Religious Philosophy.

I added a page to the menu above. I don’t know if a Page prints as a Post so I am posting the page.😄

The point of this whole thing is to find the destruction of the transcendent.

My work is toward a complete explanation of religion. One that explains every cultural facet or expression of what we generally know as religious or superstitious belief.

By exposing the common basis of religious belief, to thereby be able to explain all religious or theological propositions, The effect or the need that religion Fulfills will likewise be exposed beyond merely an explanation of psychological dimensions. It will strike at the very core of knowledge itself.

And due to the nature and thoroughness of this exposition, such knowledge, what we could call academic philosophy will be described for its limitations, applications and uses.

In contrast to the wiki definition

Philosophy of religion: “the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions.”[1] These sorts of philosophical discussion are ancient, and can be found in the earliest known manuscripts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.”

My philosophy of religion could be better called a “religious philosophy” because of the workings of its point to expose that which is religious, to thereby likewise critique philosophy.

The conventional philosophical definition that wiki has really assumes as it imposes that there is a hierarchy of thought, that somehow reason is a category that is better than or somehow more able to grasp truth than religion. One might wonder why there is no rreligion of philosophy, which is to say study of philosophy through religion.

Does anyone have any ideas why religion cannot study philosophy?

Why is it that philosophy always ggets to study religion?

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

8 thoughts on “Religious Philosophy.”

  1. This not just a bias of modern thought that highlights how poor moderns understand the classics. Patristic and medieval, as well as Rabbinic Jewish, sources and figures long examined and critiqued philosophy from religious grounds. Modern Reformed epistemology carries on the same tradition even to this day.

    And the arguments of “reason” really fall flat if you don’t understand the two concepts of reason. The first, not only found in Greco-Roman philosophical thought, but also in Abrahamic thought, where man – endowed by reason, which makes him like God according to Judaism and Christianity (also to the Greeks and Romans) – has the capacity to know the Good and True and therefore live by that standard of nature; the second, found in modern thought, exemplified most notably by Hobbes, where reason/rationalism as epistemology is no good, but where reason is a form of latitudinal reckoning where man (or animals too) reckon through a problem that impedes one’s movement to a goal. Reason, in the modern account, has nothing to do with coming to know the Good and True, but is about how best and most efficiently and practically to employ physical powers to attain a particular end being sought.

    Religious philosophy is a misnomer, in my view, since “religion” from the Latin word religio, was the umbrella term by Cicero. Religio, in Latin, meant knowledge of traditional cultic practices and what their corporeal re-enactment, or manifestation, meant. Religion, as something practiced, is the physical enactment of “rituals” or “practices” that are, to the devotees, meant to embody certain metaphysical or ontological, epistemological, or even ethical, truths.

    Superstition, from “superstitio” in Latin, referred to practices that fell outside the bounds of practiced religion, like magic.

    1. Thx. Yeah. I just feel that what I am doing is not a philosophy of religion in the usual way that I know how academia, what academics call philosophy religion.

      But neither is it really a religious philosophy.

      I’m not really sure what it is to be called.

      But it has something to do with philosophy and it has something to do with religion.

      Maybe you could read some of my stuff and then you could help me with a term?


    2. So. Can you refer me to an example of religion critiquing philosophy?

      Or. How is Philosophy and religion distinguished from a neutral standpoint?

      1. Books 6-10 of St. Augustine’s City of God is probably the most famous, where he assails Stoicism and Porphyry (late neo-Platonism). But that’s not neutral, all things considered.

        Tertullian, also, was a very stringent critic of Athens. After all, “What hath Athens got to do with Jerusalem”? :p

        I don’t believe in myth of neutrality. All write from a definite viewpoint – some just mask it better than others. So I take the middle road and just read everything and try to sort out myself! :p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s