Download A Friendly Guide to Westphal

A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
Introduction
1.) Looking at the words, philosophical theology seems to have its focus on God
(theos = God in Greek), while the philosophy of religion seems to have faith or
practice of religion as its object. In the period between Hume/Kant up to Nietzsche
(approximately 1750–1900), there was a shift in emphasis in philosophy away from
God to religion.
What to write about: the different philosophical emphasis given to God (Hegel) or to
religion (Schleiermacher). What divided philosophers? Why did Hegel want to talk about God,
while others wanted to talk about religion?
- Also, deal with the names: Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. You should write and learn a couple of
sentences to explain each of the key philosophers in this text.
2.) Hegel didn’t like the idea that we cannot know God; he really valued the idea of
having conceptual knowledge of God. Some people thought that we could speak of
religion and “not of God Himself” – Hegel is having a dig at Schleiermacher (who
emphasised feeling as the basis of religion).
What to write about:
More on the Hegel / Schleiermacher disagreement – you must
understand this well for Westphal (see notes).
- Key phrase: “assumption that we do not know God”. Sceptics like Ayer hold that we do not
know God, but Hegel had in mind Romantics who thought that religion is about personal feeling.
- Compare / contrast atheism with such perspectives.
- Which authors have you studied who emphasise that we can have knowledge of God? …
Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, Swinburne, etc. Would they agree with Hegel? Write about how
their views might bear on this issue.
3.) It’s difficult to separate talk of God and talk of religion. Hegel still points to
something important: the shift of focus away from God (theology) towards the
experiences and practices of religion (“philosophizing about religion”). It’s odd that
Hegel so dislikes this change in emphasis, since he is responsible for the idea of a
separate philosophy of religion (see his book titles). These days, when we make a
philosophical study of God, we end up calling it philosophy of religion because that
name has stuck.
What to write about: clarify the distinction between religion and philosophical theology.
- Phrase “post-Kantian modernity” needs to be unpacked. It means, ‘modern philosophy after
Immanuel Kant’. So, you should explain why Kant is seen as such a major figure in philosophy,
and what role he plays in Westphal’s essay.
- Westphal talks about “philosophical theology … in our own time”. What does he mean by this?
- We’ve studied lots of modern philosophers who talk about God – Swinburne, Hick, Plantinga,
etc. What do we find in this ‘philosophical theology’ today? You could set out key
ideas/arguments.
1
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
Pre-Kantian philosophical theology
4.) There are two forms of philosophical theology in the background to what Hegel
is writing: scholastic and deistic. Both are interested in what we can establish of God
through reason. The scholastic view assumes that reason can work in harmony with
faith (belief) and revelation (Bible). The deistic view, however, thinks that reason is
completely separate from faith or revelation. Religion should be limited to reason
and all the irrational bits eliminated. Rational deistic ideas for religion include an
emphasis upon God as the source of moral law. Deists dismiss the supernatural or
questionable historical stories about Jesus. [List of deist philosophers: not important]
What to write about: “movement Hegel deplores” – clarify this: the shift of attention in
philosophy away from God onto religion.
- Key terms: scholastic, deistic.
Scholastic: (Latin scholasticus – student, teacher, scholar). A school of Christian philosophy built
around Medieval scholarship. Scholasticism emphasised the value of logic and the application of
this to Christian doctrines. A key scholastic philosopher would be Aquinas.
Deistic: (Latin deus – God). An approach to belief in God which emphasises the impersonal and
unknowable nature of the divine qualities. Deists often argue that God exists, particularly as the
source of the universe, but that we can know nothing further about him.
- ‘Harmony of faith and reason’ – a scholastic ideal we’ve encountered on this course: Aquinas
and the arguments for God, doctrine of analogy. Explain how many philosophers have believed
that philosophy supports the Christian faith.
- Deists like Kant have sought religion “within the limits of reason alone”. Clarify what Kant
thought religion should be about (this emerges later in Westphal’s essay). Kantian ethics reflect
the idea of a rational ethics-centred religion.
5.) Deism is the school of thought which was current immediately before Hegel
came along. This period (esp. 18th century) was known as the ‘Enlightenment’ (= ‘age
of reason’), the time at which new ideas in science and philosophy were developing.
