Examine the argument and/or interpretation of the passage



Examine the argument and/or interpretation of the passage.

 

Do you agree with the ideas expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss the implications for religion and human experience.

  

 

A. Merold Westphal (West) is a lecturer of philosophy at a Jesuit University in New York. In his article he attempts to show how the focus of philosophical thinking has shifted over time. West recognises a significant change in focus from philosophising about God, to philosophising about religion. Where philosophy once questioned the nature and existence of God, there is not a greater prominence on questions of religion in general, of mans relationship with God and religion as more of a social and psychological phenomenon. Throughout his article he traces the path it has taken from the era of Kant and Hume, through to Nietzsche, Marx and Kierkegaard. West doesn’t explicitly give his opinion, however it’s possible to gain insight into his view by focussing on the areas that he affords most attention to.

 

This particular extract is taken from the latter sections of his article ‘Hume and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion’. It’s here where West gives the central conclusion of his article. Prior to this section, West has already outlined the thinking of the Enlightenment thinkers; he concludes that modern philosophy of religion is the result of dissatisfaction with historic Christianity. Towards the end of the article, West analysis the work of three thinkers Hume, Marx and Nietzsche – who all rejected religion altogether and didn’t feel the need to think of a religion that would essentially work with the Enlightenment.

 

West attributes this ‘shift’ to two philosophers who were prominent thinkers of the Entitlement Era – David Hume and Immanuel Kant who West believed to be key figures in the emergence of modern philosophy of religion. Previously in the article, Westphal discussed the deist project and its importance to the change from ‘philosophical theology’ to ‘philosophy of religion’. Its overall aims were the concern for human reason, political concern for religious tolerance and finally to deny the religion power. The deists were confident that they could know God using reason along. By asking what makes a good religion and seeking to separate good religion from bad religion, deism begins the shift to philosophising about religion. It shifts the attention away from God and onto religion.

 

The article begins with a basic discussion of the two aspects of philosophy which have become apparent. Philosophical theology entails the understanding of Christian claims as well as theological convictions derived from divine revelation; and so from this we ultimately philosophise about God, his nature and existence. Conversely, philosophy of religion is concerned with questions regarding religion, including the examination of religious experiences, religious language and the relationship of religion and science. It basically analysis humans relationship with God. According to West, from around the time of the age of enlightenment, philosophy has moved away from the focus of God and shifted to a greater focus on mans relationship with God, essentially religion. This was perhaps due to the fact that science advancements were on the rise and many people were starting to follow science more than religion and God.

 

This shift in philosophical thinking is acknowledged by many. Philosopher Hegel was on who acknowledged, but didn’t necessarily appreciate the shift that occurred. West acknowledges the complaint from Hegel that “we at least hear much talk...about religion and therefore all the less about God himself”. Hegel disagreed with the idea that we cannot know God; he valued the idea of having conceptual knowledge of God. Yet, sceptics like Ayer hold that we do not know God by the mere fact he cannot be verified empirically. However, for scholars such as Swinburne, they would agree with Hegel’s view that we can know God. For Swinburne, his principle of credulity argued that we should have trust in what our sense tell us or even people. Therefore, if we feel we can know God, we should ultimately trust this instinct.

 

Further on in West’s article, he differentiates between two substantial schools of thought with the analogy of the kernel and the husk – or in other terms the Deistic’s and Scholastic’s. It is in the Pre-Kantian Philosophical Theology where West acknowledges there two schools of thought. Both are interested in exploring the existence and nature of God through reason. The Scholastic view assumes that reason can work in harmony with faith and revelation, for instance the Bible. A key proponent of the Scholastic view would be 13th Century philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas who used doctrines of the church as a springboard for exploring the deepest questions of philosophy, such as the existence of God, his creation, mans purpose and so forth.

