PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy involves a systematic exploration of fundamental topics like knowledge, truth, ethics, and mind. It has greatly influenced our understanding of the world and has guided many social and political movements. The influence of philosophy on human history is undeniable. Throughout history, philosophy has served as a wellspring of ideas, influencing scientific inquiry, shaping political systems, and prompting social reform. The following text provides a brief introduction to philosophy followed by a discussion on the philosophical perspective on God and the limitations of philosophy in answering certain questions: 

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, value, reason, language, and mind. Etymology is the study of the origin of words. Etymologically, the term philosophy means the love of or pursuit of wisdom. It is made of the following two terms: 

Philia (love) + Sophia (wisdom) = philosophy = love of wisdom

The term “philosophy” was introduced in Ancient Greece. The earliest use of the term is attributed to Pythagoras (570 – 495 BC) who described himself as a “lover of wisdom”. This term was however popularized nearly 100 years later by Plato in reference to his mentor, Sokrates (470 – 399 BC). Academically, today “philosophy” is an umbrella term like “science” covering distinct but related investigations. Following is a very brief introduction to the five main sub-disciplines of academic philosophy: 

1. METAPHYSICS: It is a branch of philosophy that discusses the theories of reality. It consists of the following three sub-groups: a) Ontology: It discusses the question, “What is existence?” b) Philosophy of mind: It discusses the question, “What is consciousness?”, and c) Philosophy of religion: It discusses the question, “What is God?”

2. EPISTEMOLOGY: It is the branch of philosophy that deals with theories of knowledge. It mainly discusses the following three questions related to knowledge: a) What is knowledge? b) Can we have knowledge? and c) How do we acquire knowledge? 

3. LOGIC: It is the branch of philosophy that deals with theories of argument and reasoning. It mainly discusses the following three areas related to logic: a) What is an argument? b) Inductive reasoning and c) deductive reasoning.

4. AXIOLOGY: It is a branch of philosophy that discusses the theories of value. It consists of the following three sub-groups: a) Ethics: It discusses the question, “What is goodness?” b) Aesthetics: It discusses the question, “What is beauty?”, and c) Political theory: It discusses the question, “what is Justice?”

5. HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY: It is the branch of philosophy that discusses the following two areas: a) People: It discusses the question, “Who are these philosophers?”, and b) Ideas: It discusses the question, “What did they think about and why?” 

Philosophical approach

Earlier, at "Home page" of this website, I mentioned the nature of philosophical questions. Philosophers try to answer these questions by using arguments and rational thinking. Thus, philosophy is the rational attempt to formulate, understand, and answer fundamental philosophical questions. While analyzing and answering these questions they use tools like arguments, reasoning, words, and thoughts. Although philosophers tend to use these tools more systematically as compared to common people, these are common-day tools that are used by other people as well in their daily lives. Therefore, answers to philosophical questions by philosophers are usually controversial as they do not use other robust tools like experimentation in their support. Thus, philosophers tend to disagree a lot with one another. The same is the case regarding their views on God.

Philosophy and God

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the philosophical investigation into ultimate reality. It discusses issues like what is, what could be, and what could not be. Among the various branches of philosophy, metaphysics is related to our topic as its sub-branch of “philosophy of religion” deals with the topic of God. Philosophy of religion does not discuss individual religions like Christianity or Buddhism rather it focuses only on the topic of God. Unlike various world religions, philosophers tend to focus on “Natural Religion” which is based on observable evidence only. Nevertheless, philosophers in general are also influenced by religious literature as they tend to use religious terms or concepts in their arguments on God. Following are the major questions in metaphysics related to the topic of God: 

• What is God?

• Does God exist?

• What is God’s relationship with the universe?

• What is the nature of religious belief?

As discussed earlier, philosophers tend to disagree with one another a lot. The same is true regarding the topic of God as philosophers have diverse views of God. Some very famous philosophers namely Plato and Aristotle were theists and thus argued for the existence of God. Others like St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas also believed in the existence of God. On the other hand, philosopher David Hume was an atheist and therefore criticized the arguments for God’s existence. Immanuel Kant was agnostic and believed that reason alone cannot prove or disprove God’s existence.  