Major religious wars had happened in Europe (particularly between Catholics and
Protestants) and Enlightenment thinkers wanted to leave that behind. While some
rejected religion, others wanted to define a new type of religion to bring people
together (“foster moral unity”). They wanted to make religion objective so that
everyone could agree and live in peace.
What to write about: Explain the key terms: ‘deism’ and ‘scholasticism’ (just see above).
- Key term: Enlightenment. In the Medieval era, philosophers emphasised the authority of the
Church and the Bible (bring in Aquinas here). In the Enlightenment, philosophers emphasised
human reason instead, believing that religion and society should be reformed (bring in Kant). The
Medieval Church (Aquinas) was happy to justify religious wars (think about Just War Theory),
whereas Enlightenment philosophers were not (Kant).
- “anti-religious materialism” = atheism. Some Enlightenment philosophers were atheists, some
not. Perhaps contrast a key atheist with Kant.
- “moral unity … among human societies” links to justice, law and punishment topic. Which
philosophers have emphasised the importance of a united society? (Plato, Kant, Rawls).
6.) This agenda (focus on a new, moral religion) had consequences for knowledge
(epistemology) and for the Church (ecclesiology). Non-violent religion would have
to be universal (agreed by all) and so could not rely on a special revelation (God’s
presence in the Bible, or religious experience). The new moral religion couldn’t be
found in any one church or sect either. It is rationalism: based on reason.
2
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
This rationalism did not emphasise pure logic (a priori reasoning) at the
expense of sense perception (empiricism, a posteriori reason). Rationalists and
empiricists agreed that religion should be limited to commonly available sources of
knowledge: whether reason or experience. This contrasts with the faith emphasis
upon special revelation or a particular church.
What to write about: Rational faith could not be based on revelation. Contrast this with
scholasticism and Aquinas: what would he say? Also contrast religious experience (a revelation):
how is this different from what Kant and others propose?
- Rational faith not tied to any specific Church: a good opportunity to explain what the key
figures in this text think of the Church: Kant (it should just be a moral community),
Schleiermacher (it should be a group united in contemplation of the Infinite), and Hegel (it should
be the site for human self-consciousness, leading to consciousness of God – Absolute Spirit).
- Explain contrast between empirical and a priori reasoning (with examples?)
- Rejection of revelation and the Church. Compare deistic views with atheism: how are these
different and how are they the same? Critics of religion also reject revelation and Church …
7.) Deism comes from three main ideas: the focus on knowledge and reason,
religious tolerance (not hating other faiths), and the rejection of the power and
authority of the Church. These ideas pre-date the trend criticised by Hegel of
denying knowledge of God and focusing on religion. Still, by asking what makes a
good religion, deism already shifts the attention away from God and onto religion. It
sees religion as a human, social reality.
What to write about: Explain how deism focused on reason (esp. Kant).
- Religious tolerance comes up a lot in this essay: Kant thought this was important because
rational and ethical people would get along. There would not be ‘one true faith’.
- Explain Hegel’s complaint that people were denying knowledge of God. What did he think
would be better instead?
- Deism sees religion as a human, social reality. Compare this with atheism. Marx and others also
saw religion as a social reality. How is deism similar and different from atheism?
8.) Hume and Kant: they believed that their criticisms of the arguments for God
had finished off the scholastic and deistic philosophy of their times. People thought
that Kant had taken apart the arguments for God. That’s why Hegel complained of
people no longer believing that we can know God. Philosophers became interested
in what we can learn of religion in human life, instead of the concept of God.
What to write about: Explain who the philosophers are: Hume and Kant and how they fit
into Westphal’s essay.
- Explain the ‘scholastic’ and ‘deist’ projects (see 4).
- What are the arguments for God? What sort of criticisms did Hume and Kant come up with?
- What ideas in the philosophy of religion after Kant, without the proofs for God? (See the last
sentence). You might consider Kant and Schleiermacher.
9.) Hume and Kant both thought that the arguments for God did not work, but
their philosophy led in different directions.
What to write about: Hume and Kant again. Who are they?
- Again, rejection of arguments for God (see above).
- Different directions for their work. Hume was a sceptic, rejecting theism. Kant meanwhile
wanted religion within the limits of reason. Contrast the ideas of these two.
3
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
Post-Kantian reconstructions of the deist project
10.) Kant is the deist who undermined the arguments for God (“metaphysical
foundations”), but then sought to give deism a new basis. In this new (“postKantian”) era of philosophy, he brought a new approach to religion.
