westphal sample essay

1 (a) Examine the argument and/or interpretation in the passage. Throughout his work, M.Westphal examines what he see’s to be a shift in modern times from ‘philosophical theology’ (an interest in God) to ‘philosophy of religion’ (an interest in religion), the differing in these two subject matters seems to become more distinct as time goes on. There are various types of ‘philosophical theology’, and Westphal will go on to identify two main categories that can be said to form the background of Kant and Hume: ‘scholasticism’ and ‘deism’. The overall change appears to have taken place from the time of Hume (1711-1776) and Kant (1724-1804) to that of Nietzsche (1844-1900), when philosophising about religion took centre stage, arguably at the expense of talking about God. This movement away from ‘philosophical theology’ was also observed by Hegel, as seen in the passage. Initially, Westphal identifies ‘two species of philosophical theology’ which he refers to as ‘scholastic’ and ‘deistic’. The former refers to the philosophical background of ‘scholasticism’, scholastics were thinkers, such as Augustine and Aquinas who believed it was the task of the philosopher or theologian to use rationality in order to investigate the nature of God through reason. This rational consideration of God was intended to complement the knowledge of God which we can gain from reading the Bible, religious experience and prayer which they saw to be forms of revelation. In other words, through ‘scholasticism’ we can see that natural theology; conclusions we can draw about God through rational investigation of the world, and revealed theology; information and knowledge revealed to us by God e.g. through His scriptures, can go hand in hand. Westphal notes this when he writes; ‘scholastic versions of this enterprise share the Augustinian assumption that pure reason, on the one hand, and faith, revelation and authority, on the other, are harmonious’.Westphal also identifies a ‘deistic’ pool of thought, this term refers to thinkers who are ‘deists’ who differ in thought from ‘scholasticists’. In short, a ‘deist’ is someone who believes that God created the world but has never intervened in the events which take place in it, they have belief in a divine creator but they would deny any divine revelation. Deists believe that human reason alone can give us everything we need to know to live a moral and religious life, therefore, unlike ‘scholasticists’, they believe that only knowledge gained through mental and rational investigation is of any use. Revelation (and revealed theology) for deists is fundamentally irrational, therefore, they reject it. Westphal recognised that deists wish to bring religion “within the limits of reason alone”, a phrase initially coined by Kant. Deists wish to do this because they because they believe that reason is the only characteristic common to all humans at all times, and is also the characteristic which distinguishes us from other creatures on the earth, reason is the trait which makes humanity so special. Deists took this argument and exaggerated it to claim that only things which can be known through reason can be true knowledge. In the passage, Westphal moves on to talk of the idea that deists ‘seek to separate the rational kernel of religion from the irrational husk’, which is an analogy used throughout the text as scholars such as Hume also wished to make this separation. In this analogy the ‘kernel’ represents the meaningful heart of religion and the ‘husk’ can be viewed as the irrational shell of religion, throughout Westphal’s anthology it is clear that the views of scholars differ on which aspects of religion are the ‘kernel’ and the ‘husk’. Many deists believed that the problem of religion was not natural theology, which they saw as the ‘kernel’, but that it lay in revealed theology; the Bible, religious experience etc. For deists, this is the ‘husk’ as it ‘exceeds those limits in the direction of faith, revelation and authority’. Westphal identifies typical examples of the ‘kernel’ for deists being; ‘God as creator’ and ‘God as the author and enforcer of the moral law’. These are what deists might view as the more ‘rational’ elements of religious belief, as you could attempt to prove them through reasoned argument alone. They could believe that God created the universe and was author of moral law as these aspects of religion promote morality, good living (Kant was especially concerned with good will and having good intentions to our actions) and an ordered view of the universe. Also clarified in the passage are what Westphal sees to be the ‘irrational husk’ for many deists; ‘anything miraculous or supernatural’ and ‘the tendency to give essential significance to anything historically particular such as the life and death of Jesus’. These are what deists might see as the more ‘irrational’ parts of religion, as they couldn’t be proven through reasoned argument alone, they aren’t truths which you could derive through the use of your rational mind. Also, they appear to be ‘acts of God which interfere with reality’ and things such as miracles or the resurrection of Jesus would directly contradict the deist view of the universe. Additionally, deists would be dissatisfied with variant forms of Christianity as many christians believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to get to God, as it was the action of Jesus’ death which set sinners free. Many deists, in contrast, reject these theories of atonement. They would disagree with claims that Jesus had to die as a sacrifice to pay the "death penalty" for humankind and save them from the "wrath" of God. And they do not view God as a whimsical tyrant who sends plagues and pestilence to punish people on earth and who plans to torture people in "hell" in the future. Deists reject these ideas as products of human hatred and a failure to recognize God's natural laws of love for others, faith in Jesus is therefore an unnecessary complication of matters. 