The Philosophy of Religion

The philosophy of righteousnessINTRODUCTIONPhilosophy refers to the theme of the meaning of worldly concern, thought, and acquaintance (Blackburn, 1996). One prevailing view amongst philosophers is that philosophy is essenti solelyy a order of enquiry, a means of understanding the world, and human nature. Within this domain emerged a philosophy of recognition, a view that the world can be tacit through quantification and experimentation, characterised by rigour, control, objectivity, and replication (Krige Dominique, 2003). It has evolved over time, shifting a elbow room from an tension on theory falsification (scientific realism) towards a requirement for explanation and prediction. thoroughgoing to science is confident(p) philosophy, the idea that only phenomena which can be careful and quantified are worthy of scientific inquiry (LeGouis, 1997). Thus, phenomena much(prenominal) a immortal, spirits, and the presentafter arent worth training. organized religion ref ers to a set of commonly held beliefs and customs, concerned with supernatural phenomena, notably the existence of a god fudge, god, or higher actor or entity (Lindbeck, 1984 Jones, 2005). It follows a particular world view characterised by faith, spirituality, holiness, doctrine, and reverence, and a great deal shapes a persons entire feel, reasoning, and culture. Thus, it generally follows from this that science, and its associated philosophies, are generally incompatible with devotion. further what are the precise sources of this tension? SOURCES OF TENSIONOrigin of LifeWhere did life story come from? Evolutionary theorists, notably Charles Darwin, argued that species evolve over millennia through a process of natural selection, whereby only the fittest are able to pay off mates, reproduce, and hence ensure the survival of their particular genetic footprint the weak, by contrast are unable to compete, and in the long run become extinct, in a kind of evolutionary dead- end (Darwin, 1852, 1869, 1872). Scientists take the view that life whitethorn abide emerged spontaneously, through purely accidental but aureate biological conditions, whereby basic molecules notably amino acids combined to form more complex elements, like carbon dioxide, water, and ammonia (Martin Russell, 2002 Hazen, 2005). These biochemical events were triggered accidentally, for example by random cosmic events (e.g. meteorite/comet activity, hot-springs), as the earthly concern formed (Russell, et al, 1988 Fernando Rowe, 2007). Religion offers a exclusively different account. graven image or some other immortal, created life (Dawkins, 2006) For example, in Christianity the earth was created by God, in six daylights. Scientists completely bend this view however (Dawkins, 2006). In science, notably astronomy and nuclear physics, the earth and universe are the result of a big bang, whereby all the matter we observe around us today emerged suddenly in a rapidly expanding fiery explosion of matter emanating from a individual(a) point (Peacock, 1999). Before the big bang, on that point was nothing, no time or matter. Although science fails to account for events preceding the big bang, the plan that it whitethorn be created by a supernatural entity is regarded with scepticism. FaithA study feature of apparitional beliefs is faith (Harris, 2006). To have faith is to have combining in an appropriate divinity, notably God, and in addition to believe in this divinity or deity without question or reason. So, for example, in Judaism there is sizeable ferocity on the notion of Emunah (faith), Christians view faith as an essential aspect of worship, while Muslims have faith know as Iman in the prophet Mohammed and his teachings. Faith is also an important element in Buddhism, where it is know as Saddha, meaning to have a conviction in or be determined about something. The requirement that one believes in God without asking any(prenominal) question s, or requesting a reason or exculpation is utter essential in most moralitys. It means that even when there is record to the contrary, such as an unornamented failure of God to serve up a prayer, the belief and trust in the divinity essential be unshaken. In science by contrast, faith is a highly undesirable and hence discouraged concept (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). It is virtually non existent amongst scientists. In medical checkup science for example, rather than having faith the effectiveness of a new handling procedure, there is a universal requirement for evidence-establish workout (Tonelli, 2001). Faith is also anathema amongst philosophers who believe in rational thought, the notion that any do or argument must be warrant, that is, backed up by reason or evidence (Bonjour, 1998). The truth, rather than been accepted unquestioningly fit in to spectral teachings, is entirely based on the soundness of reasoning or evidence that accompanies it (Kenny, 1986). DoctrineRel igion is governed by doctrine, a set of divided beliefs, faiths, teachings, guidelines, and practices, that people adhere to unquestioningly, and which dictate how they live their lives. Thus, for example, religious dogma promoted by the Christian church, such as Christian Trinity (God is one