What to write about: Kant had undermined the metaphysical basis for God: the arguments.
What are these arguments and how were they criticised?
- What is deism?
- What did Kant do to bring about this new approach? (“rescuing the deist project”).
11.) Kant’s new approach to deism had two distinctive features. First, he claimed
that we have no theoretical knowledge of God, but we can get a practical
understanding. He thought that we should believe in God because of morality, not
logic. Second, Kant thought that humans could be deliberately, radically evil. They
could freely chose evil (an idea which connects with Original Sin – St. Augustine’s
view that humans have innate evil because of the rebellion against God in Eden).
What to write about: No a priori knowledge of God? Contrast ontological argument.
- Contrast Kant’s views with Hegel, who thought our reason could make us aware of God.
- Morality is the basis for our understanding of God? Contrast critics of religious morality.
- Is there ‘radical evil’ in humanity? Compare the problem of evil, Augustine.
12.) Kant also talks about the type of religion which would be acceptable in the
Enlightenment (=”Age of Reason”). Religion should involve rationality leading us to
morality. There are three principles for the relationship between religion and
morality: (a) morality doesn’t need religion, (b) but morality leads to religion, and
finally (c) religion recognises duties as God’s commands. So, religion is useful to
morality.
What to write about: Kant – always explain who he is. Also explain “Age of Reason”.
- Reason serving morality: what did Kant think about ethics? Why did Kant think that reason was
important in morality? How could this be contrasted with other approaches to morality?
- Morality does not need religion: contrast this with purely biblical ethics, or Natural Moral Law.
- Morality leads to religion: explain Kant’s approach. Why might God be useful in ethics?
- Divine commands: examples, compare biblical ethics, etc. Think of the Euthyphro dilemma: here
we say that God wills things because they are good. Goodness is higher than God?
13.) If religion is universal, rational and moral, then there’s no need for special
duties to God (ritual, priesthood). All the outward expressions of religion are just
illusions, only useful if they encourage moral behaviour. God only seems to be useful
as an idea which helps us to be more moral.
What to write about: Explain Kant’s emphasis on universal, rational religion: why did he
think this important?
- Contrast Kant’s take on religion with established ideas. How might Medieval Church
philosophers (e.g. Aquinas, Anselm) disagree? Who would support the established Church? Why
do you think philosophy is suggesting something so radical here?
- Link religion and morality topic. Kant brings the two together, but in an unusual way.
- Religion only useful for promoting ethics? Contrast that with Natural Moral Law and Aquinas:
the goal of ethics is union with God.
4
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
14.) Kant continues to try to reform Christianity and make it rational, drawing out
the consequences for Christ and the Church. The Church is no more than a moral
community. Kant’s (‘Augustinian’) focus on human sinfulness thus gives way to the
positive/optimistic (‘Pelagian’) view that humans can choose to be perfectly good.
Christ, then, is only useful as an example of moral perfection. Any view we have on
Christ has to be based on reason, not claims about history (which can be challenged
or criticised).
What to write about: Always give time in your essay to explain who Kant is, and his agenda.
- Religion based on reason alone. Contrast this idea with atheist critics of religion, who claim that
it is always irrational / non-rational (Dawkins, Freud, etc.).
- Distinguish Augustinian from Pelagian ideas. Bring in Problem of Evil: how would this fit with
what Kant is saying?
- Christ is just a good example of moral perfection? Why might Christians disagree with this?
Which groups would oppose this idea, and what would there arguments be?
- Compare / contrast Kant’s view of Christ with that of Hegel (see later on).
15.) Kant’s views fit with the philosopher Lessing, who thought that knowledge of
God should not depend on historical evidence: questionable or changeable. Kant and
Lessing did not want to get rid of Christianity altogether, but wanted to reinterpret
the main ideas to make it reasonable and free from mythology.
What to write about: Knowledge of God should not depend on historical evidence or
accounts: contrast this with the argument from religious experience, which assumes that a body
of testimony can tell us about God.
- Expand on what some would see as historical evidence for faith: Scripture, Church, etc.
- Again, who might disagree with this idea of reinterpreting Christianity?
- Kant has something in common with Hegel here: compare views on myth-free religion.
