|
|
Phil 24 Philosophy of ReligionGreen Sheet Information
For contact information about me, my office, telephone, e-mail, and office hours see the Home Page @ this web site on the top, left-hand side of this page. This class in Philosophy of Religion is offered once a year usually in the Fall quarter. Notes and Study Questions for Philosophy 24: Philosophy of Religion is the main document you must read and follow throughout this course. It amounts to 90 plus pages and can be purchased for a modest sum in the Bookstore. Or it can be down loaded from this web site by clicking on "Notes Phil. 24 pdf" on the left hand side of this web site under "Class List." Just click on Course 3 and then click on Notes Phil 24.pdf. This syllabus and the Notes and Study Questions will give you all the material you need to know for this course. If there is anything in the Notes that you do not understand, please ask questions about it. Philosophy is not meant to be confusing, but clear; so help me to clarify anything you need to have clarified.
Besides reading the Notes and Study Questions you are expected to read David Hume's Natural History of Religion, Immanuel Kant's Religion Under the Realm of Reason Alone, and John Dewey's A Common Faith because all three are important primary sources for Philosophy of Religion as it historically developed. Hume and Kant are foundational to the subject area of Philosophy of Religion. Dewey attempted to synthesize for the 20th century the results of contemporary philosophical insights about the future of religion. Hume and Dewey are easier to understand than Kant, but we will focus on the influential character of all three philosophers. "The Notes and Study Questions" contain a "summary" of each of the books; be sure to read those pages carefully, and be able to answer any questions asked about any of those three authors.
The Course Subject
This course treats the subject of how philosophers thought about religion. We examine the different types of religions, but we do not concentrate on any one religion or even on any particular cluster of religions. Rather we are interested in: 1) how religion falls under the scope of philosophy, 2) what philosophers thought about: the origin of religion, religious experience and religious language, 3) what philosophy can contribute to the discussion of religious faith, religious ethics, and any one of the other four dimensions of religion, 4) why some philosophers use the term "secularization" in understanding religions today, 5) how philosophy critically analyzes the manifestations of religion, and 6) how philosophy evaluates religious pluralism and the future of religion. These six questions will be the central concern of the course. Each student should be familiar with the content of these questions and be able to analyze the different responses that philosophers have made along with the strengths and weaknesses of each response.
Philosophers have assumed that "religion" is one significant and important dimension in human life, but that it has to be critically evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses if it is to be a major contributor to human development. It cannot be assumed that religion is immune from critical evaluation. As a result we talk about types of philosophy, types of religions, theories about the origin of religion, critical analyses of religious/spiritual experience and language, critical analysis of religious behavior, and the ambiguity about belief in any religious dimension of human life.
Conversation Partners
Philosophy and Religion have been long-standing conversation partners, and almost any imaginable kind of relationship between "conversation partners" has occured in the history of the conversation between religion and philosophy. Sometimes the relationship has been most friendly, sometimes distant, sometimes dominated by one of the partners, and sometimes marked by disagreement, but most of the time, it has been respectful despite disagreements. All types of conversation will be discussed, and the merits and contributions of each will be evaluated. We will, however, respect the autonomy of each discipline i.e. Philosophy, on the one hand, and Religious Studies or Theology on the other hand. Sometimes, we will listen to religious thinkers as they articulate what they think is important for philosophers to understand about faith, ethics, religious experience, or any important subject in philosophy of religion; most of the time, we will concentrate on what philosophers have had to say about religious language, religious experience, religious faith, etc. because these subjects from a philosophical perspective will be our main concern in this class. Both Philosophy and Religion have a common concern about human wisdom, its importance and development in human life; this common concern has a long human history that we want to enter and explore.