entity simultaneously incorporating the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit) (McGrath, 1987), and virgin birth (the birth of a child by a woman who is a virgin, as in the case of Mary, sustain of Jesus) (Spong, 1994) are examples of religious doctrine. By contrast, science and philosophy arent governed by any particular doctrine, other than ethical principles which govern research and practice (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). Admittedly teachings, or movements do exist in science and philosophy, in the form of schools of thought promoting one particular way of understanding phenomena. Good examples in philosophy are rationalism, empiricism, realism and psychoanalysis. In science, there is for example theory or relativity in physics, or the biopsychosocial model perspective in health, medical, and behavioural science (Borrell-Carrio et al, 2004). However, philosophers and scientists arent take to adhere to any particular set of principles. In general, scientific movements come greater acceptability as the body of supporting empirical evidence expands (Krige Dominique, 2003). However, scientists are free to pick and choose what school of thought they fit to, without violating their scientific of ethical principles.QuantificationPositivist philosophy, a movement developed by the great philosopher solemne Comte (Pickering, 1993), and on which much of modern scientific experimentation is based, promotes the notion that any phenomena which cannot be observed, measured, and quantified, isnt worthy of scientific study (LeGouis, 1997). This scientific ideology, which implies that all true knowledge is scientific and quantifiable, is incompatible with religion, in which true knowledg e is noble in nature, and based on forebode scriptures (Boyer, 2001). Truth in religion is arguably unquantifiable one cannot measure the existence of God, the effectiveness of prayer, the strength of ones faith, or the presence of the Holy Spirit, for example. Scientists generally distract investigating religion and religious concepts, much in the same way as they side-step researching issues like UFO citings, and abductions scientific journals with prioritise research cover on religion are few and far between (Potter, 2005), reflecting the positivist attitude that anything which cant be measured doesnt represent the truth. Consider the practice of medical science in the UK. The depicted object lend for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is a body set up in England and Wales, in 1999, to determine what medical treatments are considered worthwhile. Decisions are based primarily on empirical (scientific) evidence, and economic cost-effectiveness analyses (Rawlings Culyer, 2004). Alternative therapies with religious underpinnings seldom receive approval, largely due to the lack of empirical verification (Franck et al, 2007). objectivityIn science there is an emphasis on objectivity, an ability to reside unbiased. This relates directly to the scientific requirement for verifiability and replicability. By suppressing ain feelings, biases, preferences, and prejudices, and adhering strictly to meter protocol, the work of one scientist can be evaluated and reproduced by another scientist, completely independently (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). Objectivity also has philosophical underpinnings, dating back to the 19th century with renowned philosophers like Plato, Gottlob Frege, and Immanuel Kant (Rorty, 1991). The basic philosophy is that the truth, knowledge, and reality must exist independent of the mind. Plato for example made a specific indication between objective knowledge and in-person opinion, the latter denoting an unacceptable subjectivity that do es not offer an accurate description of reality (Taylor, 2001). In religion, the emphasis is on getting physically, emotionally, and spiritually proximal to ones divinity, rather than maintaining an intellectual outdo (Boyer, 2001). Indeed, people are encouraged to wholly immerse themselves in their religions, such that it dictates their entire lifestyle (Boyer, 2001). Thus, the distinction between religion and culture ofttimes becomes blurred, such that a religion (e.g. Judaism) becomes highly intertwined with culture (e.g. being an Israeli) (Norris Inglehart, 2007). Religion is generally ingrained in a persons personal belief system. Thus, whereas a scientist tries to separate his personal views from scientific knowledge, in religion, personal opinions and religious teachings merge. AuthorityWhereas in most religions authority is solely and ultimately in the hands of a transcendent and supernatural deity, God, or divinity, in science, scientists themselves are their own authorit y. They are answerable to no-one (other than the particular ethical standards of the headmaster bodies to which they belong), and may publish their findings at will, helping to expand, and shape, knowledge, reasoning, and general philosophy in their particular field. For this reason, scientists (especially medical doctors) are often accused of playing God by religious activists or sympathisers (Hayles, 1999 Stock, 2002), especially with regards to issues like abortion, cloning, and morality. This is known as