16.) Unlike Kant, Schleiermacher and Hegel were not deists, although they shared
his desire to change our approach to God. Schleiermacher addressed an audience
which was not interested in complex and speculative arguments about God, or in
Kant’s hard-line moralistic approach. God’s direct control and care for the world
(providence) and immortality Schleiermacher dismissed as ‘external’ to real religion.
The essence of religion is in feeling, a conscious awareness of the unity of all things.
What to write about: Who were Schleiermacher and Hegel? How do they differ from Kant?
- Explain scholasticism and deism. How do they contrast with Schleiermacher’s perspective?
- Schleiermacher’s audience didn’t find Kant’s rigorous morals very appealing – what was it that
Kant suggested about ethics? Why might that have been off-putting?
- Schleiermacher linked religion with feeling. This may be compared with religious experience;
personal perception may be an important source of religious knowledge. Examples?
17.)
Schleiermacher was a supporter of the philosopher Spinoza, suggesting
pantheism (the view that God is everything) as opposed to the view that God is a
distinct and personal being. Religion is a feeling of unity; everything lives in and
through God. The idea that God is separate and personal is “vain mythology”.
What to write about: Explain: who were Schleiermacher and Spinoza? What is pantheism?
- Contrast pantheism with more typical theistic beliefs? What are the traditional ideas about
God, and which philosophers would support them? How radical is Schleiermacher’s suggestion?
- Again, link feeling with religious experience. Compare / contrast Schleiermacher with Hegel.
5
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
18.)
Schleiermacher’s ‘church’ would be a united group (=communion) who
recognise the feeling of unity as true religion. This doesn’t mean rejecting churches
which already have their own beliefs about God or practices, but the Church is just
an association of those who are seeking true religion. We should “discover religion in
religions” – we can learn from faiths as we know them today.
What to write about: Explain who Schleiermacher was and his ideas.
- Schleiermacher reinterprets what the real ‘Church’ is all about. Compare this with Kant, who
saw the real Church as a moral community.
- How might some believers react to Schleiermacher’s claim that the religions of the world only
offer a pathway to true religion?
- If God is everything (Pantheism), we might not need a Church at all. Compare this with
atheism; are communities of believers of any real use?
19.) Schleiermacher gave this advice about religions, because he thought that real
religion would be clothed in particular ideas and practices. Religious feeling needs to
be communicated in some concrete image or idea, even if temporary or limited. We
need a concrete way of looking at religion, to help make sense of it. Yet, we don’t
need particular ideas or practices to be holy / pious. We can be religious without
following one specific code.
What to write about: Again: background on Schleiermacher.
- What ‘ideas and practices’ surround religion as we know it? Give examples. What ideas about
God have we studied on this course? How do these compare with Schleiermacher?
- Compare Paul Tillich on symbols, who claimed that these religions images ‘point beyond
themselves’ to something higher or true.
- Religion doesn’t have to follow one specific faith or code: compare with Kant’s view that
religion can be rational and universal.
20.)
Hegel is unconvinced by Kant (religion=morality) and Schleiermacher
(religion=feeling), because he is interested in conceptual knowledge of God.
Although Hegel sympathises with Schleiermacher, he thinks he is confused.
Romanticism (emphasising feeling) can be empty of content and so may be
compatible with anything (anything goes, relativism). Who’s to say which feelings are
real and which feelings matter? Alternatively, Romanticism puts forward content that
needs to be explained and defended. Saying that we just have an immediate
experience is dogmatism, blind unquestioning faith. Schleiermacher’s ideas about the
Infinite and Eternal are concepts, not just feelings, just as with traditional Christian
ideas (Trinity, etc.).
What to write about: Explain the key figures Hegel, Kant, Schleiermacher. Why do you think
Hegel is more sympathetic to Schleiermacher? Both are admirers of Spinoza …
- Explain how reliance on feelings could lead to ‘absurd beliefs’ and ‘immoral practices’.
- Why should we explain the content of ‘feeling’ or experience? This brings up a much wider
question: is religion rational, and should it be rational?
21.) Hegel sets himself two tasks: firstly defending metaphysics (the study of reality
beyond our everyday perceptions, especially of God) after Kant’s criticisms of the
theistic arguments, and secondly developing metaphysics which is significant for
religion. [Ignore list of his works]. His key idea is that religion and philosophy have
6
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
the same content or focus, but they work in different ways and take different forms.
