1. HONG KONG PROGRAMS
PHIL 260: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (4) (2H)
Winter quarter, (January 3 - March 19, 2005)
David C. Lam Building, HKBU Campus
Instructor: Dr. Giuseppe Mario Saccone
E-mail: gmsaccon@graduate.hku.hk
Tel: 98660230
LECTURE 1: What is philosophy? What is religion? What is philosophy of religion
What is philosophy?
Philosophy literally means love of wisdom, the Greek words philia meaning love or friendship, and
Sophia meaning wisdom. Philosophy is concerned basically with three areas: epistemology (the
study of knowledge), metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality), and ethics (the study of
morality).
Epistemology deals with the following questions: what is knowledge? What are truth and falsity,
and to what do they apply? What is required for someone to actually know something? What is the
nature of perception, and how reliable is it? What are logic and logical reasoning, and how can
human beings attain them? What is the difference between knowledge and belief? Is there anything
as “certain knowledge”?
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, asking the questions: What exists in reality and
what is the nature of what exists? Specifically, such questions as the following are asked: Is there
really cause and effect in reality, and if so, how does it work? What is the nature of the physical
world, and is there anything other than the physical such as the mental or spiritual? What is the
nature of human beings? Is there freedom in reality or is everything predetermined?
Ethics deals with what is right or wrong in human behaviour and conduct. It asks such questions as
what constitutes any person or action being good, bad, right, or wrong, and how do we know
(epistemology)? What part does self-interest or the interest of others play in the making of moral
decisions and judgements? What theories of conduct are valid or invalid, and why? Should we use
principles or rules or laws, or should we let each situation decide our morality? Are killing, lying,
cheating, stealing, and sexual acts right or wrong, and why or why not?
Love of wisdom
The term philosophy literally means the love of wisdom. It is said that the first one to call himself a
philosopher was Pythagoras, a Greek who lived somewhere between 570 and 495 B.C. and spent
1

2. most of his life in southern Italy. He is, of course, best known for his famous mathematical
theorem. When once asked is he was wise, he replied that no one could be wise but a god, but that
he was a lover of wisdom. To love something does not mean to possess it but to focus our life on it.
Whereas Pythagoras introduced the term philosopher, it was Socrates who made it famous. He said
that the philosopher was one who had a passion for wisdom and who was intoxicated by this love.
This description makes quite a contrast with the image of the philosopher as being cold and
analytical – sort of a walking and talking computer. On the contrary, the cognitive and the
emotional are combined in philosophy, for we do not rationally deliberate about those issues in life
that are deeply trivial. Those issues that are most important to us are such things as our religious
commitments (or lack of them), our moral values, our political commitments, our career, or
(perhaps) who we will share our lives with. Such issues as our deepest loves, convictions, and
commitments demand our deepest thought and most through rational reflection. Philosophy, in part,
is the search for that kind of wisdom that will inform the beliefs and values that enter into these
crucial decisions.
What is Philosophy? Why should we learn it?
What is philosophy? Philosophy can mean different things to different people. Etymologically
speaking, philosophy means ‘Love of Wisdom.’ It includes both theory and practise, view and way,
end and means, beginning (alpha) and end (omega), or science and art. Its meanings seem to depend
on each school of thought. Philosophers, therefore, may be considered as sages, lovers of wisdom,
lovers of argument, theorists, practitioners, or even artists.
There are various currents of academic philosophy. We can speak of Eastern and Western
philosophy. Western philosophy at the moment can be divided into two main kinds: analytic
(Anglo-American or English speaking) and continental (European) philosophy. The two kinds of
philosophy pay attention to language and being. However, while analytic philosophy mainly deals
with truths and knowledge, continental philosophy (primarily) deals with values and life. From
these observations, it may be said that analytic philosophy is a close friend of science whereas most
school of continental philosophy are close friend of religion. Turning to Eastern philosophy, we
may surprisingly discover that all schools of thought believe that reality is a social process. In other
words, according to Eastern philosophy, all actual realities are becomings, not beings.
As we all know, both religion and science have been the most important forces in the history of
mankind. Therefore, many educational institutions have the aim to promote both science and
religion. The matter of science and religion should not be an ‘ether…or’ but ‘both…and’ way of
thinking. Lacking an appreciation of either of the two can cause problems, or as Einstein says,
‘Science without religion is lame, but religion without science is blind.’ How can we bridge the
gap between science and religion? We can do it through process philosophy which integrates both
science and religion into our way of life. It is also possible to use process philosophy and
multicultural approaches to show how both Eastern and Western philosophy can be integrated into
our life – world. Therefore, it would be necessary to train students in all systems of thought
Western and Eastern.
One of the purposes of philosophical programs is to train, form and transform students to be a
‘conscience of society’. While students of philosophy of religion are trained to achieve ‘religious
freedom’ through the spirit of religious pluralism and authentic dialogue, generally those in all
philosophical programs are expected to attain ‘intellectual independence’ or ‘intellectual
autonomy’ or what Kant previously called ‘enlightenment’. It does not matter what is the religious
belief or non-religious belief of students. Indeed, it does matter whether they are authentic in their
beliefs or in their ethical principles. It possible to evaluate their authenticity by the following
criteria: (1) They should be able to defend and justify their own faiths or ethical principles. (2)
They should be able to put their beliefs or ethical principles into practise. (3) They should be able
2

3. to have true dialogue and peaceful co-existence with those who have different beliefs or ethical
principles. All students should ideally become expert and virtuous.
The relevance of religious studies in contemporary times
Contemporary global events where religion is playing a significant role illustrates the demise of the
‘secularization thesis’ which at the dawn of the modern age predicted the decline of religion. The
present state of social affairs has led the pioneer of the ‘secularization thesis’ Prof. Peter Berger to
talk about the ongoing ‘de-secularization of the world’. Prof. Berger is of the opinion that in spite
of secularizing effects religion is on a come back on the world stage. Hence, there is an urgent need
for learning and research in the discipline of Religious Studies with the aim to obtain an insight into
the ongoing developments at local and international levels.
The study of religion as an academic discipline began with the establishment of departments of
religion/religious studies in different universities at the beginning of the 19th
century, making a
separation between the study of religion and theology. The former based on a global agenda, seek to
understand the ‘Homo Religiosus the total human being’. This resulted in the attempts by
humanists and social scientists in understanding the human being and his/her activities in the world
in a comprehensive contextual perspective. It involved researching the mythic, ritual, doctrinal,
legal, ethical, social, and the artistic dimensions of life. This undertaking contributed to the
emergence of several new methodologies and approaches in the study of religion such as,
phenomenology, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and history of religion. On the practical side
there also emerged practical endeavour of engaging in inter-religious dialogue with the aim of
bringing about a better understanding within humanity and building religious coexistence in the age
of pluralism.
The famous dictum of Max Muller, the founder of the study of religion that, ‘He who knows one,
knows none’ has proved itself true through the many global events which continue to show the
fragility of human life and experience blinded by cultural ignorance resulting in clashes and
conflicts. Hence, the study of religion has become a necessary component for gaining universal
knowledge and experience with an aim to building healthy and peaceful coexistence. This is an
honourable educational and humane task. For this reason, having studied philosophy of religion
could be particularly useful in the areas of education, foreign service, journalism, community
relations and international business.
What is religion?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines religion as “the belief in a superhuman controlling power,
especially in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship.” This is a loose definition
that encompasses many beliefs and worship.
Our book provides an examination of some philosophical issues concerning religion from a
Western perspective. Muslim contend that Islam is not a religion; it is a way of life. Similarly
Taoism is considered by many not to be a religion but “The Way.” Buddhism, which does not serve
a God, believes in “The Path.” Nevertheless, it would seem that whatever name or designation is
given to a particular faith or belief, the needs of the adherents do not differ; in that, there is
universal agreement. In so far as we take into account of the needs of the adherents, religion can be
described as the need and the search for the holy and/or the infinite, God, the meaning of life,
etc.
3

4. The study of religion
Most scholars agree that the nineteenth century was the formative period when the study of modern
religions got under way. Many disciplines were involved, including the philological sciences,
literary criticism, psychology, anthropology, and sociology.
Questions immediately come up that go beyond the recorded facts. What, for example, is the
religious experience and how is it exhibited? What are the principles at work in the various
religions? Are there laws in place in the religions, and how do they affect the adherents? In
addition, there were the questions of truth or falsity, and the reliability of the recorded history of
each religion. In short, it would be fair to say that the whole subject was fraught with controversy.
Classifying religions
The whole issue of true and false religions and a classification that demonstrated the claims of each
led to the necessity to defend one religion against another. Unfortunately, this type of classification,
which is arbitrary and subjective, continues to exist.
For example, in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther, the great Protestant Reformer, went so far as
to label Muslims, Jews, and Roman Catholic Christians to be false. He held that the gospel of
Christianity understood from the viewpoint of justification by grace through faith was the true
standard. Another example would be Islam, in which religions are classified into three groups: the
wholly true, the partially true, and the wholly false. That classification is based in the Qur’an
(Koran, the Islamic sacred scripture) and is an integral part of Islamic teaching. It also has legal
implications for the Muslim treatment of followers of other religions.
Of course, such classifications express an implied judgment , not only on Protestants, Jews, Roman
Catholics, and Muslims, but all religions. This judgemental nature arises from the loyalties that
exist in every society and religious culture. It is human nature for people to defend their own
“tribe,” and by association decry other “tribes.”
In the field of psychology, it is stated that in the religious person, emotions such as wonder, awe,
and reverence are exhibited. Religious people tend to show concern for values – moral and aesthetic
– and to seek out actions that have these values. They will be likely to characterize behaviour not
only as good or evil but also as holy or unholy, and people as virtuous or un-virtuous, even godly or
ungodly.
The Greek philosopher Plato saw that in performing every good act, humans realize their link with
eternity and the idea of goodness. He likened the human condition to the image of a man in a cave,
chained by his earthly existence so that he cannot see the light outside, only the shadows on the
wall. In order to see the light, man has to throw off his chains and leave the cave.
Some resemblance amongst most religions
There is one feature which is extremely widespread even though not universal. This is a concern
with what is variously called salvation or liberation. This is probably not a feature of primitive or
archaic religion, which is more concerned with keeping things on a even keel, avoiding catastrophe.
However, all the great developed world faiths have a soteriological (from the Greek soteria,
salvation) structure. They offer a transition from a radically unsatisfactory state to a
limitlessly better one. They each speak in their different ways of the wrong or distorted or
deluded character of our present human existence in its ordinary, unchanged condition. It is a
fallen life, lived in alienation from God; or it is caught in the word-illusion of maya; or it is
pervaded throughout by dukkha, radical unsatisfactoriness. They also proclaim, as the basis
for their gospel, that the Ultimate, the Real, the Divine, with which our present existence is
out of joint, is good, or gracious, or otherwise to be sought and responded to; the ultimately
real is also the ultimately valuable. Completing the soteriological structure, they each offer
their own way to the Ultimate – through faith in response to divine grace; or through total
4