Will we, as Philosophers, be limited in what we can say about Religion? In what ways? Philosophers must be faithful to Philosophy as an autonomous discipline and also respect the autonomy of religions; this mutual respect in the dialogue means that philosophers can only talk about religion and the religious dimension of human life as human activities and human relationships. In this regard, the philosopher need not be a religious believer but must be open to understanding the natural human activities called "religious." To the extent that the Philosopher is able to understand the different forms that "being religious" entails, to that extent can the philosophical perspective be helpful. A philosophical perspective on religion or on "being religious" can, along with other disciplines (Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology) that analyze religion, offer a cluster of perspectives that show the human face of a religion. The meaning of religious experience, the meaning and purpose of ritual, religious belief, religious myths, and religious mystery as a cognitive or connative activity, religious values or ethics, and many other issues can often be explained using philosophical concepts. This will be our main concern. It would not be appropriate in this class or in any Philosophy of Religion class to advocate a particular religious consciousness or a particular religion because that would not be faithful to the subject of how religion falls under the scope of philosophy.
If there is one most important result of the philosophers' analysis of the religious dimension of human life, I think it would have to be the recogniition that "religious" stands for a "way of living" or an "awakening" to "empathy" and "compassion." That "release from self centerdness" dethrones a self-centered egoism from one's life, and frees authentically "religious" people from a life of hatred and enmity. In this sense, the authentically "religious" person leads people to go beyond themselves, bracket their own agendas, and care about others. The "religious", in this sense, is not synonomous with having a religion or belonging to a religion. Yet, it is what philosophers have found most authentic about religions. Philosophers throughout the world have insisted that being "religious" is just not the same as having a religion. Philosophers find that compassion and care for others' needs is "ethical" or morally virtuous. That authentic way of living religious ethics is for most philosophers the most important human dimension to religion. Since Socrates in the West and Confucius in the East, most philosophically minded people would agree that "religious" could not mean anything more than being an ethically good person. We will want to find out why philosophers have insisted that moral character or virtue is at the center of what we mean by "being religious." In addiition, we will also ask the question of whether reducing "being religious" to living an ethical life is adequate? In other words, we will explore, compare, contrast, and critically evaluate both moral values carried by a religion and the meaning of faith that is carried by the religions to see if the two subjects have a recognizable identity that is philosophically tenable. In other words, what, if anything, does religious faith add to an ethically good life? Is it motivation? Is it a feeling of being created and dependent? Is it an awareness that the ultimate meaning of life is connected with a fundamental trust that we are all loved and are dedicated to a life of love and caring about human development? If religious faith is a carrier of any of these values in human life, are these values only carried by religion? Ot is religion one way that can help people live some of these most important human ethical values?
The Origin of Modern Philosophy of Religion
We recognize in this class that Philosophy of Religion is a distinct subject that modern Western philosophers originated and, as a result, we will begin with the modern Western agenda in Philosophy of Religion. This agenda began with David Hume in the late 18th century, and was continued by Kant, and Hegel into the 19th century. Although Hume, Kant, Hegel were modern philosophers, they did use, in their philosophical perspectives, critical ideas that came from classical pre-modern western philosophers. For example Hume, Kant, and Hegel used ideas from the Roman, Greek, and Arabic philosophers some of whom used philosophical concepts to understand and interpret some religions (e.g. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic). As a result, modern Philosophy of Religion as a distinct and new subject area in Philosophy was not entirely limited to the use of modern ideas as critical tools. Rather these three modern philosophers and others affected by them used older ideas as well as modern and contemporary ones. We will move beyond the Modern Western Philosophers for this reason.
In addition, Hume, Kant and Hegel displayed an interest in Eastern philosophical questions even though their knowledge of Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Animist religious thought and experience was limited. They did begin a retrieval of ancient Eastern philosophy and religion which started and continued to develop so that the subject area of Philosophy of Religion today is no longer concerned only with Western religions and Western philosophical perspectives. We will include these pre-modern and Eastern perspectives because they are often very important. For example, in the modern Western agenda, philosophers raised the question of the cognitive character in religious experience, and some (Kant e.g.) found it congenial to develop a theory that held "religious" experience was non-cognitive because it did not fit into what he thought was truly "empirical." This position was then requestioned by several modern and contemporary Western philosophers because they noted that many earlier Western and Eastern philosophers had elaborated a cognitive character to religious faith and experience. For example, Eastern philosophers had developed a cognitive dimension around "meditative thinking" (Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist philosophers). So we do not want to lose this discussion about the cognitive character of religious experience from pre-modern Eastern philosophy. Simlarly, early Western philosophy developed a cognitive appreciation of the limits of "knowing" the unknown God, and this achievement needed remembering. When we do this type of shift, we are practicing what philosophers like to call a "retrieval" of the past that might otherwise be lost. One of the most important retrievals in the Philosophy of Religion is the retrieval of and respect for Animist religion (largely done by Anthropologists and Archeologists). We will see that Animisn is an important and fundamental philosophical way of understanding the meaning of religion.