the transhumanism and hubris argument (Fukuyama, 2004). Philosophers are also their own authority. They take credit and reprimand for and whatever philosophy they advocate. Thus, the likes of Plato, Kant, and other greater philosophers are their own authority. In religion by contrast, God or some other deity is the one sole authority, and all worshipers are ultimately answerable to this divinity (Lindbeck, 1984). Religious leaders, such as Imams, Priests, Vicars, and Buddhas, are merely messengers whose primary mapping is to spread religious teachings they are ultimately answerable to God, any divine authority they have is extremely limited. So, for example, it can be argued that a pentecostal priest who purports to execute miracles on particular members of his congregation is in concomitant merely acting on behalf of God, serving as a epithelial duct through which God performs his miracles. JUSTIFICATIONAre the tensions between religion, science, and philosophy justified? Several arguments are presented below which suggest that the answer to this question is an imperative no. Firstly, the idea promoted by positivist philosophy, and hence modern day science, that religion and religious subjects cant be study scientifically is incorrect. Although religious concepts (e.g. God, faith, sin, worship) are generally unobservable, and hence difficult to quantify, scientists do study religion, using scientific methods (e.g. Smith et al, 2003 Myers, 2007). Fur thermore, religion offers quantifiable and testable predictions that make it docile to scientific research. For example, the notion that God exists and/or answers ones prayers can easily be measured and evaluated scientifically (Dawkins, 2006). Secondly, the supposed tension between religion and science appears odd given that science actually emerged from amongst Christians, who were trying new slipway of seeking out the truth about the world, and humanity (Jaki, 1996). Thus, the very scientists and philosophers who embraced notions such as quantification, objectivity, and experimentation were themselves God worshipers, imbued with faith, and adhering strictly to religious doctrine (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). Thus, despite their devotion to scriptures as their main source of truth about reality, many a(prenominal) religions allow for the application of scientific theories to everyday problems (Migliore, 2004). So, for example, there is no apparent contradiction if a clergy advices a sick member of his congregation to seek medical treatment, in addition to relying on their faith and asking for divine intervention. Thirdly, science, philosophy, and religion, do actually converge in certain areas, notably metaphysics and cosmology. Metaphysics refers to a philosophical movement concerned with understanding the meaning of reality, existence, and the world (Lowe, 2002 Loux, 2006). It addresses issues beyond the physical world, including questions such as what is reality, wherefore are we here?, does God exist, and Is there a soul? Metaphysicists have historically considered these legitimate scientific questions, especially prior to the eighteenth century in front the development of modern scientific concepts such as empiricism, and quantification (Lowe, 2002). Yet, it is these very questions that religion and religious teachings are often concerned with. One of the best known fields of metaphysics is theology, the study of God (Migliore, 2004) The word theology m eans the study of divine things. In Europe, the Christian church, notably the Protestant Church and roman print Catholic Church trains their ministers in Christian theology, for example in Seminaries, or even universities (Woods, 2005). Thus, this begs the question that if religion and science are so incompatible, why would religions, for example Christianity, support academic study and scientific inquiry amongst its clergy? on the whole in all it can be argued that there is no qualitative distinction between religion, and the philosophy of metaphysics (Hazen, 2005). Granted, the answers provided by each perspective may differ wildly. Indeed, certain questions (e.g. does God exist?) may be out or keeping(p) in many religions. Nevertheless, the overlap between religion, theology, and metaphysics seems obvious (Hazen, 2005). Cosmology refers to the scientific (mathematical) study of the universe, and the role of humanity in it (Hawley Katerine, 1998). Thus, by definition, cosmology and religion are concerned with the same subject matter. Cosmology appears to occupy a position between religion and modern science, posing arguments about the birth between God, humanity, and the physical universe. A sub-branch of cosmology, known as religious cosmology specifically aims at explaining and understanding the universe based, in part, on religious teachings (Hetherington, 1993). Many religious cosmologists accept that God created the universe, but yet discern the findings of modern science, notably Astrophysics, that the universe was created in the Big Bang for example. These ii positions arent necessarily incompatible God may be considered to have created the Big BangCONCLUSIONThis essay considers the tension between religion, science, and philosophy, and whether