Is Relgion Dead Conspiracy

Religion and philosophy have a complex relationship. Socrates questioned traditional beliefs about gods and argued for a higher truth accessible through reason. Some philosophers, like Kierkegaard, see religious faith as irrational and separate from philosophical reasoning. However, philosophers have found value in studying religion for its insights into human values. Descartes, for example, argued for the existence of God based on the concept's complexity. Philosophers like Marx believe that analyzing religion helps understand what people value. Ultimately, religion and philosophy can coexist and provide different perspectives on truth and understanding. Exploring a vast array of topics from the everyday to the extraordinary. Join us as we embark on a journey of discovery. Bridging the gaps in our knowledge and understanding, one episode at a time. Whether you're a curious mind or an avid learner, this is the place to fill the gaps in your mental library. So tune in, get comfortable, and let's uncover the mysteries beyond our reach. This is Fill the Gap, where curiosity meets insight. This is your host, Mike Fortson. We're live from Washington, D.C. with another Fill the Gap episode, and particularly when it comes to religion. Is religion dead? First, it's a question. When you think about the pandemic, the impact it had, it kind of weeded out the strong versus the weak. There were a lot of churches that were weak before the pandemic, and the pandemic has ended them. And those that thought they were strong found out that they were weak. So where is religion? Where do we stand is the question. Here we go with some information regarding that. Hello, my name is Michael Burns. I was raised religious, and I also like philosophy. What should I do? Because it seems like ever since philosophy got rolling, it's often been at odds with religion. My guy Socrates was executed by the state, largely because he didn't believe in the gods. Joseph was put into exile for equating God with nature. And later thinkers like Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud questioned religion as a whole. And in recent years, a lot of public intellectuals have made whole careers out of being fired-up atheists. For many of these folks, religion and critical thought are just fundamentally at odds, with the latter representing reason and the former faith. So in the year of our Lord, 2023, is there any point in taking religion seriously? Doesn't philosophy render religion as useful as VHS tapes? Or is this whole debate a false dichotomy, distracting us from much more interesting questions? We're going to explore it with the help of the subfield of philosophy that dares to take both perspectives seriously, the philosophy of religion. So let's find out once and for all if you should be ashamed of your religious upbringing in this Wisecrack Edition on philosophy and religion. Friends or enemies? Let's start with philosophy, which in the most minimal sense is a type of inquiry in which we use reason to say what is true and why it's true. Now some might think that this very definition precludes religion from having any overlap with philosophy. And some have absolutely challenged the idea that religion is rational. Now Socrates famously criticized traditional conceptions of the ancient Greek gods, arguing that there had to be some type of higher good than these squabbling weirdos, because if not, truth boils down to a cosmic game of he said, she said. Now according to philosopher John Hare, Socrates' problems with the traditional stories about the gods gives rise to what is sometimes called the Euthyphro Dilemma. If we try to define the holy as what is loved by all the gods and goddesses, we will be faced with the question, is the holy holy because it is loved by the gods, or do they love it because it is holy? Socrates makes it clear that his view is the second. Okay, I know it's a little bit confusing. Another way to think of this would be like, are those pastrami-wrapped cheesy jalapeno poppers out of bounds because Guy Fieri loves them? Or does Guy Fieri love those pastrami-wrapped cheesy jalapeno poppers because they're out of bounds? Now for Plato, this indicated that there was something beyond the gods, a reality that we can access with reason. And this is a way of saying that we need to look past traditional beliefs with a critical framework to try and see what's really going on. Now some philosophers, like Soren Kierkegaard, have argued that religious faith is inherently irrational, putting it in opposition with philosophy's rational aim. In his book Fear and Trembling, he explores the irrationality of faith in the story of the finding of Isaac, in which God commands Abraham, who is basically God's number one boy, You're my number one boy. to take his only son, Isaac, up to the mountains and tie him up and stab him with a knife. And for those of you who think the Bible is just like the key to good parenting, what are you going to do with that? And in case you don't know how it ends, and I guess this is a spoiler, at the last minute, God is like, Psych! Right before Abraham is going to deli-slice his son's torso so he doesn't die. In case you were worried, he doesn't die. Now, Kierkegaard's point here wasn't to be like, Hey guys, religion is dumb because God makes you stab your kid, but rather to show that faith can't be evaluated by the principles of reason we get in philosophy. It's just a different thing, grounded in faith rather than in pure reason. According to William J. Wainwright, early Christian thinker and guy whose name sounds like a type of spider, Tertullian, argued that the mysteries of faith repel reason. He wrote, The fact is certain because it is impossible. Christian philosophy is a contradiction in terms because Christianity's truths are impenetrable to reason. So, if religion is fundamentally irrational, why would philosophers want to study it? Well, as far back as Plato's Euthycho, thinking about religion philosophically has helped provide insights into truths at the heart of religious ideas. Now, fast forward to Karl Marx, who argues that the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism. Rather than meaning that