by V. P.
I am presently studying the philosophy of religion, using The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion as an introduction. While reading some of the articles written by some of the best philosophers in the field, I was struck by the density of the concepts explained, requiring some intense consideration about my positions on causation, time, ontology, epistemology and ethics. After some laborious thought, I wondered why I was going through all of this effort, wondering why was there a need to be so analytical about God and how God interacts with reality and, subsequently, humanity. Tangentially, these types of questions, or complaints veiled as questions, are asked, albeit phrased differently, about philosophy in general. Perhaps a good representation of such a question is this, ‘What is the point of all this thinking about things that don’t have any practical relevance at all to my life?’ There are many answers to this question, and I think the philosophy of religion arguably provides a helpful wellspring in answering this question and all of its thorny derivatives.
Most people would agree that the questions of whether God exists or not are important, since the answer drastically alters how people would, or, more accurately, should, think about the world (whether or not it would alter people’s behavior is another issue entirely). Oddly enough, if any intro to philosophy course is an indication, most people do not take philosophy very seriously, viewing it totally divorced from their relationships, careers and life. This is hardly surprising since, strictly speaking, it is. Personhood, moral agency, the metaphysical implications of quantum theory, and the knowability of moral truths are hardly pertinent topics to the everyday actions of most people, aside from some intellectual discussion had once every few years when a friend is especially reflective during lunch one day. To tie these thoughts into theistic belief is useful since most people identify themselves as theists of some kind or another, at least in the United States, and a significant percentage of self-identifying theists believe in a personal God, meaning God interacts in some way with individuals, perhaps through prayer, scripture reading or some other religious experience. If God exists, it seems a reasonable response would be learning all relevant information about God, much like a person naturally does with a friend or spouse, although God arguably requires an even greater degree investigation. This response to God is, although a bit counterintuitive, actually atypical. If I were to ask about a person’s metaphysical conception of God, she would be dumbfounded. A similar outcome would be observed in response to the question of how God can allow evil to exist when God has the power, knowledge and desire to wipe it from existence but, evidently, has not done so. These questions are fairly basic and obvious if God is given a more than superficial intellectual treatment; some of the answers to these questions are good, but most are bad. This latter point is especially important, as it doesn’t seem particularly pious to offer a poor answer to a question that pertains to the most fundamental aspects of the human experience, like whether or not God created us and, more importantly, whether or not God loves us.
Perhaps this simple treatment has piqued some interest in seeing how deep this train of thought can go, since an open minded person would agree the question of God is important. After all, if given the chance to meet God, it would be beneficial, as far as gratitude is concerned, to have thought a little bit what God is all about. So, if on board for this task, some obvious questions start to emerge. What, maybe not so exactly, is God? Is God personal, meaning that God interacts with creation, at least with humanity, in a significant way, perhaps through prayer or some religious experience? To what extent does God interact with creation? In prayer? How does God answer prayer, as it seems miracles occur as a result of it periodically? If miracles occur, it means God not only interacts with creation, God can alter the laws of physics on a whim. That might not be a problem, but it might be a problem for, say, another open-minded friend, who doesn’t like the idea God can make the laws of nature amount to nothing momentarily to heal a sick person when God does not bestow that same courtesy to every other person with a serious disease on the planet. Does that make God unfair or unjust? If not, then why not? After all, God certainly has the power to heal every sick person on the planet, and a substantial number of sick people have a lot of people praying for them. Nevertheless, God doesn’t miraculously heal them. What makes one person as opposed special enough to warrant enough attention from God to result in a miracle? If God doesn’t have a good reason, then it make God’s behavior random, which, typically, we don’t consider a virtue in a just person, which God typically is seen as being. If God doesn’t perform miracles, then what is the value of prayer, which typically asks for God’s significant, real, physical intervention much of the time? Even basic topics can quickly turn into a very complicated discussion, and the amount of thought that goes into analyzing and coming up with answers is considerable for even the most ‘basic’ of issues regarding God. Ignoring these discrepancies, since they are important for the hope of thinking of interacting with God, is not a particularly courageous or reasonable course of action. In everyday relationships, I would not care to meet a person who chooses to, say, help my friend get a promotion or some other significant achievement, while offering no medical relief, despite having ample ability to do so, for no discernible reason to my sibling with a serious ailment. Why can God get away with that sort of behavior and still thought highly of, but not a regular person? Notice these are just a few issues dealing with one aspect of God’s personal interaction with humanity. Already, some reasonable people would scream in frustration in dealing with the answers to these questions and the many objections to those answers. Yet it’s still vastly important, since God is important, and our interaction with God is important. There are many more examples of these frustrating types of questions, so the frustration only increases the more curious a person gets.
