Reading: Religion and The Divine

We're ready to proceed with our second session. Having concluded our exploration of "What is Philosophy?", theories of reality, and primarily theories of knowledge, there remain a few topics typically found in the philosophy curriculum. These topics exist beyond the realms of ontology and epistemology.

These additional areas have remained part of philosophy, largely due to historical reasons. Their presence in the curriculum has not changed significantly over time. For instance, the study of ethics and the study of logic remain integral to philosophical studies because they originated from the works of philosophers. Though subjects like physics, biology, mathematics, and astronomy were initially explored by those termed as philosophers, they evolved into their distinct disciplines. In contrast, ethics and logic have steadfastly stayed within the domain of philosophy.

Moreover, there are "philosophy of" courses such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of ethics, philosophy of mathematics, and so on. These courses are inherently philosophical, examining views anchored in theories of reality and knowledge, and then delving into specific scientific disciplines. For example, in the philosophy of physics, we would first study theories of reality and knowledge and then examine how varying physical theories are affected by these foundational views.

It's crucial to understand that one cannot evade philosophical assumptions. Irrespective of the subject, from mathematics to ethics, adopting any stance implies alignment with a particular philosophical view concerning reality and knowledge. Clarity in one's philosophical standpoint, concerning both the theory of reality and the theory of knowledge, is essential for a lucid understanding of the subject in question.

A pressing query arises: which is foundational, the theory of reality or epistemology? Is epistemology predicated on a theory of reality, or vice versa? As per the stance adopted in this course, and within this Christian curriculum, neither is foundational to the other. Instead, both spring from religious beliefs. Hence, before advancing, we must pause and clarify the essence of religious beliefs, and subsequently examine the religious convictions of various thinkers in relation to their philosophical views.

Defining "religious belief" is no small task. While many can cite examples, providing an abstract definition proves more challenging. Across time, numerous things have been classified as religious. I recall my initial foray into teaching comparative religion. Seeking to define the subject, I consulted numerous texts. Older ones offered unsatisfactory definitions, while more recent ones highlighted the flaws in these older definitions. An era followed where multiple definitions were juggled in a bid to encompass the entire subject. This approach too was dismissed by subsequent authors. Some even asserted that defining religion was an impossible endeavor. This reminded me of the Supreme Court's stance on pornography: indescribable, yet recognizable when encountered. This subjective approach seems inadequate for academic studies that aim to compare religions.

Reflecting on this dilemma, I remembered ancient thinkers who had grappled with this very issue. Anaximander, circa 600 BC, stated that the Divine is the origin of all things and itself lacks an origin. This ancient perspective seemed profound. At its core, religious belief pertains to the Divine - that which is the source of everything yet is not derived from anything else. Various phrasings can capture this essence: the Divine as self-existent or unconditionally non-dependent.

Some may question the existence of such a Divine entity. I contend that something self-existent is inevitable. Consider the entire spectrum of reality. This totality must be self-existent, either wholly or in parts, simply because there is nothing else upon which it could depend. This inherent, self-existent essence is what I term the "divine reality". This perspective doesn't ascribe any attributes to the Divine other than self-existence.

Certain religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, believe that this divine essence permeates the entirety of reality. They hold that nothing within the universe is self-existent; it's the collective, the whole, that possesses this divine nature. This holistic essence, present in everything, is the independent reality.

...and resist. These deities are certainly not valued most supremely. Therefore, the "supreme value" definition also fails.

Another definition one might encounter is that a religion is simply a moral or ethical code. Yet, this too is inadequate. While many religions incorporate ethical or moral teachings, there are forms of spirituality or religious practice that are focused more on transcendental experience or the nature of existence rather than specific moral or ethical guidelines. Moreover, secular ethical systems exist outside the bounds of religious belief, such as secular humanism, demonstrating that ethics and religion are not synonymous.

Still, others might propose that religion is just about ritualistic behavior. However, there are deeply spiritual traditions that don't require rituals, or where rituals are minimal or secondary to other practices or beliefs. Conversely, there can be purely secular rituals, like certain national ceremonies or personal habits that aren't tied to any religious belief.

So, while all these elements – belief in a supreme being, supreme value, moral code, and ritual – can be parts of religious traditions, none of them on their own or even combined offer a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a religion.

It seems the essence of religious belief is deeper and more fundamental, about one's relation to the very nature of existence, the foundational structures of reality, and the quest to understand the unconditional or the divine, as previously discussed. It's not just about specific practices or doctrines but rather the fundamental orientation toward understanding the mysteries of existence.

In summary, while various definitions have been proposed for what constitutes a religion, the foundational perspective that ties them all together is the quest to understand and relate to the ultimate, unconditional reality or divinity.

So, what is "divine" per se?

Is the divine a force that gathers individuals, making them gods? Or does it gather at specific locations, rendering those spots holy or numinous?

In essence, they're not employing the term "God" as a Jew, Christian, or Muslim might. For the latter, God signifies the sole divine reality. In various pagan and polytheistic beliefs, there exist numerous gods and goddesses due to a divine power that converges in them and various entities.

This power freezes and gathers at various places and within different people. Thus, while divinity is a broad concept, it's usually manifested in specific deities.

These gods aren't self-existent and haven't created everything other than themselves. In these religions, the divine reality encompasses everything, including generating other gods and goddesses.

There's another argument that goes like this:

You're offering a definition that something self-existent produces everything else and that this is what religions term as divine. Yet, numerous theories regard something self-existent as the ultimate reality. How can this be the correct definition of religious belief when it's present in many theories?

Indeed, many theories propose religious beliefs, even if unintentionally. It's common for theorists to overlook the broader implications of their propositions.

A materialist might refute all religions, reject the idea of divinity, yet assert that physical matter, which is self-existent, creates everything else. In this belief system, that matter becomes a form of God.

One graduate student once challenged me, claiming he'd renounce any religious belief I could identify in his worldview. But he couldn't. He was a materialist.

If one believes that matter and energy are divine, encompassing an independent reality and generating all else, then that is a divine entity. Worship isn't universally practiced in all religions.

Hinduism's Brahman doesn't involve worship. Similarly, Theravada Buddhism lacks worship. In Shintoism, ancestors are honored, not worshipped. Worship makes sense only when the Divine is perceived as personal. Thus, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, who view God personally, worship. Polytheists, who see their many deities as personal entities, also worship.

In ancient Korean folk religion, adherents believed they could influence gods for personal gains. They honored their deities, but also punished them if wishes went ungranted.

But what role does faith play in this discourse?

Faith, especially in religious contexts, is frequently misunderstood. Every religious scripture emphasizes belief based on intuitive truth, not blind trust.

Hence, faith equates to recognizing religious truths as self-evident. A pure materialist who believes that physical reality is the divine force generating everything else also exercises faith. This faith doesn't necessitate worship, but it's still an act of belief.

An objection arises claiming that religious beliefs can't be defined. While some late 20th-century thinkers assert this, they often conflate issues. Science, for instance, doesn't always require precise definitions. Yet, religions do provide essential definitions.

In our next session, we'll delve deeper into various types of religious beliefs. We'll revisit our primary definition, categorize beliefs, and then transition to examining early philosophical theories and how they're intertwined with religious notions.