it's good and cool to critique religion, Marx is indicating that all critical and philosophical thought needs to begin from analyzing religion as it gives us insight into what people actually value. This is why even if religions are often grounded in irrational principles and mythological narratives, they can still be fruitfully analyzed by philosophers. Now, one of the best examples here is Descartes, known as the father of rationalism. If you've ever heard the line, I think, therefore I am, that's a classic Descartes bar, which argues that your existence is made certain via your ability to think rationally. Now, this might not sound super radical in 2023, but this had massive implications at the time, as your existence was no longer grounded in the divine, but rather in the capacity of human thought and reason. And if you're in America, I guess it still does sound kind of radical in 2023, but I digress. Now, this insight is at the core of the Enlightenment, where all types of artists and thinkers realized that humans might be all right and capable of doing some cool stuff without God. Now, what's maybe more interesting is that the same guy who put humans in the center of the philosophical universe also spent a lot of time talking about God, but not in a critical way. But rather than talk about the person of God, Descartes, who was a Catholic guy living in a very Catholic France in a pretty Catholic Europe, was interested in the concept of God. Now, this is often referred to as the God of the philosophers. And basically, this God is the biggest and most necessary thing that's at the foundation of everything else. And this idea of God as the first principle was super crucial to Enlightenment theories of science and morality. Descartes writes, There remains only the idea of God, concerning which we must consider whether it is something which cannot have proceeded from me myself. By the name God, I understand a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created. Notice that he doesn't describe God in personified terms, as monotheistic traditions usually do, but rather points out what we could call the ontological conditions of the concept of God. While Descartes was a good little Catholic boy, his description of God epitomizes a deist view, which is the idea that God is a necessary, perfect, and supreme being. Deists de-emphasize the view in which God is an actor in human events, which we see in everything from Biblical accounts to Greek myths. I think if God was an actor, he would be Daniel Day-Lewis. But what about you? He's the prophet. He's the smart one. He knew what was there, and he found me. Who do you think God would be if God were to be an actor? Descartes argued for the existence of God not on the grounds of existential or spiritual necessity, but on the grounds that he didn't think humans could have come up with this idea on their own. He writes that, Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone. Hence, from what has been already said, we must conclude that God necessarily exists. Now just a real quick sidebar. If you don't like that take, look into David Hume on religion. I think you'll like what he says better. He's an empiricist, not a rationalist, but check him out. But we might still ask, why do the rationalists care so much about God? Well, because the existence of an infinite and imaginary thing, God, guarantees that the world is intelligible and has some consistent foundation. He concludes it is clear enough from this that he, God, cannot be a deceiver, since it is manifest by the natural light that all fraud and deception depend on some defect. Descartes' God has very little in common with the type of being that, I don't know, a modern evangelical might pray to to help them stop touching themselves at night. It's more like a foundational principle of scientific inquiry. Let us know in the comments if at any point in your life you masturbated and then felt really bad about it because you thought you disappointed God. We're not judging you and it's not your fault that you thought that, but why not make it spicy in the comments? So let us know if you ever jaded off and then said to God, I'm so sorry. And it's worth noting that Descartes and Kierkegaard are two sides of the philosophy of religion coin. Because while Descartes turns God into a theological category, Kierkegaard, around 200 years later, wants to turn God into a wholly illogical and existential category. While Descartes wanted God to be the foundation for rational thinking, Kierkegaard wanted to make God more of an existential concept. Roofers are furious about this new product that's going viral. Replace your whole roof in as little as eight hours? And right now? Which helps us live more so than think. But this all leaves us with the question of why taking religion seriously is valuable for the rest of us. How can philosophy of religion be useful in a contemporary context where religion, and specifically religion's influence on politics and culture, is on the rise? Well, this brings us back to Marx. While some might immediately think of Marx writing that religion is the opium of the people, and determine that he thinks religion is dumb, it's important to consider the full quote in context. And honestly, I think that that's probably the second most misquoted or misunderstood line in 19th century philosophy after Nietzsche's God is Dead. But I've talked about that in other videos, so you can go find that if you want to. Right before the opium line, Marx writes, religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering, and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless condition. In that sense, religion isn't the problem. It's the conditions that necessitate religion that are the problem. Marx is saying that religion is necessary in a world where people are suffering without hope, a world that seems to lack heart and soul. And if your life sucks, you might turn to religion to find reasons to believe that eventually, maybe even after death, it might not suck. He goes on to write, the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, an embryo, the criticism of that veil of tears of which religion is the halo. Now, Marx isn't saying we