It is not the case that all the philosophers who believed in God had similar concepts of God or the right concept of God. Many theist philosophers had a highly distorted view of God. For example, the Greek philosophers have committed serious mistakes in understanding the true nature and attributes of God. Encyclopedia of Philosophy while discussing the concept of God among philosophers mentions, “Western concepts of God have ranged from the detached transcendent demiurge of Aristotle to the pantheism of Spinoza.” “Concepts of God in philosophy are entwined with concepts of God in religion. This is most obvious in figures like Augustine and Aquinas, who sought to bring more rigor and consistency to concepts found in religion. Others, like Leibniz and Hegel, interacted constructively and deeply with religious concepts. Even those like Hume and Nietzsche, who criticized the concept of God, dealt with religious concepts. … with regard to the initiating cause of the world, Plato and Aristotle held God to be the crafter of uncreated matter. Plotinus regarded matter as emanating from God. Spinoza, departing from his Judaistic roots, held God to be identical with the universe, while Hegel came to a similar view by reinterpreting Christianity.”

Thus, there is no consensus on the belief in God among the community of philosophers. So which philosopher is right? Aristotle or David Hume? Whose rationality is more rational? Or whether Immanuel Kant is right in saying that reason alone cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. How will we know this? Someone rightly said that philosophy is not about achieving a consensus on God's existence. Rather it is about analyzing arguments, exploring different viewpoints, and raising critical questions. Thus, it can be concluded that by using the philosophical approach alone we cannot have a consensus in the belief in God. We cannot have a definite answer regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Also, we cannot find a definite answer regarding the nature and attributes of God. 

Limitations of human reasoning

It was discussed earlier that philosophers tend to disagree on various topics. This is especially true when it comes to the topic of God and His attributes. Why is it so? Why human intellect and reasoning alone is not able to accurately answer questions regarding God without any disagreement? This is because human reasoning and intellect face many limitations in answering such questions. 

Intellect and the art of reasoning are very powerful tools available to human beings in solving many problems. It also differentiates us from other creations like animals who cannot reason like us. Despite having a great opinion about the human intellect, we must also try to understand its limitations. It is prone to errors especially when discussing the topic of God and His attributes.  

I have observed many times that two people debating on a matter are presenting logical arguments against each other’s point of view. Someone’s logic must be wrong in such a case. I have even seen people presenting their logic against well-proven scientific concepts. Listening to the logic of many people occasionally reminds me of Murphy’s Law, “logic is a systematical way of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence”. 

Here, I am not trying to say that every logical argument is wrong. I am just saying that logical arguments may be wrong. We call them “unsound” or “uncogent” arguments in philosophy. Here I would like to quote the following few passages by Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi to illustrate the limitations of human intellect in answering certain metaphysical questions: 

“In regard to intellect, it ought to be kept in mind that it is not self-sufficient to perform its functions of knowing, analyzing, and reasoning since it has to depend on other subordinate faculties. In taking a view of unknown and intangible objects it has to rely on the information and experiences it has gathered about the things already known to it through sensations of external objects perceived by sensory organs. It compiles and analyses the information stored by it to draw conclusions from these premises about the things not known to it or which cannot be made known to it through sensorial perceptions. If we examine the working of intellect and its way of reasoning, we will find that all the conclusions drawn by it about what we call higher realities are drawn from these very primary sensory perceptions which, by themselves, are insufficient to supply the information intellect has been trying to bring out through analysis and compilation of the data thus collected and then by drawing inferences from them.” 

“Now, it is obvious that in a sphere where sensory organs are helpless: they cannot provide the basic data nor can furnish any information to base the conclusions or draw inferences. The most nimble and sharp intellect would be helpless in this matter much in the same way as a man trying to cross a sea without a ship or trying to fly without an airplane. Nobody howsoever brilliant can solve mathematical equations without first learning the numerals nor a man can read any writing without mastering the alphabets and script of a language. The same is true of recondite realities beyond the ken of human perception because the intellect does not possess even the primary data that can enable it to develop its guess in these matters.” 

