See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358439618

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

Chapter · December 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 12,012

3 authors, including:

Burabari Sunday Deezia

Ignatius Ajuru University of Education Port Harcourt, Nigeria
24 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Burabari Sunday Deezia on 08 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Deezia, B. S. Orji, B. N. and Obungwah, F. M. (2021). “The Relationship Between Religion and
Philosophy.” In W. O. Wotogbe-Weneka, N. J. Gbule, J. U. Odili, B. O. Onu, O. P.
C. Wariboko (eds.) Contemporary Themes in Religious Discourse. Port Harcourt:
Dot7 Concepts.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

BY

1. Deezia, Burabari Sunday

2. Orji, Blessed Nyemobuchi
3. Obungwah, Fabian Martins
1, 2, 3, Department of Religious and Cultural Studies
Faculty of Humanities,
University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Introduction

Religion is an issue of intense concern for every religious and reflective

person, as it addresses, and offers answer to the most fundamental question of
human existence. This age-old concern of humankind with religious questions,
which antedated the earliest beginning of philosophy, has led various thinkers to
inquire into the meaning of the claims made by different religious traditions; the
evidence upon which these claims are based; the standards that can be employed in
evaluating their merits and whether these claims can be made part of a general
theory (Popkin and Stroll, 2007), about the assumptions of the existence of a
metaphysical reality called “God,” man, and the universe. Consequently, questions
and doubt about knowledge and truth in religious traditions have become a
characteristic of modern times.
In other words, there is a natural and historical affinity between religion and
philosophy. From the very beginning of philosophical analysis, philosophy makes
religion the subject and objects of cognition (Hegel, 1970). This implies that the
content, the need and the interest of philosophy represent something which it has in
common with religion. Hegel further posits that the object of religion and that of
philosophy is eternal truth in its objective dimension and that philosophy should not
be seen as the wisdom of the world, but knowledge of what is. In similar view, Karl
Jasper asserts that both religion and philosophy co-exist in the myths and

1
cosmologies, and that philosophy was the birth in the cloak of theology (Jaspers,
1967).
On the contrary, the relationship between religion and philosophy has not
always been cordial, and as such characterized by tension, antagonism and
suspicion. Despite the periodic announcement by religious denigrators and
secularist thinkers that humanity has finally come of age and no longer has any use
for religion (Wotogbe-Weneka, 2012), most human beings are still vitally
concerned with such fundamental questions of human existence, such as; does God
exist? And what is the evidence for God‟s existence? If God is supreme and all
good why does he allow evil and human suffering? What happened to the soul after
death? These and other questions imposed by the great religious traditions of the
world are grounded in some of the deepest human desire, hopes and fears. Besides,
these questions are philosophical in nature, and the philosopher will not be content
to let such question go unexamined.
Again, religious believers sometimes have viewed philosophers as
unsympathetic critics who try to undermine religious faith. To the believer, the
philosopher may appear as a presumptuous champion of human reason who rejects
divine wisdom (Evans and Manis, 2009). Conversely, philosophers sometimes have
viewed religious believers as benighted defenders of superstition and blind
obedience to authority. While these kinds of conflict have certainly occurred, and
though tensions between philosophy and religion remain, the questions that come to
mind includes; What is religion and philosophy? What is the relationship between
religion and philosophy? What are some of those central themes in religion and
philosophy? How do we reconcile faith with reason? These questions fascinate
everyone, and lie at the heart of philosophy of religion.
In exploring the relationship between religion and philosophy, this chapter
did not only unearth the clashes between religion and philosophy but also found
areas of convergence. It focuses on the metaphysical, logic, and epistemic
problems-proving the existence of God, the problem of evil, immortality of the
soul, faith and reason as well as religious language-within religious traditions,
theistically conceived. Using the comparative method, the study discovered that
2
both religion and philosophy are normative in nature and serves as an important
facets of modern life, that attempt to describe reality from two perspectives, and
thus complementary to each other.
Defining Religion and Philosophy
Religion
The word religion is enigmatic; elusive by its very substance and by nature
slippery and sliding to grip. Thus, stimulating ideological confrontation from the
theologians, philosophers, Anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, economists,
historians, etc., as whatever holds one deem to have on reality, on closer inspection the
hold gradually vanish. This is further compounded by the fact that religion aims to deal
with phenomena beyond empirical reality, placing its core beyond the realm of any
scientific verification.
Religion is hardly a phenomenon totally unto itself. It is without a clear boundaries
and thus difficult to provide a clear cut definition. It is inextricably bound to other aspects
of culture and society. Thus, the interrelatedness of religion with philosophy, politics,
economics, ecology and environmental issues, gender issues, sciences, medicine, music
and popular culture, media and artificial intelligence etc. This has made it impossible to
give a definitive definition of religion.
Given the difficulty of arriving at a satisfactory definition, the suspicion arose that
the attempt to define “religion” is futile. In the early 1960s, Wilfred Cantwell Smith
argued that the attempt was misguided, and could not succeed, because the term religion
does not pick out phenomena that are naturally grouped together (Smith, 1964). Defining
religion therefore amounts to replacing one ineffable with another, to the substitution of
the incomprehensible for the unknown. This implies that every definition of religion
involves a particular theory about a religion, which will consequently rule out some
phenomena as not really religious. It was in this view that Wotogbe-Weneka observed that
most scholars tend to avoid dabbling into that effort, while others are on the verge of
giving up the task. According to him, this is based on two basic assumptions;

