Introduction

Philosophy of Religion

Philosophy of religion is currently a major field of study and the range of topics encompassed within it is
considerable. Nevertheless, its scope is fairly narrow, for the philosophy of religion is simply the
philosophical reflection on religious ideas. The range of those engaged in the field of the philosophy of
religion is broad and diverse and includes philosophers from the analytic and continental traditions,
Eastern and Western thinkers, religious believers and agnostics, skeptics and atheists. Philosophy of
religion draws on all of the major areas of philosophy as well as other relevant fields, including theology,
history, sociology, psychology, and the natural sciences.

The terms “philosophical reflection” and “religious ideas” need elucidation.

“Philosophical reflection” in this context includes the careful analyses of words, reasons and evidences
for claims, hypotheses, and arguments. These analyses themselves include fundamental issues about
the nature of reality (metaphysics) and the way in which we come to know things (epistemology).

Regarding these fundamental issues, philosophy of religion and, indeed, philosophy itself have taken
new directions in recent times. While philosophical reflection on religious ideas has been occurring for
centuries, even millennia, it underwent a momentous setback in the early-to—mid twentieth century
through the work of the logical positivists. Logical positivists held, among other things, that for a claim to
be true and meaningful it must be empirically verifiable. As religious claims were for the most part taken
to be empirically unverifiable, philosophical reflection on religious themes was widely considered to be a
specious endeavor and religious ideas were often taken to be meaningless.

However, due to the work of a number of leading philosophers who were responding to positivism and
defending the philosophical viability of religious beliefs — philosophers such as John Hick and Alvin
Plantinga by the 19705 the field began to take a significant turn. Today, philosophy of religion is
flourishing and it is not uncommon to see philosophy journals, anthologies, and monographs devoted
exclusively to religious themes.

By the phrase “religious ideas” it is meant the primary issues and concepts which have been discussed
and debated within the religious traditions throughout the centuries, including for example the
existence and nature of God or Ultimate Reality; conflicting truth claims among the different religious
traditions; the relation between science and religion; creation; nirvana; and salvation, among other
topics.

It is important to note that these are not just abstract and ethereal concepts discussed and debated
among ivory tower theologians and philosophers. To the contrary, they are fundamental issues in the
life and thought of those in living traditions - traditions which have deep, existential meaning and
ongoing significance for much of contemporary humanity.
There are a variety of beliefs held by the religions or by religious people.

 The monotheistic religions, for example, assert that a personal God exists and that God is good.
 Buddhists maintain that the Four Noble Truths provide a path to enlightenment. .
 Many Hindus affirm that Brahman is the one reality.
 Taoists (also Daoists) affirm that the dao is the fundamental process of reality itself. And so on.

Most religious adherents consider the central claims of their religion to be true. But an important
philosophical question is whether these religious claims are true or false in the same way that other
claims, such as scientific ones, are true or false. There are two very different positions taken by
philosophers of religion with respect to the concept of truth in religious discourse: realism arid nor;-
realism.

Realism
Probably the vast majority of religious adherents are religious realists, that is, most religious adherents
hold that their beliefs are about what really exists independent of the human beings who are having
those beliefs.

Assertions about Allah, for example, or Brahman, or salvation, or moksha, or reincarnation-are true if
there are actual referents for them. Thus, for Muslims, the claim that Allah is the one true God is true if,
in fact, there is a being who exists independently of human conceptual frameworks or thoughts and
beliefs about (or practices related to) Allah and is identifiable as Allah, the one true God.

The same holds for adherents of the other religions who are realists: they believe that the claims of their
religion have actual referents beyond their own beliefs and practices.

Non-realism
Although they are in the minority, there are also religious non-realists. While there are different forms
of religious non-realism, in general non-realists maintain that religious claims are not about realities
which transcend human language, concepts, and social forms; religious claims are not about something
“out there.” The following words from a leading religious non-realist helpfully summarize the distinction
between realism and non-realism: ~

“Today, a realist is the sort of person who, when his ship crosses the Equator, looks overboard,
expecting to see a big black line across the ocean. Realism tries to tum cultural fictions into objective
facts.

A non-realist sees the whole system of lines of latitude and longitude as a framework, imposed upon the
Earth by us-, that helps us to ‘define locations and to find our way around. For a realist Truth exists
ready made out there; for a non-realist we are the only makers of truth, and truth is only the current
consensus amongst us. We cannot any longer suppose that our knowledge-is validated by something
wholly extra-human....”
In religion, the move to non-realism implies the recognition that all religious and ethical ideas are
human, with a human history. We give up the old metaphysical and cosmological way of understanding
religious belief, and translate dogma into spirituality (spirituality is a religious life-style). We understand
all religious doctrines in practical terms, as guiding myths to live by, in the way that Kant, Kierkegaard
and Bultmannn began to map out.

We abandon ideas of objective and eternal truth, and instead see all truth as a human improvisation.
We should give up all ideas of a heavenly or supernatural world-beyond. Yet, despite our "seeming
skepticism, we insist that non—realist religion can work very well as religion, and can deliver eternal
happiness.

Among non-realists there are those who are, as it were, favorable toward religion and those who are
not. Consider the words of Sigmund Freud:

“These [religious ideas], which are given out as teachings, are not precipitates of experience or end-
results of thinking: they are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of
mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes.”

For Freud, there are no referents for religious beliefs about transcendent entities such as God, the dao,
and so forth. Rather, religion is an illusion and religious beliefs are merely manifestations of this illusion.
The belief in God, for example, is simply the projection of a Father image.

More recently, Oxford geneticist Richard Dawkins (1941—) and philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942—)
have advanced the notion that a Darwinian account of cultural evolution may explain religion and
religious beliefs via the replication of something very much like genes. There are, they suggest, cultural
replicators, what they refer to as memes, which are units of cultural transmission or imitation.

“Says Dawkins: Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via
Sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain by a
process which, in the broad sense of the term, can be called imitation.”

He includes the following beliefs as religious memes:

 You will survive your own death.

 Belief in God is a supreme virtue.
 Faith is a virtue.
 There are some weird things (such as the Trinity, transubstantiation, incarnation) that we are
not meant to understand.

For Dawkins, the widespread belief in God is not due to there actually being such an entity, or because
there are good reasons for believing there are. Rather, people believe because the “god meme” has
spread - in ways akin to a virus ~ throughout human populations. Religion turns about to be an
“accidental by-product — a misfiring of something useful.” So too with all attending religious beliefs.

Other non-realists are more favorable toward religion. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889—1951) for example -
one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century - took religion very seriously, even to
the point of considering the priesthood. Nevertheless, he was opposed to natural theology, the attempt
to demonstrate the existence of God from evidence in the natural world, and to the development of
religious doctrines. He was more interested in religious symbol and ritual.

In his later works Wittgenstein understood language to be not a fixed structure directly corresponding to
the way things actually are, but rather to be a human activity susceptible to the vicissitudes of human
life and practice. Language does not offer a picture of reality, he argued, but rather it is a set of activities
which F he described as “language games.” The concept of a language game was “to bring into
prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life. Wittgenstein
uses the example of a builder to make the point:

The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building
with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, in the order in
which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words “block,” “pillar,”
“slab,” “beam.” A calls them out; - B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such and-such a
call.

In teaching language, one needs to be able to respond to words in certain contexts; speech and action
work together. In many cases, then, the meaning of a word is its use in the language. For Wittgenstein,
this is true in religious discourse as it is elsewhere. Thus in speaking of God or Brahman or nirvana or the
dau, the meanings of such words have more to do with their use than with their denotation. The
language games of the religions reflect the practices and forms of life of the various religious adherents,
and so religious claims should not be taken as providing literal pictures of reality which somehow lie
beyond these activities. .

Religious non-realists who are favorable toward religion also make note of the alleged failure of realism
to provide evidences for the objective truth of any religion, or of religion in general. Whether referring
to arguments for the existence of God, or evidences for divine inspiration of sacred scriptures, for
example, non- realists maintain that such apologetic projects are abject failures.

But such non-realists are convinced that since there are no conclusive reasons to believe that a religion
is true, a better way of approaching religious claims and beliefs is to view them through non-realist
lenses. Realists respond to this argument in various ways. For one, some agree that there are no solid
reasons to believe any religion is true. Nevertheless, they claim that it does not require evidence.

Other realists respond by claiming that there are good reasons and evidences for religious faith. Another
reason for holding to religious non-realism is the fact that religious claims, beliefs, and practices do in
fact exist within a given social context and involve human language and concepts. Since religious claims
and activities are always made within a particular human context, and since the mind structures all
perception g within that context, the meanings of these claims are determined and limited by that
context.

One need not - indeed, one legitimately cannot, it is argued — posit objective, transcendent realities
beyond human language and cognition. To do so is to simply go too far. Realists respond by noting that
while much of what occurs in religious discourse (and practice) is of human origin, one need not take a
reductionist stance in which all religious meanings and symbols are reducible to human language.

As already noted, some realists argue that there are reasons for believing that a particular religion is
true — that there are objective referents for their claims.
Religion, Theology, Philosophy of Religion

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY

Religion is a system of lived experiences. This therefore includes the first order language in
which we communicate our feelings, thoughts and acts in relation to an object of devotion and
commitment. For example, a theist prays to God, talks to him and uses Him in hours of his
distress, elation and gratitude. With his belief in Him he never doubts the existence of God and
does not feel any need of proving His existence.

But no religious believer can remain in this state of receptivity all the time. He has to take into
account his non-religious activities also. He has to earn his livelihood, maintain his social life
and has to undertake many other social, political, cultural and intellectual activities. Well, very
few people can maintain a water-tight compartment between their religious life and non-
religious experiences

Hence, the demand for an integrated life makes the believer unify the diverse and competing
experiences. He has to use the intellectual categories of his time in order to integrate his
religious and secular experiences into a system. This making use of intellectual categories is
another name of philosophizing.

 Again, this use of the conceptual framework of one‘s age with a view to clarification,
elucidation and systematization of one‘s religious beliefs and practices is known as
theology.

 Theology’ literally means ‘discourse about God’. So in theology we do not talk to God,
but about God.

 Theology is the philosophy of any one religion. There are as many theologies as there
are religions, and, at times within the fold of the same religion there can be various
theologies. For example, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam have various kinds of
theologies.

 Theology is not simply concerned with the elucidation of concepts in use in any one
religion, but very. Often it has to defend itself against the objections of sceptics,
agnostics and the attacks of other religions on it.

 Therefore theology is not a disinterested study. It participates in the commitment or the

religion to which it belongs. .
  However, theology is not the first-order thinking: it is a second—order thinking. It is
thinking about religious thinking. This peculiarity of theology has its dangers. Because
of its commitment, it may remain too much tied up with its traditional conceptual
framework.

 However, it must be conceded that theologies have been changing with the change in
the intellectual climate from age to age. For example, the early Christian thinkers took
the help of the logos- philosophy of the Greek. Later on St. Thomas embodied a good
deal of Aristotelian philosophy. Only fifty years ago a number of theologians were
Hegelians and in contemporary times they tend to be existentialists.

THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

 But no matter what theologians may do with philosophy, they are not primarily
philosophers. They make use of philosophical technique for elucidating, interpreting and
even for apologetic defense of their specific religious beliefs and practices.

The task of philosophy is much wider. It has to reach a conceptual frame-work of the
largest number of experiences of mankind. As the most reliable and progressive
experiences of man are included in science, so philosophy at present is much more
concerned with scientific discourse than with any other type of talking and thinking.

 This peculiar development of current philosophy, specially analytic philosophy, poses

special difficulty for theologians. Science is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge and its –
subject matter is sought to be depersonalized. In contrast, religious thinking requires a
good deal of self -involvement and passion and a full commitment. Naturally a philosophy
which takes science seriously as the very model of knowledge proper is ill-suited to serve
as the vehicle of theological thinking.

On the other hand, there is another current of philosophy known as existentialism which
takes individuals in their creative moments, in the hour of crisis and personal decision as
root-metaphor or its key-notion. This kind of philosophy is farthest removed from physical
sciences, but is suitable for theology. Naturally the theology of Karl Barth, Rudolf
Bultmann and Paul Tillich can hardly be made intelligible in terms of analytic philosophy
which is predominant current of thought in the English- speaking world.

 Nonetheless a theologian has to take the help of current philosophy of the age with a view
to making his religious thinking compatible with the largest possible segments of life.
Unless he does so he will be religious on Sundays will be secular on all other days. This
disintegration of Personality is neither possible nor is conducive to healthy living. So a
 theologian has to build up a conceptual framework in which he can harmoniously lodge all
his experiences, secular and religious.

 There is another reason too. There are many theologies and each theology fairly well seeks
to become a ‘world theology. And this gives rise to encounter of religions. Hence, there is a
need of a philosophical theology.

 A philosophical theology is meta-theology which tries to elucidate the concepts of various

theologies. If the task be successful then as a result of the clarification of the concepts,
mutual dialogue and understanding between thinkers of various faiths may result in a vast
ecumenical movement. For example, ‘God’ is used by many forms of theistic religions, but
the term is not used in the same sense.

 The God of the Gita is more monistic than theistic and

 That of Spinoza is more pantheistic than deistic or theistic.
 Even the term ‘religion’ is full of ambiguities. Is it necessary for religion to have belief in
some ontological entities higher than man, or, does it consist _in some all—out
orientation towards some object of devotion?

Theists in the west would accept the first alternative. Indian thinkers need not accept
the necessity of any being higher than man as an object of worship, but they assume
some kind of metaphysical commitment for religion. Only the modern secular humanist
does not make any metaphysical commitment for this type of religion.

 These ambiguities with regard to 'religion' have to be clarified and their implications have to
be carefully worked out for any kind of religious philosophy. Thus religious philosophy, as
distinguished from theology, consists in the application of the discipline and technique of
any current philosophy with a view to analysis, elucidation and clarification of religious and
theological concepts and beliefs.

 True, religious philosophy is a branch of philosophy and it differs from philosophy proper
only in regard to the nature of its specialized subject-matter.

 The scope of religious philosophy is much narrower than that of general philosophy. But it
is neither religion nor theology.

 In religion the believer uses religious concepts and beliefs in their customary meanings
without subjecting them to any critical analysis. Broadly speaking, the believer cares more
for the end result which may be said to be the culture of the soul. Theology, in relation to
 religion, is much more intellectual, though the whole web of thought is woven round its
realm of commitment and self- involvement. Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann Paul Tillich and
Dietrich Bonheffer are great theologians of the present century and yet they are all christian
thinkers par excellence.

In contrast, religious philosophy tends to be purely objective and disinterested enquiry into
the concept and beliefs of various religions and their theologies.

Thus, the mutual understanding and dialogue between theologians of different camps is
brought about by religious philosophy intellectual.

 Hence, a religious philosopher need not be religious though he should not be without
sympathies for religion. But even as a philosopher he has his non-religious commitment and
sell-involvement. A religious philosopher need not beta theist or even a humanist, though
the task of remaining fully j neutral may prove too-difficult However, as a philosopher he
must be committed to finding truth and to a rigorous analysis of religious situations, beliefs
and practices. He must throw all his energies in the task of understanding religious
phenomena and thought.

Again, a theologian too has to practice detached objectivity if he wants to bring out the
universal validity of what he considers to be the ultimate concern of mankind.

Thus, both the philosopher and the theologian have to practice self-involvement and
detachment in tum.

 A philosopher gets involved in his enquiry with regard to religious phenomena. Unless he
pursues his enquiry with passion, seriousness and courage, the philosopher will not be able
to achieve excellence in his performance. In the same way a theologian has to Practice
detachment if he has to universalize what he considers to be his ultimate concern.

Further both the philosopher and the theologian have to oscillate between detachment and
involvement in the inquiry of their subject-matter. Even a Philosopher has to enter into the
spirit of religious phenomena and for doing this he has to put on the spectacle of a believer
to see things as a theologian sees them.

 So commitment, even though induced and transitory, is necessary for a religious

philosopher. In the same way, a theologian has to put himself aside for a while from the
ground which he considers to be holy and has to adjudge the ground for its holiness. Thus,
a philosopher of religion and a theologian have to be on talking terms and must start a
dialogue between them in their mutual interest and to their mutual benefit.
 RELIGION THEOLOGY RELIGIOUS
PHILOSOPHY
1. Religion is a system of lived Theology is an interpretation Religious philosophy analyses
experiences in terms of self- of religious experiences in and elucidates religious
involvement and full terms of current concepts. concepts in terms of general
commitment for the object of However, the intellectual conceptual framework with
religious devotion and focal clarification is made in the detached objective.
orientation. interest of one's religious
commitment.

2. There is no one essential Corresponding to various Religious philosophy is

religion in general but there are religious there are a number metatheology which examines
religions. of theologies, with their the various claims and uses of
different assumptions. theology concepts.

3. Religious statements may he, Theological statements are Philosophical statements are
termed as first-order statements. second-order statements third- order statements as they
with religious statements as deal with second-order
their subject-matter. statements as their subject-
matter.

4. A theist talks to God. A theistic theologian talks A philosopher talks about God
God with reverence and with disinterestedness and
piety. detachment.
 Notions of God: Attributes;
Relation to Man and the World (Indian and Western)

Concept of God
"God" is the name religions give to the supreme deity of the monotheistic worldview. A
distinction can be made however between the God of Religion, the God of Philosophy, and the
God of Mysticism

God of Religion God of Philosophy God of Mysticism

 Based on numinous  Based on intellectual  Based on mystical or
speculation allied with Yogic experience
belief
 Personal and  Abstract  Transpersonal and
anthropomorphic ineffable
 Dualistic  Dualistic  Monistic

The god of religion

Most religions explain the meaning of existence and the origin of the universe in terms of a
supernatural being which they call called "God". ―God" is usually thought of as a sort of person
up in "heaven", who creates the entire universe and all beings in it out of nothing, and then
reveals Himself to humankind through a sort of cosmic rule-book, a Bible or whatever.
Whoever follows the dictates of this rule-book is rewarded with heaven or Eternal Life, but
whoever doesn't goes to hell or eternal damnation.

Of course, since there are many religions, each with its own sacred scripture, it follows that each
believer will assert that only their religion is true, and all of the others are either inferior truths
or completely false. From this attitude there come about all sorts of holy wars, crusades,
inquisitions, persecutions, and proslytising, that go hand in hand with religion.

Nowadays the big enemy of religion is the ‗findings of science. The discoveries of science
concerning the universe are so vast and amazing that they threaten the little box that believers
of fundamentalistic religions keep their minds in. These believers then feel compelled to create a
science of their own; i.e. they construct their own paradigm. This is what's called Creation
Science which is actually a pseudo- science.
The God of Philosophy
The god philosophers is a much more abstract principle: e.g. an abstract First Cause, or original
spirit, or whatever. It developed from medieval Christian theologians who were seeking to
supplement faith with reason. A lot of the arguments are pretty irrelevant - e.g. God is that next
to which nothing higher can be postulated. So the God of Philosophers is often so abstract as to
be meaningless, just as the God of religion is so petty as to be ridiculous.

The God of Mysticism

Many forms of mysticism, especially theistic mysticism (e.g. Sufism, Christian mysticism, etc)
retain a conception of God, but see that entity as something ultimately non-different from
themselves. The ultimate goal of the mystic path therefore is "union with God". These mystical
teachings have, in addition to, or as another aspect of, the personal God, an impersonal
"abstract" Ultimate Reality. Unlike the ―God of philosophy", this is not an unknowable
principle, but rather 0ne's own innermost Self (or "not-Self‖ as the case may be). This conception
has been more clearly and prominently articulated in the great religio-spiritual traditions of
India, but is also to be found in the "Western" and "Middle Eastern".

Relation of God and World

One of the major issues that has been discussed ever since man found his feet is the problem of
the relation between God and the world. To accept God as the first or the primary cause of the
world, for example, makes it necessary to presume that the materials with which the world is
made exist outside God. This, in turn, leads to the difficulty of a duality between God and the
materials of the universe, and the necessity of establishing some meaningful relation between
the two.

lf God is believed to be the material cause of the world responsible for creating the world out of
his own self, then he become subject to the difficulty of assimilation within himself such
elements as the physical nature of the world, lack of harmony, absence of uniformity etc. The
problem of duality will arise again if God is believed to exist outside the world, while the notion
of his omnipresence is open to objections having their orign in the world of religion where he
must assume the form of a person in order to be able to answer prayer and reward, faith and
devotion. Philosophers have turned their thought to the various alternatives that can be
possible, and have to evolve a theory which can finally satisfy all the demands that can be made
upon it.

Religious philosophy gives philosophical analyses of religious concepts and to interpret them
in the existential mode of thinking. Both of these modern currents of thought are anti-
metaphysics. However, the long tradition of religious philosophy in the west has been
predominantly metaphysical.

The metaphysical classification of religion is broadly done on the basis of the relation in which
God stands to the world. There are four main metaphysical theories: Deism, pantheism,
panentheism and theism.

All assume the existence of one God as an adequate object of worship. However, they differ
from one another with regard to the relation in which God stands to the world.

Deism
Deism rose as a philosophical form of theism that used reason as its source of knowledge of
God. Deism held that God caused the universe but did not interfere thereafter. Prayer and
miracles were deemed unnecessary because of God‘s superior engineering.

Deism is a relatively new school of thought when compared with others. It was the
predominant religious philosophy of British thinking.

In genera], according to deism, God is perfect, in finite, eterna.l,_or'm1ipotent_, omniscient,

personal and the absolute reality.

 As God is perfect, so he has created this world as a perfect machine. As the machine,
being perfect requires no supervision, so God has retired from the world as an absentee
landlord.

 God has-created man with freewill and has endowed him with the natural light of
reason by virtue of which he can determine his moral duties.

 Deism maintains the following points and attributes following characterizes to God :

i. Transcendence
God is transcendent to the world and as such has no logical relations with the on-
goings of the world. The world has been created in the form of a perfect machine, so,
it does not require any divine supervision and interference. So consistently speaking
―miracles‖ cannot be allowed.

Implications of characteristics of transcendence:

 a) Hidden God: God being transcendent and having no concern with men ‗and
their affairs, remains essentially a ‗hidden God‘. This renders God an object
beyond worship and knowledge of man.

b) Dualism: God and world are mutually exclusive to each other as God is
transcendent. The world becomes dependent on God in the sense of being
created. This kind of dualism is found in Descartes

The notion of transcendence is fairly important in Christian theology. St. Thomas

Aquinas have specially emphasized the transcendence of God in his theology.

ii. Absentee landlord

God has been pictured as an absentee landlord.

iii. Personality and problems

Transcendence of God makes him unworthy of worship, so to remove this anomaly
deism ascribes personality to God But the very nature of personality is that it tends
to make god finite and not in finite. This introduces inner struggle between the in
finitude of God and his personality.

iv. Role of ‘Reason’ and Revelation

The great force of deism lies in its acceptance of a natural light in man which alone is
taken as the sole authority for deciding things in morality and religion. It, therefore,
denies the place of revelation in religion. Fundamentally it is a religious theory of
enlightenment.

Problem: God being transcendent, the need of revelation comes by the backdoor. If
God be transcendent, then by implication he becomes unknowable. Therefore,
revelation has to be accepted to make transcendent God intelligible and known to
human beings.

However revelation does not fully solve the problem. If God in unknowable, then
there is no justification for how revelation can make unknowable intelligible
Deism and Science
The insistence of deism on the natural light of reason puri fied religion by banishing many
superstitions which had crept into religious beliefs. It also succeeded in holding a truce between
religion and science by allowing science unfettered freedom in its rational pursuits. According
to deism, the whole universe has been created by an infinite intellect and as such it is fully
intelligible to human reason and what it reveals is sacred.

The Insistence on the light of reason as the final court of appeal in matters of God and morality
in due course paved the way for rationalism, scientism, enlightenment-and humanism.

It appears now that deism was truce with science at the cost of religion.

Problems

1. Creation
Deism accepts that God created the world. Deism has not been able to satisfactorily
answer any question that follows:
 What was the purpose of God creating the world ?
 How did the God create it? Out of himself or pre-existing matter?
 Did God create the world in void time or did he create time along with the
world?

2. Problem of Evil
3. Only a concept of God

Deism claims to be wholly rationalistic. But a purely rational system errs in religious
philosophy. A fully understood God is no god at all. It only becomes a mere concept of
human intellect.

Pantheism (pan=all, theos = God)

Literally, pantheism means seeing all things in_ God and God in all. Gita says ―The one who
sees me everywhere and he who sees all in Me, I am never lost to him, and he is never lost to
me‖.

Unlike deism, pantheism is a much older system of thought and is clearly stated in both east
and west and is closely related to mystic experience and as such should not be treated as a mere
intellectual system.
Type of pantheism

 Impersonal (Spinoza, Samkarite Vedanta)

 Super-personal (Bradley, Radhakrishnan and other idealists)
 Personal (Su fism and Christian mysticism)

Key concept of pantheism

1. Immanence:
Just as transcendence is the key concept in deism, so in like manner immanence is the key
concept in pantheism. The term ‗immanence‘ means that which occupies every fibre of the
thing in which it is immanent.

Immanence does not mean omnipresence (as is the case with big brother)
Immanence means indwellingness and all-pervasiveness, without being transcendent at
the same time. Further clarifying the point

(i) The immanent God may be the vitalizing, sustaining; molding and indwelling
power of the world in the same sense in which the indwelling vital impetus in the
egg is the hormic principle within it by virtue of which the egg is transformed into a
chick

Spinoza‘s notion of natura naturans gives this form of immanentism

(ii) Immanence also means that God is the primordial stuff out of which everything
comes and of which everything is the modification.

Spinoza‘s notion of Natura Naturata explains this kind of immanentism.

According to Spinoza, the sum total of all that exists is God and so he equated the
world with God and God with the world.

It is to clarified t in religious pantheism there is no room for naturalism (in which

God is swallowed in the world). Though Spinoza equated God with nature, but in
his case nature ceases to be nature and appears divine, an object of ―amor
intellectuals die‖.
2. Intellectual love of Pantheism
The intellectual love of God is neither se fish nor unselfish, but is totally selfless. It is much
more than‘ the unconscious and the instinctive love of the moth for the fire. It is the love
which does not require to be reciprocated and recompensed. Such a love is fully compatible
with the impersonality nature of the absolute reality. It may be likened to the Buddhist
compassion for the whole world.