5. self-giving to God; or through the spiritual discipline and maturing which leads to
enlightenment and liberation. In each case, salvation, or liberation consists of a new and
limitlessly better quality of existence which comes about in the transition from self-
centeredness to Reality-centeredness.
The future of religion
There is a universality contained in the answers, from whichever source one goes to, to the
question, “what is the future of religion?” In essence, religion should contribute to a crucially
important task: a considerable increase of mutual understanding around the world needs to come
about – an understanding that the earth is occupied by a vast number of people with an equally vast
number of beliefs, and respect should be paid to all. The philosophy of the Golden Rule is implicit
in virtually every religion.
It is well known that in times of trouble, either personal, national, or international, that the number
of people who embrace a religion increases. It could, therefore, be said that as trouble isn’t going to
go away, neither is religion. Both are here to stay.
What is philosophy of religion?
What is the philosophy of religion? It was at one time generally understood to mean religious
philosophizing in the sense of the philosophical defence of religious convictions. It was seen as
continuing the work of “natural”, distinguished from “revealed”, theology (theology meaning the
study of the nature of God and religion and their influence on the world). So the program of
philosophy of religion was to demonstrate rationally the existence of God, thus preparing the way
for the claims of revelation. But it seems better to call this endeavour “natural theology” and to term
the wider philosophical defence of religious beliefs “apologetics”. Then we may reserve the name
“philosophy of religion” for what (by analogy with philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc.) is
its proper meaning, namely, philosophical thinking about religion.
Philosophy of religion, then, is not an organ of religious teaching. Indeed, it need not be
undertaken from a religious standpoint at all. The atheist, the agnostic, and the person of faith can
and do philosophize about religion. Philosophy of religion is, accordingly, not a branch of theology
(here meaning by “theology” the systematic formulation of religious beliefs), but a branch of
philosophy. It studies the concepts and belief systems of the religions as well as the prior
phenomena of religious experience and the activities of worship and meditation on which
these belief systems rest and out of which they have arisen.
Philosophy of religion is thus a second-order activity, standing apart from its subject matter.
It is not itself a part of the religious realm but is related to it as, for example, the philosophy of
law is related to the realm of legal phenomena and to juridical concepts and modes of
reasoning, or the philosophy of art to artistic phenomena and to the categories and methods of
aesthetic discussion. The philosophy of religion is thus related to the particular religions and
theologies of the world as the philosophy of science relates to the special sciences. It seeks to
analyze concepts such as God, dharma, Brahman, salvation, worship, creation, sacrifice,
nirvana, eternal life, etc., and to determine the nature of religious utterances in comparison
with those of everyday life, scientific discovery, morality, and the imaginative expressions of
the arts.
Topics
- How do you understand the relationship between philosophy and religion?
- Explain the meaning of ‘philosophy of religion’.
- Explain in your own words the reasons why studying philosophy of religion could contribute to
the welfare of our society.
5

6. LECTURE 2: What sorts of religion are there?
Mysticism
An approach to religion that emphasizes a direct intuitive knowledge of God, of Ultimate Reality,
or of the spiritual world. This approach takes on a wide variety of forms but among that many of
these have in common is that they result in serenity, harmonization of the inner and outer life, and
joy; they also emphasize union or unity with the Ultimate Reality. The social form of this approach
often involves membership of an order and submission to a spiritual master who introduces the
initiate into the spiritual techniques involved.
The religions of the world
The world contains a vast array of religions. Numerically the largest are Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism and Buddhism. There are also a number of other well-established independent religions:
Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Jainism and the Baha’I Faith. In addition, there are Chinese and
Japanese religious systems, tribal or traditional religions and ancient or archaic religions, as well as
many new religious movements. Because of their number and complexity, account cannot be given
of all the many religions of the world. I will give a brief description of some of the most important
ones.
Judaism
Although numerically a modest-sized religion (about 20 million adherents). Judaism has provided
the historical foundation for two of the world’s largest religions: Christianity and Islam. The main
belief of Judaism is that there is an all-powerful God with whom Jews have a personal relationship.
To understand modern day Judaism one has to be relatively well informed about its long history. It
might be said to have started when God made the Jews his chosen people. He promised Abraham
that his descendants – his son Isaac and grandsons Jacob and Esau – would become a great nation.
The promise or Covenant is recorded in Jewish scriptures.
Judaism is a religion of ethical monotheism. God is unique and the ultimate authority, but the utter
and essential backbone of the entire religion is the Torah, comprised of the first five books of the
Bible, which are attributed to Moses.
In addition to the Torah, the Hebrew canon includes the Nevi’m, or the books of the prophets.
Nevi’m are generally divided into two sections: the former prophets (comprised of twenty-two
books) and the latter prophets, which are twelve. The writings of the twelve minor prophets are
copied onto one scroll, so that they can be counted as one entry, so to speak. The total number of
books in the Hebrew canon, the Christian old Testament, is thirty-nine, which was the number of
scrolls on which they were originally written.
Of great importance also are the traditions, codifications and commentaries contained in the
Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism is built upon the laws and rituals elaborated in the Talmud. Apart from
legalism and ritualism, the other main strand in Judaism is mysticism. Jewish philosophy and
mysticism flourished in the Middle Ages in Spain, Provence and the countries of the Islamic world,
where the mystical tradition known as the Kabbala emerged. In central Europe, the mystical strand
led to the Hasidic movement. The principal modern division, however, is between Orthodox
Judaism, which holds to the traditional legalistic, ritualistic, rabbinic religion, and Reform Judaism,
which seeks to modernize the religion. Conservative Judaism holds an intermediate position
between these two.
6

7. Christianity
Jesus Christ was born to a Jewish family in about 4 BCE. He taught a religion of love and
fellowship. As a result of his teaching and his life, Christianity arose and became the predominant
religion of the Roman Empire after the Emperor Constantine’s conversion circa 312 CE.
Christianity has gone on to become the largest and most widespread religion in the world. There are
numerous strands to Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the other oriental churches
(Armenian, Ethiopian, and so on) are centred on liturgy, mysticism and monasticism.
Constantinople (Byzantium, now Istanbul) the prime patriarchate of the Orthodox Church, was the
most important centre of Christianity throughout the Middle Ages. The Church in Rome had
increasing disagreements with the Byzantine patriarchate, which culminated in the mutual exchange
of anathemas (denunciations and excommunications) in 1054 and the sack of Constantinople by
Western Crusaders in 1204. The Roman Catholic Church is also centred on liturgy and
monasticism, but it is much more centralized and hierarchical in its organization. With the rise of
Islam in the Middle East and the eventual fall of Constantinople in 1453, Rome gradually became
more important than Constantinople as the centre of Christendom. The various Protestant churches
that broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century rejected, in the main, the
traditions and hierarchy of that Church and proclaimed a Bible-based religion of faith and personal
piety.
Islam
Islam is the religion that arose as a result of the teachings of Muhammad (c.570-632 CE). He
opposed the idolatry of the Arab tribes and also some of the doctrinal developments in Christianity.
He taught a simple direct relationship with God through devotional acts and a way of life
emphasizing piety and justice. Within a few decades of the death of Muhammad, Islam had spread
through the Middle East and North Africa. The Shia split away from the majority, who became
known as Sunnis, over the question of the person and nature of the leadership of the community.
The Shia believed that Muhammad had intented Ali to be the leader of Islam after him as the first of
a series of hereditary Imams, and had intended a spiritual and political leadership. The Sunnis
looked to a line of caliphs, who were mainly political leaders. The orthodox strand of Islam has
always been legalistic and most Muslims would identify being a Muslim with following the Holy
Law, the Sharia. This is based on the Koran, which Muslims believe is the word of God, and the
Traditions (Hadiths), which record the sayings and actions of Muhammad. The other main strand in
Islam is mysticism, Sufism. Individual mystics existed from the earliest days of Islam, but it was in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries CE that the great Sufi orders began to emerge. There has been a
certain amount of tension between these two strands of Islam over the course of Islamic history.
Classical Sunni political and social theory saw the Muslim as one community (umma) under the
leadership of the caliph. The caliphate was, however, abolished in 1924 after the fall of the Turkish
Ottoman Empire.
7

