During Education Week, philosophy professors explain how religion and philosophy actually strengthen each other.
The Philosophy of the Gospel
by Kira Christensen
To some, philosophy and religion sit on opposite ends of a spectrum. Philosophy may call to mind ideas that challenge faith and attempt to poke holes in religious belief. However, in his presentation titled “What is Philosophy, and What Does It Have to Do with Gospel Living?” on August 20, 2024, Associate Professor David Jensen (Ethics and Value Theory) explained that philosophy and religion aren’t diametrically opposed—instead, they work together to help people more deeply understand truth.
Jensen said, “Philosophy is a discipline that aims at knowledge. . . . [It] studies the fundamental concepts, principles, and features of our existence.” Philosophy seeks to create a comprehensive picture of truth in every discipline it studies, which matches the Latter-day Saint drive to find truth wherever it may lie. As Brigham Young said: “If you can find the truth in heaven, earth, or hell, it belongs in our doctrine.”
When it comes to the importance of philosophy in our own religious journeys, Jensen closed by explaining that understanding doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and that fact can affect how clearly we see the truth in our lives. “We come with presuppositions, all of which can be vague, hidden, misunderstood, chaotic, and messy,” he said. “Philosophy is uniquely positioned to help us clean up this mess and more fully understand and live the gospel.”
Plato’s Pre-existence
by Tessa Swensen
According to Plato’s philosophy, pre-existence does not describe a time before existence, but rather, it describes another existence—just one before this one. In Associate Professor Ryan Christensen’s (Philosophy) lecture “Plato and the Pre-existence,” given on August 21, 2024, he discussed the theory of pre-existence in the context of Plato’s thinking and examined the nature of our existence on this Earth through the lens of his philosophy.
A central theme of Plato’s writings was the importance of our esoteric existence before and after this mortal life. Christensen said, “It’s not [about] where we are now; it’s [about] where we were before we came here and where we’re going after.” For Plato, there was a particular focus and emphasis on the esteem of the soul. According to Christensen, Plato believed that the soul was not only a part of the human experience but the most important part of our eternal existence.
One of Plato’s central theologies states that the body prohibits true understanding or experience—that the body distracts from the soul’s pursuit of true knowledge—which directly contradicts Elder David A. Bednar’s teaching that “physical bodies make possible . . . an intensity of experience that simply could not be obtained in our premortal estate.” As Christensen pointed out, we can use philosophy to understand religious principles—so long as we don’t hold it to the same level as scriptural truth. “I think [Plato] says some beautiful and wonderful things,” Christensen said. “He’s not always right, but I think that reading him helps us to clarify what it is that we believe.”
The Abrahamic Paradox
by Emma Mafi
Trials of faith often seem almost paradoxical. For instance, why would Abraham be asked to kill his only son despite receiving the divine promise of prosperity? According to Assistant Professor Taylor-Grey Miller's (Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion) lecture given on August 22, 2024, philosophy can offer a unique insight on these trials of faith. It all starts with one deceivingly simple ideology: the story of Abraham and Isaac is not a paradox and neither is your trial of faith.
Using a thought experiment known as Kavka’s Toxin Puzzle, Miller argued God’s promise of prosperity and subsequent command to kill Isaac only seemed to be a paradox as they caused Abraham to doubt what he knew to be true about God, ultimately producing a trial of faith. Miller explained, “Trials of faith do something very interesting to the things we know—it makes it hard for us to rely on our reasoning.”
When trials of faith create a seeming paradox of truth, Miller believes they intend teach us an important lesson on unconditional love. Pulling from St. John of the Cross’s poem “Dark Night of the Soul,” Miller argued that relearning to recognize God comes when we place our hope in God rather than seeking comfort, blessings, and miracles from Him. He said, “By depriving us of the ability to find fulfillment in spiritual goods, God introduces a certain kind of emptiness into us again—a possibility of a reorientation of our desires away from God-given spiritual goods so that a desire simply for God can emerge.”
The Case for Reason-Based Belief
by Kira Christensen
Does faith require evidence? According to John Locke, it does—but not in the way you might think. In Associate Professor Nathan Rockwood’s (Early Modern Philosophy) lecture “Faith and Reason: Navigating Conflict” on August 23, 2024, he examined Locke’s religious philosophy, explaining how his faith model can help us understand the reasons for our own faith.
Locke was a philosopher during the beginning of the Enlightenment in the mid 1600s, when people championed reason and looked to scientific progress to improve their life circumstances. According to Rockwood, Locke sought solutions to religious quarrels by applying reason to faith. “Often we talk about faith in contrast to reason,” Rockwood said. “But Locke says [that], in truth, [faith] would be ‘nothing else but an assent founded on the highest reason.’”
For Locke, faith meant confidently believing revelation received from God—belief that must be founded on reasonable evidence, though this evidence does not require concrete proof. Rockwood said, “You don’t need to be skeptical about your own religious experiences, but you do need some kind of reason to think it’s from God.” The simplest reason? Recognizing something as inspiration from God through either past experience or the Spirit.
We may occasionally encounter conflicting claims of revelation. Locke has a few solutions, including weighing evidence according to the probability that something is true. The ultimate determiner, however, is whether God has truly revealed the information. God cannot deceive us, so Locke says determining true revelation resolves all conflicts. Rockwood says, “Locke’s solution is, first, we should seek confirmation from God. Once we succeed in getting that, we should comfortably believe it.”