The all pervasive absolute reality of the world may be impersonal, but it is calculated to
inspire and imbue pantheist with the spirit of commitment for a life of universal,
unreciprocated love.

For Samkara too, Brahman is much more than what happens on the surface. It consists in
reaching a state of mind in which the narrow boundary of one‘s ego is lost and dissolved in
the process of expansion and stretching forth of the whole personality. Samkarite
pantheism asks us to go beyond customary morality of good and evil and to make this life a
thing of supreme value through the process of expansion.

3. Open morality: discussed later

Objections against Pantheism

1. In pantheism god is all and all is God. If God is all, then this world (all) becomes
illusory. But this world is our starting premise. ‗If the starting premise is illusory then
the conclusion (either c0ncerning'Brahman or substance of Spinoza) is equally illusory.

2. Unworshipful God: It is maintained that pantheism cannot be a consistent religious

philosophy, for it cannot have any room for worship. In order to worship deity, the
deity has to he distinct from the worshipper, that is, it should be transcendent to the
worshipper.
In pantheism, the deity is the immanent principle of the worshipper: the deity and the
worshipper ' coalesce. So no worship is possible.

3. Freedom of will: It is contended that in pantheism there is no room for individuals

freedom of will. God is taken to be the indwelling spirit which _rolls through all things
and make even the most ~ inner most decrees of man. If there is no real freedom, then
there is no true morality.

4. Further, it is contended that pantheism is not capable of sustaining the fire of religious
devotion and experience.
The objections made against pantheism are pointless, but are not valueless. They serve to
deepen and clarify our notion of religion

1. For a theist, God has to be transcendent to be worshipful. But the problem of

unworshipfulness of a transcendent God has been seen in deism

2. Worshipfulness is not the only form of becoming religious. In the Nirvanist form of
religion one realizes the immanent and indwelling reality through meditation or
Samadhi. So here meditation takes the place of worship

3. Open morality v/s closed morality: Theism preaches ‗closed morality‘ no matter
however enlightened it may be. As John Dewey says, the distinction of goat and sheep
is essential for any super natural form of theism.

On the other hand, pantheism teaches ‗open morality , which teaches duties and
obligations not only to human beings, but also to the Sun and the Moon and to all
things. In pantheism morality is not desired, it is purged of its grosser elements and
narrowness.

Personalistic pantheism Mystic theism

Consistently speaking pantheism can only be impersonal, since no personal God can be said to
be the indwelling spirit of the world. Nor can God said to be the ultimate stuff which underlines
all things. But pantheism is closely allied to mysticsm which contains religious experience in its
most concentrated form. In the mystic trance all things may appear permeated and pervaded by
a personal god.

―Saint Tulsidas sees the whole world impregnated with Rama and Sita.

Other mystic theists (Muslims and Christians) have declared that in mystic trance only god is
expressed as the only one essence of everything. In the words of Ghazali, the mystic becomes so
much engrossed in the beloved that he perceives nothing else.

Existential difference between God and mystic

The theistic mystic remains existentially distinct from God. The state of self absorption is more
psychological than ontological. The mystic is conscious of god only. It is the state of ‗fana‘, the
experience of oceanic feeling as Freud described it. It is a state in which the entire personality of
mystic is overwhelmed and overcome by the majesty of the Most High, but is not annihilated.
 Monotheism

Monotheism

Theism is that form of religious belief in which god is taken to be a supernatural person and
creator of a value evolving world. God is transcendent as ‗well as it is immanent principle.

Difference between theism and monotheism

In theism, there is a supreme personal god. But he may not be absolute.

For example, in Indian system ‗of thought, Isvara is the supreme god who created this value-
evolving world, but he is not the absolute. Above Isvara, there is a higher reality of Nirguna
Brahman.

In the west, theism assumes the form of monotheism in which the worship of any other gods
except one is considered aberrant. It leads to objectivist/exclusivist truth of God.

For theism, God is both a person and is also an in finite being who necessarily exists

Difference between deism and theism

Deism `Theism
 God is both transcendent d an immanent
1  God is transcendent
 Personal god is supreme but may not be
2  One absolute God absolute
 God is the creator of value evolving world
3  God-creator of a perfect world
as in a perfect machine
 God sustaining power of the world
4  God-no logical relation with the
world-absentee landlord
 Worship central to theism
5  Consistently, worship of god in
not possible
 Reason, faith, experience, revelation — all forms
6  Ultimate court of appeal is basis of our belief and understanding
reason
PANENTHEISM

This theory explains the relation between God and the world by presuming that God is the first
as well as the material cause of the world. It states that the world exists in God but it is not
identical with God. Put differently, it means that the world is a pan of God, having no
independent existence of its own, apart from God. God, on the other hand, is not limited either
to or by the world since He is much more than the world. Just as a poet creates a number of
poems out of his own consciousness but does not exhaust his complete being in doing so, God
also makes the world out of his own self but remains much more than the world beyond and
above it. The world does not exhaust the creativity of God.

Panentheism believes that God is the highest personality, the creator, supporter and defender of
the world. He is the highest personality in spite of His being in finite, without beginning, and
omnipresent. He permeates the world and yet is above it. He is omnipresent in the world as its
material cause and ‗above it in the form of its first cause.

Hegel’s theory: is one example of panentheistic theory as part of the western philosophic
tradition. Hegel theorizes that it is in God‘s nature to ensure such an existence. God is
omnipresent in the world, yet at the same time He is absolute, perfect and transcendental.

Criticism of Panentheism

From the philosophic standpoint panentheism is open to the following objection

1. Difficulties of panentheism
Although panentheism treats God as transcendental, difficulties can be found with its
conception of God who also permeates the world. All these difficulties are common to
both this theory and pantheism. To recount but one or two, such a system denies the
possibility of freedom of will and God inherits all the evils of the world. This theory, too,
is defeatist and dogmatic. It does not satisfy man‘s moral conscience.

2. Religious difficulties
Panentheism also does not invest of his religious labour. Such a God cannot be the object
of devotion and love. Some philosophers who adhere to this theory have tried to argue
that the world is false and that God possesses two forms, one devoid of qualities and the
other with all the requisite qualities that will satisfy moral and religious requirements.
But any such suggestion immediately invites questions regarding the relationbetween
the qualitative and the unqualified, the transcendental and the worldly.
Relation of God & world: Analysis

The philosophical analysis of religious concepts and its interpretation in the existential mode of
thinking reveals the relationship which god stands to the worlds. There are mainly three
metaphysical theories of religion namely Deism, pantheism and theism which elucidate this.

 Deism has been the predominant religious philosophy of British countries.

The God of deism is perfect, in finite eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, personal and the
absolute reality. God has created this world as _a perfect machine and retired from it as
an absentee landlord. The God of deism is transcendent to the world and as such has no
logical relationship with the on goings of the world. Being transcendent, God and world
become mutually exclusive. The dualism of Descartes with respect to God and world is
seen in this theory. God and world are two realities in which the world in the sense of
being created, is dependent on God.

The world as created by a perfect God is also perfect, wholly rational and fully
intelligible. Its intricate workings can be known through reason to finite intelligence like
humans. Nature can be known in terms of natural causes only and there is no room for
super natural agency and miracles, and what it reveals is sacred.

 In Pantheism, God and world become one with each other. Pan means all, theos means
God, so it entails seeing all thing in God and God in all things. ―He who sees me
everywhere and he who sees all in me, I am never lost to him, and he is never lost to
me‖

Just as God in transcendent in deism, God becomes immanent in pantheism. God

occupies every fibre of our reality. From inanimate stone to animate humans, God is
everywhere. God is imminent in this world in two ways.

Firstly, God is the vitalizing, sustaining, moulding and indwelling power of the world
in the same sense in which the indwelling vital impetus in the egg is the hormic
principle within it by virtue of which egg is transformed into a chick. It is akin to
Spinoza‘s notion of natura naturans.

Secondly, God is the primordial stuff of which everything is the modification .It is
similar to Spinoza‘s notion of natura naturata.
The non-dualistic Vedanta also speaks of everything as the modification of the one
reality in the same Way in which the earth is the one underlying reality behind all pots
of clay. Everything divested of its name and form is nothing but brahman or absolute
reality.

However, this world when taken as modification of the primordial god or pro filer of
Brahman is illusory with its varied modifications, names and forms. The things of the
world with their names and form are illusory, according to Samkara and they are said
to be ever-vanishing waves that never are, according to Spinoza.

Further elucidating the point of advaita vedanta, the space-time world with is
distinctions between times, places, events is consequently unreal. Real causal relations
are relations between two real things so Brahman is nether the cause of the space time
world as a whole nor of the events -in it, and is thus neither the space time wor1d‘s
creator nor its ruler.

The relationship between God and world is also vividly shown in vishishtadvaita of
Ramanuja. For Ramanuja, God is related to the world as soul is related to the body.
According to Ramanuja, bodies are absolutely dependent upon their souls. Bodies are
ontologically and epistemologically dependent on souls. The world as God‘s body is
wholly and completely dependent on God. God is the creator, destroyer, sustainer and
controller of the world, however God does not need the world. God is the soul of world,
God is the soul of nature.

The world depends on God for its being as well as qualities. The relationship in termed
as aprathaksiddhi i.e relation of inner inseparability. It is an inner, inseparable, vital and
organic relation. God is both material and instrumental cause‗-of the world. He is the
immanent and transcendent ground of the world. He is immanent in the whole world
as its inner controller and yet in his essence the transcends the world.

In theism, God is both transcendent and immanent to the w0r1d_ God is a super
natural person and creator of a value - evolving world. God creates, sustains, and
governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and its qualities. While the
world is affected by God, God in not affected by it.
FIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF GOD

1. Necessity — the property of existing necessarily.

2. Omnipotence — the property of being perfect in power.
3. Omniscience - the property of being perfect in knowledge.
4. Eternity — the property of having neither beginning nor end.
5. Immutability —‗the property of being changelessness

1. Necessity
In Western philosophical theology, God is conceived of as a necessarily existent being.To
exist as a necessary being has meant that the being‘s existence does not depend on
anything, or anyone; it is self-existent (the Latin term is ―a se‖, by itself). A necessary being
can be contrasted with a contingent being. A contingent ' being is a being that might not
exist; if such a being does exist, it could well not have done so. In addition, a contingent
being‘s existence is dependent on something else; it is not self-existent.

From a Western perspective, when we examine the world we find that it is filled with
contingent beings. Whether we look at the very small (the particle world of quarks and
gluons, for example), or the very large (planets, stars, and galaxies), or things in between
(such as plants, pandas, and people), everything we find is contingent. There are-different
ways of understanding God‘s existence as being necessary. For example, some philosophers
argue for God‘s factual necessity. On this view; since God does exist, he could not have
come into existence and he can never cease to exist. But there is another way of
understanding God‘s existence being necessary, namely that God‘s existence is logically
necessary. If a proposition is logically necessary, then, it is impossible for it to be false, and
it is true in every possible world. If God‘s existence is logically necessary, then it is true in
every possible world that God exists, and it is logically impossible for God not to exist. Just
as it is logically impossible for five plus five to equal twelve, so too it would be logically
impossible for God not to exist.

But is God‘s existence logically necessary? Some philosophers have thought so, but many
have also disagreed. Immanuel Kant, for example, has gone so far as to claim that there are
no logically necessary propositions which include existence. But a number of responses
have been offered to Kant‘s objection (and to other related objections), and in the past few
decades the belief that ‘God‘s existence is logically necessary has become respectable once
again.
2. Omnipotence
Another property typically attributed to God is omnipotence - from the Latin omnis (all),
and potens (powerful)) which is the property of being perfect in power. But what does it
mean to be perfect in power? Philosophers throughout .the ages have struggled with this
question. Even the great Christian theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas labored with
this one: ―[even though] all confess that God is omnipotent it seems difficult to explain in
what His omnipotence precisely consists.

―A common understanding of omnipotence is that he can do anything whatsoever. God can

create a world; God can answer prayer; God _can do miracles; and so forth. But can God
really do anything? What about creating square circles or married bachelors? What about
existing and not existing simultaneously? What about sinning — can God sin? A few
philosophers have thought that absolutely nothing can limit God‘s power. Philosopher
René Descartes (1596-1650), for example, maintained that God is not limited by anything,
including the laws of logic or mathematics. For Descartes, God could make it true that some
object P both exists and does not exist at the same time, or that two plus two equals five.

Most philosophers have not agreed with Descartes on this point and have qualified the
claim ―God can do anything whatsoever‖ with a nuanced one such as ―God can do
anything that is logically possible‖ or ―God possesses every power which it is logically
possible to possess.‖ Something is logically possible if it does not violate the basic laws of
logic, such as the law of non-contradiction (which is that a proposition and its opposite
cannot both be true). One representative of this view is Richard Swinburne, and he
expresses the point this way:

A logically impossible action is not an action. It is what is described by a form of words

which purport to describe an action, but do not describe anything which it is coherent to
suppose could be done. It is no objection to A‘s omnipotence that he cannot make a square
circle. This is because ―making a square circle‖ does not describe anything which it is
coherent to suppose could be done.

A While defenders of Descartes‘ view might be unconvinced by rational argumentation

against the claim that God is not limited by logic, they certainly could not argue the point
on rational or logical grounds. To do so would be self-contradictory and thus incoherent.
Furthermore, if God could perform logically contradictory actions, this would seem to have
troubling moral consequences. For example, God could break his promises or lie. Most
theists are reticent to affirm that God can perform such immoral actions.

Given the belief that God cannot perform certain actions (neither immoral ones nor
logically impossible ones, for example), many theists have held to the traditional,
Anselmian view of omnipotence as meaning perfect power rather than absolute power. On
 this view, mere power itself is not praiseworthy, but perfect or excellent power is. Since it is
no perfect power to be able to break promises, or lie, or violate contradictions, even though
these actions cannot be performed by God, God is nonetheless omnipotent.

3. Omniscience
Historically, it has been held by most theologians that God is omniscient — from the Latin
omnis (all), and sciens (knowledge). The meaning of omniscience has been widely debated,
but one prominent historical view is that God is completely perfect in knowledge. On this
historical view, being omniscient means knowing all things that are proper objects of
knowledge, and since only true propositions are proper objects of knowledge (only true
propositions can be known), God knows all true propositions. Thus, God‘s knowledge
includes every event, whether past, present, or future.

But there have been challenges to this traditional understanding of omniscience. In recent
times, one challenge has arisen from an analysis of the concepts of divine foreknowledge
and human free will. If we have free will in a certain sense (what‘s called ―libertarian‖ free
will), then there are future contingent events - future events which do not have to happen.
Some philosophers who believe that there are future contingent events argue that since they
do not yet exist, and since they do have to happen, they cannot be known — even by an
omniscient being. Open Theists, for example, argue that God does not know future
contingencies. Nevertheless, they maintain, God is still omniscient, for he knows everything
that can be known; he knows all past and present events and all future events which are
determinately based on past and present ones or can be inferred from them.

Other philosophers argue that God can have knowledge of future contingent events. The
means by which God could acquire such knowledge remains largely unanswered, but one
approach has been to hypothesize two different models of divine cognition: a perceptualist
model and a conceptualist model. On the perceptualist model, a sense perception analogy is
used to describe God‘s knowledge in which -God ―sees‖ or ―perceives‖ the past, or present,
or future. On this account, if God is in time (another debatable issue, as we will see below),
he could not know the future since there is no existent future for God to see or perceive. On
the conceptualist model, however, God does not acquire knowledge in this perception like
manner. Rather, God‘s knowledge is self-contained, analogous to the notion of innate ideas
in human minds. God simply knows all things - past, present, and future - innately.

4. Eternity
Theists are virtually unanimous in affirming that God exists eternally - that God has neither
beginning nor end. But the unanimity ends when attempting to de fine ―eternal.‖ What
does it mean to be eternal? And what is God‘s relationship to time and the temporal
universe‗? We can delineate several prominent positions:
i. Timeless:
On one position, God exists outside of time; God has neither temporal extension nor
temporal location — no before, during, or after. This position was held by most of
the great classical Christian thinkers such as Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and
Aquinas, and it has contemporary adherents as well. There are a number of reasons
why many of the great theistic thinkers have held to this view of timelessness, not
the least of which is that it seems to solve the problem of God‘s foreknowledge and
human (or agent) free will. Since God is a temporal, he does not in fact foreknow
events; he simply knows all events timelessly, including the actions of free agents.

Another reason offered for affirming timelessness is this. If God is a most perfect
being, as the theistic traditions affirm, then it seems evident that God would have
the most perfect mode of existence. Intuitively, it also seems that a perfect mode of
existence would be timeless rather than temporal. A temporal being, for example,
would be moving along with the passage of time and so would not be able to
experience all of life at once the way a timeless being would. On the temporal view,
there are episodes of God‘s life which are gone, lost forever — only retrievable by
God‘s memory. Such a transitory, temporal life is not compatible with the life of
god, argue defenders of the timelessness doctrine, for even a very great memory is
something much less than a present reality.

Another argument in support of timelessness is based on relativity theory.

According to the theory, time and space are conjoined; one does not exist without
the other. Now most theists believe that God is non-spatial. If this is the case, then
to be consistent with relativity theory one would need to believe that God is non-
temporal (or atemporal) as well.

A number of attacks have been leveled against timelessness in recent decades. One
objection is that timelessness would restrict God‘s knowledge to timeless truths
only, such as ―two plus two equals four.‖ Suppose, for example, that it is 7:00 p.m.
and I just now finished eating dinner. God could not know that I ―just now‖
finished eating dinner, for there is no ―just now‖ for a timeless being. All ―nows‖
are eternally present to such a being. On this view, it seems, God could never even
know what time it is.

Another objection to the timelessness view is that it appears to contradict the

scriptural teachings of the monotheistic religions. The narratives of the Hebrew
Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur‘an all point to God‘s having a history in
which God acts, and these actions include temporal reference. God did create the
 world; God is sustaining the world; God will judge the world; and so on. If God is
acting in time as the traditions teach, the objection goes, then God must be in time.

ii. Everlasting :
This is the view that God has neither beginning nor end, yet God is temporally
extended; God exists forever in time. There are a variety of reasons put forth for
God‘s being everlasting besides those raised above to objections of timelessness.~
One argument runs this way: according to the narrative of the scriptures, God is
actively involved in the world. Being actively involved in the world has meant that
God has a history with the world — a history of performing _a succession of events,
including speaking to and interacting with others in the world. But in .order to have
a history of this sort means that God stands in certain temporal relations to the
world. So, God must be temporal. It is also argued that this view is philosophically
simpler, clearer and devoid of the glaring difficulties raised against timelessness.
Many of the objections to timelessness such as those mentioned above can, in fact,
be used as arguments for the everlasting view. Objections to the everlasting view
include those reasons noted above for affirming timelessness: solving the problem
of God‘s foreknowledge and human freedom, and timelessness being the most
perfect mode of existence.

iii. Eternal and temporal: This is the view that God did exist without temporal
duration, but at the creation of the universe God was drawn into temporal relations.
There are a growing number of philosophers who affirm some form of this view,
and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has published more on the topic
than anyone. He maintains that the scriptural support for .God‘s relation to time is
indecisive - supporting both the timelessness and the temporal views. He also
believes that there are good theological and philosophical reasons for affirming
both timelessness and divine temporality. So, rather than holding to one at the
exclusion of the other, he argues ―for a third way — a both/and position. God is
timeless without the created world, but God becomes temporal with the creation.

There are a number of objections to this view including, of course, each of the
objections noted above to the first two views. One objection particular to this view
is that it is incoherent. God cannot be fully timeless, the objection goes, for God was
capable of changing even in the alleged timeless state. Indeed God did change, at
least relationally, at the moment of creation. Since time and change are necessarily
intertwined, there cannot be one without the other. Thus since God did change,
God cannot be (could not have been) fully timeless.
5. Immutability –
The traditional doctrine of divine immutability is that God has the property of being
intrinsically changeless; it is logically impossible for God to change in his intrinsic qualities.
One argument for the view is based on God‘s being absolutely perfect. Whatever is
absolutely perfect cannot change, for to change is to become better or worse. Since God is
an absolutely perfect being, it is not possible for God to change.

Thus God is immutable

God is not extrinsically changeless. For example, after the act of creation, God had a relation
to the creation which God lacked prior to the creation. But the real issue is whether God has
intrinsic changes — changes the very nature of God. Some recent Christian and Jewish
thinkers argue that intrinsic changes lie at the very core of G0d‘s being. For these thinkers,
God is not a substance, as traditionally held, but is involved within the spatiotemporal
world as an active participant - a process which is at work in and beyond the world. This is
panentheism. Process philosophers, as they are called, also maintain that many of the
historic attributes, which they believe are derived from ancient pagan Greek philosophy
rather than scripture, cannot be rendered plausible because of intractable philosophical
objections. One of these attributes is immutability. Process thinker Charles Hartshorne
(1897—2000; pronounced ―Harts-home‖) makes the following point:

The traditional objection to divine change was that if a being were already perfect, meaning
that nothing better was possible, then change for the better must be impossible for the
being. The unnoticed assumption here has been (for two thousand and more years) that it
makes sense to think of a value so great or marvelous that it could in no sense whatever be
excelled or surpassed. How do we know that this even makes sense? In my view it does not
and is either a contradiction or mere nonsense.

Hartshorne and other process philosophers argue that God is not a static being, but divine
becoming. While the abstract qualities of God, such as goodness and wisdom, are stable,
God is changeable and evolves as the world does. God grows in experiencing new joys, in
acquiring new knowledge of real events, and in experiencing the values created over time
by free agents in the world. There are a number of other divine attributes which could be
explored as well, including simplicity, incorporeality, omnipresence, divine action, and
impassibility. But the five described above provide at least a sketch of some of the
discussions in philosophical theology involving the nature and attributes of God.
 Proofs for the Existence of God and their
Critique (Indian and Western)
Almost from the beginning one of the most discussed issue is the existence of God.
Philosophers has tried to prove his existence by various proof but equal number of
philosophers have refuted their reasoning as a matter of common faith. It can be said
that God‘s existence is infinite and hence he cannot be the subject of a limited
intelligence or mind but men‘s intelligence refuses to give up this unequal struggle.

God is not the subject of sensory experience and is in a sense extra-sensory

experience q, a fact which is forgotten by all who wants have sensory proof of his
existence who actually do not realize that it is fundamentally different from of physical
object.

Infact various arguments and proof offered for the existence of God vary with the levels

For eg

 A mental idea cannot be exhibited in the same manner in which a material

object can be.

 Arguments preceding from feelings do not take the form of objects but only
activity.

For the religious person the existence of God pose no problem because it is self-
proved, on the other hand atheist is little concerned whether God exist or not. Then
who is keen to prove that God does or does not exist.

Actually it is true of man‘s nature that he likes to have logical confirmation of his
beliefs even if the beliefs have a psychological basis. lt is this element in Man‘s nature
which has compelled the philosopher to find logical proofs for the existence of God
who provides the base of religious faith

At the same time philosopher rejected and defected the argument favoring the
existence of God. A belief which cannot be supported by argument is treated as blind
faith. Consequently philosopher have found it necessary to boost up their faith in God
with logical arguments in order to avoid undermining their estimation and faith. ‗

Hence as one of the thinker has said, all proofs that God exist are pleas put forward in
justification of one faith and of the particular way in which are feel that use Must
apprehend this highest principle.
Proofs for the existence of God
Proof may be either deductive or inductive.

(a) Deductive proof

It is best exemplified in a syllogism or mathematical reasoning. In both of them
the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises However, this necessity is
only logical.

The mathematical reasoning is purely a priori and consists in a consistent use of

stipulated definitions of symbols. Naturally such a reasoning does not refer to any
actual states of affairs. Such a necessity pertains to either tautologies or
consistent use of words only. Hence, if we could establish a conclusion either
syllogistically or mathematically, then this would have relevance with regard to
words or definitions along and will not have any relevance with regard to facts.

Hence, if we could deductively prove the existence of God, then this conclusion
will remain valid with regard to ‗God‘ as a word or a stipulated definition of the
tern ‗God‘. But this will not establish the fact of God‘s existence of a personal
Being.

If the existence of a personal God cannot be established deductively, then this

cannot be done inductively either

(b) Inductive Proof

It starts from something observable and finally also applies to observables. But
God is not an observable entity even in principle. The reason is that a God to be
worshipful must be infinite and of surpassing excellence. However, an observable
infinite and of surpassing excellence. However, an observable object can be
limited to a certain span of space and time. Naturally a God who can be sensed or
observed is not an infinite God of religion. Such an observable God becomes an
idol. If it is so, then no inductive proof for the existence of an infinite and a
personal God can be given.

Further, if somehow we could proceed from the observable to the infinite God,
then how can we establish a conclusion with regard to the existence, of an infinite
God from finite data? We shall find that according to the Cosmological Proof the
world is contingent and God is a necessary Being. How can we prove the existence
of a Necessary Being from the observed contingency of the world? The same
difficulty will be raised in relation to the teleological proof for the existence of God.
Of course, in the long history of religious thought many expedients have been
devised.
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of those religious giants who did smell the
difficulty of proving an infinite God from finite data. For obviating this difficulty St.
Thomas Aquinas advanced the doctrine of analogia entis, according to which things
pertaining to God can be established on the analogy of excellence found in finite
things. In the estimate of competent thinkers the expedient of analogi aentis has
demonstrated more the difficulty of proving an-infinite God from finite premises than
solving it.

Existentialist thought on proof

In recent years some powerful existential thinkers like Martin Buber (the late Jewish
theologian) and Paul Tillich have shown that the world of our daily observation and
science, being finite, ex-hypothesis does not contain God. Consequently no amount of
observation of this world can yield any conclusion concerning God, either deductjvely
or inductively.

Difficulty in proving the existence of God

The difficulty of proving God was raised by Kierkegaard in the form of a dilemma. And
this dilemma holds still for anybody who wants to prove the existence of God:

 The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could
scarcely suggest itself to the Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course
be impossible to prove it and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it.

The real strength of the dilemma lies in the fact that God exists only for the believer.
And for becoming a believer a change in the person is necessary. The unbelieving eye
cannot discuss God. The arguments do not establish the factuality of God directly. But
they do this indirectly. They persuade the unbeliever to change his viewpoint; they
help the philosophers to have an insight into the nature and aims of religious thinking
and arguments. The so-called proofs‘ are in reality pleas for invoking-evoking religious
bliks and attitudes.