8. Sexism deleted in Turkey [The Nation 14/08/2006]
Mustafa Akyol
The Washington Post
Istanbul
‘Women are imperfect in intellect and religion.’
‘The best of women are those who are sheep.’
‘If a woman doesn’t satisfy her husband’s desires, she should choose herself a place in hell’
‘If a husband’s body is covered with pus and his wife licks it clean, she still wouldn’t have paid her
dues.’
‘Your prayer will be invalid if a donkey, black dog or a woman passes in front of you.’
In a bold, but little-noticed step toward reforming Islamic tradition, Turkey’s religious authorities
recently declared that they will remove these statements, and more like them, from the Hadiths –
the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad.
Hadiths are serious stuff. More than 90 per cent of the shari’a (Islamic law) is based on them rather
than the Koran, and the most infamous measures of the sharia – the killing of apostates, the
seclusion of women, the ban on fine arts, the stoning of adulterers and many other vilent
punishments for sinful behaviour – come from the Hadiths and the commentaries built upon them.
Eliminating these misogynistic statements from the Hadiths is a direct challenge to some most
controversial aspects of Islamic tradition.
Modern Muslim intellectuals have long argued that the Hadiths should be revised, but this is the
first time in recent history that a central Islamic authority has taken the dramatic step of deciding to
edit them. The media and intellectuals of Ankara and Istanbul largely welcomed lat month’s
decision, which the Turkish government supported. And although there were rumblings of
discontent from ultraconservative commentators, they didn’t amount to a protest. Yet, despite the
rhetoric about the need to make alliances with progressive Islam in the midst of the fight against
terrorism, Turkey’s move toward reform has been widely overlooked in the West, and there has
been little acknowledgement of it in other Muslim countries.
The proposed revision came from the Diyanet, Turkey’s highest Islamic authority, which controls
more than 76,000 mosques in Turkey and other parts of Europe. Its president, Ali Bardakoglu, a
liberal theologian appointed three years ago by the ruling conservative Justice and Development
Party (AKP), declared that a new collection of Hadiths, free of such misogyny, would be prepared
by 2008. He also announced that enlightened imams would be sent to the rural, conservative
regions of south-eastern Turkey to preach against practices such as honour killings.
Many Muslims view Hadiths as sacrosanct, although their accuracy has been a major point of
contention among scholars. The Hadiths were compiled two centuries after the Koran, which was
transcribed during the prophet’s lifetime and canonised right after his death in Medina in the 7th
century. By the 9th
century, people were constructing such strange stories from the prophet that
scholars such as Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj decided to evaluate and catalogue
them. Focusing on the reliability of the chain of transmitters, these scholars created collections of
sahih, or trustworthy, Hadiths.
But some modern Islamic scholars have felt increasingly uneasy about the inconsistencies and
narrow-minded assertions in these collections.
There are other Hadiths that explain Muhammad’s great respect for his wives, for example, and
insist on the rights of women. The contradiction implies a need for revision.
Similarly, in proposing to create its new standard collection, the Turkish Diyanet intends to look
beyond the chain of transmitters to logic, consistency and common sense. In many ways, this is a
8

9. revival of an early debate in Islamic jurisprudence between rival camps known as the adherents of
the Hadiths and the adherents of reason – a debate that ended with the triumph of the former.
The reawakening of this medieval debate and the consequent revision of the Hadith literature could
be a revolutionary breakthrough.
It is no accident that Turkey is the place where the traditional shari’a is being reconsidered. The
process of modernising Islam, which dates in Turkey from the late Ottoman Empire, has accelerated
since the 1980s, when Turkish society began to open. Since then, a flourishing Muslim bourgeoisie
has emerged, and members are wittily called ‘Islamic Calvinists’ for their religiously inspired
capitalism. This has given rise to a new social atmosphere: In modern Turkey, you see models
parading down the catwalk in fancy headscarves and Koranic courses promoted by clowns handing
out ice cream. Muslim politicians such as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul repeatedly stress the need
for change in the Islamic world.
These reform-minded Muslims are not secularists who want to do away with religion. On the
contrary, they want to reinterpret Islam because they believe that its divinely ordained, humane and
generous essence has been eclipsed by mortal man’s erroneous traditions and ideologies.
This is crucial because only such godly reformists have a chance to appeal to more traditional
members of their faith. Since the 19th
century, traditional Muslims have felt forced to choose
between their faith and modernity – a dilemma that has been fuelling a reactionary strand of radical
Islam. The Islamic world needs an alternative – a path between godless modernity and anti-western
bigotry. With its revision of the traditional Islamic sources and with its rising Muslimhood that
embraces democracy and open society, Turkey may just be opening the way. The West should be
taking notice – and encouraging other Muslim countries to tale inspiration from Turkey’s moderate
course.
Mustafa Akyol is a Turkish journalist.
9

10. Hinduism
Hinduism is one of the oldest extant, textually based religions in the world. Its roots go back to a
collection of scriptures called the Vedas, which are considered to have been divinely revealed to
certain sages. These books, which are usually dated as being from about 1300 BCE, originated
among the Aryan population of India. From these beginnings a complex and diverse religious
tradition has evolved. Beyond originating in India and holding the Vedas to be sacred, there is little
else that holds wide diversity of groups that call themselves Hindu together. There is certainly no
particular creed, doctrine or practice that is common to all Hindus. One strand in Hinduism is the
ritualistic and legalistic religion which is officiated over by the Brahmins the priestly caste. Another
strand is the mystical and philosophical aspects of the Vedanta, based on the Upanishads and the
philosophies of such writers as Shankara (788-820), Ramanuja (d. 1137), and Madhva (d. c. 1276).
There is also the bhakti religion based on love and devotion to deities such as Shiva and Vishnu,
and the latter’s avatars (incarnations), Ktishna and Rama. Pervading Hindu society is jati, the
hereditary caste system. Most Hindus participate in worship both at home before a household altar
and in the temple.
Buddhism
The founder of Buddhism is variously called by his personal name, Siddhartha, or his family name,
Gautama, or his clan name, Shakyamuni. His title, the Buddha (Enlightened One), refers to the fact
that after a prolonged period of searching the Indian religious traditions, he achieved a state of
enlightenment while sitting a under a tree. During his lifetime (traditionally c.563-c.483 BCE, but
more probably c.480-c.400 BCE), he wandered about north-east India with a band of disciple-
monks. The Buddha avoided dogma and metaphysical speculation in his teaching and concentrated
on the essential for spiritual development. He thus set out the Middle Way, a pathway to
enlightenment and Nirvana (extinction) avoiding the extremes of asceticism and self-indulgence.
After the death of the Buddha, his religion spread throughout India and to neighbouring countries,
although it had died out in most of India itself by the twelfth century. At present, one major branch
of Buddhism is the Therevada, who predominate in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos and
Cambodia. The followers of Therevada Buddhism hold to the books of the Pali Canon. The main
pathway for spiritual development is for men to become monks and then study, meditate and
practise the path taught by the Buddha. The other main division of Buddhism, the Mahayana (which
emerged between about the first century BCE and the first century CE), is very diverse. Many of
the Mahayana sects have their own scriptures, some attributed to Gautama Buddha and some to
other figures, such as the heavenly buddhas. In place of the Therevada ideal figure of the arhat, who
achieves Nirvana, is the figure of the bodhisattva, who puts off reaching Nirvana in order to help
others on the spiritual path. One strand of the Mahayana is Tibetan Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism or
Vajrayana. This is an esoteric tradition which emphasizes symbolism (e.g. mandalas – symbolic
cosmological maps) and sacraments such as initiation ceremonies, the chanting of mantras, and
certain ritual gestures. Another strand of the Mahayana is the Ch’an (Meditation) school of China,
better known under its Japanese name of Zen. This school believes that enlightenment comes
suddenly, by direct and immediate insight for which one can prepare oneself by cultivating a mind
that has no grasping feelings or thoughts. Quite different from this are the Amida or pure Land sects
that also originated in China and spread to Japan. These sects believe that through devotion to and
faith in Amitabha or Amida Buddha, one can be born into his Western Sukhavati Paradise after
death. Other important sects include the Hua-Yen, which is prominent in Korea and believes in the
complete and harmonious interpenetration of everything in the universe, and the T’ien-t’ai (Tendai
in Japan) sect which is primarily intellectual, categorizing the Buddha’s message into five periods
and eight teachings. The important Japanese sect of Nichiren emerged from the Tendai.
10