Religion is linked to images and narratives (rituals, art, Bible). Philosophy is better
because it is conceptual and so can give real knowledge. Older forms of philosophical
theology were too caught up in images and narratives (“finite subject matter”). Hegel
wants a purely conceptual approach, reinterpreting Idea and Spirit. This would firstly
justify philosophical speculation and secondly give us a solid basis for philosophical
theology.
What to write about: Who is Hegel? Why did he value metaphysics?
- Explain the contrast between Hegel’s position and that of Kant.
- Westphal talks about “the aftermath of Kant”. What does that mean? What had Kant said
about the arguments for God?
- Give examples of the “sensory images and historical narratives” which limit religion according
to Hegel. Who would disagree with this idea? How radical is what Hegel suggests?
- Compare Hegel’s reinterpretation of religion with the religions of Kant and Schleiermacher.
22.) Hegel’s focus on Ideas is quite close to Aristotle and Plotinus (who both
emphasised the ultimate power of thought/contemplation), rather than Berkeley and
Kant (who were more sceptical of the reality of Ideas, independent of the mind). But
Hegel’s views are perhaps closest to Spinoza’s (Pantheism). Hegel contrasts with
Lessing, whose support for Spinoza led him to reject traditional Christian ideas.
Hegel instead prefers a radical reinterpretation, freeing Christianity from mythology.
Unlike Schleiermacher, Hegel gives a specific philosophical argument to defend his
support for Spinoza.
What to write about: Who is Hegel? Why would someone think that Ideas are the most real
or important things? Explain comparison with Aristotle and Plotinus.
- Explain Spinoza. How are Hegel’s views similar to those of Spinoza? Why is that controversial?
- Why might Spinoza’s philosophy lead to a rejection of traditional Christianity (Lessing)?
- Explain how classic Christian philosophy (e.g. Aquinas, Anselm) contrast with Pantheism,
offering a distinct and personal view of God.
- ‘Demythologizing’ Christianity: which mythological aspects of Christianity might a philosopher
which to eliminate?
23.) Hegel’s views aren’t quite like Spinoza’s, however, although he doesn’t see
God as a personal being distinct from the world (= traditional theism). Our basic
understanding sees God (= Infinite Spirit) and the world (= finite spirit) as separate,
but reason can perceive their unity (“no longer two”). Hegel could defend himself
against the charge of Pantheism only by saying that the Spirit in all things is most real,
rather than matter / substance.
What to write about: Explain key figures: Hegel and Spinoza. What’s the background to
Hegel’s philosophy, and why does it lead him to Spinoza?
- Contrast Hegel’s attitude with traditional theism: what are the more traditional ideas about
God? Who would support traditional views?
- Compare / contrast Hegel’s support for Spinoza with that of Schleiermacher.
- How does Hegel contribute to the theism debate: can we have real knowledge of God in
accordance with his theory?
24.) Religion lifts up limited, human, worldly ‘finite spirit’ to the level of ‘Infinite
Spirit’. In religion, this is often misunderstood as a personal encounter with
someone. In philosophy, this is the recognition that God is the product and object of
7
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
human self-awareness. God is present in humans becoming aware of Absolute Spirit.
This awareness of the Idea is the only true reality.
What to write about: Explain what Hegel’s view of religion is, in your own words.
- Compare Hegel’s view of religion with other key reformers: Kant and Schleiermacher.
- “Encounter with someone other”: this is religious experience. Explain what rel. exp. Is and how
it contrasts with Hegel’s conceptual approach to religion. Could bring in Donovan …
- God is found in human self-awareness. Contrast this with traditional theism. Some would see
Hegel’s view as coming close to atheism: why? Compare with atheists like Marx, who regard
religion as a product of the human mind.
25.) The idea of lifting up the human spirit is found in all religions, but is best in
Christianity. However, Hegel thinks that Christianity can only achieve this when put
in philosophical form, reinterpreting key themes. It is revealed religion, not because
of Jesus or the Bible, but because philosophically reason makes God fully manifest
(known/obvious). Incarnation – the doctrine that Jesus took on human flesh – is the
central Christian truth. This is because Jesus represents the idea that human
awareness is itself divine.
What to write about: Explain Hegel and the link between awareness and God (see above).
- What might it mean to reinterpret Christianity? Compare Hegel’s approach with the other key
figures from Westphal.
- Reason makes God manifest – for Hegel this is just a part of consciousness. However, other
theists have claimed that reason proves God through arguments – explain and compare.