this participation is justified. Substantial differences exist between religion and science/philosophy for example, religious notions like faith, God, and unquestioning adherence, are generally incompati ble with classic scientific tenets. Similarly, traditional scientific requirements like quantification, and philosophical concepts such as modestness and empiricism, dont fit well with religious practice. Yet, perhaps the magnitude of these differences may be exaggerated. Religion, philosophy, and science, in fact overlap considerably, and the best evidence for this lies in the existence of fields like metaphysics, cosmology, religious cosmology, and theology. These disciplines generally see scientific inquiry, but yet address religious concepts, and are studied by religious clergy, ministers, and other religious leaders. All in all, any conflict between religion and science/philosophy may be more myth than reality. REFERENCEBlackburn, S., Ed. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress.Bonjour, L. (1998) In Defense of thin Reason. Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress.Borrell-Carrio, F., Suchman, A.L. Epstein, M.D. (2004) The BiopsychosocialModel 2 5 Years Later Principles, Practice, and Scientific Inquiry. Annals ofFamily Medicine, 2, pp.576-582.Boyer, P. (2001) Religion Explained The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought.New York Basic Books.Darwin, C. (1859, 1861, 1872) On the Origin of Specifies by Means of NaturalSelection, of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1stedition). capital of the United Kingdom John Murray.Dawkins, R. (2006) Why there almost certainly is no God. The Huffington Post,August 18.Fernando CT Rowe, J (2007). Natural selection in chemical evolution. diary ofTheoretical Biology 247, pp.152-67.Fukuyama, F. (2004) The Worlds Most Dangerous Ideas online in ForeignPolicy. http//www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2004/09/01/564801? foliate=4Accessed August 16 2007.Franck, L., Chantler, C. Dixon, M. (2007) Should NICE evaluate complementaryand choice medicine? British Medical Journal, 334, p.506.Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003) Theory and reality an introduction to the Philosophy ofScie nce. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago University ofChicago Press.Harris, S (2006) Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Blackstone AudioBooks.Hawley, J.F. Katerine A.H. (1998) Foundations of neo Cosmology. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.Hayles, N.K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman. University of Chicago PressHazen, RM. (Dec 2005) Genesis The Scientific Quest for Lifes Origins. JosephHenry PressHetherington, N.S. (1993) Cosmology Historical, Literary, Philosophical, Religious,and Scientific Perspectives. New York Garland Publishing.Jaki, S. (1996) tidings and Science. Christendom Press.Jones, L. (ed) (2005) Encyclopaedia of Religion. 2nd ed. Detroit Macmillan.Kenny, A. (1986) Rationalism, Empiricism and Idealism. Oxford Oxford UniversityPress.Krige, J. Dominique, P. (eds) (2003) Science in the Twentieth Century. Routledge.LeGouis, C. (1997). profitableness and Imagination Scientism and Its Limits in EmileHennequin, Wilhelm Scherer and Dmitril Pisarev. London BucknellUniversity Press.Lindbeck, G.A. (1984) Nature of Doctrine. Louisville John Knox Press.Lowe, E. J. (2002). A look of Metaphysics. Oxford Oxford University Press.Loux, M. J. (2006). Metaphysics A Contemporary Introduction (3rd ed.). LondonRoutledge.Martin, W. Russell M.J. (2002). On the origins of cells a meditation for theevolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophicprokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society biological Sciences 358, pp.59-85.McGrath, A.E. (1987) Understanding the Trinity. Eastbourne, UK KingswayPublicationsMigliore, D.L. (2004) Faith Seeking Understanding An Introduction to ChristianTheology. haughty Rapids Eerdmans.Myers, D. (2007) The Science of Subjective Well-being. Guildford Press.Norris, P. Inglehart, R. (2007) Sacred and Secular, Religion and PoliticsWorldwide. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Peacock, J. (1999). Cosmological Physics. Cambridge Cambridge Univer sity Press.Pickering, M. (1993) Auguste Comte An smart Biography. CambridgeCambridge University Press.Potter, R.L. (2005) Religious themes in medical journals. Journal of Religion andHealth, 32, pp.217-222.Rawlins MD Culyer AJ (2004) National Institute for Clinical Excellence and itsvalue judgements. British Medical Journal, 329, pp.224-227.Rorty, R. (1991) Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press.Russell MJ, abode AJ, Cairns-Smith AG. Braterman PS (1988). Submarine hotsprings and the origin of life. Nature 336, p.117.Spong, J.S. (1994) Born of a Woman A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth. SanFrancisco Harper Collins.Stock, G. (2002). Redesigning Humans Choosing our Genes, Changing our Future. maw BooksTaylor, A.E. (2001). Plato The Man and his Work. Courier Dover PublicationsTonelli, MR. (2001) The limits of evidence-based medicine. Respiratory Care, 46,pp.1435-1440.Woods, J.T. (2005). How the Catholic Church make Western Civilization. RegneryPubli shing.