Why there can be no experiential proof for God‘s existence

following inductive proof
Joshua on Mt. Carmel did try to establish the existence of Yahweh on the basis of an
observable experiment .Then even in Psalms we find the statement.--O taste and see
that the Lord is good‘.

But proving ‗the invisible things‘ of God by the created things of the world does not do
full justice to the religious situation.
Arguments
Ontological argument is the most important argument and is the nerve of all other
arguments. The other arguments like cosmological, teleological and moral support and
supplement the conclusion of ontological argument.

The main contention of ontological argument is that existence is the very essence
(ontos) of the idea of God. This argument is a—priori since from the mere analysis of
the idea of God or idea of perfect being, we are deducing existence. But, it being a-
priori cannot establish any fact. Hence, to remove this defect, many other arguments
were put forward like

1. Cosmological argument: It holds that world is contingent and the

contingent implies a necessary ground of the world. The idea of necessary implies its
existence. Hence, it repeats ontological argument by adding further step. ‗But, the
contingency of the world is the most abstract quality of the worldly things and can
hardly be claimed to be sensible.

2. Teleological argument: To remove the defect of cosmological argument

teleological argument has been advanced. It is based on the experienced quality of
order and harmony present everywhere in the world. Here also it v is assumed that
harmony in nature is contingent. From the contingency of infinitely complex harmony,
the necessity of designer is concluded. And again the idea of a necessary designer
implies the existence of such a designer.

3 Moral arguments: only adds the contingency of moral existence to the

presence of designer in nature. It is based on the most palpably felt experience of man.

Hence, empty content of ontological argument is progressively filled up by the

cosmological, teleological and moral argument. Ultimately, all arguments rest on the
efficiency of ontological arguments according to which idea of God carries, its own
existence as the very implication of the idea.

Ontological argument
The root of the argument is found in Plato (427-347 B.C.) and later on, more or less, in
an explicit form it is found in the writings of St. Augustine (354-430A.D.)

In Plato, the ‗ideas‘ were considered to be more important, more valuable and
fundamental than the existing things. Further the idea of the Good, which for Plato is
nothing less than God, was the supreme principle of reality that drew all things unto
itself. Naturally, the idea of the Perfect Being carried with it its own self-validation and
reality. For Plato, ‗existence‘ was of not much value. However, for him, ‗essence‘ was of
greater worth than ‗existence‘ and in this sense he would maintain the spirit of the
Ontological argument

But this argument was most clearly stated by Anselm (1033-1109). Later on it was re-
stated by Rene Descares (1596-1650). This argument was also accepted by G.F.
Leibniz (1646-1716), by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831).However, there have been powerful
opponents of the Ontological argument as well, namely, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274) and I. Kant (1724-1804). In contemporary religious philosophy the Ontological
argument has been keenly debated by Prof. A.J. Ayer.

St. Anselm argument:

Anselm took recourse to the proof with a view to strengthening his faith and justifying
one‘s belief in God. For him faith is a necessary precondition of understanding God.
For he says that— ―For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe
that I may understand‖

Saint Anslem, the medieval philosopher, was the first to propound the ontological
argument to prove the existence of God. (This argument was further taken up" by
philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, etc. Anslem‘ s argument is

1. God is an object of worship and to be worshipful, God must be the highest or

greater than whom' nothing can be conceived.

2. Existence is a state of the highest perfection or excellence. Hence, existence is a

predicate or quality like omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, etc.

3. God is necessary existent. Hence, non-existence of God cannot be thought of.

Therefore, necessary existence of God is contained in the very notion of being greater
than whom nothing can be conceived.

According to Anselm, ‗existence‘ is some quality. Anselm is trying to justify his faith in
God. His God is an object worthy of worship, i.e. to whom the entire personality is
unreservedly surrendered whose service is considered the highest freedom through
commitment to whom the worshipper realizes his authentic being. Quite naturally
such a Being cannot be imagined not to exist even for a moment.

The necessary existence of God is a matter of deciding to be an authentic self.

The necessity of God‘s existence is not ―a matter of logical necessity, but it expresses
the involvement of the total personality---it Is the cry of the whole man, the highest
crescendo of the chorus, ‗God exists, hallelujah; God exists, hallelujah‘ .Thus belief,
commitment and self-involvement spell out the real significance of the ontological
argument.

Even Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza have made in the end the same symbolic
statement. For Anselm God who is a Being greater than whom nothing can be
conceived to be existing is a necessary Being, and a necessary Being cannot but exist.
This is what Descartes tried to hold by saying that existence-follows from the idea of
an infinite, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful Being. Just as the conclusion that
all the angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles follows from the
definition of a triangle, so the existence of God follows from the very idea of Him.
According to Descartes, we cannot conceive God without existence, it follows that
existence is inseparable from Him, and hence that He really exists.

Leibnitz was very much influenced by the Ontological argument which is phrased
like this. Each possible thing has the right to aspire to existence in proportion to the
amount of perfection it contains in germ. Since God»-is most perfect, therefore, he
necessarily exists.

The whole argument of Spinoza is geometrical. Necessarily this is not suited to prove
any actuality of anything. The geo-metrical deduction is only a matter of definitions,
axioms and postulates. In the same manner if we define God in a certain manner, then
his existence too will follow necessarily. Now the existence of God follows necessarily,
if we follow Spinoza‘s definitions of substance and God.

.Substance, ―is that which is in itself and is conceived through itself: I mean that, the
conception of which does not depend on the conception of another thing from which it
must be formed ....... ..God I understand to be a being absolutely infinite, that is, a
substance consisting of infinite attributes each of which expresses eternal and infinite
essence.‖

Now if substance is going to be a self-contained whole, then there can be only one
substance. Again, for Spinoza, God is a substance the idea of which involves its own
existence.

From the idea of all-perfect being, it is logically followed that God exists. It would be
self-contradictory to say that God is all-perfect, but do not have existence. To say this,
it would mean to say that red is red, but not colourful. As the colour is contained in
the very idea of rose, similarly, existence is contained in the idea of perfect being.
Further, as the idea of triangle necessarily contains that sum of three angles is 180
degrees, similarly the idea of perfect being necessarily contains existence. God is
generally conceived to be the highest and supreme existence. If it is presumed that
God does not exist, then it would mean that God is not all-perfect. Therefore, for God
to be perfect, it is necessary that he should possess the quality of existence.
Critical comments (by Kant)
1. God is called necessary being, but this is self -contradictory phrase because
there is transgression of linguistic usage.

Necessary can be legitimately used with regard to stipulated definitions of

symbols only or is used with reference to propositions, not with reference to
things or beings. Hence, it is a-prion. Again, any existing thing can be
contingent only and of anything existing, we can always imagine it to be
otherwise; than what it is and even a possibility of it not existing at all.

Thus, if God exists then he can also be imagined not to be existing at any time.
If he is necessary, then he is not being and if he is being, he is not necessary.
To say that God is a necessary being is as self-contradictory as a square circle
is.

2. A proposition is necessary if its predicate cannot be denied without involving us

in self-contradiction .For example, a triangle is bounded by three straight lines.

On the other hand, a synthetic proposition is that whose predicate can be

denied" without contradiction. This is true of any empirical proposition

So, if existence is a predicate of God in an empirical proposition, we can always

imagine it to be different from what it is.

3. Existence is not a real predicate. The word ―God is‖ adds no new thing. So, the
words ―God is‘ and ―God exists‖ do not add anything.

4. By mere thought on concept, we cannot bring anything into existence. If it is so,

all would be kings. Thus, the concept God remains a concept no matter how
hard we think about it.

Cosmological arguments
If God‘ is a real proper name with his own appropriate attributes then God would be
an actual entity. But if it so, then as Hume pointed out, it is absurd to demonstrate a
matter of fact by any a priori argument. For this reason we can say that the
Ontological argument has failed, because it is purely a priori and analytic. Hence, one
has to take recourse to actual states of affairs, which are based on some verifiable
experience. And this is what is proposed to be achieved by the Cosmological argument.
In its elementary form the Cosmological argument was first formulated by Plato in
Laws and Phaedrus. Later on, Aristotle stated it quite clearly. Afterwards it is held that
St. Thomas Aquinas regarded it as the central argument for proving God.

The Cosmological argument is usually expressed in two forms, namely, in the form of
Causal argument and in the form of argument from Contingency.

Causal Argument
It has the following steps

1. Every, event has a cause, and no event in the world can be without a cause.

2. Events keep on happening. The present event 'A is caused by the previous event
B, and B in turn by C, and, C in turn by D, and so on.

3. Quite obviously the causal series is interminable. But in order to understand

the whole series of cause and effect, we have to posit a First Cause which in its
turn does not imply its further cause.

4. This First Cause which produces the whole series of causes and effects is the
Mover only and cannot be intum moved by anything else. This Prime Mover may
be called God.

5. Hence, the world of causal series requires God to explain it.

Thus God exists as its own cause and in turn as the cause of the world.

St. Thomas did not use the concept of Causality in the modem scientific sense, but in
the Aristotelian sense of efficient causality with some end in view. Hence this world
has to be taken as an effect of an efficient First Cause which determines means and
ends for the final End. Here the concept does not mean a mere mechanical antecedent
of an event. Here, there is the Aristotelian concept of God as an architect having some
design. Hence, the effect fully reflects the nature of design fashioned out of pre-
existing matter and, the First Cause is supposed to be more perfect than the world
designed by it as the Prime Mover.
 Prime
mover

self- Architect
caused

God

Perfect
efficient
than the
cause world

Critical Comments
Firstly, ―every event must have a cause‖ is only a procedural assumption of science. In
itself, it is neither true nor false: it is either useful or useless. This proposal has been
designed to explain the series of particular events of the world. So this proposal
cannot be universally accepted.

Secondly, the idea that the world can he regarded as a single event is controversial. It
would be regarded as an event if there is the possibility of recording the coming into
and going out of being of this world. Rather the world is the sum of all actual and
possible events. Hence, the world is not an event. So the causal postulate is not
applicable to the universe as a whole.

The point has been raised by Kant. According to him, the category of causality is
applicable to phenomenon. The world as a whole is not a perceptible phenomenon.

Similarly, Russell holds that every event has a cause, but the totality need not have
any. He tells that we can say that every human being has a parent, but certainly we
cannot say that humanity too has a parent.

The Argument from Contingency

The assumption of the cosmological argument from contingency is that existence is
prior to essence or idea. Here it is maintained that essence and existence are identical.
The assertion of Aquinas in this context is that the existence of God is not implied by
God‘s essence, but that' God‘s essence is the same as his existence.
Hence, according to this way of thinking we should not say that there must be a
Perfect Being because we have an idea of Him: on the contrary, we should say that we
have an idea of Him because He exists. Further, such a Being must not be a bare
possibility, but an actuality. The reason is that such a Being has to explain the world
as its ground and only an actuality can serve as the explanation and origin of the
world, and bare possibility cannot. Both these points have been mentioned by Plato
and Aristotle.

Aquinas starts with the most familiar aspect of the world, namely, things continuously
come into being and pass away. Hence, there are some contingent things in the world.
A thing is said to be contingent when there is nothing in the nature of the thing itself
to guarantee its perpetual existence, or, more simply a thing is contingent when it
does not have the ground of its own existence. It is therefore capable of non-existing,
and at some time does not exist. True, the series of contingent events may continue
forever. But the point is, if a contingent event cannot exist by itself, then the world as
consisting by itself, then the world as consisting of contingent events requires a
Necessary Being as the ground of contingent happenings.

Here the main point of the argument is that something contingent

‗cannot‘ come out of nothing. Hence something called contingent events must have
come out of something which is not ultimately Nothing, but Necessary Being. Further,
Aquinas adds that this necessity is not dependent on any other being, but on itself.
Hence, this necessary being is called God.

Here one can very easily see the influence of Plato according to whom there is a self—
moved motion called soul which is the ground of every other motion but is itself its
own ground. However, Aquinas took the help of Aristotle‘s notion of the Prime Mover
or Pure Actuality which is its own ground and reason and is actual by virtue of its own
essence

The supreme assumption of the Cosmological argument is that the contingent world
stands in need of philosophical explanation. The problem therefore is: ‗why things are
as they are‘.

If this be granted to be a legitimate question, then it can be satisfactorily answered,

according to Aquinas, only by positing the existence of a necessary Being. The
argument of Aquinas can be more simply put into the following steps

1. All the things of the world are contingent, that is one by one each of them at
one time can pass away

2. In the infinite series of time, all things, one by one, at one time should have
ceased to exist. Therefore, at one time, by this time, there should have been
nothing. Hence, there should have been a complete Void already by this time. '
 3. If there were a complete Void at any one time, then even‘ now there should have
been a Void, for out of nothing, nothing comes.

4. But there is something. This something, therefore, is based on something which

is not contingent, i.e., it is Being which at no time can cease to be in the infinite
series of time.

5. This something which contains the ground of its own existence is a necessary
Being. It is this necessary Being which is at the basis of all contingent things
(some of which exist at one time or the other), and which does not allow things
in the infinite series of time to pass into nothing.

6. This necessary Being is called God.

The whole argument may be syllogistically expressed thus

If anything exists, then an absolutely necessary Being exists

But, something exists; Therefore, an absolutely necessary Being exists.

The fundamental contention is that the‗ transient implies the permanent and the
intellectual apprehension of contingent being at such involves an apprehension of its
being related to a self-grounded reality.

Horizontal causal series (contingent beings): —>a —>b -—>c —>d ——>e —>f—> g–

Vertical grounding uncaused cause (necessary being): A

Assumptions of Cosmological Argument:

The supreme assumption of the Cosmological argument is that the contingent world
stands in need of philosophical explanation. The problem therefore is: ‗why things are
as they are‘.

The second assumption of Aquinas is that an infinite fime has already elapsed and
that all things not capable of existing by themselves would have come to naught in
this infinite series.

But if infinite time has not already passed away, then every potentiality to be
actualized in time, cannot be supposed to have been fulfilled. If time is going on, then
who knows the contingent would may yet come to naught. So from the mere possibility
we cannot- infer the actuality of all contingent things coming to naught, unless we
accept that an infinite series of time has already passed away. But the phrase ‗infinite
series of time‘ means that the series has not terminated and can never be said to-have
passed away. Hence, the second assumption of Aquinas is Weak. But unless we accept
this, we cannot proceed further.

Thirdly, the Cosmological argument is not merely causal. It is not merely concerned
with an infinite temporal regress and in order to escape from it, it is not
recommending us to accept a First Cause. The argument starts with the assumption
that all things are dependent and the whole world consisting of contingent things may
be compared to a chain of an infinite number of entities. But this chain requires as
much explaining as finite things do. And this has to be explained in terms of
something beyond, and other than itself.

Lastly, the Cosmological argument holds that the contingent things imply the
existence of a necessary Being. Usually the term ‗necessary is used with regard to
analytic necessity only.

However, Aquinas assumes the priority of Being over essence or idea. So, according to
him, it is the Absolute Being which is necessary. In other words, this necessity is not
logical, but factual.

We shall find that from the time of Hume-and Kant up tot Russell and Ayer, it is held
that statements concerning facts can be contingent only and to say that a statement
concerning an absolute Being or fact is necessary is to commit self-contradiction. Now
whatever may be the criticism of the notion of a necessary Being, call it ontological or
meta-physical concept. As such die notion of a ‗necessary being‘ is to be understood
existentially or convictionally and not in the empirical language of science. We have
already made reference to it in relation to the Ontological Argument.
Teleological argument
The word teleological has been derived from the Greek word ―teleos‖ which means
―end‖ or ―purpose‖. So, the teleological argument holds that the order in nature points
to a design of an infinite intelligence. It proves God‘s existence on the basis of purpose,
design, harmony and orderliness. It is an argument from the order in nature to a
divine designer.

In one sense, it is simply an extension of cosmological argument because.

1. It takes recourse to the empirical features of the universe far more extensively
and in a detailed manner than the cosmological argument.

2. It holds that order in the nature is contingent since there is nothing in nature
to guarantee it. Hence, order in the nature has to be grounded in self-existing
infinite existence.

This argument is very old as it has been hinted by Plato; According -to Him, the
whole path and movement of heavenly bodies and all that is there, is akin to the
movement and calculation of a mind.

According to teleological argument, a purpose or design is present everywhere

and it strikes the most careless and casual lookup. For example, suppose a
watch is found in forest. Then, one perceives its various parts so framed
together so as to produce time. One can conclude that it- was made for a
purpose. From the mere presence of mechanism, one would conclude that
watch must be having its maker. Same could be concluded from order and
design in nature. For example, the perfect cycle of season, day—night,
movements of planets, etc. Further, climate of earth has been so made so as to
make it conducive for life. Ozone layer that is life-saving zone seems to be a
well-thought creation. This cannot be product of accident or by chance, but is
the result of divine intention.

In fact, there are three characteristics of intention or purpose. These are: selection,
combination and gradation. Theologians claim that all Lhese characteristics are
present in nature. For example,

1. Various organs of the body so selected out of number of possibilities they

perform their adjustive functions in relation to various environmental
‗conditions. For r example, breathing organs of each species are well-adapted to
the various conditions of living.

2. By combination it is meant correlation of organ where mutual interdependence

and mutual interrelation between different species and organisms function as
an integrated whole. For example, human body.
 3. Third mark of intention is gradation or arrangement by which a given end is
attained through a chain of independent means each making provisions for the
next. In general, lower life sustains and supports higher life.

All these point to an ultimate entity who has infinite knowledge, power, desire and will
to realize his ends. There must be conscious power functioning behind the scene in
order to move the universe. Such an ultimate entity can be only God.

Critical comments (by Kant)

1. This proof is analogical. It is based on the analogy of mechanic in relation to its
machines or a pot in relation to a potter. Therefore, it has no force of
demonstration. In religion, we value freedom of will, moral worth and spiritual
creativeness, but mechanism is quite opposed to all the se .Moreover, analogy is
highly anthropomorphic because we are thinking of the whole of reality in terms
of human needs and ends. But, in fact; there is much more than this.

2. It fails to explain physical, mental or moral evil. There is so much disharmony

and chaos in nature, but theologians have one-sidedly emphasized upon the
facts of combination, selection and gradation.

3. This proof at the most shows that there is an author of the world, but does not
show that there is a creator of universe. An architect is one who shapes and
moulds something out of pre-existing material. For example, potter creates pot
out of clay. Therefore, even an infinite architect pre-supposes the reality of
matter which are fashioned into orderly universe. This means that God
becomes-limited by matter. However, God must be infinite and must create
matter out of Himself.

4. This proof is disguised form of cosmological argument. This assumes that order
is contingent and therefore requires an external machinery to account for it
But, it may be argued that world has come out of various permutations and
combinations

Further, Charles Darwin has shown that principle of natural; selection alone has
contributed to the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. Thus, ‗there is no
need of any supernatural entity.
Problem of Evil
What is “Problem of evil”?

Evil is suffering or sorrow. Its cause may be natural or moral. Natural evil is due to
natural calamities and moral evil is due to bad conduct. Natural evils are beyond
human control while moral evils are within human control. For example, greed,
revenge, murder, etc.

A theist accepts at least three propositions:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is all-good.
3. Evil exists, both natural as well as moral.

If so, then if any two be true, then third would be false. It follows that fact of evil is
completely incompatible with the actuality of an omnipotent and all-good God.

1. If a deity willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
2. If he able, but not willing, then he is not all-good.
3. Is he both able and willing, then why there is evil?

This is very discomforting situation for a theist. Thus, the problem of evil is that how a
just, omnipotent and. infinitely good God can create or permit evil. However, theists
justify evil on various grounds and claim on the basis of the justification that problem
of evil ceases to be a problem.

"Broadly, there are two views regarding the justification:

1. Instrumentalist view.
2. Free-willist view.

Instrumentalist view

Within this there are different arguments such as:

1. According to this view, the world is essentially evolutionary giving rise to

hierarchical order of graded things. In this scheme of things, physical and
moral evil are inevitable concomitance of “the best possible world”. So, all
things that is sum of all things taken together work together for good.

2. Evil is prophylactic, that is, it serves as a warning against danger. At times, it is

punitive. These are the kind of warnings by God to human beings so that they
may not rise over and above God. God makes us to realize our helplessness,
weakness and smallness in relation to God.
 3. Moral excellence. Suffering is necessary incidental to the evolution of moral
excellence. In fact, evil is productive of good and these sufferings inculcate in us
many moral virtues. For example, patience, tolerance, sympathy, honesty, etc.

4. Evil is necessary for the realization of good. This view argues that without the
experience of evil in the form of suffering, we cannot appreciate goodness. Just
as one cannot appreciate light if he has not seen darkness. Similarly, evil is
necessary for the realization of Good.

5. Evil in the form of natural calamities are the results of human beings‟ sins and
according to theists, sin is disobeying G0d‟s order.

6. There is, in fact, no evil at all if seen in totality. Reality in its totality is only
good. There is mere illusion of evil. However, it can be argued that if it is
illusion, then why God has created it. Further, such illusions are themselves
evil. In that way, it is merely substitution of one evil by another.

It is often that evil produce sits own kind, that is, evil is productive of more evil; For
example, bodily illness produces greater susceptibility for other illness. Further, even
if it is admitted that evil is necessary concomitant of good, then who can decide and
who can determine the proper measure of evil just sufficient to produce the maximum
good? The view that evil is instrumental to good is not only inconclusive, but also
vicious. If evil is necessary to good, then evil too has to be increased in the same
proportion, -that is, for more good, we need more evil.

But, such arguments are rejected by theists. According to them, evil is not something
positive, it is privation of good. Hence, evil serving the cause of good ultimately
disappears and is transformed into good. Spinoza pointed out that the saint and
wicked both serve the purpose of God, but wicked in fulfilling the divine purpose
parishes in the act.

If God makes use of evil to produce good, then God in a sense subordinates himself to
a principle. In other words, if God works with the help of means, then he ceases to be
omnipotent. However, theists reject this and say that working according to the law
does not take away God‟s omnipotence.

Instrumentalists‟ view is criticized on the ground that nature is non—ethical and„ has
no moral purpose to serve. If the creation just and creator omnipotent, then suffering
and happiness would be proportionally distributed. But, in reality it is not. Rather,
there are wide and glaring inequalities. Virtues are not rewarded. Even if it is not
rewarded, then at least happiness should be distributed evenly. As against this,
happiness and misery seem to depend much on the accident of one‟s own birth and on
the fault of one‟s parents, society and other circumstances.
Free-Willist View
According to this viewpoint, God is both infinitely good and omnipotent. However,
omnipotence for him is the power of doing everything which is logically possible. They
also hold that with free will goes the possibility of doing either good or evil.

According to theist, out of his abundance of creative love, God has made creatures
with a view to help them to become worthy of his fellowship, that is, co-creators. For
this, man has to choose the right freely by overcoming the temptation of doing wrong.
This capacity of overcoming is associated with the risk of choosing evil. So, if moral
agents have to evolve as the supreme end of this universe, then the possibility of sin or
moral evil has to be conceded. Therefore, God is not responsible for moral evil. Man
alone is responsible for moral evil because he alone creates them by exercising his
wrong choice.

Further, higher virtues like forgiveness presupposes not only free will but also the
actual occurrence of certain evil. In other words, forgiveness pre-supposes the prior
occurrence of some evil to be forgiven.

It can be argued that free-willists defence of evil cannot be reconciled with God‟s
omnipotence, though, God is omnipotent, but can he control the created free-will? If
yes, then logically it follows that God makes rules which binds himself, then he is not
omnipotent once he has made them. If no, then it should be conceded that he is not
already omnipotent.

An omnipotent God could have ordered the world such that lesser chances of evil
might have been possible or he could have made man less biased towards evil or could
have made man only to choose right.

God is omniscient and he foreknows that many would commit sin. Therefore, his
foreknowledge, infinitely goodness and omnipotence would have prevented the
creation of such free will. However, such viewpoints or arguments are not acceptable
to free willists. Free-willists hold that foreknowledge of free-act is self-contradictory
even though God is omniscient.

According to free-willists, the supreme end of the universe is to transform the creator
into co-creators with God. This can be achieved only when "free-will is made holy
through obedience to the will of God even in the face of all temptations for
disobedience. They want the free will of human to merge with free will of God.

If God brings about that men he creates always does what is right, then they do not do
but „God does this. Therefore, holy will cannot be created because it -is a matter of
realization and attainment by overcoming the evil.

„Even after all these arguments and justifications, the problem of evil remains as it is.
All the justifications have one problem or another. Evil cannot be explained rationally
by theologians. The problem of evil can be resolved only in the realm of faith.
Soul: immortality; Rebirth and Liberation
It is important to understand what the different notions of self or soul are, what
personal identity consists in, for the answer to these questions significantly influences
our understanding of how after-life is viewed.

There are various conceptions of the self which have been historically held in the East
and the West. The four major views are:

1. Dualism
2. Materialism
3. Monistic pantheism
4. Buddhist doctrine of no-self

Dualism
Many major western philosophers such as Plato, Aquinas and Descartes hold dualism.
In East, Samkhya School of thought holds a distinction between Purusa (Soul) &
Prakriti (matter). Furthermore, most dualists -both religious and non-religious - have
affirmed life after death.

For some, immortality means an embodied state, and the Jews, Christian and Islamic
views of the resurrection of the body, are cases in point. For other, life after death
involves being reincarnated in another physical existence perhaps as an animal or
another person. Yet for other, Dualism death is disembodied existence where the soul
is forever separated from any future physical existence.

Materialism
It holds that there is no immaterial aspect of the self — no soul or immaterial mind.
For some materialist, there is no life after death. Once the physical body dies, the
person perishes. For other, life after death is a real possibility. It is made possible by
resurrection of body after death by God.

Monistic Pantheism
This view of self is held by Advaita Vedanta — Monism (reality is one, there is no
destruction of things); and, pantheism (all is divine). According to Advaita Vedanta,
ultimate reality (Which is referred to as „Brahman‟) is undifferentiated and beyond all
qualities including personhood. The universe flows from Brahman, whose very nature
is undifferentiated. Maya an illusory aspect from which apparent differentiation and
individuality emerged. Selfhood is an illusion and product of maya, the true self or
atma is in reality Brahman.
No-self
Buddhists are not satisfied with dualist, materialist and Advaita view of self. Buddhist
do not believe in a substantial, permanent atman or soul, their doctrine is anatman.
This is based on Buddhist metaphysics of „pratitya samudpada‟ according to which the
being is conditioned i.e. „this being that arises‟. Similar to the Advaita vedantic view,
individual self does not exist, it is a mere illusion. But contrary to Advaitin view, these
are various experiences, desires, feelings and cravings which are real and in constant
flux.

