{"id":7852,"date":"2014-07-07T16:02:22","date_gmt":"2014-07-07T16:02:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/07\/07\/d-m-armstrong-on-religion\/"},"modified":"2014-07-07T16:02:22","modified_gmt":"2014-07-07T16:02:22","slug":"d-m-armstrong-on-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/07\/07\/d-m-armstrong-on-religion\/","title":{"rendered":"D. M. Armstrong on Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Jenny<\/a>(Photo credit: David Chalmers via Andrew Chrucky)<\/span><\/p>\n

I posted on Armstrong's naturalism<\/a> yesterday, and that got me to thinking whether he ever said anything anywhere about religion.  A little searching  turned up the following 2002 interview of Armstrong<\/a> by Andrew Chrucky. Here is an excerpt that touches upon Armstrong's view of religion:<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong>  Let me move on to something else. What I would want to know from a philosopher if I were an ordinary person. Probably the first things I would want to know is: Are you religious in any way? <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> No. I'm not.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong> What is your take on religion? <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> I have the greatest respect for it. I think it may be the thing that many people need, and it enshrines many truths about life. But I do not think it is actually true.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong> So, it expresses truth in some metaphorical way? <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> In some metaphorical and symbolic way, I think it grasps at truth. And I think it gives hope and comfort to many.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong> I am not much into religion as a subject, but perhaps someone like Bultmann who was demythologizing religion is someone you would find favor with? <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> I am quite happy with religion going on the way it is. I don't want to alter the religions. That's not my interest. But I suppose that if you are considering what is the truth behind religion then it would have to be demythologized.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong> How do you view the state of the world? Right now there seems to be a rise in fundamentalism all over. <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> Yes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong> You know Iran became a theocracy, and there seems to be a Christian-Islamic confrontation going on. How does one resolve this? Is there a philosophical way of looking at it? <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> No. I don't think so.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chrucky:<\/strong> Is there a need for dialogue? . . . so that religions confront one another, or is this hopeless? <\/span>
Armstrong:<\/strong> I don't really know. I really don't have any views on this point. I think of myself as in the Christian and Jewish tradition, and in the tradition of Greece. Matthew Arnold thought of Hebraism and Hellenism as the twin poles of Western culture. I see myself as a person in the stream within that culture, and I think it may perhaps be the best tradition of thought and life that has so far been evolved. Certainly I don't think we should be apologetic about it.<\/span><\/p>\n

……….<\/span><\/p>\n

This interview confirms what I suspected was Armstrong's attitude toward religion.  As a naturalist, he cannot consider any of the characteristic claims of religion to be literally true.  But as a conservative, he has "the greatest respect for it" and he appreciates the important and beneficial role it plays in the lives of many people.  While not true in its characteristic claims, religion "enshrines many truths about life."  Armstrong endorses the notion that Hebraism and Hellenism are the twin poles of Western culture, the tradition of which is the best that has so far been evolved.  Armstrong sees himself in that tradition.  One might wonder, however, whether his work in philosophy has had or will have the effect of undermining it.<\/span><\/p>\n

He is clearly a traditionalist who takes the great problems of philosophy seriously and unabashedly uses phrases like 'great problems.'  He respects the tradition even while diverging from it.  I cannot imagine him writing a book like David Stove's The Plato Cult<\/em>.  His approach in philosophy is direct, realistic, ontological, nonlinguistic.  He is also traditional in that he sees an important role for philosophy.  He is far from scientism as I tried to make clear in my earlier post.<\/span><\/p>\n

A final observation.  Armstrong's is a disinterested search for truth.  He is like Aristotle in that regard.  One cannot imagine his naturalism becoming a substitute religion for him.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Armstrong, Quine, Universals, Abstract Objects, and Naturalism<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Solubility Skepticism, Religion, and Reason<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>A Sketch of Armstrong's Naturalism and Why I am not a Naturalist<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Bill O'Reilly: Christianity not a Religion, but a Philosophy<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>24 May 2014<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo credit: David Chalmers via Andrew Chrucky) I posted on Armstrong's naturalism yesterday, and that got me to thinking whether he ever said anything anywhere about religion.  A little searching  turned up the following 2002 interview of Armstrong by Andrew Chrucky. Here is an excerpt that touches upon Armstrong's view of religion: Chrucky:  Let me … Continue reading “D. M. Armstrong on Religion”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[238,139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-naturalism","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}