11. Chinese Religion
Religious practices were as prevalent in ancient Chinese civilization as in other early cultures.
Evidence of early Chinese religious beliefs consists chiefly of inscriptions on oracle bones and
bronze sacrificial vessels dating to a period (1500-1050 BCE) prior to the unification of China
under the Chou dynasty (1050 BCE). Prominent is the notion of a Supreme Lord who presides over
an afterlife kingdom including human souls as well as lesser deities that govern rain, wind, rivers,
and other natural phenomena. Under Chou, the anthropomorphic notion of a Supreme Lord
apparently gave way to that of an impersonal Heaven. Chou emperors claimed the right to rule as
the “mandate of Heaven.”
Confucius (551-479 BCE) may be taken to be the first great Chinese philosopher shaping not only
much of the course of Chinese thought but also determining much in Chinese government and
morals, a veritable father of Chinese culture. Confucius speaks often of Heaven but never mentions
a Supreme Lord. His teaching stresses the importance of religious ritual for personal character
development and views Heaven as grounding the moral law. But Confucious’s philosophy is
decidedly humanist, oriented to questions about social and political relations and containing little
that is expressly theological.
After Marx by Daniel A. Bell in International Herald Tribune, Friday, September 15, 2006, p.8
China’s leaders rediscover Confucianism
Beijing
Marxism no longer serves as Chinese society guiding ideology. But that doesn’t mean the end of
ideology. Western experts hope liberal democracy will fill the void, but they will have ‘joined Karl
Marx, as the Chinese used to say, before that happens.
In China, the moral vacuum is being filled by Christian sects, Falun Gong and extreme forms of
nationalism. But the government consider that such alternatives threaten the hard-won peace and
stability that underpins China’s development, so it has encouraged the revival of Confucianism.
Like most ideologies, however, Confucianism can be a double edged sword.
“Confucius said, ‘Harmony is something to be cherished,’” President Hu Jintao noted in February
2005. A few months later, he instructed China’s party cadres to build a ‘harmonious society’.
Echoing Confucian themes, Hu said China should promote such values as honesty and unity, as
well as forge a closer relationship between the people and the government.
The teaching curriculum for secondary schools now includes teaching of the Confucian classics,
and several experimental schools have been set up that focus largely on the classics. Abroad, the
government has been promoting Confucianism via branches of the Confucius Institute, a Chinese
language and culture centre similar to France’s Alliance Francaise and Germany’s Goethe Institute.
For the government, the promotion of Confucian values has several advantages. Domestically, the
affirmation of harmony is meant to reflect the ruling party concern for all classes. Threatened by
rural discontent – according to official figures, there were 87,000 illegal disturbances last year – the
government realizes that it needs to do more for those bearing the brunt of China’s development.
Internationally, the call for peace and harmony is meant to disarm fears about China’s rapid rise.
How does Confucianism resonate in society at Large? At some level, especially regarding family
ethics, Confucian values still inform ways of life. Filial piety, for example, is still widely endorsed
and practised: Adult children have a legal obligation to care for their elderly parents.
Many intellectuals have turned to Confucianism to make sense of such social practices and to think
of ways of dealing with China’s current moral and political predicament. But their interpretations of
Confucianism often diverge from official ones.
Perhaps, the most influential contemporary Confucian thinker is Jiang Qing, author of ‘Political
Confucianism’, in which he argues that for contemporary China, political Confucianism is more
11

12. appropriate than Western-style liberal democracy. Jiang could not develop the institutional
implications in that book. In a Taiwanese publication, however, he puts forward an interesting
proposal for a legislature that includes representatives of Confucian elites, of elites entrusted with
the task of cultural continuity, and of the people. In an article widely distributed on the Web, he
argues for the establishment of Confucianism as a state religion (as with the state religion in Britain
and Sweden, other religions would not be prohibited.
Intellectuals have also been applying Confucianism to foreign policy. Confucius favours rule by
moral example and oppose the use of force to promote morality. Hence, Confucian intellectual were
severely critical of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. But here, too, interpretations of Confucianism may
diverge from official ones. The idea that Taiwan should be reintegrated into the mainland by being
threatened with invasion and bloodshed is far removed from Confucian ideals.
Perhaps, the biggest challenge to the government is the Confucian emphasis on meritocracy. The
Confucian view is that political leaders should be the most talented and public-spirited members of
the community, and the process of choosing such leaders should be meritocratic meaning that there
should be equal opportunity for the best to rise to the top.
Historically, Confucian meritocracy was implemented by means of examinations, and there have
been proposals to revive and update Confucian examinations for contemporary China. Again, there
is an obvious challenge to the government: objectively measured performance on an exam, rather
than party loyalty, would determine who occupies what government post.
If Confucianism shapes China’s future, it won’t look like Western-style liberal democracy, but
neither it will look like the status quo.”
(Daniel A. Bell, Professor of Political Philosophy and Ethics at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and
author of Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political thinking for an East Asian context)
Taoism
Taoism, which stretches back almost as far as Confucianism, is both a religion and a philosophy. As
a philosophy it has to be understood within a broadly Confucian context. It is a reaction to the
Confucian outlook, a championing of the individual and the reclusive against a Confucian
insistence on right social practice. The individual has connections to the universe’s spiritual ground,
called tao, that society does not. The individual transcends society.
Taoism developed alongside Confucianism as a philosophy, and, in later centuries, alongside and
competing with Buddhism as an official religion of the Chinese state. Taoist rituals, a priestly order,
temples, a pantheon of gods and goddesses, and a series of later scriptural revelations gave Taoism
the multiple dimensions characteristic of what some call world religions or high religions.
Mysticism, centring on a vital force called ch’i, was also prominent during the later Chinese
dynasties. And there was much mutual influence among Taoism and Buddhism. In particular Zen
Buddhism, which originated in China and is now prominent in Japan, incorporates Taoist pastoral
and anti-intellectual themes.
The Tao ha been described as the origin and mother of the Ten Thousand Things – a standard
phrase to show that everything exists. One achieves without force. One gives life without
possessing the things one has created. This is the essence of naturalness. One cannot grasp this
philosophy with the intellect. One becomes aware, but unable to define.
The idea of a personal deity is foreign to Taoism, so is the concept of the creation of the universe.
Therefore, a Taoist does not pray as the Christians do, for instance, because they believe that there
is no god to hear the prayers or act upon them. On the contrary, they feel the way to seek answers is
through inner meditation and outer observation. Their beliefs can be thus summed up: The Tao
surrounds everyone and everything so everyone must listen to find enlightenment. The essential
belief of Taoism is that the only permanent thing in life is change. But the world is as it is, not what
12

13. people imagine should be. The enemy of human perfection is the unnatural, which includes the
forced, the premeditated, and the socially prescribed. Taoists have an affinity for promoting good
health. Followers should seek the Three Jewels of compassion, moderation, and humility.
Topics for assignment 2
-Develop your own reflections about the richness and diversity of religions. What do you think are,
from a philosophical point of view, the consequences of this richness and diversity?
-What do you think of China’s leaders rediscovery of Confucianism? Do you think Confucianism as
a religion can fill the moral vacuum following from the decline of Marxism as Chinese society
guiding ideology? Motivate your answer.
-Buddhist argues that there is Anatman, or no self. Explain what does this mean. Compare it with
the theistic doctrine of permanent identity. Which one is more convincing. Why?
- The purpose of Buddhist Meditation is to cleanse the Mind of defiling factors. Explain.
- Compare the different meaning which Vedantin and Buddhist attribute to Karma
- Discuss the problems which Islam faces in adapting to modernity and the possible solutions.
- Discuss the problem of the relation between faith and reason in Christianity.
- Discuss the problem of ‘evil’ for Theism: God and ‘evil’ how can the two coexist?
- A ‘good’ human being does not need a religion but bad ones do in order to be restrained. Discuss.
13

14. LECTURE 3: Differences between Eastern and Western Religious Thought
The basis for religion is the human conviction that there is a transcendent or absolute reality that
either lies beyond or underlies this physical world. So one possible definition of the phenomenon of
religion is that it consists of the attempt by human beings both to describe this Ultimate Reality and
to enter into a proper relationship with it. However, there is of course a very wide divergence of
views within the fields philosophy, metaphysics and theology. Even within a particular religion,
there are greatly differing views, some of them even contradictory. To bring some order out of this
kaleidoscope of views and theories, it is necessary to look for some common patterns. With regard
to the major world religions it is useful to consider them as divided into two main groups. Initially,
it may be helpful to call these the Western and Eastern groups of religions (although, these are not
good names for these two groups). The term Western religion can be used to refer to the
mainstream orthodoxies of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim group of religions. Eastern religion refers to
Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism, especially of the Advaita Vedanta school. This division is useful
in that these two groups of religions hold very differing and even contradictory views on the nature
of the Ultimate Reality and of humanity’s relationship to it.
The nature of the Ultimate Reality
One of the chief differences between Eastern and Western religions is their differing
conceptualizations of Ultimate Reality. Both types of religion conceive of a reality that is greater
than this physical universe but they differ radically in their descriptions of it. This initial difference
then goes on to cause dissimilarities in their accounts of the relationship of the individual to this
highest reality. From these distinctions come other differences over such questions as evil,
suffering, salvation, liberation and even matters such as time and space.
In the Western religions the transcendent reality is given the name of God and is thought of as a
personal omniscient Being. God as the Creator is usually conceived of as being wholly other than
His creation. He is described in many ways, some of which are contrasting: wrathful and avenging,
yet kind and beneficent. God has a will and a purpose for human beings, which they must accept or
face unpleasant consequences. But God is also benevolent and loving towards humanity, and in
return He is the object of the worship and adoration of humanity. The world or the cosmos
becomes, then, the arena for the interaction between God and humanity. Regarding the difference
with the Eastern religions those characteristics mentioned above, such as anger and kindness, all
make God appear to have a personality, to act as a person. An impersonal entity would not have
such characteristics.
In contrast, the Eastern religions, Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism of the Advaita school, have no
concept of God as a person; rather their concept is of Ultimate Reality as a process, a truth, or state
of being. This is usually stated as a concept of an Absolute Reality. The phrase “Absolute Reality”
implies that there is a single Reality in the cosmos; everything else that may appear real has only a
relative or contingent reality or is illusory or non-existent. The Absolute is therefore both
transcendent and immanent. It cannot be described in terms of the concepts of this phenomenal
world. It is devoid of all empirical determinations. It is not an all-knowing Creator, for example.
The Absolute Reality is called Brahman in Hinduism. In Taoism, it is named the Tao. In Buddhism,
the name of the Ultimate Reality varies depending on the context. In Mahayana Buddhism, the
simple name Paramartha can be given to the Ultimate Reality; but the concept that all things are
empty of substance or essence has led to the concept of Shunyata, the Void, as the underlying
reality of the world. As such it is the Absolute Reality since nothing escapes it or is beyond it, even
Nirvana, the ultimate goal for humans. The human inability to describe this reality is indicated by
other names such as Tathata, Suchness or Thatness. The identity of Buddha with this Ultimate
Reality is indicated in the world Dharmakaya, the Dharma body of the Buddha.
14

