cellophanedeity

In one of my highschool philosophy courses, we quickly learned to never support our arguments with religious claims. We were taught that though theology could be a useful tool to guide one in one's daily activities, we should not defend our moral choices, metaphysical arguments, and other choices solely upon theology.

Instead, we must defend our views in a philosophical manner, attempting to define morality and metaphysics beyond simply quoting from texts or leaders.

This in no way implied to us that we were to give up our religious beliefs for the purposes of philosophy. In fact, we were urged to strenthen ourselves and our spirituality by questioning what we have come to believe.

I think that one of the better (or at least better known) examples of a philosopher who has done this is Aquinas. He was an avid believer in Christianity, but he also wished for a Reasonable (note the capital R!) proof of God. He would not settle for only the Bible to help him define his God, but also used ontological proofs. He's now known as one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history (even though his proofs had nothing to do with the Christian God, but I'll let that slip for this thread.)

Unfortunately, I've noticed that devoutly religious people don't seem to do this as often anymore. Even in these forums, I occasionally find people supporting their philosophical beliefs with no more than quotations from their religious texts or prophets. In my opinion, this is poor philosophy, and I wish for these people to strive for more.

I believe that if people were to consider their beliefs beyond their books and were able to provide explainations beyond quotations and references, then perhaps we would get along a bit better.