[QUOTE=Miller]
magellan, I’m confused as to what you see as the difference between a philosophy and a religion. It sounds like one could simply declare that their religion is really a “philosophy” and try to sneak around the 1st ammendment. How is monotheism a philosophy and Christianity a religion? Both are proposing metaphysical systems by which the universe is supposed to function. Aside from having a great deal more specific detail, I don’t really see a significant difference between Christianity and simple monotheism, at least as far as the first ammendment is concerned.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the question. Let’s start with a basic question, maybe the basic question: “How did we come to be here?”
I think you’d agree that this is a philosophical question. And the answers, at least in the initial stages, will be philosophical answers. Basically, they will fall into two camps. Either the universe is eternal or the universe had a beginning. Expanding on the latter possibility, as that is where the founder’s beliefs will eventually reside, the thinking progresses:
- If the universe had a beginning, it was begun by something
- That something may be A) one thing or B) more than one thing
So, we’re still in philosophical territory. Either answer is a philosophical answer. Now we can explore the options in #2 further while still remaining in the philosophical realm.
A: What is the one thing that created everything else? Here are a few options:
- a big explosion or
- a giant whale or
- the sun or
- the earth or
- the moon or
- water or
- fire or
- wind or
- a supreme entity up in the sky
B: What are these things that created everything else? (Choose a minimum of two.)
- a big explosion and/or
- a giant whale and/or
- the sun and/or
- the earth and/or
- the moon and/or
- water and/or
- fire and/or
- wind and/or
- a supreme entity up in the sky
So we are still in the philosophic realm. Let’s now focus on option A, as that is from where monotheism will eventually emerge. One possible answer, a big explosion, is a purely “natural one” (we’ll ignore the question of what caused the explosion). The other options attempt to imbue the concept of will (to create) to non-human entities. This step makes the philosophical leap that “things”—orbs, elements, unseen entities, etc—have the ability to act. Now, keep in mind that there is no hint, yet, of anything resembling religion. A person may hold the position that everything was created by the sun or the unseen supreme entity and never give the issue another thought.
He may even go so far as to conclude that the sun or a supreme entity created everything, but that man is not the reason for the creation. Man may merely be the detritus of some unknown plan in another realm of the universe, human grains of sand. If he stops there, there is still no religion. Now part of the confusion comes from language. We tend to refer to notions of things imbued with the power to create worlds and control events as “gods”. It is an unfortunate word, as it connotes some"thing" that wants us to do something. Something that cares about our actions. But that needn’t be the case. It is a possibility that 1) we were created through an intentional act by 2) something capable of creation and 3) the “thing” desires no relationship with us whatsoever.
So, at this point it is possible to have a mono-“thing” view and still have no religion.
Next, this “thing” must be pretty awesome, so I’m going to think about it some more. One might be of the opinion that this “thing” creating me is like my mother or father creating me. Then through by the fault of language and the act of anthropomorphification one crafts a relationship of sorts with this “thing”. The question arises, what (if anything) is expected of me in this relationship. Given that the “thing” has so much more power than me and created everything and (probably)controls everything, let me try to see what would please this “thing”. Becuase if it is pleased with my actions, it might orchestrate events around me in a more benevolent and loving manner.
Now we have moved into the realm of religion.
I hold that a belief moves from the philosohical to the religious when, in broad strokes, a person 1) believes that there is something greater than himself with the ability to control events and 2) that person believes that his actions can effect the higher power. Even the simple act of prayiing would qualify.
So, now to the supreme entity referred to in the D of I. The monotheistic view seen there (reservations by Revenant Threshold aside for now) simply opines that 1) there is a supreme entity, 2) it created us 3) through that creation it instilled in us certain rights, 4) as these rights were instilled in us by our creator, they are inalienable, and 5) it is the supreme judge.
I’d say the only one of these that moves away from a philosophic position and begins to encroach into religous territory is the last one; if it is going to judge us, doesn’t that require me to modify my behavior? I say it does not require that step. It may tempt one into moving in that direction in that it supposedly gives one a means to control events around him, but it is not a necessary step to take. A person could easily conclude that this entity is so awesome that I cannot begin to understand what it wants, and to think that I can effect him by my thoughts or actions is a study in hubris and egocentrism.
Ironically, this person would have much in common with a weak atheist. The difference being that he believes there is an extra-natural higher power and that this power created him with rights attached—that he cannot be seperated from.
Does that help, Miller?