15. In Therevada Buddhism the Ultimate Reality is Nirvana or Dharma (Nibbana or Dhamma in the
Pali texts of Therevada Buddhism). The former is described as ‘un-become, unborn, unoriginated,
uncreated, unformed. Nirvana is both the Ultimate Reality and also describes the human being’s
state when identified with that Reality. Hinduism also uses the term Nirvana but more commonly
the expression sat-chit-ananda (existence-consciousness-bliss) is used to describe the experiential
aspect of the awareness of this state of identity.
The contrast between the concepts of Reality/God in the religions of East and West gives us another
name by which we can describe these two systems. We can call the view held by many Eastern
religions that there is only one fundamental reality in the world, monism. And by contrast, we can
call the Western view that God and humanity form two distinct and separate realities dualism.
Alternative names for the two systems would be “absolutism” and “theism” respectively. So it is
possible to use the designation theism to refer to the Western religions and monism for the Eastern
religion, or sometimes non-theism to acknowledge the fact that some Buddhist maintain that their
concept of Ultimate Reality is not that of an Absolute Reality, hence leading to monism.
The theistic view is, as we have seen, that God is wholly other than His creation. There is
nevertheless, in most theistic systems some concept of the immanence of God within creation. In
Christianity, this concept is enshrined both in the idea of the incarnation of God in a human form
and the idea that the Holy Spirit is active in the world. But these ideas should not be confused with
the monistic concept of the non-theistic religions. Despite being present and active in the world,
God is nevertheless a separate and distinct reality that has chosen to descend into the physical
world. In Christianity, God conceals His separateness from the human world by appearing and
acting in the physical world. In the Eastern monistic religions, the physical world also has a
concealing role, but this time it is giving the illusion of separateness that conceals the identity of the
human being and Absolute Reality. In brief, the contrast may be said to be that in Christianity the
physical world conceals the otherness of God from the human being; while in the Eastern monistic
religions the physical world conceals the identity of the human being with Absolute Reality.
Western/ Theistic
1 A Creator God who acts as a person
Eastern/Monistic
1 A concept of the Ultimate Reality as undifferentiated and impersonal
********************
Western/Theistic
2 A human being is fundamentally different and separate from God.
Eastern/Monistic
2 Either the human reality is identical to the Absolute Reality: Atman is Brahman (monism); or
else, as in Buddhism, no statement can be made about the person who has achieved Nirvana.
*******************
Western/Theistic
3 Evil and suffering are due to sinning against the Law of God
Eastern/Monistic
15

16. 3 Evil and suffering are due to human ignorance and self-delusion.
*******************
Western/Theistic
4 The path to salvation depends either on good works and adherence to the Holy Law or is simply a
matter of faith and the grace of God.
Eastern/Monistic
4 The path to salvation is through the acquisition of knowledge or wisdom, this is the ability to see
things as they really are.
**************
Western/Theistic
5 The purpose of salvation is to escape from the threat of hell to reach the goal of heaven or
paradise.
Eastern/Monistic
5 The purpose of salvation is to escape from the suffering of this world and to achieve the state of
blissfulness, Nirvana or moksha.
******************
Western/Theistic
6 Most important ritual elements revolve around worship and sacraments.
Eastern/Monistic
6 Most important ritual elements revolve around meditation and achievement of altered states of
consciousness.
************************
Western/Theistic
7 Progressive “historical” time with a beginning and an end.
Eastern/Monistic
7 Cyclical time with no beginning or end.
16

17. Mutual attitudes of Theism and Monism
Another way of understanding and characterizing the theistic and monistic religions is to study the
attitude of each towards manifestations of the other. Theists have always tended to look upon
monism with profound disfavour. In the West, where theism predominates and has been the state-
supported orthodoxy, theistic religious leaders have interpreted monism as the individual claiming
to be God (this is in relation to the monistic concept that all reality is one and thus the human being
and God have one reality). They have therefore considered monism to be blasphemy and heresy.
They have persecuted and even killed those with monistic leanings.
The monist religions, on the other hand, have a much more subtle attitude towards theists. For the
most part they do not condemn theism as error. Rather they look upon theism as a lower form of the
truth, a stage through which the seeker after truth must pass before reaching the higher monistic
truth. Indeed, many non-theistic systems look upon theism as a system that is suitable for assuring
morality among the masses, while only the monistic mode of religion leads to liberation.
Questions
-Compare Theist and Monist religious thought. Highlight the good and/or weak points of both.
Which one, if any, do you find more convincing? Motivate your answer.
-Is it possible that there exists another religion which is ‘hidden’ and not yet revealed so that if it is
the ‘true’ one, all other existing well-known religions are false?
Books consulted on Philosophy of Religion in HKBU (***= best):
***- Arvind Sharma, The Philosophy of Religion, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995
ISBN 0 19 563346 6 HKBU 210 SH23P
- George Pattison, A Short Course in the Philosophy of Religion, London: SCM Press, 2001
ISBN 0334 028345 HKBU 210 P2785 2001
- Norman Geisler and Winfred Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, Second Edition, Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49516: Baker Book House, 1993 ISBN 0-8010-3821-9 HKBU 211 G277P2
***- Beverley Clack and Brian R. Clack, The Philosophy of Religion: A Critical Introduction,
Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998 ISBN 0-7456-1738-7 HKBU 210 C512P
- B. R. Tilghman, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994
ISBN 0-631-18938-6 HKBU 210 T456I
Deism
Deism was a form of rationalistic theism particularly popular among intellectual in the eighteenth
century. According to this doctrine, God exists as the creator of the universe. But he has constructed
it so perfectly that he has very little if any continuing role to play in temporal matters. In particular,
he takes no direct interest in human affairs. Deists were usually dismissive of the concepts of
personal immortality and divine revelation (through supposedly inspired writings) as well as of the
cultic practices (e.g., offering prayer, sacrifice) associated with revealed religions such as
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
17

18. LECTURES 4 and 5: What sort of religious experiences are there?
Describing the central experience of religion
The central experience of religion, the experience of the sacred, is intensely private and personal. It
is not easy to communicate the content of this experience to others, although the circumstances in
which it occurs may be described. For some it occurs in the midst of prayer, or in the process of
contemplation or meditation; for some it may be achieved through the performance of rituals, or
through the chanting of verses and mantras or the singing of hymns, or even in a moment of
complete silence; for others it is the reading of a passage of scripture or experiencing a work of
religious art or drama that creates the necessary conditions. For many, it is experienced within a
religious community or in a particular place, or there may not be one specific set of circumstances
that triggers this experience; rather, it occurs at various times in the religious life of the individual.
Religious experience appeals to direct contact with the ultimate. Such experiences have been
described across religions and down the centuries. Some are spontaneous whilst others are a result
of training and discipline, but they all share a sense of awareness and awe towards the ultimate, the
absolute or God according to the religion involved. This awareness can take the form of (a) a sense
of oneness or union (b) a sense of dependence (c) a sense of separateness. Clearly any experience
may contain ,ore than one of these elements.
Three features apply to the phenomenon of religious experience:
1 Universality. Numerous surveys have consistently shown that even in the highly secularized
societies of Europe, a large proportion of the population have had what they describe as religious
experiences. The proportion approaches one hundred per cent in traditional societies.
2 Diversity. Religious experience is unique for each individual. Religions may attempt to impose a
uniformity of doctrine or of action upon their followers, but each person’s religious experiences,
when taken as whole, will be different to those of another person.
3 Importance. Religious experience is almost invariably very important to the individual to whom it
occurs, in a way that other experiences usually are not. A religious experience can result in change
in the way that individuals think about themselves, a complete alteration of lifestyle, or a
reorganization of the individual’s conceptual world.
Numinous
One author who has made a very penetrating and influential study of the sacred or holy and the
individual response to this is Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) in his book The Idea of the Holy (1917).
To describe the human experience of the holy, he uses the Latin phrase: mysterium tremendum et
fascinans. Mysterium indicates that the holy is something ultimately mysterious and unknowable; it
emphasizes its “otherness”. Tremendum indicates its overpowering nature and the sense of awe that
it induces. Fascinans indicates that it draws one to it in spite of oneself and in spite of the awe or
dread that it invokes.
Otto distinguishes this deeper, less rational meaning of holy from what he considers to be a later
overlay of meaning that makes the word holy merely equivalent to good. In order to emphasize this
difference, Otto proposes the use of the word numen (the word comes from the Latin numen
meaning divinity) and the adjective numinous to specify this more profound sense of the word holy.
18

