For my Introduction to Philosophy course, a question on the final exam [pdf] was:
“Religion was a theme for all of our authors this semester:
* Socrates was put on trial and found guilty of impiety;
* Galileo was silenced despite arguing for a compromise between science and religion;
* Descartes tried to prove with certainty the existence of God;
* One of Rand’s characters says to Roark: “You are a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings”;
* Lewis devoted two chapters to how and why religion must be a matter of faith;
* Freud dismissed religion as a childish illusion but nonetheless argued that it is necessary socially.
In your judgment, which of our authors has the best approach to religion?”
My twelve students’ responses:
None chose Freud.
One voted for Socrates’s skeptical-but-searching-for-wisdom approach to piety.
Two defended Rand’s approach, arguing that for modern, natural-minded people worshiping human creative potential for greatness is the best “religion” (one student used the scare quotes).
Another two liked Descartes’ attempt rigorously to prove the existence of God, though one seemed more to admire the attempt than to think it worked.
Three agreed with Lewis’s strong humility-and-faith-based approach to religion and Christianity in particular.
Four approved of Galileo’s separation of religion and science and especially his argument that since God gave us our senses and reason piety is best served by using them to come to understand the natural world He created.
So I hereby declare Galileo Galilei to be the best philosopher of religion for the Spring 2011 semester.
Bravo on your declaration! Having not had the benefit of taking your class, I would have answered that Galileo and Lewis should be declared co-best philosophers as their body of work has always reflected two sides of the same coin to me. As all of the philosophers you noted (except Socrates) lived in societies and times dominated by Christianity, I take that “conditioning” as coloring their positions at least in part. I wonder if you also discussed Thomas Aquinas in the course, or any of the various clergy that profoundly impacted adoption of ‘scientific method’ and ‘reason’ in the periods leading up to our present day? For myself, I would have argued that if one believes in God (faith) as posited by Lewis, there is no way to prove or disprove the efficacy of your belief. On the other hand, if one accepts the Christian tradition of a loving God who not only created us in (his) image, but endowed us with free will and the capacity to act independently, it would seem to me that Galileo’s search for knowledge and understanding of the physical world was mandated by such a God to fulfill our responsibility to ‘know’ such a God by understanding his creation. Thus, Lewis addresses the metaphysical question that cannot be answered by science and Galileo answers the question that internalizes the concept that “God” wants us to become knowledgeable about the world we inhabit. But what do I know? I wish I had studied more philosophy and theology when I was younger and had access to actually discuss such topics with my college professors … such is the foolishness of a physical science major that turned to law as a vocation. Thanks for posting your results!