Academic literature on the topic 'Religion; Philosophy of Religion; Philosophy'

The cohabitation of philosophy with the study of religion has such a long history that we have not been motivated to consider the terms of that relationship. This paper proposes that this relationship needs to be examined radically. That is to say it proposes to query the nature, or possible natures, of the relationship of philosophy to the study of religion by posing such questions as the following: What kind of philosophy belongs in the study of religion? Constructive? Critical? Does philosophy have an independent role in the study of religion or does it, rather, best play the role of ‘handmaiden’? To the extent that philosophy plays an integral part in the study of religion, how should philosophy reflect the global and cross-cultural nature of the study of religion? To what extent does a philosophy that is integral to the study of religion need to change in order to reflect the philosophical agendas integral to other religions than Christianity? La cohabitation de la philosophie avec l’étude de la religion a une si longue histoire que nous ne nous sommes pas penchés sur les termes de cette relation. Cet article montre le besoin d’un examen radical de cette relation. C’est-à-dire qu’il propose d’interroger la nature, ou les natures possibles, de la relation que la philosophie entretient avec l’étude de la religion à partir de plusieurs questions: Quels types de philosophie font partie de l’étude de la religion? Constructive? Critique? La philosophie a-t-elle un rôle indépendant dans l’étude de la religion ou est-elle plutôt dans le rôle de « servir » ? Dans la mesure où la philosophie est une partie intégrante de l’étude de la religion, comment la philosophie devrait-elle refléter la nature mondiale et culturellement croisée de l’étude de la religion ? Dans quelle mesure, une philosophie faisant partie intégrante de l’étude de la religion doit-elle être transformée de façon à rendre compte des programmes des religions autres que la Chrétienté?

In a paper given at a Roundtable at the American Academy of Religion (AAR) National Annual Conference in Montreal in November of 2009, jointly organized by the North American Association for the Study of Religion and the Critical Theory and Discourses in Religion Group of the AAR, I argued for the ineluctably philosophical nature of what is most commonly called ‘method and theory in the study of religion.’ That paper ( Rennie, 2010 ) also argues that what is conventionally referred to as ‘philosophy of religion’ does not, strictly speaking, warrant that name since it is in fact a form of theology that utilizes philosophical methodologies to consider principally, if not exclusively, Christian concerns. I also argued that a philosophy of religion(s) constituted along the lines of the philosophy of science would be a potential improvement in both ‘philosophy of religion’ and ‘method and theory in the study of religion.’ In this paper I would like to consider—with the help of a closer look at contemporary philosophy of science—precisely what a reconstituted history (and philosophy) of religions might look like, how it might differ from current scholarship, and what it might achieve. Dans une communication donnée lors d’une table ronde à l’American Academy of Religion (AAR) National Annual Conference à Montréal en novembre 2009, organisée conjointement par le North American Association for the Study of Religion et le groupe de Critical Theory and Discourses in Religion de l’AAR, j’avais argué la nature inéluctablement philosophique de ce qui est couramment appelé « Method and Theory in the Study of Religion ». Cet article ( Rennie, 2010 ) soutient également la thèse que ce qu’on appelle couramment « Philosophie de la religion » ne correspond pas stricto sensu à ce qu’une telle dénomination recouvre puisqu’il s’agit en fait d’une forme de théologie recourant à des méthodes philosophiques pour envisager des préoccupations principalement, sinon exclusivement, chrétiennes. Je soutiens aussi qu’une philosophie des religions constituée à partir des lignes de force de la philosophie des sciences pourrait apporter une amélioration potentielle de la philosophie de la religion, de la méthode et de la théorie dans l’étude des religions. Dans cet article, j’aimerais examiner précisément —par le biais des apports de la philosophie des sciences contemporaine— ce à quoi l’histoire (et la philosophie) des religions pourrait ressembler, les termes dans lesquels elle se distinguerait des approches actuelles et ce à quoi nous pourrions ainsi aspirer.

This set of papers explores the topic of “Possible Futures for Philosophy of Religion.” Though the field of philosophy of religion today has grown relatively narrow, these four papers seek to stretch it back out and all four are (as befitting our topic) forward-looking. Although the papers cover several different issues, I am going to shoehorn them into that pre-conceived category—the future of philosophy of religion—and then focus on the parts of the papers central to that category and ignore the other parts that don’t fit that template. This will not do justice to the complexity of the reality I am describing, but this procrustean practice is not unusual in philosophy of religion. Cette palette d’articles explore la thématique des ‘futurs possibles pour la philosophie des religions’. Bien que le champ de la philosophie des religions se soit aujourd’hui relativement rétréci, ces quatre articles tentent de l’élargir à nouveau et tous les quatre sont (au bénéfice de la thématique) tournés vers son devenir. Bien qu’ils couvrent des aspects différents de cette thématique, je vais les faire entrer dans cette catégorie préconçue —le futur de la philosophie des religions— et me focaliserai sur les parties des textes qui sont essentielles à cette catégorie pour en ignorer celles qui n’entrent pas dans ce cadre précis. Une telle approche ne saurait rendre compte de la complexité de la réalité que je décris, mais cette pratique de Procuste n’est point inhabituelle en philosophie des religions.

“The adaptation and extension of the philosophy of religion required for teaching in theological seminaries would not only give it greater value to theological students. It could also lead to significant improvement of contemporary philosophy of religion itself, by showing the value of philosophical reflection on actual religions.”

Hegel is widely recognized as the preeminent philosopher of the history of philosophy. His Lectures on the History of Philosophy are designed in large measure to answer questions about philosophy's apparent futility by reformulating the presentation of the seemingly pointless succession of forms of philosophy so as to show its organic development (Hegel, 1994, 24). To reveal the proper shape of the history of philosophy, what is extraneous to it had to be omitted. Much that had previously been regarded as philosophy was now to be treated under the heading of religion. The distinction between philosophy and religion, the decision as to what was philosophy and what was religion, took on an importance it had previously lacked. Although subsequent historians of philosophy did not always share Hegel's concern to show the organic development of the history of philosophy, his decisions about what was to be included and what excluded from philosophy proved particularly important in respect of the question of the place subsequently given to Indian philosophy. For this reason Hegel deservedly holds a central place in current discussions about the philosophical canon.

In the article the author tells us about the religious essence of Russian philosophy as its basic characteristic since in was founded in the middle of the 19th century until now. Russian philosophy never existed or couldn?t have existed in the European state of mind because it?s essentially a philosophic interpretation of religious faith. According to the author?s opinion, European philosophy, as a whole, has left the borders of the Christian spiritual plain by making the anthropocentric principle of thinking the absolute, which took it into positivism and nihilism. Russian philosophy hasn?t left the Christian spiritual field and has kept a theocentric (classical) type of thinking till the present day. The stand-point of the believing mind which rejects transcendental, as well as any other self foundation of the European philosophy. From the beginning until the present day, Russian philosophy has been opposed to the Descartes-Kant?s way of thinking. Western modern philosophy killed God intellectualy, and postmodern killed the Man as well, moving its philosophy into an empty space of ?transindividual constructions?. Ivan Kirejevski founded an ontological-gbnoseological model of Russian secular Christian philosophy in the middle of the 19th century, and from that, later, other branches of Russian philosophy developed: ontological-cultural (Danilevski, Leontjev), ontological-anthropological (Solovjov, Berdjajev, Ern). Briefly, Russian philosophy is what Russian national culture, based on Orthodox Christian views, can say about the World and the Man using the conceptual language.