Many philosophers, especially in the Arab world, have tried to reconcile revealed religion with rational philosophy. Averroes and Moses Mamonides are among them. The idea they have is that the truth is for the philosophers, while revealed religion oversimplifies the truth for the benefit of the common man.
I myself know that revealed religion contains just as much subtlety in its description of the truth as Greek philosophy and rational philosophy. If anything, revealed religion is able to teach things that it cannot prove logically, and so is not as limited. Plato, for one, does not try to prove that Love and Virtue are good. He describes them, and we can feel that they are good. And thus Plato is able to base his logical, rational look at Love and Virtue on a much less limited definition of Love and Virtue. Thus revealed religion is not limited in how it can describe Divine Love.
But there is also some truth to the philosophers' idea of the difference between rational philosophy and revealed religion. Revealed religion does try to put difficult ideas of the divine in terms the common man can understand.
Now we come to the original point of this web page: why does the common man need religion to be oversimplified for him?
Because the common man does not have time for extended study.
The common man has a job, a 9 to 5 job, needs to wash the dishes, to put the kids to bed, things like that. The common man does not have time for all the study that understanding the truth through rational philosophy requires.
That's what revealed religion does: it simplifies the truth in order to teach it to ordinary people who do not have time for extended study.
That's why the common man needs revealed religion.
I'm sure that if I put it that way that Averroes and Moses Mamonides would agree.
Sincerely,
David S. Annderson