- Why is Incarnation an important idea in Christianity? Why might Hegel’s approach be
controversial?
Hume and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion
‘Hermeneutic of suspicion’ = a method of enquiry which refuses to take someone at his or her word;
a suspicious reading of the evidence.
26.) Modern philosophy of religion developed among those who were did not
accept traditional Christianity (i.e. rejecting authority of Church, Scripture, dogma).
Yet, Hume’s approach was very different from Kant. Instead of trying to reform
religion and make it relevant to the modern world, Hume thought that religion itself
was inherently flawed.
What to write about:
‘Philosophy of religion’ – remember that this is different from
philosophical theology (see the opening section); explain how / why.
- Unpack what Westphal means by ‘historic Christianity’; give examples.
- Explain who the key figures are: Hume and Kant.
- Explain Kant’s approach to religion (rational, moral) and distinguish this from Hume.
27.) We are suspicious when we ask what motives might lie behind religious
beliefs; perhaps the religious have a hidden agenda. Hume suggests that being holy or
pious might just be a way of flattering and pleasing the gods, to get something out of
it (selfish hope / fear). This piety leads to self-deception; believers don’t recognise
that their hope for reward in heaven is selfish; the sacred is just a means to an end.
8
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
What to write about: explain who Hume is and his wider approach to religion.
- What practical benefits do religious believers take from their faith? How might this explain the
existence religion?
- What are the ‘hopes and fears’ which religion addresses?
- Link with religion and morality topic: according to Dawkins religious morality is just “sucking
up”, a way of seeking personal benefit. What other explanations for faith and religious ethics are
there? Kant’s view of duty as a ‘divine command’ arguably is not focused on ‘selfish hope’.
- Other atheists have linked religion to self-interest (see Marx and Nietzsche below); Freud
thought that faith brought psychological satisfaction in the form of a father figure (God).
28.) Marx and Nietzsche also see religion in terms of self-deception. Marx is
interested in how religion affects society (=sociology) rather than the individual
(=psychology). Marx thinks that religion is an ideology with a function: propping up
an unfair society, or social domination. When people are exploited, religion gives the
impression that this set up is a natural order, given by God. This encourages the
victims of exploitation to cooperate with the rich and powerful. Religion gets the
poor and exploited to accept the privilege of others, because the thought of going to
heaven is comforting.
What to write about: brief explanation of who these figures are: Marx and Nietzsche. More
detail information on Marx could be helpful.
- Possibly distinguish Marx’s approach from psychological critiques (like Freud).
- In what ways has religion traditionally influenced society? Examples would clarify Marx here.
- Explain how religion could be used to exploit. Also consider whether religion can challenge
social privilege (how does Jesus’ condemnation of wealth fit in?).
- Contrast Marx’s approach with Hume’s – are believers really being selfish?
29.) For Nietzsche, religion is based on the slave revolt in morals.1 However, since
he thought that all would strive for power, Nietzsche thought that the weak
(religious believers) would want to get revenge instead of just being consoled.
Linking up with the priests, poor people would express their frustration through
religion. This gives them the satisfaction of feeling superior to the rich and strong,
and makes the strong feel guilty. God exists to punish enemies (the strong).
What to write about: Explain who Nietzsche is.
- Explain ‘slave revolt in morals’. Give examples of how biblical teaching supports to poor.
- Contrast Nietzsche’s views with other critics of religion: Hume and Marx.
- How might religion make rich people feel guilty?
- Is religion all about condemning the rich and powerful? How else might we explain religion?
30.) It’s not just the non-religious who have been suspicious of traditional religion.
The Christian philosopher Kierkegaard attacked Christian society. Smug middle class
Christians think that the current society is perfect and ordered by God (=kingdom
of heaven). That confuses imperfect and limited human society with the ultimate. It
suggests that we just have to be good citizens, but that contrasts with Jesus, who
most often criticised the establishment.
That is, Nietzsche believed that morality had once been dictated by the strong and brave (as with the heroes of
ancient Greece). However, with Christianity, Nietzsche believed that the weak had taken over, using religion to
criticise the rich and powerful whilst praising the poor and meek. Nietzsche thought this ‘slave revolt’ was a
disaster, and hoped that the powerful (‘supermen’) could once again take control of ethics.
