The Philosophy of Religion is described as a critical attempt that explores essential questions pertaining to the existence of God, why God permits suffering and what happens to an individual after they die. In this view, philosophy maintains focus on the answers addressing such questions as a critical reflection pertaining to certain religious beliefs. Philosophy is often viewed as a rival field to religion since in some cases philosophy attempts to explore the rationality of religion. This reflection presents a discussion that embraces theistic and non-theistic approaches as a means to highlight the problems and possibilities of the philosophy of religion (Murray & Rea 93). The philosophy of religion also draws upon inferences from the major tenets of philosophy, theology, sociology, natural sciences, history, and psychology. The problems and possibilities of the philosophy of religion are embedded in the philosopher’s quest to highlight the truth behind certain religious beliefs and whether they can be upheld as the truth based on rationality.
According to Evans, the main possibility accentuated by religion is embedded in fact that it draws some rationality based on disciplines such as sociology, theology, psychology, and history which have a direct correlation with human existence (12). People who adhere to the practices of a distinct religion present attitudes, experiences and emotions that are particular to that religion. This individual may, in turn, spend the rest of their life ensuring that they abide by certain principles or rules, which may eventually influence them to assume the position of a role model that exemplifies that of a religious leader. This realization eliminates the notion that religion should solely be perceived as an intellectual phenomenon. In addition, it highlights that religion entails more than just a mere set of dogmas. A religious person often opts to perceive themselves and the world around them differently. In this way, they take part in worship as part of a community that is unified in part by some of its beliefs, thus reinforcing the philosophy of religion.
Philosophy aims at seeking knowledge and wisdom, and in most cases, the philosopher is perceived as a seeker of the truth (Meister 8). The philosopher aims at analyzing the aspect of truth when it comes to certain religious beliefs and whether they can be upheld as the truth (Evans 13). One should ensure that they do not blow things out of context, while at the same time analyzing elements of a religious life. On the other hand, the philosophy of religion remains distinct from other disciplines in its exploration of the rationality of some religious beliefs. For instance, a historian would uphold the truthfulness and falsity of certain beliefs in equal measure of importance especially since they would both be fundamental in describing the history of a certain religion. This accentuates one of the core possibilities of the philosophy of religion.
Evans affirms that the philosophy of religion aims at maintaining a neutral balance, but there are relevant constraints that impede the neutrality of religious matters (Evans 17). This presents one of the problems of the philosophy of religion since a majority of religious thinkers assume that one cannot maintain neutrality when it comes to God, hence one is often perceived as a rebel. Furthermore, one’s perception of faith and rationality plays an essential role in determining their view of religion and philosophy in conflicting terms, as peaceful coexisting variants, or even probable allies. Certain religious believers uphold faith and rationality which maintains that it is impossible to hold a rational reflection on religion. Evans refutes this perspective by criticizing and rejecting two contrasting viewpoints of neutralism and fideism and further proposes a critical dialogue as a preservation of the strengths of some philosophical theories.
Fideism maintains a standpoint that implies that there are minimal chances where a non-believer may reflect on the rationality of religious discourse and in turn be influenced to become a believer, which presents one of the problems of the philosophy of religion (Vainio 101). Evans asserts that thought processes geared towards religion can only be upheld through legitimate faith, which is a personal commitment (22). Fideism affirms that the only precondition for critical reflection about religion is embedded in faith. An individual who is genuinely interested in gaining knowledge about God will acknowledge their inferiority in their relationship with God, they will also acknowledge fallibility and probable instances of bias in their reflective thought processes (Bayne 27). Besides, such an individual will recognize that it is generally impossible to gain an ingrain comprehension of God and that their openness to revelation could also be successful if it is aided by God. Fideism inhibits rational reflection.
Neutralism tends to presents a problem of the philosophy of religion by upholding that critical thinking is one of the means of attaining unbiased truth (Pugliese & Hwang 73). One must take on a neutral stance by putting aside any religious commitments that may affect the rationality of certain claims, which is generally impossible. Furthermore, human thinking is subject to influence by non-rational factors, which may draw inferences from one’s upbringing, their education or even ideas based on their interactions with friends. Therefore, the neutralist perspective cannot be solely accepted as the sole determinant for rational thought, which instead makes it an ideal that necessitates approximation. Evans affirms that Rene Descartes attempted to evaluate the ideal nature of unbiased objectivity, which further subjected his beliefs to doubt and also underscored his existence as irrefutable particularly if he was conscious (25). Neutralism imposes impossible demands in regards to rational reflection.
In his critical dialogue, Evans asserts that it may be difficult to attain common ground in terms of religious matters but one can engage in critical testing that will highlight alternatives and objections that may influence their overall point of view (Evans 27). This accentuates one of the possibilities of the philosophy of religion since through such critical testing an individual will be able to abandon or modify certain views. The remnants of such thought processes would be bias or prejudice that would further be subject to consistent willingness to assess what seems to be doubtful versus reasoned conviction. This process may not work effectively in most cases.
Overall, the philosophy of religion should be perceived as an undertaking that necessitates critical dialogue, mainly due to the problems and possibilities that characterize both ends of the spectrum. One of the participants in the dialogue can highlight aspects that are particular to their perspective, whereas the other participant does not hold back from a conscious examination of what is brought to the encounter. Maintaining a neutral stance is impossible, participants in the dialogue can advance honesty amongst themselves and others. This necessitates one’s willingness to examine if certain evidence is intricately interpreted based on an individual’s theoretical perspectives. In this way, one can find common ground for the problems and possibilities presented by the philosophy of religion.
Works Cited
Bayne, Tim. The Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Evans, Steven. The Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Meister, Chad. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge, 2009.
Murray, Michael & Rea, Michael. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Pugliese, Marc & Hwang, Alexander. Teaching Interreligious Encounters. Oxford University Press, 2017. Vainio, Olli. Beyond Fideism: Negotiable Religious Identities. Ashgate Publishing, 2013.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more