Another issue today is the meaning of religious "faith." What kind of act of faith is it? Is it like faith in a past historical event or person? Is it a reasonable belief that assents to a proposition? If not, how does it differ from other types of faith that we practice everyday when we believe in anyone's words that claim to have experienced something we have not? Is there a meaning to faith that is different from "assent" to a proposition? If so, how can we describe that activity accurately?
Religious Pluralism Today
In addition, today religious pluralism has preoccupied both students of comparative religion and philosophers; in a similar fashion the "future" of religion has become a major topic of concern often connected with religious pluralism. For example, how and why do some of the major religions today form an inter-religious dialogue aimed at solving major human problems together and why do so many of these same religions have practitioners who seem focused on resentment of all other religionsr and unwilling to cooperate with any religions other than their own? Why are some religions today more secular or "this worldly" in their concerns and why are some so "fundamentalist" or "other-worldly." The emergence of "fundamentalism" in all the world religions today (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism) has become a major concern because it seems so contradictory of religion itself. Finally, from the standpoints of secularization and religious pluralism, what kind of future scenario for religion or the religious dimension of human life can be reasonably expected by the middle of the 21st century? These concerns and questions will also occupy our discussions.
Philosophers of Religion
The following philosophers of religion will be the major thinkers we will focus on as we try to make sense of the issues identified in the previous paragraphs; some of these philosophers are very modern, but some are classical; in addition, most are well known, but some are not so well known even though they have contributed what I regard as major perspectives for understanding philosophy of religion today. We will, besides Hume, Kant, and Dewey, make use of ideas and perspectives from Kierkegaard, Hegel, Schliermacher, Averroes, Avicenna, Aristotle, Confucius, Socrates, John Hick, William Hill, Karl Jaspars, Joseph Campbell, Rudolh Otto, Mircea Eliade, Ninian Smart, Karen Armstrong, William James, Cornel West, Gerald May, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Paul Ricoeur, Ralph W. Emerson, Sidney Mead, and Robert Bellah. Some of these experts are not associated with philosophy in a formal sense, but they have used philosophical ideas and perspectives from psychology, sociology, history, and literature.
Exams
Ordinarily there will be both a mid-term and a final; sometimes I deem two mid-terms necessary; if so I will announce them in class. Ordinarily, each exam covers an amount of material that we have covered in class already; the mid-term will usually be within the 6th week of the quarter and the final during the last week of the quarter. The final is not comprehensive but centered on the material covered since the mid quarter. The final exam is scheduled for a date determined in the college schedule of courses and exam dates.
The type of exam in each instance will be a combination of objective (true/false, multiple choice, matching, fill-in blanks) and essay questions where you will be expected to write clearly and coherently an answer to specific essay questions. For the objective part of the exam you will need a scantron available from the bookstore (brown in color), and a single sheet of loose leaf paper for the essay question.
Quizzes in class and take home assignments will also be part of the exams. Sometimes the quizzes will ask you for questions and sometimes they will ask you to answer questions; finally you will be expected to participate in class, especially in class discussions. There are no make-up quizzes. Take-home assignments (essays) will be produced on a "word processor", double-spaced, and due on the date announced. There is one of these projects described under Project One on the left-hand side of this syllabus and described on the last page of this syllabus. Quizzes and take home assignments will have a portion of their grade counted as extra credit. In this way, extra credit will be evenly distributed to all students who do the Quizzes and take-home assignments.
Grades
Grades will be distributed according to a numerical standard; for example 90-100 will be A, 79-89 will be B, 68-78 will be C, and so on. Remember that the numerical grade on written tests is only part of your total grade because quizzes and class participation will not be overlooked in your final grade.
