The following comment was sent in by Owen Bell. Owen agreed to let me use it as a formal posting:
“The reason why people don’t identify with Epicureanism (assuming they’ve even heard of it) is because philosophy is seen as a subordinate discipline: too subjective to be scientific yet in too constant a state of flux to command the sanctity of religion. In reality, modern educationalists are confined by their hubris to realise the profound teachings and practical advice that philosophy can provide.
Instead of being taught facts about religions they probably don’t even care about, children should be able to choose to participate in practical philosophy classes. These would be fun, easy-going and accessible. They would not be forced on children to prevent anyone who was genuinely uninterested from partaking. These would be far more interesting than any religious ‘studies’ (indoctrination) class.”
“[T]oo subjective to be scientific yet in too constant a state of flux to command the sanctity of religion.”
A perceptive comment, Owen Bell. I think that, in a way, the differences among science, philosophy, and religion are the questions which each asks. That is, the basic questions asked in philosophy resemble the fundamental questions of religion: why? what? how? why something and not nothing? what’s the point of it all?
The differences between philosophy and religion on one hand and science on the other hand are the questions asked, it seems to me. Science asks the what and how of the observable world and doesn’t take on the Big Ones that press for “ultimate meaning.” That is not the scientist’s purview. For humanity’s sake, I think we need ALL the disciplines that really seek truth and meaning. So –science, religion, philosophy, history, literature–anyone, any blog, book, or any field that advances the Good and the True, bring them on. 🙂
Carmen, in your opinion, how does religion advance the good and true?
Owen, I use the word “religion” to mean the effort all human cultures to find ultimate meaning in reality, to have explanations for those aspects of life which human beings can’t control or don’t understand. I’ve never studied a culture that didn’t have “religion” as I’m defining it, the desire for psychological certainty that their life has meaning. That may not be your understanding of the word, though, so we’d have to work that out.
Deny that sense of “religion” and the same intellectual craving for some sort of psychological certitude for getting through life will re-emerge as a “secular” religion like Marxism, or Freudian “sex” drive, Bergson’s “élan vital,” or Nietszche’s view of power –or whatever.
Given that definition of “religion” I’d frame the question differently–how does the human craving for explanations advance the good and the true?