There is no self, rather the individual personality consists of fleeting „skandas‟ called
„panchskanda‟

An old Indian chariot analogy is often cited regarding the no-self view. A chariot is not
the spokes, or the wheels or the frame, or the axle; it‟s none of the individual parts.
Neither it is the individual parts taken together. Yet neither is it something other than
the parts. It turns out to be merely the sound of the word “Chariot”. So too with
individual selves

Buddhists grant that grasping the no-self teaching may not be easy; it will require
working off the negative effects of karma and multiple reincarnations to come to this
realization.

Reincarnations and karma

Reincarnation is the view that the conscious self transmigrates from one physical body
to the next after death. Each human being has lived former lives, perhaps as another
human being or perhaps as another kind of organism.

According to Buddhist conception, after the death of consciousness a new

consciousness arises. The dissolution of the skandhas leads to rise of new
consciousness which is not identical to the former, but neither is it completely
different from it. There is a causal connection between them as they form part of the
same causal continuum.

Of the past lives‟ causal links or nidanas, spiritual ignorance (nescience) and
constructing activities (samskara) are karmically active states from one‟s past life
which leads to the arising of karmically passivestates in this life ; the sentient body,
the sense-bases, simulation, and feeling in response to the simulation, the karmically
active states of craving, grasping and becoming arise, which then determines the
karmically passive states of one‟s future life, namely birth, and aging and death. Of
course, spiritual ignorance and constructing activities are present is this life as well as
in ones last life working in union with other karmically active states, and
consciousness arise in one‟s last life, working in union with other karmically active
and consciousness arise in one‟s next life as well as in this
Reincarnation is connected with the concept of karma, the idea that we reap the good
and bad consequences on four actions, either in this life or in another. Those who
affirm reincarnation and karma often point to a difficulty they see with the western
view; it seems exceedingly unfair that one child is born healthy into a wealthy loving
family whereas another child is born sickly into a poor, cruel environment. If there is a
creator God who brought these two persons into the world, such a God seems to be
unloving and unjust. However, if the two children are reaping the consequences of
action they performed in previous lives, this seems to provide a justification for the
inequalities .The effects of one‟s karma determines the circumstances of our present
and future lives, “we reap what we sow”

Immortality of soul/problem of immortality

There are many senses in which the term „immortality is used. The sense in which the
problem is in for the theist means the endless duration of the personal existence of the
individual with the prospect of infinitenrichment of the personality. This meant that
the individual personality with its present memory and purpose is conceived to
continue, and secondly, this infinite duration offers opportunities for better realizing
the higher purposes of man.

King of
Immortality

Personal Non-Physical

Physical Non-Physical Soaul Biological Impanel

Nirvanist (in
Non Non-Nirvanist
Conditional Temporal
conditional (timeless)
Frame)

Non-
Resoursedounl
Resoursedounl
Immortality for theism
This has been held with some accompanying doctrine of immortality. Immortality
therein is concerned with conservation of individuals as substantive beings. It is
agreed that relative independence of human personalities and the existence of God as
living being are bound up together. The agreement of the theist can be stated briefly
thus:

1. The God of theism is a creator God, who out of the abundance of his outgoing
and creative love has created the whole universe with a view to give rise to
creatures who ultimately would be molded into souls. Only such souls can be
the fit persons deserving the fellowship of a holy God or to enter the Kingdom of
God.

2. Of course, the evolution process of the creation of souls has not been smooth.
After a good deal of preparation „life emerged on earth. Many routes led to dead
ends and many species became extinct. At last man emerged with donscious
will "and ideals. Now if the universe be created and its aim be the making of
souls, then should they be allowed to perish after they have once emerged? The
question is deepened-by 2 further considerations.

First, no person however great and successful in his career can say that his
purposeful activity has no more grounds to cover. A Newton, a Kant, a Gandhi
have ample room for purposeful activity.

Second, the creator of this universe is supremely good and infinitely intelligent.
He cannot allow a saint, a sage, a scientist or any person of value to perish. i.e.
the task at the hands of man is infinite and time allowed on this earth is
extremely finite.

Without the conservation of these saints and seers, God would be a sort of divine
playboy or an aborted artist .Therefore God lives in the perpetual giving of himself in
his finite creatures, and if his perpetual creative act is not a child play then finite
persons somehow must be preserved.

God Purpose
If the end of life, mind and spirit is taken true then the very purpose of God of them
will be frustrated. If the divine purpose is, as evolution seems to indicate, that of
producing free spirit as the end result of a long and tortuous process, it seems tragic
that that the purpose will finally be defeated as physical death stultifies the entire
undertaking. The only feasible alternative is the continuation of spiritual life with the
appropriation of love and other forms of value in spite of the death of the body.
Kant argument for immortality of Soul
Kantian approach of proving immortality of soul is based on moral experience. We
pass from something in man‟s mind to the mind of the world which must be if what is
in man‟s is due to reality. The moral requirement for immortality points out that we
are impelled to seek moral ends and that the destruction of human personalities could
make these moral ends unattainable. Since the moral obligation cannot be realized in
this life, that obligation is a delusion unless there is a wider plane of existence on
which another realization of the obligation is possible. It would be a curious world
indeed if a man were obliged to do what he cannot do. But only on the hypotheses of
immortality is there a possibility, of the fulfillment of the obligation .Obedience to the
moral law, required endless progress but endless progress is possible only on the
supposition of an endless duration of existence and personally of the same rational
being. Immortality, Kant supposed, can be shown to be a necessary postulate if moral
experiences to be taken seriously.

Problems with the notion & endless duration of personal existence

This is a logically unique expectation, of endless survival including not only the
survival of memory but also the prospect of the presence of the same earthly aims and
purposes for their better realization. However there is a problem with this notion:

The presence of higher purposes and their realization are based with earthly
circumstances of fear, passion hopes, socio—economic conditions. If the continuance
of the earthly circumstances are necessary for pursing purposes in the endless
survival theory then it is demanding for the endless repetitive cycles.

However, religious hopes of survival in a paradise are entertained without the earthly
circumstances. They refer to a state where the weary are at rest and the wicked ceases
from troubling and where there are no tears and sorrows. But without the fear of -
defeat and possibilities of failure there can be no inducement for energetic activities,
enterprises and risky undel1akings._For becoming a soul, an individual has to be free
and freedom has no meaning unless there is also the possibility of choosing the wrong.

For this reason, Indian thinkers talked of release from the chains of endless births and
rebirths. For them then endless chain means imperfection and the continuance" of
sorrow rather than of hope.

Conclusion:
The hope of personal immortality can be only by belief in a perfect, benevolent and a
creator God. The whole consideration rests on accepting the thought that a perfect
God creates creatures that would ultimately grow into being capable of fellowship with
God. Once they emerge, how can God allow such beings to perish?
Any God who allows value-possibilities, who allows value-making and value-realizing
beings to cease for no good reason, is guilty of a crime. There is a strong case that
persons who would find no reason for immortality might disbelieve in God.

However, the philosophical argument has been advanced more for the eternal life of
values than for the survival of personal immortality

.This is clearly envisaged by the classical writing of Plato put into the mouth of
Socrates at the time of his death

“The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness;

for that comes faster than death”.

In there, in a subtle way immortality of individual has been combined with a

qualitative or axiological significance. The persuasiveness of the theistic argument
is derived from its existence on the high quality of life hoped for. But the quality
insisted on is quite independent of everlastingness. There-the eternity of truth ,beauty
and goodness is confused with the enduringness of the body. Thus, theism holds that
a life of faith, obedience of God until death, a life of virtue and righteousness will be
continued to the end. Thus in some places, a certain land of qualitative „life is called
immortal, including the idea of physical existence.

Pringle Pattison gathers that eternal life taught in the New testament is not a state of
existence to follow upon physical death but is an all-absorbing state of experiencing
the love of God in Christ. This view will be fully endorsed both by the Vedantins and
Nirvanist.

When the problem of immortality is one of eternal values, it may mean the eternal
which is timeless, which is above the risk of change. Or it may be eternity which has
been realized through and in line by an adventure of creations thrust into open
possibilities. The former may be called a non-Nirvanist eternity and the latter may be
called Nirvanist eternity.

Metaphysical or Non-Nirvanist Immortality

Plato gave many arguments in favor of the eternity of the soul. Most of these
arguments are purely a priori they tend to prove the eternity of soul by means of the
definition of the term included.

1. Plato tells us that soul is simple. A simple is that which cannot be decomposed,
and if it cannot be decomposed, then it is eternal soul being simple is eternal.
 2. Soul is self-moved. Only that thing will come to rest to which motion is
imparted from I outside. As coming to rest is said to be death and as the self
moved soul can never come to rest, so soul is eternal.

3. Thus, ideas of Plato suffers again from its being a priori. The whole difficulty of
Plato is that he concerns the soul wholly apart from the body or “matter”,
whereas the soul we know of is always an embodied soul. This bud of dualism
of mind—body with mind as an unextended,n0n—spatial substance and body
as extended, spatial substance is seen in Descartes also whobelieves that soul
is immortal (Discussed in Paper-I)

Pragmatic augment
It is held that the effects of believing in immortality are so salutary that they may be
taken as evidences for the truth of the belief.

This is no argument. Besides, the effects of believing in eternity may be followed by the
slackening of efforts for improving the world in which one lives. Indian thought
generally takes the soul to be eternal and yet this thought has been understood as
“world-and-life-negating” by some philosophers like Schweitzer. The belief in eternity
need not be followed by salutary effects.

Nirvanist Immortality
The state of Nirvana is attained by a person in this earthly frame. But once the
Nirvana is attained, the person becomes secure from the change, i.e. from the endless
chain of enduring states of births and deaths. This timelessness has been attained in
time through the vicissitudes of temporal flow. Hence, in this kind of eternity, life is
retained and yet transcended.

e.g. any great work of art, like the Madonna or Parssior , the starry Nights must have
taken time in which it was produced. But once the work has been accomplished, it
becomes a thing of beauty.

The same is true for a person who makes himself a thing of value, a co-creator of value
worthiness with God.

In the case of Newton, Einstein, Gandhi, Shankar we abstract their discovering from
their personalities. Yet we know that a man in flesh and blood called Newton by
becoming a mathematician alone would have established what he in fact did establish.
However, it also realized that which made Newton immortal was his discovering and
not the fact that he lived at a certain time and place.
It is claimed that “he who knows the Brahman himself becomes the Brahman”
(Brahnvid Brahmaive bhawati).Christ felt that he was the very thing he was asserting
„I am the way, the truth‟, „the, life eternal‟.

The assertions are religiously or convictionally true. In spiritual adventures, the seeker
of religious truths himself becomes timelessly true, beyond the accidents of time and
ever vanishing moments of change. This is what happens in the case of prophets,
seers and sages.

Spinoza: Spinoza “amor, intellectuals dei” exemplifies that by contemplating on things

changeless and timeless, one tends to become oneself a time less existence. According
to Spinoza by setting our affection on things which don‟t change, we are delivered from
the disturbances of passions. The Spinozistic love goesbeyond the personality and
becomes a thing of eternity.

In religion, one does not tend to find a string of pearls rather one seeks to become a
shining string of pearls‟ a thing of value by following the righteous path in full
earnestness. Religious truths are made true. The life of eternal values has to be won
and actualized here and now in this earthly frame, by one‟s free decision and
commitment to it. No one can confer Nirvana to anyone. It has to be attained by one‟s
own ceaseless efforts and by 0ne‟s own light. „AppoDipoBhava‟ are the last words of
Lord Buddha on the subject. This Nirvana is neither selfish nor unselfish but selfless
in the most literal sense of the term
Reason, Revelation and faith
Religious knowledge
Knowledge concerned with supernatural entity and transcendental reality like God,
soul, etc. are religious knowledge.

 There are certain criteria of knowledge. A thing to be knowledge must ful fill all
these criteria. These criteria are certain, distinct, indubitable and veri fiable.
However, subject matter of religious knowledge is transcendental, that is,
beyond human experience and reason. Hence, it lacks all the criteria of
knowledge. So, from rational and philosophical point of view, we cannot call
religious knowledge as knowledge. Rather it is more appropriate to call "them as
religious beliefs.

 But, for religious persons, there is no doubt about such knowledge. For them, it
is very much clear, distinct and indubitable. They accept it on the basis of faith
which is the guarantee of truth for them.

The major sources of religious knowledge are revelation, mysticism, miracles, etc.

Foundation of Religious Belief

It has been accepted by religions thinkers that there is religion a priori. This means
that there is something is human structure which prompts man heavenward. In
general it might be laid down that man is endowed with a strong predisposition
towards his spiritual quest. This spiritual present in man gives rise to religious belief.

Religious beliefs are of two types: belief— in and believe — that.

1. Belief- in is an attitude to a person, whether human or divine. Believe-that

refers to a proposition, a proposition for which some reason can be demanded
and presented.

2. Both in belief-in and believe-that there is an element of trust. However, in

belief- in this trust is strong so much so that even life can be risked.

3. Believers believe in god with whole heart and this cannot be reduced to believe-
that. This in like believing in a fiend.

Belief in god
 It is highly evaluative and not merely factual, that is, the acceptance of an
existential proposition

 Religious belief is not merely cognitive and cannot be assimilated to factual or

scientific knowledge.
  It is both interested and disinterested.

 There is interestedness, for God is our refuge at all times and a tower of
strength in times of all sound gloom. But when human beings give Him thanks
for all his favors, then they do so in disinterested way.

 It is affective and contains warmth of feeling.

 The nearest analogue of belief in God would be our belief in a friend. It is a

matter of absolute trust in God who is “the fundamental ‘god thing’ without
which there would be no others".

The place of reason

The function of reason is to control and guide the conative trends in man. Religion too
is a matter of holistic tendency in man which drives a man in search of his ideal self.
True, very often-this ideal self in posited in one’s religion’s upbringing but the nature
of the deity which embodies this ideal self gets exposed to knowledge and ever
deepening sensitiveness to what he considers to be his highest concern. Hence, it is
for reason in man to get him well established in his belief of the kind of deity whom he
worships. Reason can and do play some functions in religion.

1. Selection-
There are various trends of deities and scriptures. Naturally, one has to use
reason as far as it can carry him, to make a decision about his deity. This clash
between different religions may give rise to various possible results.

i. Out of the clash may result cross, fertilization of ideas concerning ones’
religion beliefs and practices.

ii. Clash may lead to the rejection of other deities then there may be forced
conversion.

iii. Clash may lead to wholesale mass conversion, as in ancient India. Here
many foreigners like the Greeks Huns, Parthians, etc. were concerted to
Hinduism.

Thus, reason serves as solvent of many religious issues.

 2. Conceptualization –
The nature of religious experience or contact with god is transient in nature.
This momentary glimpse of god has to be conceptualized in words. As the
experience is extraordinary, so words can never be precise. The expressions
containing ordinary words are used in as extraordinary way.

3. Interpretation of religions scrip

The Upanishads and Gita come down to us as ‘holy scriptures’ but the
scriptural statements have to be interpreted and reason has to be advanced in
favor of one’s interpretation

Samkara holds that Brahman, being devoid of form cannot be an object of

perception and inference. But Samkara holds that inference has to be used as a
means of understanding scripture.

Ramayana holds that Brahman is super-sensuous and cannot rest exclusively

on arguments. Scripture is authoritative and reason is to be applied only to
support of scripture.

4. Conviction in faith _
Reason by itself cannot originate faith, though it can be used either to
strengthen or weaken it.

Reason remains at most merely a regulate force in all possible sources of religious
beliefs. Mystic experience, revelation and faith, all in one way or there are
responsible for religious beliefs, and reason remains as a helpful guide in every one
of them.

Faith
Faith is the most crucial, fundamental and signi ficant tenet of the religious life and
behavior. It happens to be both necessary and sufficient condition of religious life.
There can be no religion without faith. There is a direct relation between the depth and
gravity of religious life and the depth and gravity of faith. If one’s faith is simplistic or
super ficial, one’s religious commitment, too, will lacking in firmness and depth.
Before discussing the problem and reality of religious faith.

The Bible tells us the faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of the
things not seen.
For Kant, faith has subjective certainty sufficient for action, but insufficient
for objective knowledge.

For him faith has to do with practical reason.

General features of faith.

1. Faith implies a belief in the uniqueness, superior quality and magni ficence of
the object of faith. This higher value may be superiority of intellect, character of
leadership of a person, of the universality, inevitability and inexorableness of a
cause of principle. The faith is held firm as long as the superior value ascribed
to the object of faith is into proved mistaken or false.

2. The second thing we note about faith is commitment. We feel allegiance to the
object of our faith we try to be loyal and attached to it both in thought and
action. What we believe in we are faithful to it in deed and mind. Without a
sense of loyalty, devotion and dedication, faith is nothing but cynicism.

3. Thirdly, faith implies action. William James has very beautifully de fined belief
as something upon which we are prepared to act, this means that faith without
action is like a tree without fruits, it is barren, sterile and stagnant. There is not
sufficient evidence for reasonable certainty but there is felt certainty for action
or commitment to action.

4. The fact of self-surrender automatically follows from the above feature we can
scarcely make any sacri fice for a thing for which we feel no sense of dedication
and commitment. But, however, even a sense of dedication is not suf ficiently
potent to induce in man an emotional aura, under the spell of which, men are
known to make supreme sacri fices. For the possibility of willing sacri fice what
is required is, in addition to dedication, self-surrender. A person who has given
up and forsaken his personal will and regards himself as instrument for the
realization of some supreme will can joyfully sacri fice anything and everything
of his. Sincere and dedicated communist: regards himself an instrument in the
inevitable and inexorable march of history.

5. Another feature of faith is that it is a source of inspiration. Whether the

subjective feeling of inspiration is due to auto-suggestion and self—hypnosis or
due to any super-natural agency is difficult to determine and the controversy
regarding its true origin cannot be finally settled. Nonetheless it is an
incontrovertible fact the faith is a source of inspiration and that this inspiration
plays great role in man’s life.

6. Trust in unseen ~ this is the most characteristic feature of faith, religious faith
undoubtedly implies a belief in the reality of the unseen, of invisible.
 7. Holistic in nature— faith is the attitude of ultimate concern as well as object of
ultimate concern. The object of faith in the religious sense is the ultimate
concern of man, or what _ man considers to be his object of worship, devotion
and the like. Faith is the product f the whole man and it cannot be analysed
into clear and precise steps of cognition alone. Faith cannot be reduced to
ordinary or scienti fic knowledge. This is what is known as illative sense - our
capacity to see a large field of evidence as a whole and to divine its signi
ficance.

8. In faith not a mind, but a person reasons and faith is the result of a global
impression. Faith means the whole man at work and means all pervasive
attitude to the whole reality. Society and his total relationship.

The function of faith is not to know so much as it has to do with the becoming of man.
A Christian wants to become Christ himself, and, a follower of Buddha aims at
becoming Buddha himself.

Faith and revelation

Faith and revelation are correlative. If revelation is the work of god, then faith is the
receptivity of man

Types of religious faith

Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former
views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths: the latter more strictly as
an act of the will of the religious believer alone. The former includes evidence garnered
from the testimony and works of other believer.

Faith and Reason

Traditionally, faith and reason have each been considered to be sources of justification
for religious belief. Because both can purportedly serve this same epistemic function,
it has been a matter of much interest to philosophers and theologians how the two are
related and thus how the rational agent should treat claims derived from either
source.

Some have held that there can be no conflict between the two - that reason properly
employed and faith properly understood will never produce contradictory or competing
claims where as others have maintained that faith and reason can (or even must) be in
genuine contention over certain propositions or methodologies. Those who have taken
the latter view disagree as to whether faith or reason ought to prevail when the two are
in conflict.
Kierkegaard,
For instance, prioritizes faith even to the point that it become positively irrational,
while Locke emphasized the reasonableness of faith to such an extent that a religious
doctrine’s irrationality ~ conflict with itself or with known fact's-is a sign that it is
unsound. Some relatively recent philosopher, most notably the Logical positivists,
have denied that there is a domain of thought or human existence rightly governed by
faith, asserting instead that all meaningful statements and ideas are accessible to
thorough rational examination.

It is, however, possible to hold a religious belief simple on the basis either of faith
alone or of reason alone. Moreover, one can even lack faith in God or deny his
existence, but still find solace in the practice of religion.

The basic impetus for the problem of faith and reason comes from the fact that the
revelation or set of revelations on which most religions are based is usually described
and interpreted in sacred pronouncements, either in an oral tradition or canonical
writing, backed by some kind of divine authority; These writings or oral traditions are
usually presented in the literary forms of narrative, parable, or discourse. As such,
they are in some measure immune from rational critique and evaluation. In fact even
the attempt to verify religious beliefs rationally can be seen as a kind of category
mistake. Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational
examination of their beliefs. ‘ '

The two basis views of the interplay of faith and reason are as follows:

Rational validation view of faith and reason

The view that reason can and should be used to justify or validate religious faith
comprises rational validation views of faith and reason. Looking for evidences for god’s
existence, or for reincarnation or life after death, or attempting to justify one’s beliefs
about the dharma are examples of rational validation.

Non evidential view of faith and reason

The view that reason and evidence should not be used to justify or validate religious
faith comprises non-evidential views of faith and reason. The view doesn’t deny the
use of reason for understanding religiousbeliefs. Rather, they deny that holding
religious beliefs is dependent upon having reasons or evidences fort hose beliefs being
objectively true.
FIDEISM
Fideist deems it inappropriate to rationally justify one’s religious beliefs and faith. The
well-known fideist is existential thinker Kierkegaard.

He believed there are no solid proofs for religious faith and that even if there were they
would be unhelpful for developing real religious faith. He justifies his position through
following mentioned points:

There are certain dogmas and paradoxes in religion which are inimical to reason and
logic. For example, Christian dogma - the belief that an in finite God becoming a finite
human being . It entails paradoxes which cannot be sustained by reason but requires
a leap of faith;

The gulf between a transcendent God and man cannot be bridged by dialectical
thinking. It can be bridged only by a leap of faith, by a voluntary act by which man
relates himself to God.

Fideist can be found in all the major religious traditions. For example,-the term
Sradda in Buddhism is the acceptance of the Buddha's teachings which comes prior to
one's right understanding or right -thought. Entering the Eightfold Path involves a
faith step — acquiescence (without rational argumentation or evidence)to the
teachings of the Buddha.

CRITICISM
In a religiously pluralistic culture, how is one to decide which religion (or set of
religious beliefs) one should commit to? This may not be an issue in a culture in which
there is only one religiously live option. But what about in a religiously pluralistic
culture in which there are multiple live options?
Revelation
Revelation is a religious term that designates the disclosure of divine or sacred reality
or purpose to men. Revelation refers to the uncovering or disclosure via
communication from the divine, something that has been previously wholly or partially
hidden or unknown. It is the process or act of making divine truths known.

It simply means bringing into light what was hidden before. Knowledge about God,
cosmology, soul and all other super natural related matter are hidden and beyond the
ordinary means of knowing. According to religious persons, such knowledge is
revealed or directly communicated to some privileged persons (chosen ones) by God
himself. In the religious view, such disclosure may come through mystical insights,
historical events, or spiritual experiences that transform the lives of individuals and
groups.

According to Bible, God is said to be hidden entity. According to the Upanishads,

Brahman is essentially unknown and unknowable. Hence, God remains a super-
sensuous entity. He can be known neither through perception nor inference. He can
be known only through revelation.

God is essentially a transcendent being. But, a man has inner urge to know God.
Therefore, man stands in need of some sort of prompting through God. Thus, God
reveals himself through revealed scriptures, for example, bible, Koran, etc. through
angels, dreams, visions, special messengers, his creation and Holy Spirit. Most
religions refer to signs; such as auditory phenomena, subjective visions, dreams, and
ecstasies.

Nature & Significance

These are accepted not as a matter of logical inference but through sudden,
unexpected illuminations that invade and transform the human spirit

1. In primitive religions, revelation is often associated with magical techniques of

divination.

2. In the prophetic religions, revelation is primarily understood as the “Word of

God," enabling the prophet to speak with certainty about God's actions and
intentions. In such "prophetic" religions (Judaism, Christianity,’ Islam, and
Zoroastrianism), revelation is conceived as a message communicated by God to
an accredited spokesman, who is charged to herald the content of that message
to an entire people

3. In mystical religion (e.g., Islamic Sufism, Tantric Buddhism) revelation is viewed

as an ineffable, experience of the transcendent or the divine.
4. Those religions that look upon God as a free and personal spirit distinct from
the world accept revelation in the more specific sense of a divine self-disclosure,
which is commonly depicted on the model of human inter-subjective
relationships.

5. Indian tradition also supports the doctrine of revelation such as brahman or

God is revealed through nature. Secondly, God is revealed through scriptures
like the Vedas. Thirdly, through his incarnation. For example, Bhagvad Gita
says, “Whenever there is decline of righteousness and rise o of unrighteousness,
then I incarnate myself. Fourthly, through Brahma-sakshatakara, that is, there
are liberated souls (jivanmukta) who are released in this very life from bondage.
For example, Ramakrishna Paramahansa has the most favoured vision of Maa
Kaali and brahma-realization. Hence, pure in heart shall see God. Finally,
through doctrine of grace according to which God reveals himself to his
devotees according to His will. God also reveals through miracles.

6. Revelation is one of the source or foundation of religious knowledge. Hence it is

also important from epistemological significance. For a religious person it is
certain and indubitable. It is itself apramana. It has great influence on the
personality of an individual through whom revelation has occurred.

7. Revelations received on behalf of the whole community of the faithful are often
called "public" (as opposed to "private" revelations, which are given for the
guidance or edification of the recipient, himself).

8. General revelation
The Eastern religions, on the whole, differ from Western religions in that they
place less emphasis on a special or exclusive revelation received by a "chosen
people" and rather speak of the manifestation of the Absolute through the
general order of nature. The Bible and the Quran, conversely, proclaim that
although God has specially manifested himself to the biblical peoples, he also
makes himself known through the order of nature.

9. Special revelation: the role of history

The Western religions differ somewhat among themselves in the ways in which
they understand how special revelation occurs.