19. Regarding this meaning of holy, Otto says that there is no religion in which it does not live as the
real innermost core, and without it, no religion would be worthy of the name.
Otto’s work has been criticized as being too influenced by and oriented towards Christianity. There
is certainly some truth in this. However, Otto’s basic description can be adjusted to make it more
universally applicable. No one can, however, give a description of the experience of the holy that
will be satisfactory to all who have experienced it. Among its features that are generally agreed
upon are the following:
1 It is very intense, energising experience. It feels important and demands respect and attention.
2 It is a liberating experience, in that it seems to free one from the demands of the physical world
(but, in some, it may induce a sense of dependence on an other reality).
3 It brings peace, joy, exultation, even exhilaration, although this can, on occasions, be mingled
with awe and even dread. Some may even report the feeling of being possessed by a spiritual
power.
4 It seems to give one a feeling of having achieved insight or knowledge, although it is often
difficult to specify the content of this knowledge (it is ineffable, incapable of being adequately
expressed in words). It is often described as “confirming”, in the sense of giving one the assurance
that one’s faith is true.
5 Time may appear to stop and space may seem to become distorted. It may seem that the
experience occurs “outside” time and space.
6 Many would say that for an experience to be truly religious, it should involve the whole person,
lead to some element of personal transformation and result in some outward manifestation of the
change in terms of action. Some may report a feeling of having been summoned to a mission
through this experience.
The mystic experience
Mysticism is said to be religious experience in the purest and concentrated form. Both in the East
and the West there have been important mystics. In the West, the most celebrated name is of
Plotinus (208-270) whose mysticism was largely influenced by the East. In the West, W.R. Inge, E.
Underhill, Rufus Jones (1863-1948) and Henri Bergson (1859-1941) have favoured mysticism in
their philosophy. William James (1842-1910) in his The Varieties of Religious Experience and W.
T. Stace in Mysticism and Philosophy have presented an admirable account of mysticism.
However, mysticism is the most distinctive feature of Indian religion. It is found in the most
undiluted form in the Upanishads, Advaitism, Bhakti Cult, Kabirism and Sri Ramakrishna. The
Sufis subscribe to mysticism. Al-Hallaj, El Ghazali, Omar Khayyam, Ibn El-Arabi, Saadi of Shiraz
and Jalaludin Rumi have been notable figures. But the mystics have also been subjected to criticism
and very often they have been deemed as psycho-neurotic persons.
For Bergson, “… the ultimate end of mysticism is the establishment of a contact, consequently of a
partial coincidence with the creative effort of which life is the manifestation.” Bergson speaks of
partial identification with the creative source of Life, but in Indian tradition, in the last analysis, the
seeker identifies himself completely with Brahman. And this tradition of Indian mysticism has
been fully maintained in Kabir in medieval times, and in Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda.
The Sufis do not talk of identification so much with God as they talk of vision and communion with
God. For the Muslims God in transcendent and no mortal man can dare identify himself with God.
19

20. The Jews too believe in the holy, transcendent God, and, Jesus Christ was crucified, for he
identified himself with God. In Islam too Al-Hallaj was stoned to death because he dared to identify
himself with God.
Whatever be the view of the mystics, either one of complete or partial identification with the
supreme object of worship, they have talked about this object with a good deal of warmth born of
actual acquaintance. This is certainly an abnormal state, but not a neurotic state. In a neurotic state
two elements of social adjustment and mental integration are lacking, and, both these elements are
found in supreme abundance in the mystics. Now Bergson talks about two kinds of mysticism,
namely, partial or incomplete and complete mysticism. In incomplete form, the mystics remain in
absorption and ecstasy and this kind of experience was greatly valued in Indian tradition. But Sri
Ramakrishna, himself a man of ecstasy, asked his disciple Sri Vivekananda to practise works, for
the alleviation of human sufferings. Bergson highly values social service and works for mitigating
human suffering. In complete mysticism, according to Bergson, contemplation give rise to
boundless action. Here there is action, creation and love.
St. Paul, the Spanish St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), Joan of Arc, St. Francis in the past and
Mother Teresa in more recent times are so many examples of complete mysticism.
Vivekananda too interpreted the words of his Master “jiva is Shiva”, as the commissioning his
fellows to work for the improvement of the toiling masses of India.
The poor and the miserable are for our salvation, so that we may serve the Lord,
In the shape of the diseased, coming in the shape of the lunatic, the leper, and the
Sinner. (Selections from Works of Vivekananda, p.230.)
Characteristics of mystic experience
A mystical experience is the name given to the sense of oneness or union with the divine, the
absolute, the tao, or even the Buddhist awakening leading to Nirvana. William James (The Varieties
of Religious Experience, 1960, p.367) lists with examples two main characteristics of such
experience:
1 Ineffability. They are states of feeling so unlike anything else that it is not possible to import or
transfer them to others. They defy expression. Descriptions such as ‘the dissolution of the personal
ego’ and ‘the sense of peace and sacredness’ are empty phrases to those who have not experienced
such things.
2 Noetic quality. Though ineffable, the mystic experience produces states of insight into truths
unobtainable by the intellect alone.
- Types of religious experience
1 Most Eastern religions have a monistic metaphysics
2 The Eastern religions encourage meditation and other activities that result in an altered state of
consciousness.
3 Altered state of consciousness result in a monistic mode of seeing reality.
These findings leave us in a quandary of the chicken and egg variety. Do Eastern religions meditate
because it helps them to perceive reality as they consider it really is; that is, in monistic mode? Or
do they see reality in monistic mode because they meditate? Similarly, do Western religions
emphasize such acts as prayer and ritual worship because they help the believer to see the reality of
the theistic mode? Or do they tend to see reality in a theistic way because of the activities of prayer
and ritual worship? In other words, is the pattern of religious activity established because it helps to
20

21. reinforce the metaphysical standpoint of the religion? Or did the metaphysical standpoint of the
religion arise because of the predominant pattern of religious activity and the viewpoint towards
which that activity predisposed the individual in that society?
There is an alternative response to this quandary, that of relativism. This regards all metaphysical
standpoints as being relative to the viewpoint of the believer. The viewpoint of the believer can then
be regarded as dependent, to a greater or lesser extent, on various factors such as personality type
and upbringing, and one could also say that the viewpoint of the believer may also be dependent on
the type of religious activity which or she predominantly undertakes.
Cautionary notes
It is perhaps necessary to interpose some words of explanation. Some religious people may dislike
the fact that the result of research often obtained using drugs or resulting from highly abnormal
situations such as the split brain should be applied to religious experience. But it should be realized
that these scientific findings have nothing to say about the validity of the religious experience itself.
All they do is to shed some light on the different ways that this experience manifests itself. Some
empirical researchers have argued and shown that the aroused state of mind produced by religious
experience is also produced by several other mechanisms (including the use of drugs), all of which
produce certain common features (time passing differently, state bound knowledge, and so on). It is
therefore reasonable to assume that these features are due to the common result of the different
mechanisms (the aroused state of the mind) rather than the mechanism of arousal itself (mysticism,
drugs and so on). In other words, if trance-like states produce several common features no matter
whether they are induced by religious mysticism or drugs, then one can assume that these features
are a general property of neurophysiological state induced in the brain, rather than the specific
property of religious experience or drugs themselves. This observation casts no aspersions on the
veracity of the religious experience. It merely indicates that these phenomena probably cannot be
used as proof of the truth of religious experience. It should be noted in passing, however, that
several religions have used or still do use mind-altering drugs in their rituals, thus attaining states of
altered consciousness. Example include soma in Hinduism, haoma in Zoroastrianism, kava in
Polynesian religion, peyote and various other plant substances in Native American religion and
cannabis in Rastafarianism.
A second cautionary note regards the fact that what has been described above may tempt some into
value judgments. They may argue that living life in an adult mode (with respect to Piaget) and at
the everyday level of consciousness (with respect to Roland Fischer) would appear to be the more
desirable state of affairs. This would seem to favour the Western religions that encourage this,
rather than the Eastern religions that promote altered states of consciousness, which lead to an
infantile mode of perception. Indeed, superficially, it may appear that humankind’s greatest
triumphs have come from the world of science, where modes of logical thought predominate. This
would, however, be a premature conclusion. For even in the field of science, the writings of Kuhn
have demonstrated that the greatest advances do not come merely from perseverance in the
application of logical thought to the sum of what is known. That only produces sterile logical
progression within the same framework. The major advances in science involve jumps to a new
framework, “paradigm shifts” as Kuhn calls them, that come from a spark of inspiration welling up
from the subconscious. For this to occur, the individual needs to be operating somewhere between
the two extremes of everyday consciousness (where no sparks of inspiration come), on the one
hand, and extreme hyper-or hypo-arousal (where what is understood cannot be communicated), on
the other. This medial position between the two extremes seems to be the position of humankind’s
maximal creativity – the source of all of the greatest philosophy, art, science and religious thought.
21

22. Objective and subjective
When we speak of an “experience” there are two distinct elements. That which is experienced
(objective) and my experience of what is experienced (subjective) many people question the
objective reality. They claim that there is no religious reality, and so little can be inferred from such
experiences. Hence there is no objective God, or ultimate reality. A religious conversion is an
example where many would argue that the sensations are real but their cause is psychological rather
than God.
Possible explanations
There is no God or ultimate reality, therefore the experience of God or of the ultimate reality cannot
be valid. This is an a priori conviction, whose reasons would need to be examined.
Experience is often deceptive, e.g. mistaken identity and hallucinations. Mistakes do not demand
that all experiences are therefore in error. From it is usually or often or sometimes the case that – P
we cannot deduce that it is always the case – P. It is true that we may regard a particular witness as
unreliable, but for the argument to be valid all people who claim experience would have to be
known to be unreliable. Such a position many would regard difficult to maintain.
The psychological: for instance, conversion may meet the psychological needs of people, but that
does not mean that it only meets those needs.
Freud (1856-1939) saw religious experience as a reaction to a hostile world. We feel helpless and
seek a father figure. Thus we create a God who is able to satisfy our needs. To argue this way may
be a form of reductionism. Reductionism seeks to reduce any phenomenon into its component parts.
Even if people have a need for a father figure, it does not mean that God is not like that. There does
still remain the possibility that such a state is a necessary requirement for the experience, but such a
state would not necessarily negate acclaimed experience of God or of an ultimate reality of some
sort.
Lack of uniformity of experience. This is an a priori conviction, and the reasons for that conviction
would need to be examined. Different experiences recounted does not mean that they are therefore
all in error. Also this explanation implies that the different experiences are logically incompatible.
Verification
One difficulty concerns how we know that it is what we think it is that we experience and not
something else. What would be the distinguishing characteristic or activity that would identify the
absolute, or ultimate reality, or ultimate non conceptual emptiness. A common response is to argue
that what is ultimate, being ultimate, would be self-authenticating, even if it is to be seen as a
process beyond our narrow conception of what is rational, rather than as a theistic God.
The difficulty then raised is that feeling certain is no guarantee that it is true. However, criteria
might be applied that would add weight to the validity of the religious experience.
1 The religious experience must be in keeping with what we regard as some fundamental features of
the ultimate experience (even though these features may be expressed by pointing to what they do
not correspond rather than by conceptual descriptions) as made known in different ways, by
meditation practice or self analysis or by non conceptual reasoning, or by natural theology as in
theism.
The result of this experience should make a noticeable difference to the spiritual life of the person.
22