In sum, there is a very important topic, namely God, and yet I think most people would agree, after some careful prodding, they probably have no idea what God is actually all about if they aren’t clear how God can interact with humanity without engaging in caprice, a trait most wouldn’t likely tolerate in a healthy relationship. These considerations are then tied to the study of ethics, which is an integral part in a mature theistic belief system. What are the origins of ethics? Do God’s command generate moral duties, potentially making all morality arbitrary on whatever God commands at that moment? Does God command something because it is ethical, implying an external standard not even God can change? If the latter, that implies God is relatively useless from an ethical point of view, aside from, perhaps, enforcing morality onto others, since any rational person can find out what is moral for herself without God’s enlightenment, assuming moral truths are discoverable.
As is probably becoming obvious, every topic of discussion about God poses a myriad of questions and numerous responses and objections to those responses. In seriously thinking about God, a position must be formed on metaphysics, knowledge, ethics, time (is God timeless, or does God experience time in a way that’s similar or different from the way we do? How does God relate to us, depending on the answer?), science, politics, and a whole host of other significant interests. Every fundamental topic, in some way, can be directed towards a person’s philosophy of religion (though immature, everyone has one, I think) and vice versa. If God exists, rational processing of these topics becomes important since God would, arguably, desire a person to be consistent in how she views and understand all major facets of the world. For example, typically, God is considered a necessary truth, and upholds truth and, arguably, wants people to uphold truth. In other words, a rich, intellectual life seems to be morally praiseworthy, if not obligatory, in a life of service to a supreme being. Or perhaps not. An evidently important point is that God seems to want people to be rational, to be able to defend their beliefs in some way, justify them. It doesn’t seem like God would reward a person for just happening to be right, without any real justification for their beliefs, whatever they are. So, it seems likely that God would value caution and care in individuals choosing what beliefs to hold and defend.
Well, these ideas are interesting, but should a person begin to try to form opinions on these subjects, aside from thinking about these sorts of things during some free time, perhaps finding an answer that sounds satisfactory and moving on, unaware the position is wrought with difficulties and chasms of intellectual sloppiness. The most obvious answer, beyond mere thinking, is to ask other people their answers, though they are probably in the same situation as the person asking. That clearly will not do. The intellectual positions of religious leaders typically do not withstand scrutiny (I am speaking from experience here). Personally, I have found learning about various fundamental subjects from people whose profession is to think and write scholarly articles about these sorts of subjects to be the best approach. Whereas the average person might devote an hour every other day or so to thinking about these topics, these scholars have devoted years’ worth of effort into producing the best works of thought in whatever their area of interest is. Being familiar with these arguments and concepts is a massive boon towards finding a satisfactory resolution to many issues, though, as might be expected, the amount of material accumulated by these thinkers is vast. From here, the best route is studying a textbook on propositional logic and first order logic (look these up, and don’t waste time with rhetorical logic or texts that deal with fallacies. Knowing what basic logic is before considering learning what the most common ‘errors’ of logic are is far more beneficial) and obtaining a good introductory book on an interesting subject (anything published from Oxford, Princeton, Harvard or any other such academic press is a good start). Special attention to the extensive references the author(s) uses is required, as big names (if they’re in scholarly literature published by an excellent academic publisher, they’re probably a big name) in a field typically cite other big names. Suggested reading lists are commonly found in good introductory material, so reading the text in that list is a very good idea. Aside from a suggested reading list, the lack of these things probably means the book you’re reading, or thinking about reading, is worthless for your intellectual development. Good academic work means referencing other people who do good academic work, too, and the absence of such (extensive) references implies it’s not good work. There are many other useful techniques to find good work in a given subject but are usually best found in the process of actually doing the work.
Hopefully this small analysis of the question of why philosophy (or, really, any academic endeavor) is beneficial to good living and will have garnered interest in developing some intellectual sophistication, as this typically makes the world into a far more interesting place to live in. Beauty, entertainment and friendships certainly fade with time, but a rich intellectual life, barring serious mental degeneration, lasts a lifetime and, if an afterlife exists, beyond.
Tags: life, Philosophy, practicality
