Here in this thread, by religion, i am referring to the mainstream religions only.
The general perception within the intellectual populace is that religions do not have much to offer philosophically and their approach is very restricted and narrow.
But, i would like to argue otherwise.
Here is a very famous religious quote from Christianity-
God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.
And, this one from the Hinduism-
Change is the fundamental law of the existence.
One does not need to know anything else if he is able to comprehend these two statements in their totality as almost the whole of philosophy has been covered within.
But, I do not think that so far, throughout the whole history of non-religious philosophy, any philosopher has ever come even close to that wisdom.
Rational Metaphysics:AO is entirely non-religious and yet derived those exact same thoughts.
But unlike the religions, RM:AO supports the governing by Democracy over Monarchy and Justification over Blind Faith.
That may be true but that has to established yet ( by the society ).
And, by the way, religions (in true sense) do not either support Monarchy or blind faith.
If that was true, Buddha would have answerd those 14 questions himself in the first place, instead of advising his adherents to find it yourself.
And, the same is true for other subsets of Hnduism and Abrahamic religions also.
No mainstream religion supports blind faith or superstition.
Merely disclosing the order/ontology is not supporting Monarchy.
Yes, religions have founded some basic guidelines because their founders cared for the society and considered it their duty to tell others what was in the virtue. Because, they were well aware of the fact that it would not be easy for others to attain that level of wisdom, which they earned.
It is their obligation to the society and we should honour that.
Philosophy is the mother of all knowledge and religions are verification tool for metaphysics, just in the same way science is for all materialistic physical theories and premises.
And, it is duty of the both of science and religions to report bact their findings to philosophy in order to derive a final conclusion.
Sanjay, I agree with you. The two quotes you used are the part and parcel of every philosophical endeavor, and debate. Logic and reason, by themselves, cannot save the day, let alone confer Wisdom. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Sincerely, Wentworth
That has to do with propriety. Without propriety, we face things with imperfect or even with wrong reactions. Wisdom and propriety go hand in hand. At that level, a lot of things go hand in hand. All kinds of virtues and ideas are required and are a part of it.
Yes, that is true. That is why i stated in true sense.
In general, the term religion can be interpreted as Rely + legion, which indicates towards any particular group believing any particular ideology (rightly or wrongly).
But, if you get in details, you will find that no mainstream religion asks to believe them blindly.
They offer an ontology and derived cogitations based on the experiences of their founders but also ask to follow that ontology in person, besides having a faith. Both are required.
What religons are suggesting is - Look, we have found this. This may be good for you too. Give it a try by this way.
But, the problem is that people want to ignore the In person part, and rely on the faith only, because that is far easier thing to do.
The most evident example is the acceptability and popularity of the Buddhism in the west. Most of the intellectualls tend to believe that discussing detachment while having chicken with a good wine can bring them some wisdom or even enlightenment. Though, it would never going to happen. Yes, it is fine as far as the discussion is concerned. No offence.
Religions entail a certain lifestyle with some basic and essential practices, including some must doings and not doings. One has to accept and follow that in the first place, at least in spirit, before proceeding further.
It is a strict ontology thus one cannot bypass any step. There are no shortcuts available.
One cannot understand calculas and trigonometry if he has no understanding of arthmatics. One has to learn addition and substraction in the first place, then multiplying and dividing and so on.
There are two types of virtues, one is the elemental virtue which is the smallest original scale of that virtue. Then compound virtues are applied morality, usually oriented with an ideal life or an ideal world. Wisdom is a word for a complex and compound virtue, in action. I think that if we have enough elemental virtues, the higher qualities will naturally come up and exist.
To put it more systematically, we can say that basically wisdom is constituted of two ingredients- Knowledge and its use.
Now, there are two types of knowledge- borrowed and earned. That is first part.
The second part, which is more important that the first, is the use of the knowledge.
For using the knowledge in the right way, two qualities are required- discern good from the bad and sufficient will to implement it.
Here lies the crux of the wisdom. Most of the people confuse wisdom with simple knowledge, which is not the case. Wisdom is not mere knowledge, but also entails whether one has real understanding of right and wrong and if he has enough willpower to act accordingly.
Like, a hacker is always more intelligent/ knowledgeable than actual programer, otherwise he could not break in the system. But, a hacker can never be considered wiser than programmer, simply because he does not have discerning quality, thus all his knowledge goes in vain.
Intelligence is how much one can learn.
Knowledge is how much one has been learned so far.
Wisdom is how one uses his intelligence and knowledge.