1 (b) Do you agree with the idea(s) expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its implications for understanding religion and human experience. I do agree with the views expressed by Westphal in the passage as I can see that there has been a shift from ‘philosophical theology’ to ‘philosophy of religion’ when looking at the ideas of various scholars over time. If there was a complete shift away from ‘philosophical theology’ then this would have major implications for understanding religion; there might be less support for the existence of God with people less willing to talk about God as a philosophical idea. Also, many of the major arguments for the existence of God would be ignored, this would have an impact on theists and atheists alike as neither would be able to justify their beliefs. Hence, the controversial argument regarding the existence of God would not be as important as the focus would be more on the role played by religion in society. This could have some benefits for human experience as people would be more focussed on practices and values than metaphysical beliefs, perhaps causing an increase in morality. However, as a theist, a complete shift would have negative implications for me as I believe that things such as faith, which are arguably brought about through talk of God, are essential to my belief. As Romans 5:1 says; “therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”. In the passage Westphal expresses the ideas of Kant, that religion should be brought ‘within the limits of reason alone’ , if this was successfully done there would be huge implications for understanding both religion and human experience. For religion, aspects of faith which aren’t concerned with ethics would be marginalised or would disappear entirely, this would include many rituals and aspects of worship which are commonplace in society today such as marriage. An implication of this for human experience would be that we would always have to focus on ethics as being moral would be the highest form of good and the only basis for religion. This could have a positive effect on human experience in society as we would always have to be conscious of duty, therefore there would be a decrease in religious believers acting on the basis of faith alone which could reduce acts of terrorism caused by religious extremism. Although human society might become more just and moral, since consideration of the moral law would replace self interest and hedonism, I would once again have to disagree with this view expressed in the passage. This is because bringing religion ‘within the limits of reason alone’ would eliminate aspects such as revelation from religious belief. Revelation is key to many religious believers as events such as religious experiences can help to bring about and even strengthen belief. On a larger level, in Christianity, the revelation of God is recorded in the Bible, many theists believe that when writing the Bible the authors of each individual book were influenced by the holy spirit. If revelation was excluded, many of the teachings of the Bible would also be discounted, which I would see to limit religious belief. I am more inclined to agree with the opposing views to those presented in this passage, such as those of Schleiermacher. If, like Schleiermacher we were able to agree that religion should be focussed on ‘feeling’ as opposed to ‘reason’ which deists such as Kant would focus on, there would be more positive implications for both religion and human experience, in my opinion. Religion would become more personal to the believer, as individual experiences would be the source of ‘truth’ rather than cold logic (through reason) or church authority. This would in turn have a positive effect on human experience, a recent study looking into mental health found that many people suffering from mental health issues found support, prayers and visits from their religious group helpful, especially when in hospital. Others found independent meditation helpful - even those who didn't believe in prayer or God. This individual experience of and connection to God was no doubt brought about by ‘feeling’ rather than ‘reason’. Therefore more of a focus on individual’s feelings and experiences within religion could help believers to find peace and become closer to God. However, there are parts of the argument presented by Schleiermacher which I disagree with, in that the use of the word ‘feeling’ is quite open in what it means and there isn’t much strict guidance on what religion should be like. Therefore people would be able to choose to have their own values and practices if they ‘felt’ right, although this seems positive in the respect that there would be more religious freedom and nobody would be marginalised for their beliefs, it could allow for dangerous or harmful practices to be performed or immoral values to be held which would negatively affect both religion and society.