined life all the time. I spent my whole life doing this. I still do try to grow. However, all my theories that I had come to know. Everything that seemed to ring true to me, was always made clear in christianity (specifically catholicism).
I spent most of my time debating and talking to people everywhere. Until one day I tried to discuss with a preacher. I couldn't argue with what he was saying. I knew it to be the truth. Lots of things I used to explain are summed up in one or two sentences in the bible. I just never understood before, because I didn't believe. Once I opened up my heart to Christ, I understood.
Why does it bother you so much that christians are so adamant? Would you be as offended by someone like Nietsczhe? He was insane. Perhaps brilliant, but insane. Without rational thought or sound mind. To say that God is dead....
How about Machiavelli? What kind of asshole was he?
I used to think the Communist Manifesto was a great piece of work.
Roasseau said, "Man was born free, but is everywhere in chains". Great quote. Yet, even in bondage liberation is possible.
2006-08-24 23:26:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by nathancarson23 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't understand what "reaching into yourself to find their own inner truth" means. It sounds very subjective, and I don't understand what it has to do with philosophy.
In fact, there is plenty of "room for philosophy in religion." Religion and philosophy are closely allied as fields of study. Look at the curricula of any theological school or seminary. There is abundant consideration given to the most important and influential philosophical minds through the ages, as well as to the less well-known figures.
I can't speak for all religions, but I will for the one I am most familiar with, Christianity:
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul quotes a number of Greek playwrights and poets. He also reached out to Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles, and commonly used terms which would have meaning for them. (See Book of Acts.)
The whole prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18), epsecially the first few verses, concerns the Greek term "logos" (the "Word"), which is God - but in Greek thought, it is also the unspoken "word" still in the mind - the "Reason."
The "logos" was central to Greek thought, as John well knew. He was writing his Gospel to Jews of two backgrounds - Hebraic Jews, and Hellenistic Jews. His use of the term "logos" was ingenious, because it would have held meaning for people of both backgrounds. To the Hebraic Jews, it was understood primarily as "God," especially as it related to the "Word of God." They also would have had an understanding of the "logos" as integral to Greek thought, as the region of the time was heavily influenced by Hellenism at the time.
The Hellenistic Jews would have had this understanding as well, but would also have recognized "logos" as the Reason. Thus, John used a term that was meaningful to Jews of both backgrounds, and built a sort of cultural bridge between the two strains of Judaism.
I really don't know what you're getting at with your question.
Love, Jack.
PS: On the notion that bad religion is dangerous, and bad philosophy is ridiculous:
Not so; look at some fairly recent distortions of philosophic thought - those of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Red China (Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward) - bloody indeed, with scores of millions dead in the 20th century. (Some evidence, especially that gleaned from the opening of the Soviet archives following the fall of Communism, suggests that as many as 100 million may have perished due to the excesses of the USSR and China alone.)
2006-08-24 23:55:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
All through the development of the Christian religion there have been philosophers. Christianity itself is based in part on Platonic philosophy, brought to another level by people like Augustine. Also, in the high middle ages there were a great deal of philosophical discussions going on among the heirarchy of the Catholic Church.
I imagine you are looking at the common drone who chooses to to accept dogma as fact.
2006-08-24 23:24:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe what I believe because of study sense I was very young.I`m not young now.My faith has brought me through many things.Isn`t philosophy the study of truths and principles.The study of the basic concept of a certain branch of knowledge.With that I believe that there is plenty of room for philosophy.Mine is God,Jesus and the Holy Ghost are real.That the Bible is a record of mankind.One of the best studies around.
2006-08-24 23:42:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by greenstateresearcher 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
C.S. Lewis, the great Christian thinker once said, "Good philosophy is important if for no other reason than to counter bad philosophy."
If truth can be found only within, then your truth is no more valid than my truth is no more valid than Hitler's truth, etc. Get the point? Truth, by your definition, is simply decided by power and/or majority rule. That thinking is foundationless and, in the end, always leads to evil.
Truth comes from God's word, not within yourself. Jeremiah tells us that if we look into ourself we will find that we are desperately wicked and in need of God's rescue.
God is truth. Humans are flawed and sinful and in need of a savior to rescue us from our own arrogance.
2006-08-24 23:27:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dantes 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I disagree. I believe that religion is all philosophy. I think the rant you went on was disguised as a question in order to get it off your chest. I guess that's my inner truth and you will probably say you are 'sad' because of my narrow mind. So be it.
2006-08-24 23:17:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by swarr2001 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
You are assuming that truth is to be found mainly by introspection and self-examination. It seems to me the narrow-minded view is to say that the only path to truth is inward.
However, when you refer to one's "own inner truth", I think you're using the wrong terminology, frankly. The biggest lie we can ever fall for is that truth is subjective, open to individual interpretation. There is objective truth in this universe, and it existed long before you or I came along, so to say we can only find it inside ourselves is to say at the very least that truth was incomplete until we were born.
Maybe there are less than optimum reasons people "glom on" to another's "truth". But if something rings true to you, is it in your best interest to let it fall to the wayside, or can it not be used to describe how you view the world?
And, let's say, just for the sake of argument, as you infer, it is up to each one of us to find our own truth...can we justifiably state how one arrives at that is fearful or lazy? After all, if it's their truth, aren't they free to pursue it and discover it in the way that best suits them? Aren't you then applying your "truth" to theirs?
There is room for philosophy in religion; all religion is in some way philisophical. There's nothing wrong with stretching ones' thinking on occasion.
2006-08-24 23:27:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by You'll Never Outfox the Fox 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think you're right; many religions have room for rigorous philosophical discussion within their theology. The history of the Catholic Church is essentially the history of medieval and modern philosophy.
But for many religions you are right--there is no room for philosophy. This is because the primary methodology of philosophy is reason, whereas for those people their primary methodology is blind faith. The two do not mix.
2006-08-24 23:24:48
·
answer #11
·
answered by cutetom26 1
·
0⤊
0⤋