ABSTRACT
If by “religion” we refer to a doctrine regarded by its adherents as imparting true and authoritative knowledge about the world’s efficient, formal, and final causes, then certainly philosophy, and particularly metaphysics, deals with problems belonging to the realm of religion. If we want it furthermore to refer to a doctrine demanding of its adherents accordance with certain moral standards, often including specific rituals and practices, then the connection with philosophy becomes less obvious. For although I might be a keen metaphysician, I may not necessarily feel compelled to behave or organize my everyday life in a particular way. The question thus arises of whether philosophy in and of itself, beyond its avowed interest in the world’s efficient, formal, and final causes, has direct practical implications inducing the philosopher to live her life in a certain, which is to say, morally relevant way. At first sight, my own example seems to offer an unequivocal and negative answer to this question. However, reality is more complicated, as a brief glance into the history of philosophy shows. For, obviously, there are philosophers who believe that theoretical knowledge has (and must have) a bearing on the conduct of one’s life, one of the most famous examples being Socrates. To live the “examined life,” he suggests in the Apology (28b), entails not only the search for truth, but simultaneously requires the habit of constantly reassessing whether or not one “is acting like a good or a bad man.” Accordingly, it seems rather to be a matter of which kind of philosophy one endorses whether or not one believes that insight into the truth has implications for how one ought to live, i.e. whether or not philosophy turns out to be some sort of natural religion. (In this paper, I will use “natural theology” as an equivalent of “metaphysics/theology”; “natural ethics” to refer to the practical implications of natural theology; and “natural religion” as an umbrella term embracing these two aspects.)
