The Philosophy of Religion - Essay Example from Our Database

Philosophy is a term that has become difficult to define owing its inconclusiveness. However, it can be defined as a reflexive question in the threshold sense (Kanaris 12). These questions are raised by the philosophers, who keep questioning what the other people may ignore due to affiliations such as, their traditions, religion, knowledge, which prohibits their thinking (Kanaris 56). Philosophy is the only discipline that gives freedom to its learner and associates in defining issues, unlike other disciplines that provide definite answers to their questions. The discipline majorly depends on the thoughts of the individual without being critiqued by their environment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The main source of philosophy is the sense of wonder, a childlike wonder about everything. Most philosopher act with bewilderment, astonishment, and amazement about the world and issues of life (Kanaris 34). Philosophy arises from the working of an inquisitive mind, which is bewildered by seemingly common things that never bother the common mind. The philosophy emerges out of readiness to follow the call of human intellectual curiosity beyond common sense relationship with the world.

Philosophy aims at understanding rather than shorthand answers. Philosophy in striving to bring some light into the complexity of human life and the universe, it pursues the old longing for the truth about the whole. The philosopher argues that philosophy is only committed to bringing out the truth. However, the truth is never given and complete, as we cannot close out the totality, it strives to capture. Therefore, the search of truth is perpetual striving for more insight that for the final word on the matters of life and the world. Moreover, when issues are philosophized, they become more complex and difficult than before.

This paper shall focus on answering the philosophical question of whether the world would be a better place without religion. The philosophical question has aroused mixed reaction all over the world given that the question tends to question the goodness of religion and the existence of the spiritual beings.

According to AC Grayling, a philosopher, religion is a force for good, and the world would be happier without God (Grayling 45). The philosopher says that religions across the world have a cutting point that describes who they are, in which the aspect of humanity and charity describes them. These are the act of feeling concerned about the life of other people. The issue of caring for the poor, wounded, sick and other disadvantaged victims is propagated mostly by the holy books and teaching that govern the religions. The philosopher argues that the same act of feeling concerned is well captured in the human insight without any alienation to the force of religion (Grayling 88). According to Grayling, being charitable is humane and not spiritual.

According to AC Grayling, the act of charity should be voluntary (Grayling 56). The philosopher is grilled by how religion persuades or forces its followers to fulfill this obligation toward the needy through its teachings. The philosopher observes that the religion followers that fail to commit their resources to helping the needy end up being traumatized, as they feel condemned by their God. The philosopher argues that the condemnation is subjected to the followers due to their faith goes against their free will choice to act charitably (Grayling 102).

According to Grayling, the behavior of the followers of a religion are controlled and their reasoning robbed away by their faith. The philosopher says that reason is the very nature of man and to abandon it together with logic and skepticism is paramount to suicide. The philosopher challenges the way believers of religion live a life outside reality in the world (Grayling 150). This belief causes the people to live a superstitious life about their future, which they peg on faith injected to them through their religions. The philosopher says the actions and lives of the victims end up following the course of nature as they easily avoid responsibility, in the name of faith. Therefore, religion robes the follower their human readiness ability in handling the issues of life.

On the other hand, according to Norman Geisler, the world would not be a better place without religion. The philosopher brings out the mind of God which according to him is envisaged in religion (Geisler and Hoffman 30). The philosopher believes that religion has played a major role in the advancement of the society. The fact that religions tend to control the action and decisions of its follower, Norman notes that laws are one of the characteristics of any kingdom or government. Religion being a kingdom led by its God, it has to be guided by laws that are found in its holy books. The philosopher supports the idea of God to put boundaries on the extent of the behavior of the human beings (Geisler and Hoffman 77). According to Norman if the boundaries were not prescribed in the books, then the world could be even more dangerous regarding levels of crime, immorality, terrorism and other evil vices. Therefore, religion is of paramount importance to the harmony of the world.

The two philosophers oppose one another view of religion with their strong argument. However, as indicated before philosophizing a matter makes it more complex (Kanaris 56). The two in their arguments bring out points of reasons, but much needs to be unveiled about the philosophical question.

Works Cited

Geisler, Norman L, and Paul K Hoffman. Why I Am A Christian. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001. Print.

Grayling, A. C. The Good Book. Print.

Kanaris, Jim. Bernard Lonergan's Philosophy Of Religion. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002. Print.