Attendance is expected for every class; coming late is not permissible because it is considered disruptive and a distraction to class concentration. Points will be deducted for coming late. By the same token, leaving early is very disruptive and shows an immaturity that is unacceptable. If you can forcast that you will not be able to attend, and will miss more than four (4) classes, it is better to drop, and take this course later or take another class where attendance is not so necessary for learning. If you do miss class or are late more than four (4) times, you will lose grade points. If you leave early without permission, you will also lose grade points, and if this happens, you will not gain any extra credit points. These standards on attendance and participation are connected with your grade so that you may achieve the kind of skill development in philosophy of which you are capable.
Discussion quizzes will often ask you for questions, or questions will be given for you to answer in class. Questions are very important because they are the connecting links between what you have learned and what you have yet to learn more clearly. Most instructors know that good questions are far more important than pat answers or cliches. Never feel sheepish or shy about raising a question; it is often the most important action you can do for that day. Take-home assignments (see Project One on the left-hand side of this syllabus) are to help you organize critical thinking skills in essay form by explaining questions accurately and coherently because this set of essay-writing skills is universally needed for college-level work.
Exam Essay Questions
The following questions are important guides for the type of essays I ask in exams and for in class quizzes or take-home assignments
1) Why did modern philosophers think religion needed to be more natural and acceptable to modern culture? What goals did they have in mind for religion? Was it too naive?
2) What are the six dimensions of religion for Smart, and why are the first three regarded as most important for philosophy of religion?
3) Explain in detail the difference between the pre-axial or archaic religions and the world or axial religions. Why do some philosophers and anthropologists think the archaic religions are important for the history of religion?
4) Summarize Hume's position on the flux and reflux of polytheism in monotheism; what kind of natural religion does he think most modern? Do you agree? Why? If not, why not?.
5) Explain Gerald May's analysis of religious experience as a "self-losing" experience, and why he thinks it a widespread and important form of human development.
6) Why do some philosophers, e.g. Kant, hold that religious experience is non-cognitive?
7) Explain Wittgenstein's theory about "religious language."
8) Explain Hume's theory about the origin of religion.
9) Why did Hume use "corruptio optimi est pessima" ( a scholastic adage) in his analysis of religion?
10) Explain Hume's description of the philosopher's religion.
11) Explain Kant's theory of mental activity and the impact it had on his philosophy of religion.
12) What does Kant mean by a religion of reason and how can it be a "social carrier" of an ecclesiastical religious faith? Why is this religious dimension of human life associated with a metaphysics of morals?
13) Explain the differences between "fundamentalism" and "modernism" in religions today. Why is this distinction important today?
14) Why is the "Transcendent One" in the world religions (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim) beyond any clear conceptualization? What are some important consequences of this philosophical insight?
15) Why do Hume and Kant share the Enlightenment desire to have a "natural" religion? What beneficial consequences do they hope to see from "natural" religion?
16) How does Kant explain the connection between religion and morality?
17) How does Kant think that religious ideas, like God, soul, immortality, can be included in a moral religion of reason?
18) Why did many 18th century Enlightenment thinkers include religion within all the other subjects ( politics, economics, sociology, psychology) that they wanted to renew?
19) How do some religious thinkers today critically evaluate "religious" faith for being too much like "faith" in propositions or statements? Why do they think this happened? What did they think the religions lost when this happened?
20) Explain each of the six dimensions of a religion identified by Ninian Smart and why he thinks the "experiential" dimension of religion most important for myth and ritual?
Final Exam
The final exam schedule is usually found on pg.18 of the Schedule for the Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters respectively. For the Summer term, the final will be during the final classes of the 6th week.
The following questions will be important for the final exam for this course.
1) Why did Schliermacher hold that "unconditional dependence" was a metaphysical experience and was associated with Kant's description of a "holy life?"
2) Is Hegel's romantic idealism another version of a "natural religion?" If so, does it have a cognitive as well as a moral character? Can it be used to show a religious dimension of thought and feeling in literature and poetry? How?