need to abolish religion because it's dumb and bad, but rather, that moving past religious happiness can allow us to establish a world that creates the conditions for a real happiness. If people turn to religion to find hope in a hopeless world, Marx thinks building a just world will remove the necessity for religion. He's basically arguing that getting rid of the need for Pepto-Bismol isn't because Pepto-Bismol is bad. Nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. Yay, Pepto-Bismol! But rather, diarrhea is bad. And once we don't have the shits anymore, we don't need the Pepto. And in this sense, we can see some of Descartes' rational philosophy of religion because Marx is interested in analyzing what the concept of God means in a society at a given time, but we also see some of Kierkegaard's existential philosophy of religion in so much as faith comes from the real suffering of specific individuals trying to make sense of existence. Now, while philosophers like Descartes might not seem to share Marx's radical aims, they were still worried about the political usage of religion and how it was affecting people's lives. This is why for them, deism, according to philosopher Merrill Westphal, can be called the religion of the enlightened. The horror of religious warfare and persecution hung heavy over European history. And when enlightened thinkers did not espouse an entirely anti-religious materialism, they sought above all to define a religion that would foster moral unity rather than immoral hostility within and among human societies. In general, something we see in enlightenment thinkers, existentialist thinkers, and the Marxist tradition is that a society's concept of God reveals something about what human beings in that society value. And while sometimes it's God, other times God can be replaced with another supreme or sacred thing like money, power, nationalism, or consumer desire. And in this way, philosophy of religion is a useful tool to ask, what does a society regard as a transcendent ultimate value? And on the flip side, if we lose the ability to do this type of analysis, it's easy for new transcendent and religious systems to pop off without us noticing. As Theodor Zolikowski writes in Modes of Faith, Secular Surrogates for Lost Religious Belief, faith is of course not limited to religion. To believe in something, a deity, a nation, a race, art, sex, money, sports teams, appears to be a fundamental human need. Following all of this, philosophy of religion isn't just about religion, i.e. it's not just thinking philosophically about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Rather, thinking about religion is a way to understand anything which people treat religiously, whether it be sports, fandoms, political parties, Taylor Swift, or traditional religion itself. If we dismiss the philosophy of religion because it's like cool to be an atheist and stuff, then we risk losing the ability to do proper religious analysis. To once again quote Marx, the foundation of irreligious criticism is, man makes religion, religion does not make man. Which means that when we attempt to understand religion, it's not wasting time understanding flying spaghetti monsters. It's actually doing a deeper analysis of human values. And oddly enough, this is why many radical atheist philosophers like Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek, and Georgio Agamben have taken religion seriously in their work, even though they're not validating the theological claims made by religion. On the flip side, the new atheist contingent ends up having political and social views which sometimes play right into dominant political and economic values, rather than critically questioning them. Don't you feel a little reproach to your so-called high-principled anti-war folks? Would that really have led to less violence, less cruelty? On the other hand, atheist philosophers use religious and theological ideas to think creatively about what it would mean to make the world better. So it seems that even if we don't have an interest in religion as such, that the philosophy of religion is a set of tools that allows us to analyze any set of values or beliefs that are held with religious fervor, and figure out what's really going on behind various cultural practices. And if we abandon the philosophy of religion, we risk abandoning our ability to see the ways in which even the most fervently atheistic among us are being pulled into all types of religious beliefs. Cults don't ever go away. Look at Christianity. But, what do you all think? Can religion be an important critical tool for philosophy? Or am I just trying to justify all the Sundays spent at church during my youth? Let us know what you think in the comments. We want to give a huge shout-out to the most holy among you, our patrons. Thank you so much for the support. If you, too, want to join this flock of committed followers, come check us out. All right, all. This is Radio Podcasting. Coming to you live from Washington, D.C. It's a religion day at the University. On all of these radio podcasts, thank you for listening. Have a great day. Love, peace, joy, and happiness. All these radio podcasts are coming to you live from Washington, D.C. Most by fortune. Have a great night. All right. Most by fortune. Coming to you live from Washington, D.C. Where we provide some information to think about where do we stand when it comes to religion today? It's all over the place. It seems like people who don't like the philosophy of what's going on in one church, they start their own. Some of them just fail, and some of them do succeed. But what message are they sending? But what message are they sending? You know, are people getting saved? This is more than about the money. It's prosperity philosophy. It's more about how much money gets put into the pastor's or the prophet's pocket. More than people really truly being saved by his grace. Not the pastor's grace, but by God's grace. It's a real question. A real question. One still has to look at and wonder where we really are when it comes to religion. That's our thoughts. Most by fortune. Coming to you live from Washington, D.C. Have a great one. Love, peace, joy, and happiness.