 

The Deistic view assumes that reason is completely separate from faith and revelation. The Deistic branch wanted to bring religion ‘within the limits of reason alone’. The overall view was that faith and revelation should have no part to play in an understanding of God. Rational Deistic ideas for religion include an emphasis upon God as the source of moral law. The Deist’s go on further by dismissing the super natural or questionable historical stories about Jesus. From that the Deists wish to separate the ‘rational kernel of religion’ from the irrational husk. Basically, West is stating that people need to be able to distinguish between irrational concepts such as authority, faith and revelation, and focus on more rational concepts such as moral codes and so forth. Deism occurred after the age of enlightenment, which witnessed people demanding to know more about religion as science was increasing. West acknowledges that there was a lot of religious warfare at this particular time, and so people wanted to promote a religion of peace and have a more rational basis for religious belief and religion which would bring people together and ‘foster moral unity’ rather than ‘immoral hostility’. They wanted to make religion objective so that everyone could agree; in doing this they caused the ‘shift’.

 

West explains that both Kant and Hume have disproved the metaphysical proofs of God and thus it was necessary to find an alternative foundation from the Deist project. Both Hume and Kant were prominent in the enlightenment era. They both criticised the traditional arguments for God’s existence which came as a massive blow to the Scholastic’s and Deist’s who strive to understand the nature and existence of God.

 

Kant’s approach was that which tried to reconstruct the deist by finding alternative foundations for it. West cites the work of Kant who in his final three books of ‘Religion within the remits of religion alone’ outlines the kind of religion which he deems to be acceptable in the age of reason. He believed it was one grounded in universal reason and wants to ensure universal morality. This was known as the Categorical Imperative Theory which entails moral and duty. West identifies Kant’s three principles for the relationship between religion and morality. Kant states that morality isn’t necessary for religion as a result of it doesn’t make you moral; essentially God does because of the innate duties he gives us. We should arguably be morally correct because it is right to do so and we know it’s our duty. The second states that there can be a relation to religion; if you are moral it can lead you to God and religion. The third principle states that religion recognises duties as God’s commands. So we can therefore conclude that religion is useful to morality, and that the right thing to do is the right thing because it is just intrinsically right and God hasn’t told us. According to West, Kant states ‘God is nothing but a means toward human morality’ – to put it simply, Kant sees that the only valuable thing in religion is morality. For Kant ‘prayer, church attendance, baptism and communion are all illusions that belong to ‘fetish faith’’ and therefore such practices aren’t significant to leading a moral life. There are controversial issues that arise from Kant’s three principles. For instance, humans would be forced to act morally correct because something is seen as ‘right’. It essentially takes away free will. Furthermore, practices such as reading the Bible or prayer etc can provide comfort and regularity for many. Kant disregards such practical’s which may cause some offence.

 

Despite such criticism taking place, West refers to another leading thinker who was prominent during the age of enlightenment; German philosopher Lessing, who he parallels Kant’s views with. Where Kant stated religion doesn’t make us moral, God essentially does with innate duties; Lessing believed we shouldn’t be forced to believe the Bible, but instead follow Jesus Christ’s moral teachings.

 

West goes on further again to mention others who have sought to prove God through feeling. For example, Schleiermacher (Schl) believes ‘metaphysics and morality belong to the husk of religion: its kernel is to be found in feeling’. This is the opposite view to Kant, as for Schl the best way to understand God through feeling and religious experience whereas Kant believed the kernel of religion entailed being morally correct. Schl viewed religion as personal and subjective, concerned with a person’s inner awareness of God. The essence of religion is in feeling a conscious awareness of the unity of all things. Surely this viewpoint can be seen as controversial, particularly for other scholars such as Ayer. If we were to base everything on feeling then anything can be meaningful – Ayer would completely disregard such a statement/belief. A further contribution is made by Spinoza, whose belief constituted to God and nature being one – ‘of the same substance’. This view was known as pantheism – the view that God is everything and not a distinct being, he is nature, the world and always around us. The controversial issue of this is that if God is everything, then why would he allow evil in nature? Scholar Hegel was unsatisfied by claims from Kant and Schl. He rejected Kant’s idea and claimed religion is first and foremost about God, not morality. Then in rejection of Schl he stated it was impossible to separate true religion from its belief and practices. Hegel questions whose to say which feelings are real and which essentially matter?

Yet, the focus of this particular extract is the direction that Hume and many of his followers took. Their approach differed entirely from Kant. Where Kant attempted to find an alternative foundation for religion, Hume became incredibly suspicious of it. Hume and his followers instead rejected religion altogether, nor did they bother to think of any alternatives that could work with the enlightenment as a result of he thought it was inherently flawed.