3) Explain Hegel's theory of "alienation" as a result of "bad" religion? How and why did "bad religion" project an idea of a heaven?
4) Explain Kierkegaard's critique of Hegel's claim to have religion completely understood. Why did Kierkegaard react so strongly?
5) Why did Kierkegaard's analysis of faith lead to the "existential" movement in philosophy and psychology, and what did it contribute?
6) What did Marx mean by "religious distress is the heart of a heartless world, a sigh of an oppressed creature, a spirit in a spiritless situation?" What is cognitive here?
7) Do liberationists (neo-Marxians) who speak of hopes and dreams for social change have both moral and cognitive dimensions in their view of religion? Is their view of religion more mystical or more prophetic? Why?
8) How do liberationists separate themselves from Marx, and why would their movement be considered "significant" for 20th century philosoply of religion?
9) How did James use hypothesis as a way of coming to religious belief based on experience?
10) Why and in what ways does James think Pragmatism can affirm a religious consciousness?
11) Explain why the pragmatic method in philosophy is congenial to a philosophy of religion.
12) Why does James advocate a "finite" God, and how does he justify it pragmatically?
13) How does Dewey explain the concept of God?
14) What does Dewey mean by a Common Faith? Is his version of "the religious" an example of "religious secularization?" How?
15) Is Dewey's version of a Common Faith plausible and socially acceptable? Why? If not, why not?
16) Compare and contrast Dewey and James on their analysis of Pragmatism's contribution to philosophy of religion.
17) How and why is Dewey's A Common Faith a sample of the strength of the Enlightenment myth?
18) Why is Otto's version of the experience of the holy classical?
19) Explain Hill's position on knowing the unknown God; how does it differ from Kierkegaard's view?
20) What does Hick think about the future of religion and religious pluralism in this century? Is it plausible? If so, why? If not, why not?
21) How would a future religion or religious disposition adequately integrate "myth or story", logos or conceptual understanding, and ethical development?
22) Identify and explain any "new" insights that this course in Philosophy provided for you.
23) Philosophers of Religion since Hume have focused on religion as a form of cognition that falls under epistemology and metaphysics, or they have regarded religion as a form of moral/spiritual development that falls under Ethics or Ethical development. How would you evaluate each of the two? Does the combined effort of philosophers seem adequate? Why? Why not?
Addendum:
1) A Tale of the Beginning (Creation Myth)
"In the beginning was silence. before the word there was chaos and night.
In the silence, spirit moved across the waters.
A WORD came forth, Meaning was given to form,
Direction to motion, order to chaos.
The world emerged, and the Word
Bore us in its own likeness.
As words went forth to cover the earth, history grew, word bearers multiplied.
The great and tragic were named; time grew pregnant, light and life were born
They spoke to each other.
A new heaven appeared where healing took place in mortal speech,
The words of speech were kindness, love, forgiveness.
This is how the healing power of the word came from silence."
Project One
Project One in this web site describes an assignment to select one of three choices for a two-page essay that offers you a chance to explain one of the three perspectives associated with what philosophers have found important about religious myths.
Religious myths,like the "Tale of the Beginning" are often stories about the origin of the world or a people or whole tribes of people; these mythic stories often reflect what people desire, love, want, hope for. Campbell thinks of myths as carriers of what people "aspire" to nurture or want to see take shape in the present or future. Assignment in Project One is to interpret in no more than two typewritten pages what the Tale of the Beginning, would mean following Campbell's theory of interpretation. Or you may write a two page explanation of Ninian Smart's theory of myth as forming a dynamic source of meaning and truth found in connection with religious experience and religious ritual. A third choice is to "explain" what Eliade means by "kairos" and why it is important for understanding religious experience as sacred and repeatable.
The assignment is to explain either the myth "Tale of the Beginning", or myth as a form embodied in a ritual that connects people to a religious experience, or explain "kairos" as ritual time that carries a religious experience and/or myth for people in a later time.If you choose option # 1 you must center on the "Tale of the Beginning." but if you use option # 2 or # 3 you may use any Ritual that connects with a myth to explain a religious experience.
|
|
|