 Some focus simply on the direct inspiration of the divinely chosen

prophets.
 Some look upon the prophets as witnesses and interpreters of what God
is doing in history.
  Revelation through deeds is conceived to be more fundamental than
revelation through words, though the words of the prophets are regarded
as necessary to clarify the meaning of the events. Since the Old
Testament term for "word" (davar) signifies also "deed" or "thing," there is
no clear line of demarcation between word-revelation and deed-revelation
in the Bible.

 The biblical authors look upon the national fortunes of Israel as

revelations of God's merciful love, his fidelity to his promises, his
unfailing power, his exacting justice, and his readiness to forgive the
penitent sinner. The full disclosure of the meaning of history, for many of
the biblical writers, will occur only at the end of time, when revelation
will be given to all peoples in full clarity.

10. Revelation and sacred scripture

In those religions that look for guidance to the ancient past, great importance is
attached to sacred books.

 Theravada Buddhism, while it professes no doctrine of inspiration, has

drawn up as strict canon (standard or authoritative scriptures)the "Pali
canon" in order to keep alive what is believed to be the most original and
reliable traditions concerning the Buddha.

 Mahayana Buddhism, while it has no such strict canon, considers that all
its adherents must accept the authority of the sutras (basic teachings
written in aphorisms). Zen Buddhism, in many ways the broadest
development of Mahayana thought, sometimes goes to the point of rejecting
any such written authority. Many religions view their holy books as inspired
and inerrant

 According to a very ancient Hindu tradition, the sages of old composed the
Vedas by means of an impersonal type of inspiration through cosmic
vibrations. Judaism, on the other hand, looks upon the Bible as divinely
inspired. The idea of verbal dictation from God, which occurs here and
therein the Bible, was applied by some rabbis to the Pentateuch, which was
believed to have been written by Moses under verbal inspiration, and even to
the whole Bible. Christianity, which generally accepts both the Old and New
Testaments as in some sense inspired, has at times countenanced theories
of verbal dictation. According to the Mormons, the Book of Mormon was
composed in haven and delivered on tablets of gold to Joseph Smith. Islam
holds that the Quran, an eternal heavenly book, was dictated verbatim to
muhammad The Prophet's companions testified that he would often turn red
or livid, sweat profusely, and fall into trances while receiving revelations
11. Revelation and tradition
The great religions frequently make a distinction between those scriptures that-
contain the initial revelation and others, at the outer fringe of the canon, that
contain authoritative commentaries. In Hinduism, the four Vedas and three
other ancient collections--the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads are
Shruti ("that which has been heard"; i.e., constitutive revelation); the other
sacred writings (the sutras, the law-books, Puranas, and the Bhagavadgita and
the Ramayana, the two great epics) are Smrti ("that which has been
remembered"; i.e., tradition). Later Judaism, while recognizing the unique place
of the Bible as the written source of revelation, accords equal authority to the
Talmud as traditional commentary.

12. Revelation and experience

In most religions nonverbal communication plays an important part in the
transmission of revelation. This can occur in art (notably in icons, statues, and
idols), in sacred music, in the liturgy, and in popular dramas, such as the
mystery plays common in medieval Europe or those still performed in Indian
villages.

 For a deeper initiation into the revelation, it is believed necessary

to live under the tutelage of a guru (teacher), monk, or holy man.

 The spiritual preparation of the subject by prayer and asceticism is

stressed.

 Among the great living religions of the world, there is wide agreement
that revelation cannot be fully communicated by books and sermons but
only by an ineffable, supra-rational experience.

 Emphasis on ecstatic contemplation.

13. Revelatory relationships

In certain forms of mysticism, particularly prevalent in the Eastem
religions, the envisioned goal is an absorption into the divine,
involving the loss of individual consciousness

In the Western religions and in Bhakti Hinduism the abiding

distinctness of the individual personality is affirmed.

Islamic orthodoxy- communion of man with God and mans obedient

submission to the creator.

Islamic sufism- aspiration for personal union with God

 14. Revelation and reason
The problem of the relationship between revelation and reason arises, on the one
hand, because revelation transcends the categories of ordinary rational thought and,
on the other hand, because revelation is commonly transmitted by means of
authoritative records, the contents of which cannot be verified by the believer.

Buddhism, allows some scope for individual reason to criticize the authoritative
writings, but, like other religions, it has to face the charge that the illumination to
which it aspires may be illusory. Orthodox Hindus, giving full authority to the Veda,
hold that human reason errs whenever, on the grounds of perceptual experience, it
takes issue with the sacred writings.

The tension between faith and reason has been particularly acute in the 'Western
religions, which find revelation not simply in holy books but in prophetic words that
call for definite assent and frequently command a precise course of action. The
ambiguities of scripture in these religions are frequently cleared up by creeds and
dogmas of the community, calling for the assent of true-believers.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, moreover, came into close contact with Hellenistic
culture; which held up the ideal of rationally certified knowledge as the basis for the
good life. They, therefore, had to face the problem could assent to an authoritative
revelation be justified before the bar of reason?

Some theologians took a "fideist" (faith-based) position, maintaining that reason must
in all things submit to the demands of revelation. Others accepted the primacy of
reason. They reinterpreted the content of revelation so as to bring it into line with
science and philosophy. A third school in which Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas
may be included, sought to maintain the primacy of faith without sacrificing the
dignity of reason.

According to the Thomist theog, human reason can discern the credibility of revelation
because of the external signs by which God has authenticated it (especially prophecies
and miracles). Reason, moreover, makes it possible for the believer to understand, in
some measure, the revealed mysteries. This intellectualist position continues to appeal
to many Christians; but some maintain that it overlooks the qualitative differences
between faith--as a trans-rational assent to mystery-and scientific knowledge, which
operates within the categories of objectivizing reason.

In some theological circles the concept of revelation is rejected on the ground that it is
bound up with mythological and anthropomorphic conceptions .and introduces an
inassimilable element into the history of religions. It would seem, however, that the
concept can be purified of these mythical elements and still be usefully employed. In
the sphere of religion, wisdom is often best sought through privileged moments of
ecstatic experience and through the testimony of those who have perceived the sacred
or holy with unusual purity and power. The self-disclosure of the divine through
extraordinary experiences and symbols is fittingly called revelation. Because of the
pervasiveness of the idea of revelation in the world's religions and because the various
religions have had to cope with similar theological problems concerning revealed
knowledge, revelation has become a primary theme for dialogue among the great
religions of mankind.

15. Revelation and Faith

If revelation is the work of God, then faith is the receptivity of man to acknowledge this
revelation. Hence, revelation and faith are correlative. It is on the basis of faith that
revelation is accepted. (// we can mention the example of Saint Paul — first,
revelation and faith.) Faith has same place in religion which reason has in philosophy.
To think of faithless religious person is merely contradiction. Faith is the very core,
heart of religion. lt is necessary and sufficient conditions of religion. So, faith is that
indestructible belief which is accepted wholly even without any evidence. For a
religious person, this is guarantee of truth. According to Kant, “Faith has subjective
certainty, sufficient for action, but insufficient for objective knowledge.’’

TYPES AND VARIATIONS

1. Primitive/tribal Religions
In such culture revelation is frequently identified with the experience of
supernatural power in connection with particular physical objects, such as
stones, amulets, _bones of the dead, unusual animals, and other objects. The
sacred or holy is likewise believed to be present in sacred trees, groves, shrines,
and the like and in elemental realities such as earth, water, sky, and the
heavenly bodies. Once specified as holy, such objects take on symbolic value
and become capable of mediating numinous (spiritual) experiences to the
adherents of a cult. Certain charismatic individuals, such as shamans, who are
believed to be in communion with the sacred or holy, perform functions akin to
those of the prophet and the -mystic in more developed religions.

2. Religions of the East

Eastern religions are concerned with man's struggle to understand and cope
with the predicament of his existence in the world and to achieve emancipation,
enlightenment, and unity with the Absolute. Western religions, on the other
hand, lay more stress on man's obedient response to the sovereign Word of
God. Thenotion of revelation in the specific sense of a divine self-
communication is more apparent in Western than in Eastem religions.
 i. Hinduism
In Hinduism, revelation is generally viewed as a process whereby the
religious seeker, actuating his deeper spiritual powers, escapes from the
world of change and illusion and comes into contact with ultimate reality.
The sacred books are held to embody revelat.ion'ins0t'ar as they reflect the
eternal and necessary order of things. A major form of Hindu thought,
Vedanta, includes two main tendencies: the monistic (advaita) and the
theistic (bhakti).

ii. Buddhism
Buddhism, the other great religion originating on Indian soil, conceives of
revelation not as a personal intervention of the Absolute into the worldly
realm of relativities but as enlightenment gained through discipline and
meditation. Gautama the Buddha (6th to 5th century BC), after a striking
experience of human transitoriness and a period of ascetical contemplation,
received an illumination that enabled him to become the supreme teacher
for all his followers. Although Buddhists do not speak of supernatural
revelation, they regard the Buddha as a uniquely eminent discoverer of
liberating truth. Some venerate him, some worship him, and all Buddhists
seek to imitate him as the most perfect embodiment of ideal manhood--an
ideal that he in some way "reveals."

Religions of the West

In the three great religions of the West-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—revelation is

the basic category of religious knowledge. Man knows God and his will because God
has freely revealed himself--his qualities, purpose, or instructions.

iii. Judaism
The Israelite faith looked back the first five books of the Old Testament for
its fundamental revelation of God. God was believed to have revealed himself
to the patriarchs and prophets by various means not unlike those known to
the primitive religions —-theophanies (visible manifestations of the divine),
dreams, visions, auditions, and ecstasies--and also, more significantly, by
his mighty deeds, such as his bringing the Israelites out of Egypt and
enabling them to conquer the Holy Land. Moses and the prophets were
viewed as the chosen spokesmen who interpreted God's will and purposes to
the nation. Their inspired words were to be accepted in loving obedience as
the Word of God.
 iv. Christianity
Accepting the Hebrew Scriptures as preparatory revelation, Christianity
maintains that revelation is brought to its unsurpassable climax in the
person of Jesus Christ, who is God's own Son, his eternal Word, and the
perfect image of the Father. The Christian revelation is viewed as occurring
primarily in the life, teaching, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, all
interpreted by the apostolic witnesses under the illumination of the Holy
Spirit.

v. Islam
Islam, the third great prophetic religion of the West, has its basis in
revelations received by Muhammad (c. 7th century AD). These were collected
shortly after his death into the Quran (Koran), which is regarded by Muslims
as the final, perfect revelation--a human copy of the eternal book, dictated to
the Prophet. While Islam accords prophetic status to Moses and Jesus, it
looks upon the Quran as-a correction and completion of all that went before.
More than either Judaism or Christianity, Islam is a religion of the Book.
Revelation is understood to be a declaration of God's will rather than his
personal self-disclosure.

vi. Zoroastrianism
A fourth great prophetic religion experienced a revelation from Ahura Mazda
(The Wise) and chose to follow him in the battle against the forces of evil.
This revelation enabled Zoroaster and his followers to comprehend the
difference between good (Truth) and evil (The Lie) and to know the one true
God.

Critical comments
However, there are certain philosophical problems associated with revelation.
Revelation or Sruti has no meaning to a person who has no faith in God or
supernatural entity. Source of knowledge, that is, God is itself a debatable issue. God
and such related things are accepted solely on the basis of faith.

Secondly, it is not verifiable simply because it is unverifiable

There is great variation and even contradiction among various scriptures. Even within
same religion, we can find variations and differences. Hence, it is difficult to judge
which is certain and indubitable truth. And finally, there is no place for reason.
 Religious Experience:
Nature and Object (Indian & Western)
Countless individuals claim to have had a religious experience of one sort or another.
One study indicates that at least thirty percent of the global population has had such
an experience. For some, these experiences provide first-hand evidence or proof for the
reality of what the experiencer (the one having the experience) believes in and perhaps
even for his or her religion as a whole. For others, they are illusions or delusions,
psychological experiences brought on by a number of different but purely natural
factors.

Hence it becomes essential to explore the meaning and diversity of religious

experience, arguments which claim that religious experience provides justification for
religious beliefs and rebuttals to those arguments.

What is a religious experience?

In a broad sense religious experience refers to any experience of the sacred within a
religious context, including religious feelings, visions, and mystical and numinous
experiences. A religious experience is intensely personal, and it often occurs in the
midst of such religious practices as prayer, meditation, worship, chanting, or the
performance of other religious ritual. Many times such experiences occur in a church,
synagogue, mosque, temple, monastery, or other holy place.

But religious experiences have been recorded in any number of circumstances and
locations. There are three general features which are common to the phenomenon of
religious experience:

1. Universality: Religious experience is a universal phenomenon. It has been

recorded across the spectrum of space and time, past and recent, including
within highly secularized societies.

2. Diversity: There is a wide diversity of religious experiences, and each experience

is in some sense unique to the individual who has it. While there are
similarities among the religious experiences of adherents of the various
religious traditions, there are also differences, and this adds to the richness and
variety of the experiences across the religious spectrum. .

3. Importance: Religious experience is important in unique and momentous ways,

often resulting in a transformed or reoriented life, a reevaluation of the way one
thinks or lives, or even a change of world views.
Categories of religious experience
We utilize a classification which distinguishes three categories of experience:

 Regenerative,
 Charismatic, and
 Mystical.

1. A regenerative religious experience is one in which the experiencer undergoes a

life transformation— a conversion. It may mean change of entire worldview of
an individual. In Evangelical Christian circles this is often referred to as being
“born again” or being “born from above" (based on the Book of John in the New
Testament in which Jesus says “... no one can see the kingdom of God without
being born from above.” [John 313]). Elsewhere this kind of experience is
expressed as “experiencing religion,” “experiencing salvation,” or being
“delivered from evil.” Through such experiences, individuals often find their
lives to be changed, filled with meaning and newness, and full of love, joy, and
hope.

Along with conversion and salvation, another facet of the regenerative

experience is moral transformation. In this case, prior to the experience, the
individual may feel a sense of sin, guilt, or the inability to do what he or she
knows to be morally appropriate. Upon having the regenerative religious
experience, she senses that sin and guilt have been removed and a new vision
of goodness is seen and sought after; a new or renewed emphasis on moral
duties ensues in one‟s life.

One can find such transformational experiences in all of the major religious
traditions.

2. A second category of religious experience is charismatic experience. This is a

type of experience in which special abilities, gifts, or blessings are manifested.

Charismatic experiences are also observed in all major world religions. It is has
been reported in Judeo-Christian tradition. In Buddhism, for example, the
monk is often understood to be a charismatic and holy figure — not one who
has received a gift from God, but rather one who has experienced the blessings
of the Dharma (teachings of the Buddha and the fundamental constituents of
the world).Hinduism too has its gurus and sadhus, and Islam has its sheiks
and walis. These spiritual leaders are often taken to have charismatic qualities,
gifts, and powers.
 3. A third category is mystical experience which, as described by James, includes
four distinct characteristics:

 Ineffability: the experience cannot be adequately described, if at all.

 Noetic quality: the experiencer believes that she has learned something
important from the experience.
 Transiency: the experience is temporary and the experiencer soon
returns to a “normal” state of mind.
 Passivity: the experience occurs without conscious decision or control
and it cannot be brought tohappen at will.

Mystical experiences take different forms, but a common theme among

many of them is identity or union with God in Western religion, or with
Absolute Reality - Brahman or nirvana — in Eastern religion.

It is here in mystical experience that the monism of some Eastern

religions is; also experienced in Western theistic religions. We find
monistic mystical experiences described in Judaism (e.g. The Zohar),
Christianity(e.g. Meister Eckhart and Saint John of the Cross), and Islam
(eg. Sufi school of Ibn al—„Arabi).

While the three Western religions are broadly theistic, they have developed within
them monistic streams of thought.

There is a wide range of experiences which are classified as mystical. Besides the
union with God/Absolute Reality experiences noted above, another kind of mystical
experience is nature mysticism. In this sense, even an atheist can have a mystical
“religious” experience.

The Buddhist experiences of sunyata, or emptiness, developed in the Madhyamika

(Middle Way) school of Buddhism, or enlightenment, developed in the Zen tradition,
are also considered by many to be mystical experiences.

Yet another kind of mystical experience is numinous experience. Rudolf Otto describes
numinous experience in the Latin as mysterium tremendum et fascinans (an
overpowering, mysterious, luring experience). Rudolf Otto argues that there is one
common factor to all religious experience, independent of the cultural background
which is numinous. The “numinous” experience has two aspects:-

 mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling;

an
 mysterium fascinans, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel.

The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person feels to
be in communion with a holy other. Otto sees the numinous as the only possible
religious experience. Numinous experiences may be focused on some particular
individual, such as Jesus or Krishna; or on some object, such as an icon or stone; or
there may be no identified object whatsoever in the experience. But they commonly
reflect an encounter with, presence or, meeting “Other” — a separate self or will or
power which forces itself upon the consciousness of the experiencer, unexpectedly and
profoundly.

Numinous experience has two aspects:

1. The raw, experience itself,

2. The experience with its interpretation by ideas.

Some of the important characteristics of numinous experience are: -

a. Irrefutable: It is claimed that the numinous experience is irrefutable both with

regard to itself and' with regard to its object in relation to which the experience
takes place.

b. Object of cognition: God or "the other” is not merely the name of numinous
experience rather it is the „object to which the experience is directed in relation to
which this kind of experience has arisen. Just as perceiving is a psychological act
which reveals an appropriate object like a table, a chair, a rose, so the numinous
experience reveals mysterium tremendum or a presence of a God of Love. '

c. Self —validating: The uncanny experience is always of a deity and this cognition
as a cognition of the deity is indubitable or self-validating.

Keith Yandell divides religious experiences into five categories, according to the
content of the experiences:

1. Monotheistic,
2. Nirvanic (enlightenment experiences associated with Buddhism)
3. Kevalic (enlightenment experiences associated with Jainism)
4. Moksha (experiences of release from karma, associated with Hinduism)
5. Nature experiences
DIVERSE OBJECTS OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

Just as there are a variety of religions, each with its own claims about the nature
of reality, there are a variety of objects and states of affairs that the subjects of
these experiences claim to be aware of.

In western theistic traditions, the object of religious experiences is typically God

himself, understood as an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, free, and perfectly good
spirit. God, for reasons of his own, reveals himself to people, some of them
unbidden (like Moses, Muhammad, and Saint Paul), and some because they have
undertaken a rigorous practice to draw closer to him (like the mystics). Other
experiences can of angels, demons, saints, heaven, hell, or other religiously
significant objects.

In numinous experience, one feels the presence of an over-powering “other”, a

separate self or will or power which forces itself upon the consciousness of the
experiencer, unexpectedly and profoundly. The experience is the cognition of the
deity.

In other traditions, it is not necessarily a personal being who is the object of the
experience, or even a positive being at all. In Indian traditions—chiefly Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Jainism-the object of religious experiences is some basic fact or
feature of reality, rather than some entity separate from the universe. In the
orthodox Hindu traditions, one may certainly have an experience of a god or some
other supernatural entity (like Arjuna„s encounter with Krishna in the Bhagavad
Gita), but a great many important kinds of experiences are of Brahman, and its
identity with the self.

In Theravada Buddhism, the goal of meditation is to “see things as they are," which
is to see them as unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not-self. The meditator, as he
or she makes progress along the way, sheds various delusions and attachments."
The last one to go is the delusion that he or she is a self. To see this is to see all of
reality as made up of sequences of momentary events, each causally dependent on
the ones that went before. Thus, the object of religious experience is not a positive
transcendent being but rather an insight "into the fundamental reality of the world
that it is momentary, impermanent , always “becoming”.

The realization that everything is dependent for its origination (This being, that
arises) and individual self is non-substantial in nature. There are no abiding
substances, and no eternal souls. Seeing reality that way extinguishes the fires of
craving, and liberates the meditator from the necessity of rebirth.

In the Mahayana Buddhist traditions, what brings enlightenment is direct

realization of sunyata as a basic fact about reality.
Religious experience and justification
Religious experience is typically a private matter. Someone claims to have an
experience in which she senses that she is one with the divine, say. Or someone
else claims to experience God or an angel speaking to him. Some of the important
philosophical questions from the phenomenon of religious experience are:

Is a person justified in inferring from a religious experience (either one‟s own or

that of another) knowledge of an objective reality which is the object of that
experience? Can one be mistaken about such experiences? And how would he
know?

Arguments from Analogy

Argument from analogy is offered for the justification of religious experience based
on sense perception which runs as follows

I experience a tree, and I believe that a tree exists. I experience God, and I believe
that God exists. Even though there are dissimilarities between tree experiences and
God experiences, there are enough relevant similarities to warrant belief in God if
we are warranted in having tree beliefs. Both of the experiences are

I. noetic (that is, they both have to do with the content of the mind, including
beliefs, desires, values, etc) -
II. Both have a perceptual object
III. Both include states of affairs which can be checked or verified in some
sense.

However, whether religious experiences do include a perceptual object is a

debatable point. Mystical experiences, for example, are often taken by
mystics to be ineffable. An ineffable experience by definition contains no
expressible cognitive content. (This point is discussed in detail elsewhere)

Principle of Credulity
According to this principle, when it seems (epistemologically) to someone that
something is the case, then in the absence of special considerations it probably is.

When I m walking through the forest and see a squirrel in a tree just ahead me, for
example, I am justified in believing that it is, in fact, a squirrel in the tree just
ahead of me; unless, that is, I have special reasons to doubt my belief in this case.

One could be mistaken in believing that something is the way it appears, but
unless there is good reason to disbelieve it, we should not do so. Swinburne claims
that rejecting this principle will land one in a “skeptical bog”- in which a person
must doubt everything that cannot be proven deductively.
Misplaced Emphasis
Some view the attempt to seek justification for religious beliefs from religious
experience as inappropriately emphasizing the cognitive aspect of such experience.
Consider Buddhism. For the Buddhist adherent, a primary goal is to be released
from a state of craving and suffering and to attain nirvana, no-self or emptiness.

The Buddhist does not ultimately seek knowledge about, or evidence or proof for,
the existence of God or Ultimate Reality or nirvana. Rather, she is seeking the
extinction „of self and its attending cognitive processes. This is not to say that
Buddhists cannot use individual or cumulative religious experiences within their
tradition to validate their religious beliefs, but that such experiences are primarily
directed toward liberation, not cognition.

Challenges to religious experience as justification for religious beliefs

1. Lack of verifiability

One argument against the claim that religious experience provides justification for
religious beliefs is that such experiences are not verifiable (they are not checkable
as are other kinds of experiences).The experience may psychologically appear to be
incorrigible*, indubitable, and self-validating, but this feeling of certainty is not
empirical certainty which ensues from the inter-subjective tests of an empirical
statement by means of an agreed procedure containing a number of objective
checks.

2. Conflicting claims within the variety of religious experience

Another objection is that religious experiences are widely divergent, conflicting, and
even contradictory. The Advaita Vedantin experience that all reality is one and
undifferentiated, for example, contradicts the Islamic experience that Allah is the
one true God, a divine reality who exists as a separate being from the person
having the experience.

3. The circularity objection

A third objection to the claim that religious experience provides justification for
religious belief is that such justification is circular: it depends on assumptions
which are not self-evident to everyone and yet are then utilized as controls or
limitations on the experience. Thus it seems that most religious experiences reflect
the beliefs and values germane to the religion, or worldview, of the experience. The
experiencers are having experiences in line with what they already believe.
 4. Scientific explanations of religious experience.

I. A psychological understanding of religious experience.

There are many different psychological explanations of religious
experience. One of the most well known was offered by Sigmund Freud.
Freud argued that feelings of helplessness and fear in childhood foster a
desire for fatherly, loving protection. This desire, or wish, for a protective
figure carries on into adulthood and demands a greater, more powerful
being than a human„ father. Two further desires are prominent as well:
the substantiation of universal justice and a continuation of our own
existence after death. These combined wishes are satisfied through the
illusion of divine providence.

II. A neuro-scientific understanding of religious experience.

Recent advances in neuroscience have given rise to the view that
religious experience may be the result of purely neuro-physiological
causes and thus are ultimately delusory. John Hick delineates five
examples derived from recent research which cover the gamut of religious
experience types:

1. Epileptic seizures and frontal lobe stimulation by the “Persinger

helmet” [a transcranial magnetic stimulator] cause religious
visions.
2. Psychotropic drugs cause various forms of religious experience.
3. “Pure” consciousness, consciousness of the Void, Emptiness,
sunyata, is caused by consciousness continuing after the cutting
off of all perceptual input.
4. The sense of unity with all reality is caused by closing down the
awareness of the bodily boundaries of the individual.
5. The sense of the presence of God or of other supernatural beings
is caused by 'a splitting of the “self-system” into two, one half
seeing the other half as a distinct entity

Differences in interpretation of religious experience

Some philosophers of religion reject religious experience as a ground for religious
belief. This is not to say that they necessarily deny that individuals have had
authentic religious experiences. Rather, they deny that one can properly infer from
such experiences that their cause was God, or nirvana, or Ultimate Reality, etc., or
that what the experience was about (if it contained cognitive content) is true or
actually exists. They conclude that a religious experience cannot establish the
objective reality of the perceptual object of the experience; all it can provide is
evidence for the reality of specific psychological states.
Mysticism
Mysticism is the religious experience in the purest and concentrated form. It is the
most acute, intense and living experience of supreme reality or God. Mystics claim to
have the most direct and intimate experience of the divine presence. Both in the East
and the West there have been important mystics. Mystical experiences take different
forms, but a common theme among many of them is identity or union with God in
Western religion or with Absolute Reality- Brahman or nirvana - in Eastern religion.

Mystical experience as different from normal experience…

It is absolutely different from ordinary experience. It is completely devoid of all
perceptions, thoughts, emotions, desires, etc. which are necessary elements of
ordinary experience. It is such an experience about which nothing can be said. It is
this element of indescribability which makes it a mystic experience.

The ordinary consciousness can be likened to be a building with three floors. The
ground floor consists of physical sensations- sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch
sensations, and organic sensations. The second floor consists of images, which we
tend to think of as mental copies of sensations. The third floor is the level of the
intellect, which is the faculty of concepts where abstract thinking and reasoning
processes are developed. The whole structure can be called sensory-intellectual
consciousness.

Concepts
Images
Sensations
Structure of sensory intellectual consciousness

On the other hand, mystical consciousness is destitute of any sensations at all. Nor
does it contain any concepts or thoughts. This is the reason mystics say their
experience is "ineffable". All words in all languages are the products of our sensory
intellectual consciousness. The mystical experience entirely transcends our sensory
intellectual consciousness; there are no thoughts, no conceptions and no sensations.

