Can Religious people be philosophical?

[midnightsun159]

If you believe in a specific higher power, could you truly be philosophical, questioning why we’re here, the morality of things, etc, or would it be nearly impossible, as thoughts like that might be “blasphemous”?

[phyllo]

God is the answer to the question 'why are we here?". How can it be blasphemous?

[Uccisore]

Considering there are assloads of religious people being philosophical right now, and by far the majority of philosophical people through history have been religious…yes?

[zinnat]

@midnightsun159

If you believe in a specific higher power, could you truly be philosophical, questioning why we’re here, the morality of things, etc, or would it be nearly impossible, as thoughts like that might be “blasphemous”?

Well, that depends how you define being philosophical.

And, i can very clearly see that from your POV they cannot be philosophical.
That is decided. No need of any discussion.

with love,
sanjay

[Prismatic567]

Being religious and philosophical are independent mental activities.
One can be purely religious by relying on pure blind faith without any philosophical elements.

On can also be religious while at almost the same time (toggling between the two at nano second intervals) ask philosophical questions, such as ‘why we’re here, the morality of things, etc.’

@Bertrand Russell

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

Thus as per Russell, a religious person can be philosophical when s/he asks questions especially those related to life and reality.

But the limitation is the competency of philosophical wisdom a religious person can achieve will depend on the inferences s/he arrives at;
Those religious persons who arrive at theistic inferences are doing half-baked philosophy*, while those which arrive at non-theistic inferences are more competent in philosophy.

• even half-baked, there are the better and advanced ones e.g. the deists who rely on reason in comparison to those who reify the idea of God.

[Moreno]

@Prismatic567

Those religious persons who arrive at theistic inferences are doing half-baked philosophy*, while those which arrive at non-theistic inferences are more competent in philosophy.

Nice ironic use of a fallacy. An implicit one since only the conclusion is stated, but funny nonetheless.

[zinnat]

@Prismatic567

Being religious and philosophical are independent mental activities.
One can be purely religious by relying on pure blind faith without any philosophical elements.

On can also be religious while at almost the same time (toggling between the two at nano second intervals) ask philosophical questions, such as ‘why we’re here, the morality of things, etc.’

@Bertrand Russell

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

Thus as per Russell, a religious person can be philosophical when s/he asks questions especially those related to life and reality.

But the limitation is the competency of philosophical wisdom a religious person can achieve will depend on the inferences s/he arrives at;
Those religious persons who arrive at theistic inferences are doing half-baked philosophy*, while those which arrive at non-theistic inferences are more competent in philosophy.

• even half-baked, there are the better and advanced ones e.g. the deists who rely on reason in comparison to those who reify the idea of God.

Prism,

Is this ever crossed your mind that there may be a third category of religious persons, who becomes such by using philosophy? What do you think about them or grade those?

with love,
sanjay

[midnightsun159]

@phyllo

God is the answer to the question 'why are we here?". How can it be blasphemous?

Maybe I should clarify that, what I meant was “if God put me on here for a reason, why am I here?” where in organized religions, its often looked down upon to question God.

[Prismatic567]

@zinnat13

@Prismatic567

Being religious and philosophical are independent mental activities.
One can be purely religious by relying on pure blind faith without any philosophical elements.

On can also be religious while at almost the same time (toggling between the two at nano second intervals) ask philosophical questions, such as ‘why we’re here, the morality of things, etc.’

@Bertrand Russell

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

Thus as per Russell, a religious person can be philosophical when s/he asks questions especially those related to life and reality.

But the limitation is the competency of philosophical wisdom a religious person can achieve will depend on the inferences s/he arrives at;
Those religious persons who arrive at theistic inferences are doing half-baked philosophy*, while those which arrive at non-theistic inferences are more competent in philosophy.

• even half-baked, there are the better and advanced ones e.g. the deists who rely on reason in comparison to those who reify the idea of God.

Prism,

Is this ever crossed your mind that there may be a third category of religious persons, who becomes such by using philosophy? What do you think about them or grade those?

with love,
sanjay

I am not sure which ‘third category’ you are referring to. Examples?

There are two main categories of the religious, i.e. the theistic and the non-theistic.
Based on what I have understood, in-general (not individually) the most advanced of the non-theistic are more effective than the most advanced of the theistic [deistic] in terms of humanity’s progress.
The most advanced of the theistic are the deists, the pantheists and the likes who rely on the highest level of reason and the most advanced faculties of the human brain/mind.

Btw, I don’t mean everyone must adopt the ‘highest’ level of the non-theistic. Rather each individual at present should adopt whatever is most optimal in relation to one’s inclinations and state.