23. Religious experience is not a conclusive argument for the existence of God or the absolute. One
may believe that what is experienced is actually God or the absolute, or enlightenment, awakening,
but there is always the possibility that others may interpret it differently.
No escape from the risk of belief or disbelief
Religious believing and disbelieving take place in a situation of ambiguity. Both the arguments for
religious belief and disbelief are inconclusive. It is possible to think and to experience the universe,
and ourselves as part of it, in both religious and naturalistic ways. For those who sometimes
experience life religiously, it can be entirely rational to form beliefs reflecting that mode of
experience. At the same time it is equally rational for those who do not participate in the field of
religious experience not to hold such beliefs, and to assume that these experiences are simply
projections of our human desires and ideals. (It is also possible for some who have had a religious
experience to dismiss this as delusory. In contrast, others who have not had such experiences may
sometimes be so impressed by the lives of outstanding believers that they also come to believe in
the reality of the Divine or the Absolute.)
It is however another feature of our situation that if the universe is, after all, religiously structured,
this will ultimately be confirmed within our experience. In other words, we are facing an issue of
fact which is at present veiled in ambiguity, so that both belief and disbelief at present carry with
them the risk of profound error. The believer risks the possibility of being deluded and of living, as
a result, in a state of self-deception. The non-believer risks the possibility of shutting out the most
valuable of all realities.
Let us now concentrate upon the believer who acknowledges the present religious ambiguity of the
universe. Such a person may find warrant for taking this risk in a revision of William James’s “right
to believe” argument. If we look at James’s own version of this we may conclude that as it stands it
is altogether too permissive. The only ground for belief that James offers is an inclination or desire
to believe. He claims that if we have such inclination, we are entitled to believe accordingly. But
this would validate any and every belief that anyone feels an inclination to hold, so long as it is not
capable of being proved or disproved. However, a more acceptable justification may be provided by
religious experience. Let us then reformulate James’s argument as follows. The practical question is
whether or not to trust our religious experience as an authentic awareness of the Divine or the
Absolute, or the Dharma, the Tao, etc. We can understand that it can be argued that it is rationally
permissible either to trust or to distrust it. Each option carries with it momentous consequences. For
one must risk either, if disbelief turns out to be misplaced, missing a great good, indeed the greatest
of all goods; or on the other hand, if belief turns out to be misplaced, falling into the most pathetic
of delusions. Given this choice James would urge, and surely with reason, that we have to choose
for ourselves. People are therefore justified in holding beliefs that are grounded either wholly in
their own religious experience or in the experience of the historical tradition to which they belong,
this being in turn confirmed by their own much slighter range and intensity of religious experience.
Of course, the options may not be quite so final as James sometimes seemed to assume, and as
Pascal certainly supposed, namely as leading to eternal gain or loss. If the universe is religiously
structured in a way that will eventually become evident to everyone, it seems likely or at least
possible or even just conceivable that all will eventually become oriented to the ultimate Reality.
And if this reality is divine in traditional theological language they will attain eternal life or if it is
of a Dharma or Suniata nature they will all achieve Nirvana the blowing out of suffering, or they
will achieve immortality within the Tao or according to whatever is in fact the ultimate structure of
23

24. the universe. The “missing a great good, indeed the greatest of all goods” will then only be
temporary, even though it may last for the remainder of this present life. In that case, what is missed
now by the non-believer is the present good of a conscious relationship to the ultimate Reality and a
life lived in that relationship. But we must add that in our present situation of ambiguity a balancing
danger is incurred by the believer. For if in fact mistaken, the believer has fallen into the indignity
of failing to face the harsh reality of our human situation and of embracing instead a comforting
illusion. It seems that we stand, as finite and ignorant beings, in a universe that both invites
religious belief and yet holds over us the possibility that this invitation may be a deception!
No two persons’ experience is exactly the same and so it is difficult to find words with which all
would agree. Any descriptions of religious experience or attempt to analyse it is, therefore, bound to
be unsatisfactory, at least in some respect, for all who read it. At the heart of this problem is the
question of whether religious experience is in a class of its own (sui generis), or whether it is
merely a particular interpretation of sensations that all people experience at some time. The former
approach to religious experience would maintain that since is in a class of its own, it can only be
described in its own terms. The latter would try to analyse religious experience in terms of
psychology, social psychology, neurophysiology and so on.
Topics and questions:
1 Explain the role of experience for religious belief.
2 What criteria would you use to decide whether an experience was caused subjectively or
objectively?
3 Does a subjective experience necessarily imply a subjective cause?
4 Ghosts do not exist because I have never seen one. If you were to examine this sentence from the
point of view of philosophy of religion, what would you say?
5 How can we judge the reliability of mystic experiences as ‘real’ religious experiences?
6 If religion can be thought of as a way of life, then what about atheism? Could it be a kind of
religion too?
24

25. Lecture 6: The importance of doctrine and the distinctness of religious traditions
The language of faith
One philosopher who directed a great deal of attention towards trying to identify the nature of
religious faith was Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). He asserted that religion is a unique
“universe of discourse” or “language game”. An atheist may present evidence against the existence
of God and a believer may present evidence for it. Wittgenstein argued, however, that they are not
contradicting one another, nor are they in disagreement with one another. They are not engaged in
the same language-game; they are speaking by different rules about different things: hence it is not
surprising that they are unable to agree.
Wittgenstein’s view is effectively a relativistic stance. It is possible to take it further and develop
the idea of differing conceptual schemata that portray differing realities to those who posses them.
Since all concepts arise from within one conceptual scheme or another, there is no neutral position
from which one language-game may be judged against another. In this view, it becomes illogical
and irrelevant to criticize statements made within one language-game (or worldview or conceptual
schema) from the viewpoint of another.
Since a religious faith is a particular worldview, it is a self-contained, internally coherent
conceptual schema. Thus, a judgement as to whether a particular religious statement is correct or
not will depend on whether the judgement is being made from within the religious worldview or
from outside it. If we accept that religious and non-religious statements are different language-
games, then it follows that no one from outside a religious language-game can ever easily refute a
statement made from within it. Indeed, if we accept that all judgements have to be made from
within one conceptual schema or another, it would seem that intellect and reasoning (which must
always operate within a particular worldview and therefore favour that view) can rarely provide
compelling reasons for us to choose one worldview over another.
William James argued that, in practice, human beings choose a particular conception of the world
on the basis of faith and only then do they look for arguments to support the conclusions that they
have reached. The work of several writers from fields other than religion seems to support James’s
view by describing parallel processes in other fields of human activity.
Thomas Kuhn has advanced the view that science progresses through a series of what he calls
“paradigm shifts”. Each scientific paradigm, within which science works for a considerable period
of time before it is replaced by another paradigm, shares many characteristics with the worldviews
of the different religions. Each is based primarily on faith; each regards the other paradigms (other
religious worldviews) as myths. Science has included bodies of belief that are completely
incompatible with the ones we hold today. Kuhn, indeed, states that the move from one scientific
paradigm, which has a massive body of writing and research behind it, to a new paradigm, which
has as yet tackled only a fraction of the area with which science is concerned, must be a decision
that is “made on faith”. If we are to be realistic, then we must acknowledge that in several hundred
years time, the scientists of the future will look upon our present firmly held scientific beliefs with
the same sort of incredulous condescension with which we look upon the theories of the past. This
conceptual gap between scientists today and those of the past is not very different from the
conceptual gap between those within one religious worldview and those in another (or between
those within a religious worldview and those in an atheistic one). The main difference is that the
scientific conceptual gap is a sequential, historical one while the religious gap is usually a
contemporaneous one.
It has often been argued that historical truth is established rhetorically. The disparate explanations
of a historical episode by various historians are based on different meta-historical presuppositions
about the nature of the historical field. There is no point in discussing whether one nineteenth-
25