“Another salient fact to be kept in mind is that human intellect has a limited range beyond which it cannot go. Likewise, all the sensory organs of man operate within a limited compass. Our vision or the faculty of seeing can be used to observe a thousand things but not to hear even one sound. The same is the case with other sensory organs which work under a limited sphere typical to each of them. The intellect and sensory organs have not been endowed with unlimited power. The scope and reach of intellect are apparently wider than that of other sensory organs but it has its own limits. Ibn Khaldun has given a very apt illustration to show the limited scope of intellect. (He said) the mind is an accurate scale, whose recordings are certain and reliable; but to use it to weigh questions relating to the Unity of God, or the afterlife, or the nature of prophecy, or the divine qualities, or other such subjects falling outside its range, is like trying to use a goldsmith’s scale to weigh mountains. This does not mean that the scale is in itself inaccurate. The truth of the matter is that the mind has limits within which it is rigidly confined; it cannot therefore hope to comprehend God and His qualities; itself being only one of the many atoms created by God.”

“There is yet another fact, conceded now, that the intellect cannot give its verdict independently and objectively with complete impartiality. Those who have studied the working of intellect know that there is nothing like ‘pure intellect’. Attitudes and sentiments, dispositions and circumstances, the way it is groomed and disciplined, beliefs and fascinations, doubts and apprehensions and inattention and forgetfulness can hardly be shaken off by the intellect in the discharge of its function in a perfect and judicious manner as commonly believed by the people. But one is amazed to find that the philosophers have completely disregarded these significant facts in bringing their minds to bear upon the subjects like the nature and attributes of God and similar other matters without possessing even the rudimentary information about them.”

“They have investigated and discussed these issues with the self-confidence of a chemist who makes his experiments to test the properties of different chemicals. The fact of the matter is that the theories and discussions of such philosophers are no better than fantasies and fables or the fairy tales of metaphysics. ... In any case, there is nothing like ‘pure intellect’. Like the ordinary faculty of reasoning, the inner intellect is also impressed by external observations and perceptions and touched by internal passions and affections; and hence it cannot be expected to reflect the true image of a thing without any possibility of mistake.” 

Such limitations of intellect are even mentioned by some world-renowned philosophers, for example, German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804 AD). He started a new era in philosophical reasoning by adopting a critical method for examining the working of reasoning faculty and the nature of pure or abstract intellect. His work, “Critique of the Pure Reason” published in 1781 proved to be a death blow to speculative dogmatism. Dogmatism in philosophy refers to holding philosophical ideas as absolute truths without considering alternative viewpoints or criticisms. Immanuel Kant also rejected empirical knowledge as a way of knowing God. According to Kant, God cannot be demonstrated at all, yet neither can His existence be disproved. According to Kant, as humans, we typically go beyond what we can rightly infer, and our idea that God can be objectively known is an example. Thus, even a rational philosopher mentioned the limitations of rational reasoning. 

Dr. Harold Hoffding writes about Kant’s point of view, “(in Kant’s view) thought sets to work dogmatically, i.e., with involuntary, frequently naive, confidence in its own powers and in the vitality of its own assumption. Hence it believes itself able to solve all problems and to penetrate to the innermost nature of the world. This is the age of great systems. Later comes a time in which it appears that these thought-constructions cannot reach the heavens, and that the architects cannot agree as to their plan. This is the age of doubt, of skepticism. Men mock at these futile attempts with their contradictions, and console themselves half sadly, half cynically, with what appears to be an absolutely negative result. This is a natural reaction against blind dogmatism. Kant attacks both these tendencies. He found one task which had been neglected by dogmatists and sceptics alike, i.e., the enquiry into the nature of our intellect and our knowledge itself, with a view to discovering what forms and powers we have at our disposal for the comprehension of things, and how far these forms and powers can take us.” 

Here I must clarify that I am not by any means suggesting that philosophy is a useless discipline. I am not suggesting that rational reasoning and intellect are not to be used while attempting to solve problems. As the matter-of-fact philosophy is a great discipline in many ways as it provides us with knowledge about various important matters and solves many problems. I am just asserting that there are certain matters where human reasoning alone cannot help us. One such area is the topic of God and His nature and attributes. 

Thus, it is concluded that the use of a philosophical approach is not a reliable method to find out the ultimate truth about some higher realities like God. In research terminology, reliability refers to the consistency and dependability of the research findings.  After this initial discussion on philosophy and after understanding its limitations in providing accurate information on God, I am moving toward another area that has tried to directly provide answers to philosophical questions. That area is the field of religion.