In fully developed mystical experience, there is an apprehension of an ultimate non-

sensuous unity in all things; a oneness or a One to which neither the senses nor the
reason can penetrate.

In such an experience, there is great element of subjectivity. Most often, mystic

experience is understood as individual communion with supreme reality or god or
goddess. One can receive these very subjective experiences as vision, dreams,
revelations, etc. Thomas Aquinas, a Christian mystic of 13th century AD, defined it as
“cognitio dei experimentalis”, that is, experiential knowledge of God.

Mystical experience takes different forms such as identity or union with God or with
absolute reality:

1. “If I am to know God directly, I must become completely He and He I, so that

this He and this I become and are one I.” “One who knows Brahman becomes
brahman.” “Flight of alone to the alone.”

2. Even an atheist can have a mystical, religious experience. For example, nature
mysticism or the Buddhist experience of shunya.

3. Numinous experience. Another kind of mystical experience. Rudolph Otto

describes numinous experience in the Latin as “mysterium tremendum et
fascinan”, that is, an overpowering, mysterious and alluring experience. This
type of experience may be focused on some particular individual such as Jesus
or Krishna or on some object such as an icon or stone or there may be no
identified object whatsoever in the experience. But, they commonly reflect an
encounter with an “other” — a separate self, will or power which forces itself
upon the consciousness of the experiencer unexpectedly and profoundly.

Both in the East and West, there have been important mystics. In West, the
most celebrated name is Plotinus. However, mysticism is distinct feature of
Indian religion. It is found in most undiluted form in the Upanishads,
Advaitism, Bhakti cult, Kabirism, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, etc. The
seeker identifies himself completely with the ultimate reality like the Brahman.
There is no knower or known. Both become one. It is like one who knows
Brahman becomes brahman.

Sufis subscribe to mysticism. But, they do not talk of identification so much

with God as they talk of vision and communion with God. For the Muslims, God
is transcendent and no mortal man can dare to identify himself with God. Jews
also subscribe to such views. Hence, Jesus Christ was crucified and Al-Halaj
was stoned to death because they identified themselves with God.

Characteristics
It is characterized by four features:

1. Ineffability
It means that mystical experience defies expression because no adequate report
of its content can be‟ given in words. It is essentially extra—rational element in
the religion. This numinous experience is unique and sui generis (unique of its
kind) and cannot be assimilated into any other experience. It defies the use of
category of thoughts. Its true nature could be understood only when individual
himself experiences.
 2. Noetic quality.
It is some sort of revelation and illumination. There is an insight into the depth
of truth. In spite of subjectivity, it is cognitive for those who experience it. There
is direct knowledge of certain and indubitable truth which are beyond human
experience and reason.

3. Transiency:
It is transient because it cannot be sustained for long. But, certainly the
experience may recur from time to time and recurring increases the depth and
intensity. In case of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, mystic stage lasted for long
periods and even for several days. His mystic trance took place most frequently
and he could induce it into others as well.

4. Passivity:
The mystics feel that his will is in subordination and a superior will wholly
grasp him in power. -In the mystic experience, mystic simply loses freedom of
will. However, after the experience, V mysticism remains in fragmented
memories. As a result, it leavesdeep impact and impression on the personality.

Types
1. Extrovert.
In such mystic experience, mystic realizes the ultimate truth of this cosmology
through his sense organs. He experiences all material things. However, he could
not reach to that transcendental consciousness which is different from ordinary
consciousness. In that way, it cannot be called as real mysticism. But, certainly
it forms the initial stage for real mysticism.

2. Introvert.
In this mystic experience, mystic completely becomes internal oriented,
detached from external world and realizes the ultimate reality and supernatural
truth within himself. All the contents of ordinary consciousness, that is,
emotions, feelings, desires, etc. vanish and he reaches to the transcendental
consciousness. It is real mysticism. God is there and soul is in God. There is no
mystery. Problems vanish and everything is flooded with light.

3. Theist. It involves the experience of God. (11 personal God)

4. Non-theist. It involves the experience other than God. (// non-theist is not
critical; atheist becomes Critical.)
Mysticism could be further classified as:

1. Incomplete mysticism. In this, mystic remains in absorption and ecstasy.

2. Complete mysticism. In this, contemplation gives rise to boundless action. Here,

there is creation, action and love. There is high value to social service and
action for the upliftment of downtrodden people. There is pleas to mitigate
human sufferings.

Ways and means

In almost all religions, there is description of ways and means to attain mysticism. For
example, in Indian tradition, there is great emphasis on yoga practices, especially
meditation. Detachment is also accepted as a means. In some culture or traditions,
mind altering substances often referred as entheogens have been used while in some
others, rituals, self-reflection, self-enquiry, etc. are emphasized.

Mysticism & religion

It is common conception that mystical experience is a religious experience and that
mysticism is necessarily a religious phenomenon. It is thought that mysticism and
religious mysticism are one and the something. But this is far from being correct. It is
true that there is an important connector between mysticism and religion, but it is not
nearly so direct.

There are several grounds for insisting that in itself mystical experience is not a
religious phenomenon and its connection with religion is subsequent.

1. Firstly of the mystical experience is stripped off its intellectual interpretations

such as that which identifies it with God, or with the absolute, what is left is
indifferent rated unity there seems to be nothing religious about
undifferentiated unity as such. In the theist religious of the west, the experience
of the undifferentiated unity is interpreted as “union with God”. But this is an
interpretation and not the experience itself.

2. Secondly there are varied interpretations of the same experience given in

different cultures. The undifferentiated unity is interrelated as Trinitarian
conception of God by Eckhart and Roysbroeck, Unitarian God of Islam by
Islamic mystics, and by atavistic realism as impersonal absolute.

3. Further, the Buddhist experience of „sunyata‟ or nothingness is not interpreted

as any land of God at all. Buddhism denies the existence of any supreme being.
The Buddhist mystical experience of „Sunyata‟ which comes with grasping the
fundamental nature of reality as impermanent and through following
„astangikamarg‟ is not clothed in any religious garb whatsoever.
But it is seen that mysticism usually takes on some religious form and is usually
found in connection with a definite religious zultire. This may be due to following
reasons.

1. First, a common thread connecting all introvertive mystical experience is

“melting away” of the individual into the Infinite of one‟s own individuality.
Phrases of “melting away”, “passes away” are found in mystical literatures of all
major religious. Among sufis, it is called fana. The individual directly experience
the disappearance of one‟s own individually, its fading away into the infinite.
The Infinite is in most minds identified with the idea of God. So the experience
acquires a religious meaning.

2. Second, undifferentiated unity is necessarily thought of by mystics as being

beyond space and beyond time. Mystical experience transcends time and is an
experience of “the Eternal Now”. But in religious minds the Eternal, like the
infinite, is another name for God. Hence, the mystical experience is thought of
as an experience of God.

3. Third, emotional side of experience. It is the universal testimony of the mystics

that their kind of consciousness bring feeling of an exalted peace, joy. It
becomes identified with peace of God. This is also why in Buddhism, though the
experience is not personified or called God, it nevertheless becomes Nirvana

Ethical aspects of Mysticism

It is sometimes asserted that mysticism is merely an escape from life and from its
duties and responsibilities. The mystic retreats into a private ecstasy of bliss tums his
back on the world, and forgets not only his own sorrows but the needs and sorrows of
fellow men. To treat the bliss of the mystical consciousness as an end in itself is
certainly a psychological possibility. But this is incomplete form of mysticism.
Complete form of mysticism gives rise to boundless action and creative love for all.

St. John of the cross condemns this state, incomplete mystical state as “spiritual
gluttony”.

The Christian mystics have emphasized that mystical union with God brings with it an
intense and burning love of God which must overflow into the World in the form of love
for fellow-men, and one must show in deeds, show charity, mercy, and not merely in
words.

The Buddhist, Vedantic, Spinoza‟s views are given in Personal Pantheism section.

Some mystics claim that mysticism form the metaphysical bases of love. Mystical
consciousness is the secret fountain of love, human as well as divine, and love in the
end is the only source of true moral activity. Mysticism is the source from which all
ethical values flow.

True love follows from the realization that my brother and I are same, there are no
distinctions between “I” and “you” and “he” and “she”. The dissolution of individuality
ego expands the personality and total, absolute, unconditional loves for all accompany
it. All the barriers of superfluous distinctions are broken between “I” and “you”.

The separateness of individual‟s breads egoism and the war of all against all for one
who had no touches of the mystical visions all men would be islands. And mysticism
makes us realize that “no man is an island”.

Mysticism and epistemology

Mysticism is both feeling as well as form of knowledge. Along with the characteristics
of ineffability, it has a noetic quality also by virtue of which it becomes cognitive.
Therefore, it forms as one of the sources or foundation of religious knowledge. Mystics
claim to have knowledge of ultimate reality which are taken as certain, distinct and
indubitable. In the context of epistemology, mysticism refers to using non-rational
methods to arrive at beliefs and assuming these beliefs to be knowledge.

Neurotic…?
Sometimes, mystic state is criticized as neurotic state. In fact, in_ a neurotic state, two
elements that is social adjustment and mental integration are lacking. But; in mystics,
both of these elements are found in supreme abundance. Company of mystics is
highly valuable. It results into many regenerative and positive changes, feeling of
friendliness for others, sense of community, peace of mind, etc. Their company
enhances the meaning of life and broadening of vision. In some mystics such as -
Ramakrishna-Paramahansa, we find great humanistic thoughts when he says that
service to the mankind is service to God. Thus, mystics cannot be called as neurotics.
Rather, we can refer to them as supernormal states.

Late nineteenth century saw a significant increase of interest in mysticism that

combined with increased interest-in occultism. Theosophy became a major movement
in the popularization of these interests. At the end of 20th century, books like
“Conversation with God” (a series of books which describes what author claimed to be
his experience of direct communication with God) hit the best-sellers list.

Scientific explanation

1. Psychological understanding
Psychologists, Sigmond Freud, had given the wish—fulfillment hypothesis. He
argued that feelings of helplessness and fear in childhood foster a desire for
fatherly loving protection. This desire or Wish for a protective figure carries into
adulthood and demands a greater, more powerful being than a human being,
that is, heavenly father replaces an earthly one. Thus, wish is satisfied through
the illusion of divine providence.

2. Neuro-scientific understanding
Recent advances in neuroscience have given rise to the views that religious
experience may be the result of purely neuro-physiological causes and thus, are
ultimately delusive.
a. Epileptic seizures and frontal lobe stimulations cause religious visions.

b. Psychotropic drugs cause various form of religious experience.

c. Pure consciousness, consciousness of the void, emptiness is caused by

consciousness continuing after the cutting of all perceptual inputs.

d. The sense of unity with all reality is caused by closing down the
awareness of the bodily boundaries of the individuals.

e. The sense of presence of God or other supernatural beings is caused by a

splitting of the self-system into two, one half seeing the other half as a
distinct entity.
Religion without God
Non-theism is the philosophical doctrine which negates the concept of personal God,
that is, negation of divine reality who is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator,
sustainer and destroyer of the world. It simply means that the person in question does
not believe in God. But, when we call a person an atheist, we show an additional
feeling of criticism and contempt towards Him. Non-theism only negatively rejects the
existence of God, however, does not positively assert the non-existence of God.

Does non-theism negate religion?

Non-theism rejects the personal God. But, it does not necessarily reject other spiritual
and supernatural reality. It means a non-theist may reject the existence of God, yet
can accept the existence of other ‘supernatural and divine powers. For example,
Jainism, Buddhism and Samkhya rejects the God, but accepts other supernatural
reality such as nirvana, kaivalya, tirthankar, law of karma, prakriti, purusa, etc.

The necessary requirement of religion means the belief in the supernatural beings and
not necessarily in the personal God. These supernatural beings may be an object of
worship and therefore, may very well become the basis of these religions. However,
these supernatural entities must not be understood as God because they do not have
the personal qualities which God is supposed to have.

Regarding the relationship between religion and God, there are two divergent views.
While according to the majority of thinkers, there is necessary relationship between
religion and God, but according to some, it is just a contingent relationship or no—
relationship all

Many western thinkers maintain that God and religion are inseparably related.
According to them, there is no possibility of religion without God. Similarly, many
Indian thinkers also accept this view. It is maintained that religion is essentially
atheistic principle. Regarding Jainism and Buddhism, it is maintained that Jainism
has made tirthankaras and particularly, Mahavira, as God.

Similarly, Buddhism has made Buddha a God. It-is argued that images of Mahavira
and Buddha have been enshrined in their places of worship and they are worshipped
accordingly. Hence, according to this view, Jainism and Buddhism are as theistic
religion as are Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. .

However, according to other view, it is maintained -that Jainism and Buddhism are
non-theistic religion. It is argued that Jainism and Buddhism do not take tirthankars
and Gautam Buddha as gods in tune with the theistic conception of God, that is,
personalistic notion of God. Buddha and Tirthankaras are not considered as creator,
sustainer and destroyer of this world. They are accepted only as supernatural beings
and are objects of worship and objects of worship need not necessarily be God. Hence,
they are non-theistic religion. They are religion because they fulfill necessary
requirements of religion. Similarly, they are many religions without God.

Buddhism is a non-theistic religion because various Buddhist scholars have refuted

the proofs advanced by Nyaya school and others for the existence of God. Apart from
that, non-theistic trend in Buddhism can also be understood by following points such
as:

1. Buddha’s main concern was to remove pain and miseries of the world in the
form of Nirvana. He gives no place to God in the attainment of Nirvana.

2. There is no place of God Vin the core philosophical doctrine of Buddhism such
as pratityasamutpada which is nothing but the theory of dependent causation.
There is no need of God to guide the operation of causal principle. Moreover,
pratityasamutpada itself negates the possibility of uncaused cause, God.
Similarly, ksanikavada or theory of momentariness eliminates the possibilities
of unchanging eternal God.

a. Various Buddhist thinkers like Ashvaghosh has argued against the

existence of God such as by relying upon the identity of cause and effect
(God and world).

b. Ashvaghosh rejects the possibility of creator God. If both virtue and vice
originates from God, there should be no distinction between merits and
demerits and therefore, there would be no possibility of morality as such.

c. Ashvaghosh questions the motive of creation. He argues that perfect God

can have no motive of its own. If creation is considered as purposeless,
God would become unintelligent. If it maintained that God is created for
the well-being of jivas, then it will be self-contradictory because jiva itself
is the result of creation.

d. If God is creator and omnipotent, then why are there atheists? And if
God is one, why are there polytheists?

e. Ashvaghosh rejects the moral argument for the existence of God.

According to him, omnipotent God cannot be bound by the law of karma
and in fact, there is no need of God because law of karma functions
autonomously on the basis of pratityasamutpada, that is, theory of
dependent causation.
Religion and morality
Religion is a holistic response of man to what he considers as his ultimate concern. As
such, religion contains all the three aspects of human life, namely, cognition, conative
and the affection. Cognition is most prominent in scientific pursuits; conation is well
expressed in morality, and the affective aspect is most clearly manifested in the
artistic pursuits of man. As all these three mental aspects are found inseparably
together, so religion too is found together with morality and art and also science. In
the early stage of civilization religion, art and science were found inextricably together.
But with the development of thought, they became relatively independent of one
another. At the present time they tend to become autonomous discipline with the cry
‗Art for the sake of art‘, and ‗Morality for the sake of morality‘.

RELIGION AND MORALITY

Different views have been taken with regard to be the relation of religion to morality:

1. Religion and morality are inseparable and interdependent.

2. Religion is independent of Morality.
3. Morality is independent of religion as an autonomous discipline.

In contemporary thinking, morality is taken to be an autonomous discipline. But at

one point the involvement of God in morality is widely discussed. ‗Free will‘ is said to
be an important postulate of morality. Some contemporary philosophical analysts like
A. Flew and J .L. Mackie hold that God could have created man with free will and yet
could have so fully determined his free act that he might not have fallen into any
moral lapse. However, Alvin Plantinga challenges this claim of A. Flew and LL. Mackie.
According to Alvin Plantinga, the very linguistic convention maintains that no free act
can be totally determined. Hence, God the creator could not have granted free will to
man and at the same time could not have totally determined free acts so as to
preclude his moral lapse.

INTERDEPENDENCE OF RELIGION AND MORALITY

Higher religions have remained inseparably related to morality. For example, Judaism
and Christianity have accepted the Ten Commandments. Yahwe gave the following ten
commands:

1. I am Lord your God. You shall have no other God before me.
2. You shall not have any image of me.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord, your God.
4. Observe the Sabbath day as holy.
5. Honour your father and mother.....Panca Mahavrata.
6. You shall not murder..... Ahimsa.
7. You shall not commit adultery ......Brahmacarya.
8. You shall not steal ........ Asteya
9. You shall not give false witness ...... .. Satya.
10. You shall not covet.......... Aparigraha.

The last five commandments are virtually the same as the panca mahavrata of
Jainism which five moral vows have been accepted by all the Indian religions.
Thus, religion and morality are inseparable and interdependent at least in the
traditional higher religions of the world.

By ‗Interdependent‘ is meant that religion helps morality and morality, in turn,

keeps on refining religious demands. In general, according to Freud, man has been
able to give up many cruel and aggressive impulses within him in the name of God
and Khasi hills after their embracing Christianity. Now they respect their
neighbours. Thus, religion does help in cultivating the life of morality. The very
religion necessity of the Ten Commandments and panca mahavrata shows that
religion helps the growth of morality. Even when morality is regarded as
independent of religion and wholly autonomous, religion does not remain-wholly
discarded. Both Kant and R.B. Braithwaite bring in God as the psychological
booster of morality. The performance of 0ne‘s duty is not an easy task. Therefore,
Kant recommends that duties should be regarded as ‗divine commands‘.

Further, religions development has been greatly helped by the deepening of moral
insight. For example the later growth of Judaism did not emphasize the cruel rite
of animal- sacrifice. The Lord was said to be better pleased with the practice of
justice, mercy and with a contrite heart. In the same way the Rigvedic Aryans were
persuaded to give up animal- sacrifice and accept the doctrine of Brahman which
taught the conquest of one‘s own animal desires. .

Religion with its derivative of ‗religare‘ means to bind its adherents together and
also to bind the loose ends of lower impulses within each man himself. Hence
morality includes both the external and interiorized rules of conduct. The more
morality is interiorized, the purer if becomes. Both in Christianity and Hinduism
the emphasis is laid on the interiorization of morality in the direction of self-
conquest and the self-culture of the soul. For example in Christianity it is not
enough to refrain from adultery, for whosoever looks at a woman to lust for her has
already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Similarly, in Indian religious thought people are taught to overcome desires like
sexual passion, ager, infatuation, greed etc. Hence, higher the religion the stricter
is the demand for higher morality. In general morality is the purifier of religion and
religion is said to be the perfection of morality, for God is said to be the conservator
of all values, especially morality. In other words, God is the embodiment of morality
and its chief guardian. However, at times religion is said to be independent of
morality.
RELIGION AS INDEPENDENT OF MORALITY
In primitive religion there is more of magic than morality. In early forms of religion
there is more of tabu than moral code. Even in totem-Cult cannibalism was practiced
without any moral considerations. Even children were sacrificed, a trace of which is
visible in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son Isac to please Yahwe.

Again, Ajivikism and other heretical sects mentioned in Brahma-jala-sutta, practiced

and believed in antinomianism which is opposed to the obligation of observing
morality. For example, Purana Kassapa is an akriyavadi (inactionist) who held that
any action has no effect on the soul.

In later times, both in Christianity and Indian thought, there is the teaching of being
saved by the Grace of God alone.

―This soul (Atman) is not to be obtained by instruction, Nor by intellect, nor by much
learning. He is to be obtained only by one whom he (Atman) choses; To such a one
that soul (Atman) reveals his own person (Kath,2.33; Mundaka 3.23).

In the same manner Calvin taught that men are saved by the grace of God. This can
be traced even to Pauline teaching. In the same vein, Karl Barth has taught that God‘s
word can be understood only through the divine grace. In these religion teachings,
moral excellence is discounted, for no man can be counted righteous before God.

In both advaitism and Bhakti cult of the Alvars, it is taught that after the final
attainment of spiritual ascent, the seeker goes beyond ‗good and evil‘. This has several
nuances of meanings. In the first instance, the action whether good or evil belong to
Prakrti. Once this illumination dawns on the seeker that Prakrti alone is the doer,
then this knowledge releases a man from all actions, good or bad.

Secondly, it also means that in reaching the state of prapatti, it is realized that not the
prapanna worksbut God alone. Thus the prapanna is not the doer of any work
whether good or bad. According to Sri Ramakrishna, the released soul feels,

―I am the machine, and Thou, O Lord art the Operator.

I am the house and Thou art the Indweller. I am the chariot and Thou art the Driver
―Again,

‗He is truly free, even in this life, who knows that God does all and he does nothing‘

It also means that the devotee becomes so holy that he can commit no sin. Only holy
acts flow from him;

Thirdly, the phrase ‗Beyond good and evil‘ means that morality remains. Valid at the
Dualistic stage when; however, one become one with Brahman, then action ceases, for
there is none to whom one can do either good or bad.
Thus, there are religious thoughts where morality is either not invoked as in certain
primitive forms of religion, or, where one goes beyond the stage of morality.

AUTONOMY OF MORALITY
Kant has powerfully advocated the case of the autonomy of morals. According to this
way of thinking morality is good not because God wills it, but God wills it because it is
good. The memorable words of Kant are that Good Will is good, not because of the
consequences which can be frustrated by the niggardly provision of a step motherly
nature, but good will is good in itself. Nothing in the world, nay, even beyond the world
is good categorically as is good will. Health, wealth, honor, learning and so on, all can
be misused, but not the good will. Hence, it is a jewel which shines by its own light.

Since the time of Kant the autonomy of moral of morals has become an accepted creed
for the philosophers. They have been regarding religion as a set of moral principles,
either with emotion (Matthew Arnold),or, backed by stories (R.B Braithwaite). For
Braithwaite, a religious assertion is a statement of an intention to carry out a certain
behavior policy, subsumable under a sufficiently general policy to be a moral one,
together with a story as a psychological energizer. There is hardly any analytic
philosopher at present who studies morality with any reference to religion. Even the
ideologies of communism and democracy denounce religion. The Communists have
always been critical of religion, but even a philosopher like John Dewey denounces
religion, but even a philosopher like John Dewey denounce religion and teaches the
self-sufficiency of democracy. The words of John Dewey are remarkable:

―The ideal ends to which we attach our faith are not shadowy and wavering. They
assume concrete from in understanding of our relations. We who now live are parts of
a humanity that extends into the remote past, a humanity that has reacted with
nature. The things in civilization we most prize are not of ourselves. They exist by the
grace of the doing and suffering of the continuous human community in which we are
a link. Ours is the responsibility of conserving, transmitting, rectifying and expanding
the heritage of values we have received that those who come after us may receive it
more solid and secure, more widely accessible and more generously shared than we
have received it. Here are to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicit
and militant‖

In spite of the good which religion has done in the past, even at present to the
development of morality, according to Freud, morality must be made independent of
religion now, Why‘! Because religion is largely mythological and myths are bound to
disappear in the white light of science. If, therefore, religion and morality are kept
together, then with the disappearance. But can man live without religion?
We have maintained the doctrine of religion a priori. Much of the scaffolding of
mythology in religion is bound to disappear, but a purified and refined from of religion
along the path of Advaitism of Shankara, Kabir, Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda
will continue to guide men towards the higher goal of struggling humanity in which
caste and communal riots and international cold wars will become things of the past.
But morals without religion remain a hoax. Even Kant, the father of the doctrine of the
autonomy of religion, recommended the psychological booster of the religion myth. He
recommended that duties should be performed as divine commands, because Kant felt
that the performance of duties is difficult for men without such a booster. Hence
religion and morality have to go together by refining, criticizing and sublimation of one
with another.

Further reading religion & morality

The moral choices people make, and the values they express through them, depend
(consciously or unconsciously) on their understanding of the nature of the world and
the place of humanity within it. But these are also things with which religions are
concerned. Each religion

 presents a particular view of the world

 promotes a set of values by which its followers should live
 Gives specific advice on how to live - in terms of either rules to be followed or
attitudes to be taken.

Religious rules or values may be based on:

 the authority of a religious leader or holy book

 the cumulative experience of that religious community
 Rational thought, or an understanding of what is ‗natural‘.

Religious values may influence society in general, not just practicing members of that
religion. For example, many of the ethical arguments are based on ideas and values
that have been promoted by the Christian religion. This does not mean that every
ethical thinker is Christian, but that everyone who lives within Western culture is
liable to be influenced by Christian ideas, simply because they have come to pervade
so much habitual thinking. The same would be true for someone living in a
predominantly Jewish, _Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist society. The assumptions
people make about the nature and of life often reflect their religious background, or a
deliberate reaction against it.

How are religion and morality related?

There are three possibilities:

 1. Autonomy -— morality may be autonomous if it is based on reason alone,
without any reference to religious ideas. If its values are the same as a
particular religion, that is seen as purely coincidental.

2. Heteronomy - morality may be said to be heteronomous (i.e. rules coming from

outside itself) if it depends directly on religious belief or on a set of values given
by religion.

3. Theonomy — morality is theonomous (i.e. comes from God) if both it and

religion are thought to come from a common source of inspiration and
knowledge, a source that religion may refer to as 'God'.

AUTONOMY
 Responsible moral choice depends on freedom and the ability to choose
rationally. But some religions speak of rewards and punishments offered after
death —— in terms of heaven or hell, or rebirth into higher or lower forms of
life. Are you behaving morally if you obey religious rules for fear of punishment?

 Different religions (or even different sects within a single religion) may take
different approaches to moral issue. In order to choose between conflicting
religious views, a person has to use his or her reason as the ultimate deciding
factor which is autonomy

 If I subscribe to one of the theistic religions (e.g I believe in God), then I will
believe that God already knows what I will choose to do before I do it. If he is
all-powerful, he should be able to prevent me from doing what is wrong. If he
does not do so,‗ he is responsible for the consequences of my action, aiding and
abetting me through divine negligence! In which case, I lose my moral
responsibility.

HETERONOMY
 People cannot escape from the influence of religious values and attitudes. They
have an unconscious effect, even for those who reject religion. Better, then, to
acknowledge that influence than try to deny it.

