Philosophy of Religion

The encounter between philosophy and theology in the West European Middle Ages gave rise to discussions still going on today. Discussions about the relationship between faith and knowledge, about the question why God, if omnipotent and absolutely good can still allow evil in the world, and about the possibility of free will if God predetermines everything. These questions, primarily originating from the monotheist religions in the West, belong to what might be called traditional themes in philosophy of religion. Other traditional forms of philosophy of religion are philosophers' thinking about religion in general. Prominent historical examples include the theories of David Hume (1711-1767) on the origin and purpose of religion; Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) arguments that religious propositions are beyond proof; and Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844-1900) view of religion as a powerful tool for the weak and a “comforting illusion” meant as a cover up  for the chaos of naked reality. More recent philosophical discussions on religion have been inspired by e.g. philosophical language theories. While that has led to reflections on meaning and truth in terms of religious language,  reflections within political philosophy concerns religion in the public space and minority rights. In addition, the philosophy of science has raised questions about the relationship between religion and science, and the central debates about theory and method in the study of religions can be illuminated by philosophical considerations. As the examples illustrate, modern philosophy of religion has become a broad field of study with a lot of different topics and theories, and with a relevance that goes beyond the monotheistic Western religions and their philosophical and also theological interests and agendas.
In contrast to the empirical study of religions, philosophy of religion also works with so-called normative questions on the possible truth and value of various religions. It might thus also discuss whether the ritual slaughter of animals is morally acceptable, or whether the law of karma may be true when it says that the individual’s actions determine what will happen to that individual later in life.

Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion

Philosophy is a blanket term for a number of disciplines, including metaphysics: What does reality actually consist of? Is there a free will? What is time? Ethics: What is morally right? How are we supposed to live our lives? Political philosophy: What is a just society? Is democracy good? Epistemology: What are we able to know about the world? How are we able to know anything? Theory of science: What is the relationship between theory and reality? When is a theory scientific? Common to these disciplines is that even if they may draw on empirical results, they do primarily use analyzes and assessment of concepts, arguments, and theories.

Philosophy of Religion is a philosophical discipline that cuts across other philosophical disciplines. It may raise both metaphysical questions (does the Law of Karma control the universe?), epistemological and ethical questions (is it possible to be a good person without being religious?)

The methods and objectives of philosophy of religion

Philosophy of religion stands out from other approaches to religion, such as sociology or history of religion, because its methods are not primarily empirical. Instead, it consists of philosophical clarifications of concepts; of analyses and evaluation of arguments and assumptions; of theories about the relationship between religion and morality, or of what defines religion. It is worth noting, however, that many theories pertaining to the study of religions contain philosophical elements and arguments - and in fact, certain aspects of the research in the theory and methods of the study of religions, are in the borderland between the study of religion and philosophy of science. As is the case with other study-of-religions approaches, the line between philosophy of religion and the empirical study of religions can be vague.
There are many examples of theories on religion with philosophic arguments. When the German philosopher Karl Marx (818-1883) says that “religion is the opium of the people”, it is not the result of a poll or sociological study, but rather something he deduces from his general philosophy about the relationship between religion, authority and society. And when the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) claims that religion is caused by human ignorance and fear of the forces of nature, then his claim, too, is the result of philosophical reflections.

Characteristic of philosophy of religion is its interest in questions about the truths of religious theories and postulates and the moral value of religious practices. While other parts of the study of religions typically, and often with reference to methodological agnosticism, try to avoid being normative or prescriptive and do not consider e.g. whether the Hindu gods exist or not, or whether polygamy is morally good, philosophy of religion brings such themes up for discussion. While, for example, a sociologist of religion might study the role of religion in the public space, a philosopher of religion is more likely to treat the question as whether there ought be religion at all in public space.
Theology is also interested in truth and value; subsequently some people find it difficult to distinguish between theology and philosophy of religion. However, in the case of e.g. questions like this: "Is it possible to prove the existence of God?", a difference is that while theology is usually expected to presuppose the truth and value of a particular religious tradition (typically Christian), a philosophical approach can be more fundamentally critical, and study several religious. So, when a theologian might ask what stand Lutheran Christianity takes on homosexuality, the philosopher of religion might discuss whether different versions of Christianity’s  and other religions' views of homosexuality are acceptable .

Philosophy of religion can be normative

That means that it not only wishes to describe how something actually is, but also to assess its possible truth and value. Can the Law of Karma possibly be true? Is ritual slaughter morally acceptable? Is it possible to live a meaningful life as a member of the Catholic Church, or Scientology? Also topics that on the face of it appear very descriptive can actually be seen as normative: if, for instance, a definition of what it means to be religious is reached, it becomes a norm for who is truly religious and who is not. That can be seen as a normative assessment.

Is religious knowledge possible?

A common theme in classical philosophy of religion revolves around the relationship between faith and knowledge. The Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, (1813-1855) belongs to a philosophical tradition that rejects the idea that one can obtain knowledge of religious truths the same way as one acquires knowledge of historical matters. On the contrary, he felt that the more certain, objective knowledge one has of religious topics,  the more this knowledge comes in the way of the main issue, that of faith. He sees faith as a subjective approach, a way of existing. If one received a tangible proof of God’s existence, it would undermine one’s faith. Kierkegaard is therefore opposed to traditional theological attempts to prove God’s existence in different ways.

However, not everyone shares this view, and other philosophical religious system of thought refer to sources that are believed to justify them. When natural science theorizes the breakdown of the universe, it limits itself to empirical observations and experiments (and the theoretical constructions that can bind them together). But how can religious thinking justify the expectation that the world will go under? Here it seems, additional sources must be referred to and used to make the claim plausible:

• Traditions claiming to be divine: one can argue that the expectation of the breakdown of the universe has been handed down traditionally (from myths or sacred texts) rather than acquired by human thinking.
• Reports of revelations or visions: one can argue that someone has obtained knowledge of the breakdown of the universe through supernatural channels (e.g. a revelation or a vision).

Normally, however, none of these sources of cognition and knowledge are considered reliable. Are we to believe that the world will break down tomorrow, just because it is claimed in an old myth, or because someone says he has had a 'vision'? If that was the argumentation in other contexts (i.e. the roof of the school will break down tomorrow) we would be quite skeptical. Moreover, we know that different traditions have conflicting myths and strange predictions. Thus, traditions and visions do not seem the most reliable path to knowledge.
Nevertheless, philosophers like William James (1842-1910) and William Alston (1921-2009) tried to argue that in principle nothing speaks against these roads to knowledge. It can be compared with the possibility of being clairvoyant. It might seem a bit unconvincing to argue that an old woman can predict the outcome of the local football club’s next match by looking in her crystal ball. But what if it turns out that she 'predicts' correctly 30 times in a row, will you not have to accept that she actually gains knowledge this way?  In principle, it seems possible.

Didactical comments

Task 1 – Answers

Question	Category
How many gay people in Germany consider themselves Christian?	A
What philosophical and religious views of man lie behind the modern American debate about gay rights?	B
Are different versions of Christianity' and other world views on homosexuality acceptable?	C
What reasons can be given for agreeing with the modern Catholic Church in its view of homosexuality?	D
Is homosexuality compatible with the teachings of the modern Catholic Church?	E

Task 2:
In the discussion on the selected normative question, the class could be divided into two, one for and one against the statement that the class should discuss