In this extract, West begins by making a very bold claim that ‘modern philosophy of religion resulted from people’s dissatisfaction with traditional Christianity’. Hume and his followers rejected the authority of the church, scripture and dogma. West goes on to clarify Hume’s view by paralleling it with the views of the suspicions and sceptics. West distinguishes between the two. Sceptics ultimately question the truth of belief themselves, whereas suspicious people question whether these beliefs are genuine or do they hold an alternative motive. West maintains that we are suspicious about why people have religious beliefs. Hume suggests that being holy or good is ‘primarily a flattering of the gods’ in order to get some reward out of it. This would therefore make a person’s motive selfish. This deity leads to self deception as believers don’t recognise that their hope for reward in heaven is selfish, the sacred is just a means to an end. Similarly, acting in a way out of fear of punishment would also suffice to being selfish and becoming a means to an end. But the ultimate question raised, is whether or not there is such a thing as a selfless act. Even if a person says they are being good because it is right to do so – they surely must feel good about themselves for behaving accordingly? West recites the example that Hume believed people worshiped God, not because they loved him, but because they wanted him to use his controlled natural forces to benefit them; for example material things such as a plentiful harvest. Their beliefs aren’t genuine, but in fact, selfish motives driven by greed.

Hume’s view was shared by his army of other suspicious thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche (Nietz) and Kierkegaard (Kier).

West acknowledges that Marx and Nietz also see religion in terms of self-interest and self-deception. For Marx, his interest lies in how religion affects society rather than the individual, and so for Marx, religion serves purpose in society. The motivation of his view was based on social class. Marx believed that the powerful people of society were religious as a way of protecting their own high status; and the weaker members as a result of seeking comfort. Marx felt that this amounted to an unfair and unequal society – a tool of oppression – ‘religion is primarily a matter of social privilege seeking legitimation and of the oppressed seeking consolation’. This arguably can be linked to the aims of the Deistic project, particularly with denying the Church complete power and control. It is perhaps this power that led to the church’s social domination. The exploration encourages its victims to cooperate with the rich and powerful, and accept those who are privileged because the thought of heaven is comforting.

West’s next example is that of scholar Nietz; who despite being from a strong Christian background, he held no belief in God and made this rejection clear with the blunt statement that ‘God is dead’. He even went on further to claim that all human life is essentially pointless, and believed people should make the most of what they have. Nietz, according to West, believed that ‘his slaves are less concerned with consolation that with revenge’ and essentially likened religion to slave morality. Therefore the people who behave most like slaves are the ones who are admired; all because people are bound to a moral system stemming from a God who doesn’t exist. Nietz believed we should recognise that humans are free to create their own values, and we should choose those which benefit us most. This is perhaps a utilitarian approach in the respect that we choose aspects which lead to the greatest happiness. On one hand this a good and popular argument that can accommodate both religious and non religious people. Conversely, it can be a very dangerous and subjective theory due to it being dictated by someone’s personal interpretation. So to go back, is it fair to say that religion prevents any progress in society? What is the actual function and purpose of religion?

West acknowledges that it is not just those of an atheistic inclination who hold such negative views of organised religion. Scholar Kier, although a Christian, disliked the order and structure of the Christian church. Kier disagreed with Hegel’s analysis. He believed it is the personal individual level with God that really matters. He went on further in believing that a religious life through faith is the highest way of living – where people make a choice to go beyond the rational and makes leaps of faith, accepting ideas which go beyond human reasoning. For kier, morality should be about people being prepared to forget about moral codes and instead follow their inner convictions of faith.

Further contributions are still being made to such a philosophical discussion. One scholar in particular, Richard Dawkins, is mainstream to the topic. The integrity of such a philosopher is somewhat questionable. He has been heavily criticised for his profound atheistic dogmatism. Rather than setting out/putting forward a dignified philosophical critique, he instead arrogantly sets out to ridicule the religious. Dawkins famously quoted “what has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?” Is this perhaps the beginning of a further turn/shift of philosophy?

The question still remains as to whether West is correct in his claim that philosophy has nothing to say about the existence of God, namely the classical arguments for his existence.

