Schleiermacher On Religion

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Like the progressive decline of concerned thinking, is the similar value of religious faith, and how it declined as well. Being in an area where one is subject to constant torture, can lead to the one’s with the strongest faith, to the lose it all together. Elie Wiesel was one of those people. Before being thrown in the ghetto and led to the concentration camp, living by his faith was a part of his life; it was natural for him. Being questioned about it--and questioning himself--was a rare and troubling occurrence. He explains here, “‘Why do you pray?’ he asked after a moment. Why did I pray? Strange question. Why did I live? Why did I breathe?” (Wiesel 4). Never being able to imagine his life without his religion, caused him to view it as

The era of France Enlightenment and religion have a misconception that leads one to believe that they were enemies. The Enlightenment was not against religion but it was against the superstitions and the supernaturalism of religion. Philosophes during the era of France’s Enlightenment did not look to abolish religion or the Catholic Church of France. They simply wanted a separation of religion and state because it was believed that the state was based on reason and religion was based on morality. Religion and the Enlightenment were compatible and Dr. Sorkin argues: “the Enlightenment was not only compatible with religious belief,” it actually generated new formulations of that belief. One goal that was a reflection of the

Within philosophy, there has long been a question about the relationship between science and religion. These two systems of human experience have undoubtedly had a lot of influence in the course of mankind’s development. The philosopher Ian Barbour created a taxonomy regarding science and religion that has become widely influential. His taxonomy postulates that there are four ways in which science and religion are thought to interact. The four categories are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. By using articles from a select few philosophers, theologians, and scientists, it is clear to see the ways in which these two systems of human experience are categorized in the four categories presented by Ian barbour. However, it will be apparent that the category of conflict may be seen as the most dominant in regard to the interaction between science and religion.

In this essay I will discuss the ontological problem of the existence of God and discuss Pascal’s Wager and how it solves the issue. The problem with the proof of the existence of God is that it is not something we will know for sure until our dying day. We can speculate and bet on his existence and “feel” his presence but at this point it is just that, only a bet. This wager is famous for opening up minds to look at the problem in a bigger picture. The problem with the existence of God is not in the answer but instead in the question. Pascal is responsible for refocusing this discussion on God to the bigger problem of the existential context of human life. In a way this can all be broken down to very black and white terms “Either God is or he is not.” But upon looking further we realize that this is a much bigger issue with many grey areas than something as simple as ‘is or is not’.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Christianity is not a religion, it is a form of religion. Schleiermacher understands all religions as pointing towards the same deity and essence, and so only values Christianity for its ability to more accurately portray the feeling of religion. Schleiermacher explains religion as an intuition towards the infinite, which has a strong connection to feeling, religion’s essence is neither thinking nor acting but “intuition and feeling” (Schleiermacher, 1799). Meaning that religion is “feeling which gives reality to knowledge and substance to morals” (Schleiermacher, 1799), this is important as it shows that what Schleiermacher values in a religion is that it adequately acts as intuition towards the infinite.

When they are young, they will be taught about the supremacy of religion and the fallibility of philosophy and science. Demea’s theology resembles the “god of the gaps” perspective, where any failings of science and philosophy is more reason to believe that God exists within the things we cannot explain. He hopes that as his students learn of this, they will believe that the paramount objective of their education is to learn the nature of God, who is most important and constant being in the universe. To summarize, Demea believes that humans will never fully understand the universe; thus, the failure of science to provide explanations is the greatest proof of God and greatest justification for faith.

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

Religion is constructed on faith and belief of an individual even though it is the individual choice to follow it or not. It has stirred a lot of debates for years; those who are trying to prove that God exists throughout history and follow to modern day. While, those who are atheist are trying to prove their point of God does not exist. There are still more and more theories and debate over the subject of religious view. It is a matter of theism versus atheism; new and old philosophers have joined the debate and all with different sides to another philosopher’s theory or view on the matter. In this paper, I will attempt to illustrate the reasons given by Louis Pojman of why religion is good or bad, as well as evaluating Bertrand Russell argument about religion. This can define the meaning of life and the creation of life as we know it. It can change views or switch sides for there is always another explanation to exactly what religion is all about and having a superior ruler that created all.

The first two speeches of On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers distinguish Schleiermacher as the father of Protestant Liberal Theology, at the very least (Schleiermacher 1996, xiv, xi). The First Speech is "Defence" (Schleiermacher 1996, 1-25) and the Second Speech is "The Nature of Religion" (Schleiermacher 1996, 26-118). Reacting to the orthodoxy, enlightened rationality and detachment, and neoclassical ideals of his time (Schleiermacher 1996, xiv, xvi), Schleiermacher used some established concepts to articulate a newer, liberal approach

“The minute we have taken the backward step to an intangible view of our whole system of beliefs, proof, and rationalization, and seen that it works only, in spite of its pretensions, by taking the world mainly for granted, we are not in a place to contrast all these forms with an alternative reality. We cannot shed our normal responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind (Nagel, 1971; p. 723).”

Known as the father of modern liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher was a German theologian, philosopher and biblical scholar who focused his attention on the nature of religious experience from the viewpoint of the individual and human nature itself (Mariña 3). Influenced by German Romanticism, Schleiermacher attempted to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant Christianity (Crouter 261). By doing so, he abandoned the pietistic Moravian theology that had failed to satisfy his increasing doubts and he adopted the rational spirit of Christian Wolff and Johann Salomo Semler. He then became acquainted with the techniques of historical criticism of the New Testament and of Johann Augustus Eberhard, from whom he acquired a love of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. As a result, he began applying ideas from the Greek philosophers to a reconstruction of Immanuel Kant’s system (Mariña 3). On this basis, this essay articulate Friedrich Schleiermacher’s understanding of religion and its relationship to Christianity as described in Speech I: Defense and Speech II: The Nature of Religion of his work On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. The essay will explore Schleiermacher’s rejection of various views of religion held by the despisers, explain his identification of the true religion with feeling and describe his view of the relationship between religion and Christianity.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data

Max Weber believed the religion is a deeply rooted institution that has shaped people’s image of the world, which in turn can impact their beliefs and motives. For instance, religion is used different amongst people of various class and statues. Individuals with high class and statues will use religion legitimate their circumstances and their situation in the world. On the other end of the spectrum, underprivileged individuals will lean toward religion that promise rewards for hard work and good morals (CSP). In addition, Weber believed that religion had supplied the framework that aided the development of various social institution, in particular the economy (PA).