 As soon as you try to define moral terms (such as ‗goodness‘ or ‗justice‘) you are
using language that has been shaped by the prevailing religions. Natural law,
for example, may have come originally from Aristotle, but today it is understood
largely through the use made of it by Aquinas and the Catholic Church.
Religion has largely supplied the language of ethical debate.
  It is one thing to understand what is right, quite another to have the courage or
conviction to put it into effect. It can be argued that religion is the source of
such courage and conviction, and that it provides a community within which
values and moral attitudes can be shared and reinforced.

 Philosophers often assume that everyone is reasonable. Religions, by contrast,

are well aware of human selfishness and unreasonableness. Religion is likely to
offer a more realistic view of human nature than philosophy, and therefore be
better able to guide moral choice.

THEONOMY –
 Intuitionism was right in saying that there are certain things that are known,
but cannot be described. We have an intuitive sense of the meaning of the word
'good'. This intuition lies behind both religion and morality.

 It can be argued that religion and morality have a common source in ‗mystical‘
experience — moments of intuitive awareness of a sense of meaning, purpose or
wholeness in life, of well-being and acceptance. This is a basic feature of
religious experience, and gives the impetus to act in a purposeful and moral
way.

 Metaphysics (the rational exploration of meaning and purpose in the world) can
be seen as a basis for morality (as in Greek thought, in the "natural law‖
tradition, and as explored today by, for example, Iris , Murdoch in Metaphysics
as a Guide to Morals) and as fundamental to religion.

THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA

Named after one of Plato's dialogues, the Euthyphro Dilemma poses the question of
the relationship between autonomous morality and religion is a most succinct way. It
asks: Is something right because the gods command it? Or do the gods command it
because it is light?

If you take the first option, you have to ask yourself whether it would be right to obey
any divine command, however much it went against your personal sense of right and
wrong. Take the example of Abraham, in the Old Testament, who was commanded by
God to sacrifice his only son. Reprieved at the last minute, Abraham is praised for
being prepared to kill his son at God's command. There have been many atrocities
(judging by autonomous morality) carried out in the name of religion. If it is believed
that God did indeed command them, does that make them right?

If you take the second option, you acknowledge a sense of right arid wrong that is
independent of God — and hence the priority and autonomous nature of morality. In
effect, you assess the morality of God's commands against your own reason.
The basis for religious ethics

Judaism

Jewish morality is based on the Torah, which means ‗teaching‘ or ‗law‘. It is found in
the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, and includes many rules for ethical and social
matters. The most famous of these rules are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:I-l7),
and the Torah was famously summed up by Rabbi Hillel in the first century BCE in
one of the various forms of the ‗golden rule‘: ‗What is hateful to you do not do to
another.‘

Christianity

Because it developed out of Judaism (Jesus was a Jew, and his first followers formed a
sect within Judaism rather than a separate religion), Christianity accepts the moral
basis of the Ten Commandments and the Jewish Torah as part of its scriptures.

Christianity interprets the rules of the Torah in the light of the life and teaching of
Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, a significant feature of this is that Jesus was
prepared to set aside the detailed requirements of the Law, but insisted that in doing
so he was not setting the Law aside, but rather fulfilling and completing it. This has
allowed Christian morality a measure of interpretative flexibility.

Christianity emphasizes faith in God and in Jesus Christ, rather than obedience to
religion rules as the basis of its way of life. It is therefore less rule-based than
Judaism, even where it shares the same values.

Source of authority for Christian morality vary from one Christian denomination to
another, but they include:

 the authority of the Church (believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit),

including the Pope, the Bishop of Rome
 the authority of the Scriptures –
 human reason (used in applying a ‗natural law‘ basis for morality)
 conscience '
 the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

The fact that there are a number of different sources of authority is significant. Thus,
at the time of the Reformation, the authority of the Church was challenged on the
basis of the authority of the Scriptures. Reason and conscience are significant in re-
examining the relevance of particular teaching to changing cultural and social
circumstances.
Islam

The word ‗Islam‘ means ‗submission‘. Muslims believe that most things in the world
submit naturally to God, the source of life. Humans are the exception, for people can
either choose to submit to God, living in a natural way, or refuse to do so.
Fundamental to Muslim ethics is the universe. Indeed, Muslims believed that every
child is born a Muslim, and only later may adopt another religion or decided to have
no religion at all.

Muslims believed that Allah (the Arabic term for God, the source of life) revealed his
will for humankind through various prophets, but that his final revelation was given
through the prophet Muhammad.

Muslims have two written source of authority:

 The Qur‘an- this is believed by Muslim to be the revelation of the will of God,
given to Muhammad, in a series of visionary experiences. It is traditionally
thought that Muhammad was illiterate, but that he was told to recite what he
heard. The Qur‘an is the written record of that recitation. .

 The Hadith- this is a collection of the saying and deeds of the prophet
Muhammad.

These from the basis of Shariah. This term, which means ‗path‘, describes a natural
law, created by God, which determines everything in the universe, from the movement
of planets to the details of how people should act. It seeks to give expression to the
fundamental Muslim believe in the unity of God (Allah), and forms not only an ethical
system and legal framework, but effectively a whole way of life.

As they apply Shariah to present-day situations, Muslim use the principle of analogy
— linking a present issue to a decision found in the Hadith or Qur‘an. Where there is
doubt about what is right, a gathering of Muslim scholars (called the ulama) is called
together to reach a decision on a point of law. Muslims believe that their community
can never agree together on something that is wrong, and therefore decisions by the
ulama are authoritative.

One particular feature of Muslim moral thinking is the requirement that Muslims
should defend of the faith of Islam and of the community of Muslims. The term used
for this is jihad, and it takes two forms. The greater jihad is the internal struggle that
every Muslim is required to undertake to overcome his or her personal faults. The
lesser jihad, however, is the requirement to defend both the faith and the worldwide
community of Muslim against external threats.
Hinduism
Hinduism is the name used for a variety of religion traditions that originated in the
Indian sub-continent. There are scriptures that are used by a large number of them-
the Ramayana or the Bhagavad Gita, for example!— but there is no set way of
interpreting them, and some Hindus do not read scripture, but depend on oral
traditions for understanding their religion.

Nevertheless, there are certain features that apply widely, and concepts that may be
used in understanding the personal and social values of Hindu society.

 Dharma: This is the term used for ‗right conduct‘ or ‗duty‘, and it is this that
determines what is morally right. Your particular Dharma depends on who you
are, and what stage of life you have reached. .

 Ashramas: The Ashramas are the four stages in life. Each of them has certain
duties, and each implies certain moral choices:

o 1. Student - at this stage a person is expected to work hard, to show

respect to parents and teachers and to develop self- discipline. Students
are expected to obstain from sex, alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

o 2. Householder- during the middle years of life a person is expected to

be involved with marriage, family and carrer. The social rules for this
stage are the most lenient. .

o 3. Retired- traditionally, from the time of the arrival of grandchild, it is

expected that both husband and wife may start back from family and
business concerns. At this point they can choose to hand over control of
a family business, for example, to the next generation.

o 4. Ascetic- a few Hindus, in the last years of their life, choose to divest
themselves of all possessions and devote themselves to the practice of
their religion. Most remain in the retired stage however, and continue to
live with their families.

Hinduism recognizes that different people have different abilities and are able to take
on different responsibilities.

Buddhism
Unlike most other religious traditions, Buddhism is not actually based on a belief in
God but offers a practical set of guidelines for spiritual development.
A Buddhist may say that his or her aim in life is to overcome the suffering caused by
greed, hatred and illusion while developing in a way that leads to peace, joy and
insight. Buddhists believe that all ethically significant actions (karma) have their
consequences. What you do today will affect the sort of person you become tomorrow
not in the sense that there is any externally imposed law to that effect, but just
because actions have their natural consequences. Those who are foolish remained
trapped in a cycle of craving and un-satisfactoriness.

Buddhists are encouraged to cultivate qualities of compassion, gentleness and

serenity, and to overcome the 'p0isons' of hatred, greed and ignorance.

Buddhist moral guidelines are summed up in the five basic precepts, undertaken by
all committed Buddhists.

1. Not to destroy life. This means avoiding killing other humans, and also (for
many Buddhists) keeping to a vegetarian diet, so as to minimize the-suffering of
other species. It also implies that Buddhists should avoid a negative attitude
towards —denigrating people or situations - but should cultivate an attitude of
metta (lovin, kindness).

2. Not to take what is not given. This requires avoidance of dishonesty and
grasping for material goods in a way that may be honest, but implies craving.
Buddhists should cultivate an attitude of generosity.

3. Not to indulge in harmful sexual activity. There is the general principle that
sexuality should not be used in such a way as to harm people. Although many
Buddhist attitudes are shaped by the cultures within which it has developed, in
general, Buddhism takes a liberal and positive attitude to sex - although those
who aspire to follow the spiritual path seriously may find that they are able to
find Personal fulfillment without sexual activity. This precept is sometimes
taken in a broader sense of not harmfully over-indulging any of the senses.

4. Not to speak falsely. This is a general rule against lying, but also against
anything that deliberately gives a false impression.

5. Not to take those things that clouds the mind. In order to increase their
awareness, it is important that Buddhists should stay alert and he sensitive to
their own and other people‘s feelings and responses. This cannot happen if the
mind is dulled by alcohol or drugs, and so it is recommended to avoid them.
Unlike in Islam, however, there is no absolute prohibition.
As well as these principles, Buddhists are required to cultivate four mental states,
known as the Brahma Viharas, which may be translated as ‗the places of the divine
spirit‘:

 love-towards all creatures, and including oneself,

 Pity- compassion for all who suffer.
 Joy- an unselfish sharing in the happiness of others
 Serenity—freeing oneself from anxieties of success or failure, and being equal
minded in dealing with other people.

Buddhists do not refer to actions as ‗good‘ or ‗had‘, ‗right‘ or ‗wrong‘, but as ‗skillful‘.
This implies that an action is assessed by the intention of the person who does it
rather than by any external absolutes. As action is skillful if it is the result of insight
and loving kindness, it is un-skillful if it is the result of ignorance, greed or hatred.
That unskillfulness is shown both in the action itself and in the results that come
from it.

Like Christianity; Buddhism is a religion that has been very free to adapt itself as it
has moved from one culture to another. The oldest forms of Buddhism, as found now
in the Theravada traditions of Thailand and Sri Lanka, for example, are very different
from those found in Tibet or Japan. The basic teaching of the Buddha common factor,
but it is considered wise to use skillful means to adapt and apply teachings to the
particular society and situation in which people find themselves.

Although it does have its cultural traditions and ceremonies, and many Buddhists
place great importance of the lineage of theft teachings (the list of teachers who have
handed down traditions from one generation to the next), Buddhism is essentially a
process of self-examination, within broadly defined parameters. Hence it produces
general moral principles and virtues, but does not generally offer narrowly defined
moral rules. The main exception to this is the voluntary acceptance of numerous rules
and traditions by those who choose to spend part of their life as a monk or num.

But even then, monastic discipline is not an end in itself, but a means to create an
environment in which people can practice the Buddhist dharma.

Sikhism
Sikhs believe that, without the inspiration that comes from devotion to God, people
live in illusion, and are dominated by the five evil impulses: lust, anger, greed,
attachment to worldly things and pride. Sikhs are therefore required to cultivate their
opposites: Self-control, forgiveness, contentment, love of God and humility.
 In practical terms, the guidelines for the Sikh way of life are set out in a book called
the ‗Rehat Maryada: A Guide to the Sikh Way of Life‘, a translation of a Punjabi work
of 1945 produced by a group of Sikh scholars and regarded as authoritative for giving
a summary of the Sikh way of life and the teachings of the ten Gurus on which the
Sikh faith is based.

The Sikh community is concerned to emphasize equality. Every Gurdwara (a place of

Sikh worship) has a kitchen and a place where worshippers can sit and eat together.
This is a way of demonstrating the unity and equality of Sikhs.

Sikhs who belong to the Khalsa (those who have committed themselves in a ceremony
to follow the Sikh way of life the word itself means pure) are required to carry a sword
(kirpan), to be used in self-defense. It should be used only when all peaceful means of
resolving a dispute have failed, and only to re-establish justice Where there has been a
wrong for example, to defend the Sikh community), or in a direct act of self-defence.

Religious values and society

The moral choices that a person makes, and the attitude of a society as a whole to
accepted moral norms, will depend to some extent on the vitality of the ethical life of
that society. Some societies are clearly defined by a single religious and cultural
matrix, but in today‘s world they are becoming the exception rather than the rule. It is
more normal these days to encounter societies in which there is a mixture of religious
and ethnic groups. What is more, it might have been assumed at one time that the
ethical views of a particular religion would be the same wherever it was practiced. This
again is now in question. Members of a single religion, bound together by a shared
religious tradition, are nevertheless divided by the lifestyle and expectations of the
societies within which they live.

Hence, there is real scope for problems of commitment and the acknowledgement of
ethical norms. Someone who belongs to a religion, but lives in a largely secular, is
likely to respond to that situation in one of two ways:

 By-making a clear distinction between the lifestyle and ethics of his or her
religious community and that of the rest of society. The temptation then is to
define by difference, and to emphasize those - things in which the religion
differs from the accepted secular norm.

 By compromising on, or re-interpreting, religious rules in a way that brings

them into line with the prevailing lifestyle. Once that happens, members of the
same religion, living in different societies, start to disagree about their religious
ethics.
Making a responsible moral choice involves weighing up all the factors that influence
your self-understanding. Are you basically a member of a religion, who just happens
to-be living in this secular society? Or a secular person and an atheist, who happens
to live in a society dominated by religion? Or are you a member of this society, who
happens to find the teachings of a particular religion helpful? How you weigh up such
conflicts (or potential conflicts) in interest and commitment, will determine the way in
which you balance secular and religious moral arguments.

Sometimes the moral principles of a faith community coincide with those of secular
society, but the authority behind those principles and the way in which moral rules
are justified may still be quite different.

In the case of Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism, the religion tends to promote
its own culture, and is therefore less influenced by the secular or cultural context
within which it finds itself. Traditions of prayer, or the observation of Ramjan in Islam,
for example, will be the same wherever in the world Muslims find themselves.

Buddhists and Christians, however, have tended to adapt their presentation of their
fundamental beliefs to take into account prevailing attitudes and philosophies of the
societies within which they have found themselves. Consequently, there is great
variety within these religions to moral issues. Where the religion is established as the
historical norm within a culture (e.g Christianity in Europe or the United States,
Buddhism in Thailand) it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what is an expression of
secular culture and what has religious roots. Minority religious groups tend to stand
out against their cultural background, and their ethical position may be more sharply
defined.

Is Intention enough?
The American philosopher, Daniel Dennett, writing in ―Philosophers without Gods‖
reflects on the help given during a life-threatening illness. He contrasts the
assumption of many religious people that what matters is a person's intention to do
the right thing, not necessarily their success in it, with the ethical demand made by
medicine to make sure that, within human limits, everything possible is done. He
concludes by saying:

―I applaud you for your loyalty to your own position - but remember: loyalty to
tradition is not enough. You're got to keep asking yourself What if I‘m wrong? In the
long run, I think religious people can be asked to live up to the same moral standards
as secular people in science and medicine.‖

Although many religious people also find themselves following the demands of, say,
the medical profession, what Dennett reminds us is that, without religion, medicine
and science make strict moral and intellectual demands on their practitioners. In
secular morality, as much as religious, it is not simply a matter of obeying rules, but
of using all that is within one‘s power to do what is right. Good intentions alone are
not enough.

Should religious freedom restricted?

There are situation where religious beliefs lead to actions that go against the prevailing
norms of the society within which they operate.

The dilemma here is whether it is night, in the name of one set of moral values, to
deprive any individual or group of the freedom to live by a different set of normal
values

 Does the value of allowing individuals or group‘s freedom to act according to

their own moral or religious views outweigh any potential harm (from society‘s
point of view) that such freedom might entail?

 Which is better for society overall: freedom, with the risk of minorities doing
things that the majority regard as wrong, an enforced moral code?
 Religious Pluralism and the Problem of Absolute Truth

The diversity of religions

There is an abounding plurality and rich diversity of religions in the contemporary
world — both in terms of religious beliefs and practices - and globalization is creating
a widespread awareness of this fact. Perhaps not surprisingly, along with the plethora
of religious diversity, conflict in the name of religion is also pervasive and multifarious.
From religious wars to individual acts of violence to verbal assault, discord among
religions is an unfortunate reality of the past and present.

The current Dalai Lama — has recently suggested that interreligious harmony can be
achieved by developing understanding of other traditions and appreciating the value
inherent within each of them.

The current examination is the issue of how one should understand and interpret the
claims made by the various religions. And lest it be missed, religions do make claims
— claims about reality and our place in it. As philosopher of religion Keith Yandell
notes:

'―Of course religions make claims — if they asserted nothing, there would be no
religions.... It is in the very nature of a religion to offer an account of our situation, our
problem, and its solution, _

Some of these claims offered by the various religions are similar, if not identical.
Others, however, directly contradict one another. And it is generally the contradictions
which cause the most difficulty and lead to conflict. Consider the following views from
several major world religions regarding a fundamental concern of religion — the
soteriological (salvation) goal as typically understood in the respective traditions:

 Hinduism: the ultimate soteriological goal is Moksha, release from the cycle of
death and rebirth (samsara), and absorption into Brahman. This can be
accomplished by following one of the three paths (margas): (1) the path of
knowledge (Jnana marga), (2) the path of devotion (bhaktimarga), or (3) the path
of action (karmamarga).

 Buddhism: the soteriological goal is nirvana, liberation from the wheel of

samsara and extinction of all desires, cravings, and suffering. This is
accomplished by understanding the four noble truths and practicing the final
one: (1) all existence is suffering (dukkha), (2) all suffering is caused by craving
 (trishna), (3) all suffering can be ended (nirvana), and (4) the way to end
suffering and achieve nirvana is by practicing the noble eightfold path
(astangika-marga) of right views, right resolution or aspiration, right speech,
right behavior, right livelihood, right effort, right thoughts, and right
concentration.

 Judaism: the soteriological goal is blessedness with God --here and perhaps in
the hereafter. This may be accomplished by fulfilling the divine commandments
(mitzvot) which include engaging in the following practices (sim chat Torah ―the
joy of the Torah‖): (l) observance of the Sabbath, (2) regular attendance at
synagogue, (3) celebration of the annual festivals, and (4) strict obedience to
Jewish Law.

 Christianity: the soteriological goal is spiritual transformation and spending

eternity with God in the kingdom of heaven. This is accomplished by (1) God‘s
grace (charis) manifested through Christ‘s atonement(hilasterion) for sin
(hamartion), (2) receiving ‗divine grace through faith (pislis) in Christ and the
sacraments,and (3) following the law (nomos) of God out of appreciation for the
gift of grace.

 Islam: the soteriological goal is blessedness in paradise through submission to

the laws of Allah and by His mercy. This may be accomplished by following the
five pillars: (1) faith in Allah and his prophet Muhammad (shahada), (2) five
daily prayers (salah), (3) almsgiving (zakah), (4) fasting (sawm), and (5) the
pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj).

Philosophical approaches to religious diversity:

There are a number of philosophical approaches to religious diversity —specifically
regarding the conflicting truth claims of the various religions.

1) Atheism: all religions are false; there is no religion whose central claims are
true.

2) Agnosticism: there is no way to determine which, if any, of the religions is

most likely to be true, and thus the best response is to remain agnostic about
the claims of any religion.

3) Religious relativism: while each religion can be regarded as ―true‖ and

―effective‖ for its adherents, there is no objective or tradition-transcending sense
in which we can speak of religious truth.
 4) Religious pluralism: ultimately all world religions are correct, each offering a
different path and partial perspective vis-a-vis the one Ultimate Reality.

5) Religious inclusivism: only one world religion is fully correct, but other world
religions participate in or partially reveal some of the truth of the one correct
religion; it is possible, however, to obtain salvation (or nirvana, or moksha, etc.)
through otherreligions.

6) Religious exclusivism: one world religion is correct and all others are
mistaken; salvation (or nirvana, moksha, etc.) is found only through this one
religion.

Religious inclusivism and exclusivism

Religious inclusivists and exclusivists are in agreement on a number of issues related
to religions diversity, including the-belief that there is an objective reality to which
religious truth claims point or correspond. They agree that one religion is, in some
sense, closer to the truth about matters of God/Ultimate reality and salvation
liberation than the other religions. They emphasize the fact that the different religions
contain within them seemingly incompatible truth-claims.

Issues on which inclusivists and exclusivists agree:

(1) one objective reality to which religious truth-claims correspond

(2) one religion conceptions are truer than others
(3) different religions contain seemingly incompatible truth-claims

While inclusivists and exclusivists agree that the different traditions contain
incompatible truth-claims, they disagree about whether those religions outside their
own also contain fundamental truths, and whether adherents of the other religions
can obtain salvation/liberation.

For exclusivists, fundamental truth is found in only one religion, and

salvation/liberation is also exclusive to that one true religion. Religious exclusivists
argue that religious differences are real and that there are intractable disagreements
among religious traditions. Religious exclusivism (of which Alvin Plantinga is one
prominent example) has been the most widely held position among the adherents of
the major world religions. For inclusivists, while they maintain that only one religion is
privileged, they affirm that other religions also contain important truths. And they
typically hold that true religious seekers - from whatever tradition — will find
salvation/liberation.
Theistic inclusivists affirm that God is present and working in and among all of the
religions, even though God is most clearly manifested in one religion They maintain
that other theistic religions are right about there being a personal God (unlike
Buddhists, say), but they disagree with other religions on different issues, such as the
means for obtaining salvation/liberation.

Non-theistic inclusivist‘s affirm that Ultimate Reality is found by truth seekers from all
of the world religions, but it is most clearly understood and articulated in the one
privileged religion.

Objection to inclusivism and exclusivism:

1. The “myth of neutrality”

One prominent objection to religious exclusivism and inclusivism is sometimes
dubbed the ―myth of neutrality,‖ and it has been expressed in many forms. The
basic idea is that there are no religiously neutral or objective criteria by which
to determine whether one religion or worldview is true and others false, or
whether one has more truth or falsity than another. So to claim that-one
religion is true, or offers the only way of salvation, is inappropriate and perhaps
even morally offensive.

In reply, some exclusivists and inclusivists have argued that it doesn‘t matter if
there are no ‗criteria for such assessment, for religious beliefs are not the kinds
of things which should be subject to rational assessment and that doing so
perhaps reflects a lack of faith. This view is known as fideism (discussed
elsewhere).

2. The justice objection

It is sometimes argued that exclusivists are committed to a position which is
unjust. The problem is multifaceted, but one aspect of it is that there are
billions of people, currently and historically, completely unaware of religions
beyond their own. For the exclusivist, they are held morally and/or
epistemically responsible for affirming religious truths of which they are not
even aware. This objection is typically leveled against monotheistic religions
which include a final judgment in the afterlife. How, for example, could the God
of Christianity (if such a God exists) deny salvation to the countless people who
have-never even heard about the Christian faith? It seems unjust that God
would condemn people to ―eternal perdition simply due to their lack of
knowledge. And certainly there are good, sincere, devoted people in all of the
major world religions. This is not so much a problem for inclusivists, for they do
not agree that there is no salvation/liberation for those who haven‘t
encountered the one true religion in this life.
RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

The pluralistic hypothesis

John Hick has developed one of the most impressive approaches to religious pluralism
to date. He argues that there is a plurality of paths to salvation, and each of the great
world religions offers such a path. He denies the view (widely held by atheists and
others) that religion is only a human projection. However, utilizing Immanuel Kant‘s
distinctions of noumena (things as they really are in themselves) and phenomena
(things as they are experienced by us given the categories of our minds), Hick argues
that one‘s experiences and descriptions do depend on the interpretive concepts
through which one sees, structures, and understands them.

So, while some experience and understand Ultimate Reality, or ―the Real,‖ in personal,
theistic categories (e.g. as Allah or Yahweh), others do so in impersonal, pantheistic
ways (e. g, as nirguna Brahman). Yet others experience and understand Ultimate
Reality as completely non personal (e.g. as nirvana). The Hindu parable of the blind
men and the elephant poignantly reflects this point.

For Hick, in our groping for the Real we are very much like the blind men — our
viewpoints are constricted by our enculturated concepts.

The Blind Men and the Elephant:

 God is like a large elephant surrounded by several blind men. One man touches
the elephant‘s tail and thinks it is a rope. Other touches the trunk and thinks it
is a snake. Another touches a leg and thinks it is a tree. Yet another touch the
elephants side and thinks it is a wall. They are all experiencing the same
elephant but in very different ways. The same goes for God and the various
religions.

Religious doctrines and dogmas are important for Hick, but what is fundamental in
religion is the personal transformation that occurs within the religion. Further, the
nature of the Ultimate Reality is that it is ‗―ineffable‖ (discussed in mystical experience
chapter indetail).

Example to prove pluralistic hypothesis

Hick uses several analogies to describe the pluralistic hypothesis with respect to
different aspects of religion. One of the most interesting is the duck-rabbit picture
which Ludwig Wittgenstein used in his influential work entitled the Philosophical
Investigations. A culture which has plenty of ducks but no familiarity with rabbits
would see this ambiguous diagram as being a picture of a duck. Persons in this
culture would not even be aware of the ambiguity. So too with the culture which has
plenty of rabbits but no familiarity with ducks. Persons in this culture would see it as
a picture of a rabbit.
Hick‘s analogy is that the ineffable Real (―ineffable‖ means that its nature is beyond
the scope of human concepts) is capable of being experienced — authentically
experienced in the different religions, as Yahweh, or as Allah, or as Vishnu, or as
shunayata , depending on one‘s religious concepts through which the individual
experiences occur.

OBJECTIONS:
A number of objections have been raised against the pluralistic hypothesis:

PLURALISM IS LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY

Logical pluralism seems to make an exclusive (non-pluralistic!) claim about the Real
and salvation/liberation; namely, that the Real is experienced equally validly among
the various religions and that they each offer valid expressions of the soteriological
goal. But this appears to be self-contradictory. For in asserting that no religious
position in reference to the Real and the soteriological goal is superior to or truer than
another, Hick has in fact done just that --he has asserted that his own view is truer
than and superior to all others.