B. West’s article is more of a historical overview of the path of philosophy of religion. Yet, because of this, the implications are perhaps not so obvious as other articles. Nevertheless, it is possible to agree/disagree with his interpretation and some of the assumptions he makes about when it happened for example, or even the extent of the shift.

There is perhaps an imbalance in the amount of time he gives to Kant and Hume. Considering both Kant and Hume offer a lot to the philosophical issue, it appears West awards a lot more of his time to Kant in comparison to that awarded to Hume. Hume is key within his conclusion, yet he almost mentions him as an after thought, or merely the background setting, explaining his ideas very briefly (4 lines) in relation to the amount of time he spends on Kant. On the introductory paragraphs of the shift, he suggests both Hume and Kant are both of great importance and significance to his article. Yet why does he afford so much attention to Kant? Similarly, he discusses other scholars who are in some form of agreeing with Kant far more than those who follow in the steps of Hume. From this, we could declare/conclude that West is suggesting Kant’s work is far more credible than that of Hume. Conversely, the atheist movement and its popularity could reject this viewpoint. Ultimately, West has not delivered a realistic and fair representation of the work of Hume in comparison to that of Kant. This may be down to the fact that West was a Christian and prefers to believe the theory that doesn’t reject religion altogether.

West puts the shift down to the destruction of classical arguments such as teleological, cosmological and ontological, and states it is commonly accepted that Hume and Kant are responsible for this. Yet, ifs West right to say this? There were certainly people before Hume and Kant who considered human aspects in philosophy instead of focussing on a God, for example Buddhist philosophy and the work of Nagarjuna. Similarly, there were arguably thinkers after Hume and Kant who focussed on God, albeit in a linguistic context. For example, scholar Ludwig Wittgenstein makes claims in the context of human nature. Perhaps West is wrong to base his article on the common assumption that the classical arguments have been totally obliterated. Some more modern philosophers do consider then. For instance, Swinburne builds on the teleological argument and believes it has been strengthened over time the more that science reveals its beauty and wonder. So you could therefore argue that these classical arguments are not as dormant as West makes out.

Despite these doubts however, if we analyse the content of the extract and the wider article, it is easy to identify a number of implications, not only for religion, but human experience as well.

If philosophy shifts its focus away from God and onto the practice of human practice of religion, the implications would be that there might be less support for the existence of God, with less people willing to talk about God as a philosophical idea. The argument for God would be ignored. Furthermore, the human experience of God might seem less credible; philosophical supporters of God, such as Swinburne, would not be there to back up those who believe they have had an encounter with God. In addition to this, believers may be more humanistic: focused on practices and values rather than metaphysical beliefs. This could arguably be a positive implication as people’s values and so fourth arguably help better everybody.

If with Kant, we agree that religion is no more than a system of morality, this could result in many implications. For instance, aspects of faith that aren’t concerned with ethics i.e. rituals, the bible, religious experiences, would be marginalised or disappear. This would remove a great source of security for many, as many can find guidance and comfort in aspects such as the bible and worship; as well as religious experience confirming someone’s belief or even turning a person’s life around. Religion everywhere would be the same, since rational ethics should be universal. On one hand this would deny religions being unique. On the other hand, if religions became the same, it would eliminate religious conflicts and war. In addition to this, human experience and society may become more just and moral, since consideration of the moral law would replace self interest and hedonism.

If, with Hume, we agree that religion is practiced only because it brings people disadvantages, the implications would be firstly religion would have to be scrapped. This could be controversial for many as for some, religion is their life and without they may feel life is pointless or not know their purpose. Moreover, the existence of God would not be seen as an important matter, but rather a justification of people’s selfish behaviours. Yet is it not a bit extreme to state a person is being selfish? Does it really matter if a person is behaving correctly because it will be rewarded later? Regardless of a person’s motives, they are still behaving correctly, and surely this is all that matters?

Considering the points above, it is particularly difficult to come to a decision about the value of West’s work. It is agreeable that the shift evidently happened, West writes factually, yet fails to give his own opinion, making it reasonably reliable. However, it is fair to say that West is bias towards Kant’s thinking. It is also difficult to accept the time and extent of the proposed shift. Having said that, focussing on our relationship with God has become more relevant, and with the up rise of philosophers, such as Dawkins, encouraging us to question the origin of the world, it is promoting scientific discovery and to delve into the wonders of the world.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download