26. century European historian, such as de Tocqueville, is more correct than another, such as
Burckhardt; or whether one interpretation of history, such as Marx’s is more correct than another,
such as Nietzsche’s. Their status as historians or as philosophers of history does not depend on the
correctness of their data or the strength of their reasoning and logic. It is difficult to refute them
with data or alternative explanations. Their influence is the result of the consistency, coherence and
illuminative power of their visions of history (the viewpoint that they create within their body of
work). This in turn depends on the pre-conceptual, poetic, rhetorical persuasiveness of their models.
Religious worldviews operate in very much the same way. They cannot easily be proven by any
external logic. They appeal by the persuasiveness of their internal coherence and the illuminative
power of their vision of humanity’s place in the cosmos.
We can see from this that the idea that each religion forms an internally coherent system that is not
susceptible to disproof from outside is not unique to religion – it also obtains in science and in
history. It would appear that human beings have to live within one worldview or another. Which
one they choose may largely be due to birth, culture or the accidents of life, but their basis for
choosing must ultimately depend on a leap of faith. Once having chosen and securely established
themselves with a worldview, however, human beings are able to produce very good reasons as to
why their choice is logical, reasonable and compelling. Their reasons, however, originating as they
do from within this worldview, will not necessarily be logical, reasonable and compelling to those
within another worldview (unless the two worldviews already share a large common area). It will
not always be apparent to believers that the reasons that they adduce to support their beliefs are only
true from within their conceptual universe. This is because all of us tend to treat our conceptual
universe as the only real universe (that is, as reality itself). We therefore consider to be self-evident
truths and basic premises what are in fact only truths within our conceptual universe as the different
views about the nature of religion itself, as viewed from different religious traditions confirms.
However, different worldviews, language-games or conceptual schemas are not usually, of course,
totally incommensurable and isolated from each other. Worldviews are social constructs and so will
be similar to other worldviews constructed by that society or by similar societies. Even completely
differing societies will have a small area of common experience that can form the basis of some
degree of overlap in their worldviews. We are, after all, strongly influenced by certain biological
factors that apply in whatever society we grow up. Each worldview, therefore, will have a number
of adjacent worldviews with which it shares many concepts and an additional number of more
distant worldviews with which the degree of overlap is less.
The foundational religious belief
The argument for the proper grounding of those religious beliefs that are grounded in religious
experience must apply not only to Christian beliefs but also to those of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Taoism and so on. Because of the wide differences between some of the beliefs of these
traditions, and the possibility that some such beliefs are true and others false, or some more true
than others, we need to distinguish between the foundational conviction that religious experience is
not as such and in its totality delusory, and the more beliefs that arise from the particular forms of
religious experience. This distinction makes “logical space” for theories of religious pluralism, for
the dialogue of religions, and for religious criticism and doctrinal disputes. It also acknowledges the
depth and seriousness of modern scepticism, which goes beyond questioning particular moments of
religious experience to a rejection of the cognitive character of religious experience in general.
Religious beliefs can be challenged on two levels. On one level a particular belief is challenged
because it is not consistent with our other, particularly other religious, beliefs. For example, Jim
Jones’s belief that he was divinely commanded to induce his followers to commit mass suicide in
Jonestown in 1978 contradicts the belief in God as gracious and loving. Or again, and much more
extensively, there are the disputes between followers of different religions – disputes as to whether
26

27. the Ultimate Reality is personal or non-personal, whether the universe was created ex nihilo or is an
emanation or is itself eternal, whether or not human beings are reincarnated, and so on. Followers
of religion A reject some of the beliefs of religion B because they are inconsistent with their own A-
beliefs. These controversies, conducted within a common acceptance of the foundational conviction
that religious experience constitutes awareness of a transcendent divine Reality, already raise
difficult questions for each particular belief.
The second and deeper level challenges the foundational belief in the reality of God / the Divine /
the Transcendent. This is not a religious questioning of a particular religious belief, but a
nonreligious or antireligious challenge to religious belief as such. It is thus formally analogous to
the philosophical doubt concerning the reality of the material world or the general validity of sense
experience. But the parallel ends there. For, as we have already noted the belief in the reality of the
Transcendent is open to much more serious challenge than the purely theoretical doubt that some
philosophers have professed concerning the reality of the material world. It is accordingly not
sufficient to defend the foundational religious belief simply by pointing to its formal analogy with
foundational perceptual belief. There are important differences suggesting that while it is reasonable
to take for granted the foundational belief in the physical world, it is less reasonable, or not
reasonable at all, to take for granted the foundational religious belief. For while we have no basis
for doubting the existence of matter, we may have serious grounds for doubting the reality of God,
the Divine, the Transcendent, the Tao, and so on.
One major difference is that religious experience is not universal among human beings, whereas
sense experience is. Every one equipped with, and no one could live without, beliefs about our
physical environment. However, not everyone has, or apparently needs to have, religious beliefs.
Religious experience, and the beliefs that reflect it, seem to be optional extras, nonessential for
human survival and flourishing.
However, it is possible that religious experience differs from sense experience in just the ways it
ought to, given the fundamental differences between their objects. The supposed object of religious
experience may well differ from the supposed object of sense experience, namely the physical
world, in ways that naturally and legitimately generate these differences and the result is that the
humanly variable element in cognition naturally produces significant differences in our religious
awareness. Differences thus do not, in themselves, constitute a reason for denying that religious
experience may be a cognitive response to an ultimate reality.
Assignment
Make your own reflections on one of the topics of the lectures.
27

28. LECTURE 7: Epistemology
The question of what we can know and how we can know (epistemology) is one that has exercised
many theologians and philosophers. What are the foundations of knowledge? The religious person
sees the whole of life in a religious mode. His or her faith is thus an interpretative medium for all
experience and, hence, knowledge. A philosopher may try to build up from first principles a
systematic picture of what we can know and how we can know; for example, the well known-
enterprise of Descartes, starting with the statement “I think, therefore I am”. A religious person
tends to treat the scriptures or dogmas of her or his religion as foundational knowledge.
The major difference regarding epistemology falls again between the theistic and non-theistic
religions. For the theistic religions, truth is revealed by God and is to be found in the scriptures. The
major branches of knowledge, therefore, are related to interpretation and understanding the texts
(hermeneutics). There is, however, a tradition in most theistic religions that also maintains that truth
can be derived from reasoning. It is usually considered, however, that knowledge that is derived
from reasoning is, in fact, identical to knowledge derived from the scriptures, because both
ultimately derive from God. In theistic religions, there is also a tradition, influenced by
Neoplatonism, that refuses to describe God in any way. For theologians and philosophers, apophatic
theology maintains that the knowledge of Ultimate Reality, (God) is not obtainable by human
beings. The via negativa of the mystics arrives at a point where the only way of characterizing
Ultimate Reality is through negation and such words as “unknowing”, “darkness” and “emptiness”.
For non-theistic religions, truth is discovered or uncovered. It lies potentially in the world, but is
concealed (by maya, illusion). Acquiring knowledge involves discovering this truth. In most non-
theistic religions, this discovery of truth is experiential. It involves certain activities such as
meditation, which lead to the uncovering of the truth inherent in all things. The knowledge that is
obtained through this path is not, however, the discursive knowledge that is implied in the term
“epistemology”. It is a holistic, non-dual knowledge that, in most traditions, cannot be reduced to
words. The English word “wisdom” conveys better, perhaps, the meaning of this type of
knowledge. “The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.” It is, therefore, similar to the
apophatic theology mentioned before.
There is thus, in both theistic and the non-theistic religions, a tradition that holds that while
discursive, analytical, conceptual knowledge is of some value, it can only take the human beings a
part of the way on their spiritual path. To go further, one must rely on an inner, intuitive knowledge
or wisdom that cannot be described in words. It can only be achieved by following the different
spiritual paths of each religion, such as prayer, meditation and fasting.
In summary, theism, non-theism and relativism are similar in expressing a polarity regarding
epistemology. At one pole is the Ultimate Reality. No discursive knowledge is available regarding
this area of religion and, according to relativism, any statements that are made are relative to the
viewpoint of the observer. At the other pole are matters concerning the world and humanity. Here,
for the Western religions, the scriptures are the standard by which all knowledge should be judged,
while for the Eastern religions, the scriptures are the guide for progress along the path to knowledge
and wisdom.
Topics and questions
How is knowledge to be understood in religious experience? Compare it with other form of
knowledge.
Make your own reflections on one of the topics of the lectures.
Why doctrine and the distinctness of religious traditions are important? Discuss this topic by
referring to the content of the lectures.
28

29. Henri Bergson (1859-1941) bridges the world of the nineteenth century to the conquest of France
by the Nazis. He was raised in Paris, and became a student and then later professor, at the Ecole
Normale. From 1900 to 1924 he taught at the College de France, and received the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1928. He was Jewish, though attracted by Catholicism. Among his books were Time
and Free Will (1889), Matter and Memory (1896), Laughter (1900), An Introduction to
Metaphysics (1903), Creative Evolution (1907), The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932)
and The Creative Mind (1934). The last was a collection of essays.
Bergson was influenced by Maine de Biran, but also by the need to put our understanding of
ourselves and of nature in an evolutionary context. The world had had time to digest Darwin by the
time he became a student. He saw consciousness as something continuous, not a series of atomistic
impressions in the style of British empiricism. As such, we are conscious of time as something
dynamic and not as a series of discrete events. We are also aware of our own activity. So
deterministic models of the human psyche are inappropriate and we are immediately and intuitively
aware of our freedom in the process of coming to a decision. Bergson had interesting things to say
about memory. He rejected central state materialism (identifying the brain and consciousness), and
thought of it as a mechanism for simplifying consciousness and preventing all our memories from
flooding back: a person who is active needs only a selection of what is available. As for evolution,
he saw behind the real duration which we experience as élan vital, or living impulse, and he
projected this drive upon the whole process of evolution, seeing that too as being God’s way of
creating creators (he identified God with the élan vital). He appealed here to mystics whom he
thought had an intuitive experience of the living force. The mystical spirit is typically hindered by
the struggle of life, but its spread will be vital to the progress of the human race. He also made an
interesting distinction between the closed and open societies. This had some influence later upon
Popper. The closed society has dogmatic religion and a cohesive morality, the sort of thing indeed
praised by the followers of Durkheim (1858-1917). The open society is richer, freer, more fluid,
plural. It is full of freedom and spontaneity and expresses the mystical spirit. So the élan vital
flowers there most manifestly.
Bergson had great influence in his time. He tried to put evolution at the centre of his worldview,
and had a number of suggestive ideas related to time, memory, will, introspection and morality. But
his work has since faded.
29