PLURALISM LEADS TO SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE REAL:

The pluralistic view of the Real leads to another objection. The position that religious
truth claims are entirely contextually bound and only about the phenomena (rather
than the noumena) leads to a knowledge block (epistemic opacity) which arguably
lands one in skepticism or agnosticism about the Real. For if it is impossible to think
or speak about the Real, and if attributes such as being good, loving, powerful, just (or
impersonal, non-dual, etc.) don‘t actually apply to the Real since it is beyond our
human conceptual field, how then can we be sure that the Real isn‘t merely a human
psychological projection or wish fulfillment.

Hick‘s response, in good Kantian fashion, is that given the historically rich and broad
religious experiences within the faith traditions, we must posit an objective Real to
account for the rich experiences and transformations. However, the Real as construed
by Hick is ―beyond characterizations‖ and ―neither personal nor non-personal.‖ As
such one wonders what it is that is posited and how such an ―ineffable‖ posit can lead
to the personal, moral transformation so integral to Hick‘s position.

ASPECTUAL PLURALISM:
A second version of religious pluralism attempts to avoid some of -the philosophical
and other pitfalls of the pluralistic hypothesis.

'For the aspectual pluralist, there is an objective Ultimate Reality, and this Reality is
knowable to us. Thus, unlike the pluralistic hypothesis, and in very non-Kantian
fashion, we can offer valid descriptions of the noumenal – we can ―get at‖ the Real. The
notion of natural kinds is used in order to clarify the position.

Just as the natural kind gold has an unobservable essence as well as observable
properties or qualities — being yellow, lustrous, and hard — so too the Real has an
essence with different experienced manifestations. The Real manifests different
aspects of itself in the different religions given their own unique conceptual schemes,
religious structures, and practices.

OBJECTIONS:
Aspectual pluralism leads to syncretism
One alleged problem with this view is that since each of the religions is capturing only
an aspect of the Real, it seems that one would obtain a. better grasp of the Real
essence by creating a new syncretistic religion in order to glean more aspects of the
Real.

Aspectual pluralism leads to skepticism.

A related problem is that, on the aspectual view, since religious adherents are only
glimpsing the Real through properties which are themselves encultured within the
various traditions, descriptions of the Real cannot be adequate knowledge claims
about the Rea]. So, one is left with religious skepticism.
RELIGIOUS RELATIVISM
A third way of responding to the conflicting truth claims of the different faith traditions
is to remain committed to the truth of one‘s religious teachings while at the same time
agreeing with some of the central concerns raised by pluralism. This can be
accomplished by positing a view known as religious relativism.

Relativism grants that different religions are constituted by different experiences and
mutually incompatible sets of truth claims, and that the different religions and
experiences are themselves rooted in distinct worldviews which are incompatible with,
if not contradictory to, the other religions and worldviews. But he maintains that these
differing experiences and incompatible worldviews emerge from the plurality of
phenomenal divine realities experienced by the adherents of the religions.

―On this view; it is understood that a person‘s worldview (that is, ―the total cognitive
web of our interrelated concepts, beliefs, and processes of rational thought‖)
determines how one comprehends and experiences Ultimate Reality.

Furthermore, corresponding to differences of worldview, there are mutually

incompatible, yet individually adequate, sets of conceptual-schema-relative truths. In
other words, the truth of a religion is determined by its adequacy to appropriately
correspond to the worldview of which it is a part.

Religious relativism has several advantages over Hick‘s pluralistic hypothesis:

(1) It offers a better account of the actual cognitive beliefs held by the adherents of
the great world religions, for it affirms that each of the religions are making hue
fundamental claims,

(2) It maintains the dignity of the various religions by accepting their differences as
real and significant,

(3) It does not reduce the sense of the reality of the Real to a mere ―image‖ as
pluralism unintentionally does. Rather, it keeps the Real as the direct object of
religious faith.

OBJECTIONS:
Relativism is incoherent
Religious relativism is logically incoherent since it cannot be consistently maintained
that truth is individualistic — a position entailed by relativism. However, it can be
argued that while this is perhaps a fair assessment of what‘s referred to as
―subjectivism‖ (a position in which truth is relative to each person‘s idiosyncratic
worldview), this does not apply to this account, truth is relativized to the worldview of
a culture rather than relativized individually.

An inadequate description of actual religious beliefs

While relativism seems to offer a better account than pluralism of the actual cognitive
beliefs of the adherents of the religions, it nevertheless falls short of their actual
beliefs. For example, Muslim adherents haven‗t historically held, nor do their scholars
and teachers (imams) typically hold, that Allah is the true God only with respect to the
worldview of Islam, To the contrary, for Muslims the truth of Allah as described in the
Quran is taken to be unequivocally and objectively true. For the Islamic believer, Allah
is the one and only true God for everyone regardless of what one‘s worldview happens
to be. So too among the other faith traditions; their beliefs are typically understood to
be true in an objective and absolute sense. In effect, adherents of the religions have
historically been exclusivists rather than relativists.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS

1. Logical consistency: the fundamental, defining propositions of the religious

system must be logically consistent with one another and not self-defeating.

2. Coherence of overall system: the fundamental, defining propositions of the

religious system must be related to one another such that they offer a unified
understanding of the world and 0ne‘s place in it.

3. Consistency with knowledge in other fields: the fundamental, defining

propositions of the religious system should not contradict well-established
knowledge in other fields, such as science, history, psychology, and
archaeology;

4. Reasonable answers to fundamental human questions: the religious system

should be able to account for and explain fundamental human questions.;

5. Existential plausibility: the religious system must be livable based on its own
fundamental beliefs and should not require borrowing such beliefs from another
religious system which contradict it.
RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
A number of philosophers have recently turned their attention to the relationship
between religious diversity and religious tolerance, with the main focus on whether
acknowledgement of, and subsequent reflection on, religious diversity might lead to
greater religious tolerance.

Philip Quinn
'The main argument supporting the claim that acknowledged diversity can foster
tolerance was proposed by Philip Quinn. He maintained that

(1) Serious reflection on the undeniable reality of religious diversity will necessarily
weaken an individual justification for believing that her religious perspective is
superior to the perspectives of others and that

(2) this weakened justification can, and hopefully will for some, lead to greater
religious tolerance — for example, will lead to a more accepting, less
confrontational attitude toward others.

Both of Quinn's contentions have been challenged. The claim that reflection of the
acknowledged reality of religious diversity reduces an individuals justified confidence
in the superiority of her position has been subject to at least two types of criticism.

1. Some philosophers maintain that the proponent of a given religious perspective

need not grant that his competitors are actually on equal epistemic footing and
are thus justified in continuing to maintain that his perspective is superior
without further reflection.

2. Other philosophers do not deny that proponents of differing religious

perspectives are on equal epistemic footing or that reflection on these diversity
perspectives might in some cases actually cause an individual to become less
certain that her perspective is superior. But they deny that there is any
necessary epistemic connection between acknowledged diversity and a
weakening of justified personal commitment.

Quinn's second contention — that weakened justification in the superiority of one's

perspective has the promising potential for fostering religious tolerance -—has also
been challenged.

1. Some have argued that the weakening of a person's conviction that the
specific teachings of her religion, including the relevant moral teachings
that prohibit intolerance, are correct might in turn actually make it more
likely that this person will engage in intolerant behavior as it may well
 deflate, the very confidence in the relevant beliefs needed for inspiring
tolerance.

2. Others have contended that there is possibility that the exact opposite of
desired result might happen. A religious person acknowledging diversity
with resultant weakening in one‘s belief in superiority of one‘s religion
might feel threatened and insecure and indulge in more intolerant behavior
as a response.

Dalai Lama on religious tolerance

As encounters with religious ―others‖ become commonplace, conflicts concerning
doctrinal, cultural, and practical differences will also increase. In response to this
conflict, the Dalai Lama proposes inter religious harmony that appreciates the value of
other faith traditions. He notes that an important first step in accomplishing this
harmony is developing an understanding of other faith traditions and appreciating the
value inherent within each of them.

The answer to the question of religious tolerance partly depends on what we mean by
―tolerance‖ and ―intolerance.‖ If by ―tolerance‖ we mean affirming that all traditions are
equally true and ―intolerance‖ denying that they are all equally true, then of course
any evaluation would be an intolerant endeavor. However, if by ―tolerance‖ we mean
recognizing and respecting the beliefs and practices of others; then evaluation and
tolerance need not be at odds. In the coming decades and centuries, if we are going to
flourish together as human beings, and as religious human beings, we must take
seriously this proposal. We must advance in tolerance, and this will involve learning
about religious others — what they believe and why and how they practice their beliefs
— and striving to understand. This need not entail a capitulation to an ―everyone‘s
right‖ attitude, but it could be argued that it should become an ―everyone‘s significant‖
attitude
 Nature of Religious Language:
Analogical and Symbolic; Cognitivist and Non cognitive

Language is a chief tool for effective communication, be it science, politics or religion.

It is the language that plays critical role in the propagation of axioms and ideas. There
are different kinds of language and social science. But whether there is any specific
language in the discourse of religion is a question that needs to be discussed and
analyzed.

If we undertake a comparative study of different religion of the world over it becomes

quite clear that there is no specific or universal language of religion. This is because
unlike other sciences which are purely empirical in this nature religion is
fundamentally an experience and awareness involving trans-“empirical element.

What is the debate?

The basic question behind the religious language debate is

“What can be said about God?”

The religious language debate is not concerned with whether or not God exists, or
what God is like or why there is evil in the world. It is solely concerned with working
out whether or not religious language means anything. On the one side of the debate,
you have the centuries old tradition of religious believers who believe that you can
speak and write about God, because God is a reality. On the other side„, are the
Logical Positivists and those that they influenced who claim that statements about
God have no meaning because they don‟t relate to anything that is real.

Religious language is meaningless.

In the debate about religious language, it is important that broadly speaking, there are
two types of language, cognitive and non-cognitive. Cognitive language conveys facts
i.e. things that we can know or be cognizant of. Non-cognitive language, predictably,
conveys information that is not factual; emotions, feelings and metaphysical claims.

The Lord is faithful in all his words,

And gracious in all his deeds. Badgers have black and white fur
The Lord upholds all who are falling, Squirrels are agile
And rises up all who are bowed down. Coal and crude Oil are black
The Lord is near to all who call upon him, 2+2=4
To all who call upon him in truth
He fulfills the desire of all who fear him
He also hears their cry and saves them
Above you have examples of two very different types of language. On the left hand side
is an excerpt from the Psalms, which talks about God and what he is supposed to be
like. On the right hand side are statements of fact about things in the world. These
two types of language are important for understanding the problems raised by the
religious language debate.

He also hears their cry and saves them. We need to begin by looking at exactly what
cannot be said about God according to some philosophers.

COGNITIVE
According to these philosophers religious statements are factually significant. Through
them we come to know special knowledge about God.

According to John Hick religious knowledge is based on faith. However, faith is factual
and cognitive according to him. A believer‟s awareness of God is based on direct
experience. He directly apprehends God and through his material and social
environment. The moments of ordinary life possess in varying degrees religion
significance. In fact religious experience is the “whole experience of religious person”.
A believer feels in this conscience the presence of and pressure of divine command. He
apprehends divine grace in the hands of God in the beauty of nature.

In short, it is not apart from the course of mundane life, but in it and through it
claims to experience the divine presence and its activity. The experience of God is
further objectively reflected in the life of the believer. However, John Hick concedes
that through this experience we cannot demonstrate that God exist, but he argues
that as we experience the real world whose existence and existence of God is a matter
of faith.

John Hicks Theory of Eschatology of verification

He states that at the end of time all the pans of religious belief that require faith will
be made clear by God. Just because they cannot be verified now they will be verified in
the future. John Hick in a way using weak verification principle in reverse.

Speaking meaningfully about God and religion

There are a number of philosophers and theologians who claim that it is possible to
speak meaningfully about God. We will start with St Thomas Aquinas and his theory
of analogy.
The theory of Analogy
An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to
understand in the light of a comparison with something else which is within our frame
of reference. One of the most famous theological analogies is Paley‟s analogy of the
watch, where he tries to explain the role of God as creator. We have no direct
experience of God as a creator, but Paley claimed it is analogical to a watchmaker who
designs an intricate timepiece for a purpose.

The most famous early proponent of speaking about God in analogical terms, was St
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). It is important to note before we look at his theory, that
Aquinas‟ theories start from confirmed religious belief and- work backwards from that
in justifying it. Most of you will be starting from the opposite point; unconfirmed
attitudes and look to test whether or not religious theories are sufficient proof.

Aquinas was a religious man who believed in God. He assumed both that God existed
and that God had created the universe: remember, there was no Big Bang theory or
evolution to test the claims made by Genesis. Aquinas believed that religious belief
was reasonable to hold, i.e. that one can use reason to assert God‟s existence.

Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God. These are
as follows:

 Univocal language: This is where words are used to mean the same things in
all the situations where they are used e.g. black board, black hat, black car. In
each case, the word black is being used to refer to the colour black.

 Equivocal language: This is where words are used to mean different things in
different contexts e.g. „gay‟ can be taken to mean „jolly‟, „homosexual‟ or more
recently „rubbish‟. Problematically, once a word is used to mean a different
thing, it is robbed of its original meaning because of the new application.

What do these two terms have to do with religious language or God-talk? Religious
language often attempts to describe the attributes or qualities of God. This is difficult
as God is generally not something we have direct experience of, whereas most of the
things language refers to are things that we can experience e.g. love, rabbits, hair,
walking.

Thus when we say „God is good‟ we need to know how we are using the word „good‟ in
that sentence. If we are speaking univocally, we are claiming that God is good in the
same way humans are. Aquinas rejected this as he believed God to be perfect. Because
of this, imperfect humans cannot be good in the same way that God is.

Alternatively, if we are speaking equivocally, we mean that God is good in a totally

different way to humans. Aquinas rejected this too. He argued that if we speak
equivocally about God, we cannot profess to know anything about him as we are
saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around
us, does not apply to God.

Aquinas believed that there was a „middle way‟, a way of talking meaningfully about
God. This middle way, was analogy. Aquinas described three types of analogy: analogy
of attribution, analogy of proper proportion and analogy of improper proportion.

The analogy of attribution

Aquinas believed it was possible to work out the nature of God by examining his
creation. Aquinas took it for granted that the world was created by God and for him,
the link between creator and created order was clear.in the analogy of attribution,
Aquinas takes as his starting points the idea that God is the source of all things in the
universe and that God is universally perfect. He then goes on to argue that all beings
in the universe in some way imitate God according their mode of existence:

„Thus, therefore, God is called wise not only insofar as He produces wisdom, but also
because, in so far as we are wise, we imitate to some extent the power by which He
makes us wise. On the other hand, God is not called a stone, even though He has
made stones, because in the name stone there is understood a determinate mode of
being according to which a stone is distinguished from God. But the stone imitates
God as its cause in being and goodness.

Aquinas uses the example of a bull to illustrate this point. It is possible to determine
the health of an animal by examining its urine. Aquinas said that if a bull‟s urine is
healthy, then we can determine that the bull will be healthy. Obviously however, the
health of the bull is more completely and perfectly within the bull itself and is only
reflected in the urine produced by the bull. In the same way God is the source of
qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly.
This sets up an order of reference, meaning that these qualities apply to God first and
foremost, then to other things secondarily and analogically. Because we are created in
the image of God, it is possible to say that we have these attributes (wisdom, goodness
etc) analogically: these qualities are attributed to us analogically, whilst God has them
perfectly.

The analogy of proper proportion

John Hick has given a useful example to help to illustrate this idea:

Consider the term „faithful‟. A man or a woman can be faithful, and this shows in
particular patters of speech, behavior and so on. We can also say that a dog is faithful.
Clearly there is a great difference between the faithfulness of a man or woman and
that of a dog, yet there is a recognizable similarity or analogy - otherwise, we would
not think of the dog as faithful. Further, in the case of the analogy between the human
beings and the dog true faithfulness is something we know in ourselves, and a dim
and imperfect likeness of this in the dog is known by analogy.‟

The theory is not John Hick‟s, it was developed by Aquinas, but Hick‟s example helps
to explain it. The basic idea is that we possess qualities like those of God (goodness,
wisdom, faithfulness etc) because we were created in his image and likeness, but
because we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God.

Strengths and weaknesses of analogy

So, analogy is one suggested way of being able to speak about God, but does it work?

1. Aquinas based his work upon a number of assumptions that came from his
religious belief. Obviously,--he believed that God was ultimately responsible for
the creation of the earth (as shown in his 5 Ways)and he also believed that
humans were created in the image and likeness of God‟ as is stated in Genesis.
The idea that we were created has been refuted implicitly by Darwin and
explicitly by Richard Dawkins. If one doesn‟t accept his assumptions, one
doesn‟t have to accept the idea that we can work out what God is like by
examining a creation that may or may not be his.

2. Another criticism is that analogy picks some qualities, but not others i.e. the
good qualities. The world also comprises evil, does God possess these qualities
as well? This criticism would appear to have been refuted by Augustine, who
argues that there is no such thing as evil, just a falling away from or privation of
the good.

3. Also, analogy can tell us nothing new about God, as it is based upon things that
are already inexistence, it is rather like saying that we can work out everything
about a car designer from the car that he has designed.

4. The bridge that Aquinas attempts to create between things known and unknown
is built of imaginary blocks. However, some scholars would argue that it is
possible to speak of life on Mars meaningfully without having had empirical
experience of it; also, eschatological verification can be suggested against this
criticism.

5. Analogy does not stand up to verification, because the object one is trying to
illustrate by use of analogy cannot be empirically verified.

6. Another criticism, is that of Richard Swinburne, who argues that we don‟t really
need analogy at all. When we say „God is good‟ and „humans are good‟, we may
be using „good‟ to apply to different things, but we are using it to mean the same
thing: i.e. we are using the word good univocally.
Obviously, the criticisms of people like AJ Ayer are difficult to reject and of course, an
analogical statement referring to God is impossible to verify. However, analogy is
incredibly valuable for people who are already in the religious language game, that is,
people who already believe. lt can help them to make sense of a concept that really is
beyond human comprehension and would work as a great aid to faith. This was the
perspective that Aquinas was working from.

Paul Tillich and language as symbol

Paul Tillich was a theologian who believed that it is possible to speak meaningfully
about metaphysical concepts and came up with the theory that religious language,
because it is symbolic in nature, has a profound effect upon humans.

'Paul Tillich starts by making a distinction between signs and symbols. Both point to
something beyond themselves, i.e. they mean something else. But there is a crucial
difference.

Tillich said that signs do not participate in what they symbolize. This means that
without knowing what the signs mean, they would make no sense. Also, all these signs
do is point to a statement such as „you can now travel at the national speed limit‟ they
have no other effect.

Symbols on the other hand are powerful and they actually take pan in the power and
meaning of what they symbolize, if you look at the cross in the second row, this is the
symbol of Christianity. Not only does it stand as a marker for that religion, but it also
makes a powerful statement. It immediately reminds Christians of the sacrifice they
believe Jesus to have made on the cross for them. It also reminds them of their beliefs
about God and his plan for the salvation of human beings. In this way, a symbol
communicates much more powerfully with us.-Tillich believed that religious language
operates as a symbol.

Tillich outlined four main functions that symbols perform:

1. They point to something beyond themselves.

2. They participate in that to which they point.
3. Symbols open up levels of reality that otherwise are closed to us.
4. They also open up the levels and dimensions of the soul that correspond to
those levels of reality.

Tillich argued that symbolic language operates in much the same way that a piece of
music or a work of art or poetry might. They can have a deep and profound effect upon
us that we can only explain in a limited way, and the explanation would only really be
understood by someone else who has seen that same work of art. Also, symbols, like
works of art, can open up new levels of reality for us -and offer a new perspective on
life.
Being-Itself
Tillich maintained that religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards the
ultimate reality, the vision of God which he called “Being—itself”. Being-Itself is that
upon which everything else depends for its being and Tillich believed that we came to
knowledge of this through symbols which direct us to it.

Religious language as moral assertion

R.B. Braithwaite was concerned not with what religious statements are, but with how
they are used. Braithwaite believed that religious statements are moral in content and
intention and can therefore be verified, because they result in a change of behavior.
Religious statements are:

'„...declarations of adherence to a policy of action, declarations of commitment to a way

of life.‟

Correspondingly, moral assertions are described as follows:

 It makes the primary use of a moral assertion that of expressing the intention of
the asserter to act in a particular sort of way specified in the assertion.

Braithwaite argued that because religious statements such as „God is the almighty
father‟ result in action, they have meaning. Braithwaite also argued that religious
belief and hence religious moral assertions, are based upon

a) a commitment to live a particular life as we have seen, and

b) Religious stories such as the life of Jesus, or the life of the Buddha. What is
interesting about this, is that Braithwaite claims religious people do not have to
rely upon these stories as being empirically verifiable, i.e. a Christian does not
have to produce Jesus‟ certificate of death, they can just use these stories as an
influence.

“It is completely untrue, as a matter of psychological fact,„ to think that the only
intellectual considerations which affect action are beliefs: it is all the thoughts of a
man that determine his behavior; and these include his fantasies, imaginations, ideas
of what he would wish to be and do, as well as the propositions which he believes to
be true...”

So, for Braithwaite, religious assertions are meaningful because they result in
particular action and a particular way of life that can be verified.
Non- Cognitive: Logical Positivists
They hold that non cognitive, metaphysical statements (i.e. statements about things
beyond reality such as God, heaven, angels) are completely meaningless (as are
meaningless statements like „square circles are green‟), as we have no way of verifying
whether or not these statements are meaningful. As A J Ayer puts it:

„The term „god‟ is a metaphysical term. And if „god‟ is a metaphysical term, then it
cannot even be probable that God exists. For to say that „God exists‟ is to make a
metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same
criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can
possess any literal significance.

A.J.Ayer does not just deny God‟s existence, he denies the possibility of God‟s
existence altogether on the grounds that there is no way of empirically verifying his
existence. Needless to say, Ayer would disagree with all of the traditional arguments
for the existence of God, as none of them conclusively and empirically prove the
existence of God.

Later Wittgenstein and Religious Language

Ludwig Wittgenstein took religion very seriously, even to the point of considering the
priesthood. Nevertheless, he was opposed to natural theology, the attempt to
demonstrate the existence of God from evidence in the natural world, and to the
development of religious doctrines. He was more interested in religious symbol and
ritual.

In his later works Wittgenstein understood language to be not a fixed structure

directly corresponding to the way things actually are, but rather to be a human
activity susceptible to the vicissitudes of human life and practice. Language does not
offer a picture of reality, he argued, but rather it is a set of activities which he
described as “language games.” The concept of a language game was “to bring into
prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of
life.” Wittgenstein uses the example of a builder to make the point:

“The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an

assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and
beams; B has to pass the stones, in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose
they use a language consisting of the words “block,” “pillar,” “slab,” “beam.” A calls
them out; - B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call.”

In teaching language, one needs to be able to respond to words in certain contexts;

speech and action work together. In many cases, then, the meaning of a word is its
use in the language. For Wittgenstein, this is true in religious discourse as it is
elsewhere. Thus in speaking of God or Brahman or nirvana or the dao, the meanings
of such words have more to do with their use than with their denotation; The language
games of the religions reflect the practices and forms of life of the various religious
adherents, and so religious claims should not be taken as providing literal pictures of
reality which somehow lie beyond these activities.

Blik Theory: R.M.Hare

The philosopher RM Hare came up with the theory of „bliks‟. As did many other
philosophers, Hare used a parable to illustrate his point.

“A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce
him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of
them has retired, they say, "You see, he doesn‟t really want to murder you; he spoke to
you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?"

But the lunatic replies "Yes, but that was only his diabolical cunning; he‟s really plotting
against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you." However many
kindly dons are produced, the reaction is the same.‟

Thus a „blik‟ is a particular view about the world that may not be based upon reason
or fact and that cannot be verified or falsified; it just is and we don‟t need to explain
why we hold our „blik‟. Hare talked about trusting in the metal of a car; this blik about
the car meant that we would quite happily drive or be driven in a car, because we have
the „blik‟ that the metal is strong and that it is safe to drive at high speed in the car.
Hare said that people either have the right or sane „blik‟ or the wrong or insane „blik‟;
the lunatic above has the wrong „blik‟ about dons, whereas his friends have the right
„blik‟.

Hare's theory has been criticized, notably by John Hick who provides two objections.
First of all, Hick argues that religious beliefs or religious „blik‟ are based upon reason;
people believe in God because they may have had a religious experience, or they feel
the words of the Bible/Qur‟an are true or a variety of other reasons. Secondly, he
claims there is an inconsistency: Hare claims that there is a distinction between sane
and insane bliks. However, he also claims that bliks are unverifiable and un-
falsifiable. If we cannot either prove or disprove religious „bliks‟, we cannot call them
right or wrong, sane or insane either.

Basil Mitchell
Mitchell disagreed with the theory of „bliks‟ and suggested another way, using another
parable. Mitchell claimed that religious belief and therefore religious language was
based upon fact, although they are not straight forwardly verifiable or falsifiable. He
used the idea of a resistance fighter to make his point-
 “A member of the resistance movement is met one day by a man claiming to be the
leader „of the resistance movement. The fighter is suitably impressed and pledges his
loyalty to the stranger. As time goes on, the fighter sees the „leader‟ helping out the
resistance, but at other times he is apparently helping out the enemy. The fighter
nevertheless carries on in his belief that the stranger is in fact the leader of the
resistance movement.”

Mitchell‟s parable is different to Hare‟s, as Hare‟s lunatic

 has no reason for mistrusting dons and

 Will allow nothing to count against his belief. Mitchell‟s fighter however, is
willing to admit that things count against his belief in the leader (a symbol of
God) and
 Grounds his belief in reason and fact: he trusts this man who claims to be
leader and has examples of him fighting for the resistance.

Mitchell‟s point is that religious belief is based upon facts, but that belief cannot be
verified/ falsified in the simplistic way demanded by the logical positivists. Of course,
the stranger in the story will be able to reveal his true allegiance after the war and
explain his mysterious behavior, in the same way that all the peculiar and problematic
parts of religious belief will be revealed at the end of time according to traditional
religious belief.

This is similar to John Hick‟s theory of Eschatological Verification. This states that at
the end of time (eschaton, hence eschatological) all the parts of religious belief that
require faith will be made clear by God: just because they cannot be verified now, they
will be verified in the future. Hick is, in a way, using the weak verification principle in
reverse.