1
9
A Friendly Guide to Westphal
GJW May 2009
What to write about: Explain the secular criticism of religion (Hume, Marx, Nietzsche). This
shares a critique of Christian society with Kierkegaard, but ends up with very different
outcomes.
- How could some Christians suppose that present society is like the kingdom of God?
- What’s wrong with associating God with middle class respectability?
- Which aspects of Jesus’ life contrast with ‘the established order’?
Some Implications from Westphal
(1) If philosophy shifts its focus away from God and onto the human
practice of religion the implications would be …




There might be less support for the existence of God, with less people willing to talk
about God as a philosophical idea. The arguments for God would be ignored.
The human experience of God might seem less credible; philosophical supporters of
God (like Richard Swinburne) would not be there to back up those who believe that
they have encountered God.
The controversial debate regarding the existence of God would not be as important;
thinkers would be more focused on the role of religion in society.
Believers might be more humanistic: focused on practices and values rather than
metaphysical beliefs. That might be a good thing (?).
EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?
(2) If we emphasise reason as the only basis for religion, the implications
would be …





Traditional aspects of faith not grounded in logic might suffer, or be scrapped
altogether (ritual, narratives/Bible, religious art, worship etc.).
Religion everywhere would have to be the same. Cultural differences between
religions are not based on reason. Truths known through reason would be the same
in Europe, the Middle East, or East Asia. Tensions between faiths might disappear.
Religion might not seem to be a distinct part of life, since being religious would mean
no more than being reasonable or rational.
Human experience would have to be dominated by rational judgements, since these
are the most important things. Irrational emotion is not the highest value.
Humans might become more sympathetic and understanding, since they try to base
their faith and values on considered judgements.
EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?
(3) If (with Kant) we agree that religion is no more than a system of
morality, the implications would be …

Aspects of faith not concerned with ethics would be marginalised or disappear
(again: ritual, narratives/Bible, religious art, worship etc.).
10
A Friendly Guide to Westphal





GJW May 2009
The emotional content of religion (love, gratitude) would be replaced by a focus on
moral duty.
Religion everywhere would be the same, since rational ethics should be universal.
Churches, mosques and synagogues would change into moral support groups; all
their other curious activities would be irrelevant.
Human experience would always have to focus on ethics: being moral is the highest
good and the only basis for religion. We would always have to be conscious of duty.
Human society might become more just and moral, since consideration of the moral
law would replace self interest and hedonism.
EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?
(4) If (with Schleiermacher) we agree that religion should be focused on
‘feeling’, the implications would be …





Religion would become very personal, as individual sensations and experiences
would be the source of ‘truth’, rather than cold logic or Church authority.
External forms of faith (ritual, Church, Bible) would be less important that what the
individual feels. Religion would be much more flexible.
‘Feeling’ is quite open in terms of what it means: there isn’t really any strict guidance
in terms of what religion should be like. People could choose their own values and
practices if they ‘felt’ right.
Human experience on a personal level would take priority; people would be less
interested in what authorities had to say, whether priests or philosophy professors.
Reason and logical argument might be marginalised as being less important than
individual and personal awareness.
EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?
(5) If (with Hegel) we agree that religion should be focused on conceptual
knowledge of God (as Infinite Spirit), the implications would be …





Religion would feel more academic or intellectual. Philosophy would be the most
important support for religion.
Traditional religious practices (ritual, worship, Bible, etc.) would be less important
than the concepts people study.
Faith might become a bit elitist – the best philosophers would have the best
understanding of God, and so would be the most religious.
Human experience would have to be dominated by philosophical study, since this
would be the only way to access the ultimate – God.
Emotional and non-rational parts of human life might be seen as trivial.
EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?
(6) If (with Hume, Marx, Nietzsche) we agree that religion is practised
only because it brings people advantages, the implications would be …

Religion would have to be scrapped; it’s just a big fat institutionalised lie.
11
A Friendly Guide to Westphal




GJW May 2009
The existence of God would not be seen as an important matter. The arguments for
God would be seen as attempts to justify people’s selfish behaviour.
Religion would lose all moral authority, since it is based on self-interest. People
would have to look elsewhere for moral guidance.
Human life and experience would have to turn away from faith as a source of
structure; meaning would have to come from other sources.
Religious experiences would be understood as anomalies or psychological events.
This part of human experience cannot match up with what Hume et al. are saying.
12