Firstly, it is bedeviled with endless controversy and debate as to its proper

or acceptable definition. Secondly, the assumption that embarking on the
journey of defining religion is always considered fruitless exercise since
earlier attempts at such endeavor had caused more confusion than they had
intended to resolve (Wotogbe-Weneka, 2010:3).

3
 In the context of this paper, religion is seen as a personal response or an attempt to
seek meaning in life and one‟s universe. It is an organized and integrated system of beliefs
and practices, morals and symbols express out of experience in relation to sacred and
profane, feelings and mysteries, resulting to self-abasement and absolute dependency upon
a Super Being (Deezia, 2017), greater than him/herself, a power mysterious because
unseen, yet a present and urgent reality seeking to bring humans into communion with
himself.

Philosophy
There is an apparent lack of consensus over the definition of philosophy, as
philosophers do not agree among themselves about what philosophy is.
Consequently, to define the concept has itself posed a philosophical problem. And
to avoid the difficulties involved in defining philosophy some scholars may resort
to tracing the etymological meaning of the concept, thus the endless controversy, at
times bickering over basic questions. The problem of vagueness or narrowness and
uncertainty of meaning has made philosophy, to remain a continuous and perpetual
search for truth. However, some eminent thinkers have advanced some definitional
samples that may likely guide our discussions in this chapter and future research.
Etymologically the English word “philosophy” is derived from the Greek
words Philia meaning Love and Sophia meaning Wisdom. These two Greek words
are co-joined to give us the etymological meaning of philosophy, which imply the
Love of Wisdom. Uduigwomen (1987) posits that wisdom here refers to eternal
truth and that philosophy is “the search for eternal or ultimate truths in all things”.
David Schlafor is quoted to have defined philosophy as,

the human attempts to systematically study the most fundamental

structure of our entire experience in order to arrive at beliefs that are
as conceptually clear, experientially confirmed, and rationally
coherent as possible (Lawhead, 2015:XXVII).
Each term in this definition is significant. It is particularly important that one
understand what it means to say that philosophy is a “human attempt” to take on a
task that can never be completed. This means that no claim could be made
whatsoever to the finality or an exhaustive treatment of philosophical issues
(Deezia, 2018a), and as such, we are never finished with philosophy, and it is never

4
finished with us, and our philosophical ideas are never without the need for
modification and improvement.
Going back to antiquity, Plato is quoted to have described philosophy as a
passion for truth. For Aristotle philosophy is “the knowledge of the truth”, Epicurus
defined philosophy as “an activity which secures the happy life by means of
discussion, and improvement, and to Bertrand Russell, philosophy is “a no man‟s
land” that stands in between science and theology (Okon, 2012; The New
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1975). As academic discipline, it exercises the principles
of reason and logic in attempt to understand reality and answered fundamental
questions about knowledge, life, morality human nature and society; Quinton thus
avers;
philosophy is rationally critical thinking of a more or less systematic
kind about these general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory
of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of
knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or the theory of value).
Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical
counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational
and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature (Quinton,
1995:666).
With Quinton‟s definition of philosophy which brings out its metaphysical,
epistemological, and ethical dimensions, it is obvious that philosophy could be
defined from variety of perspectives. Philosophy is therefore, the rational search for
answers to questions about knowledge, truth reason, ultimate meaning of reality,
human mind and values etc.
What is Philosophy of Religion? Towards a Historical Purview
From the dawn of human existence, religious beliefs and practices
permeated all aspect of life. The doctrines, principles and beliefs of the major world
religious traditions were passionately embraced as true to the extent that people
were prepared to uphold their faith in the face of martyrdom. This sense of the truth
of religious belief is now a thing of the past, as a result of progressive
secularization of society, following the protestant reformation and the rise of
science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as well as the positivistic
philosophy based on science as a model for all knowledge claims, liberal political

5
and social philosophy and the advent of post-modern theology with the aim of
„demythologizing‟ Christianity (Iheoma, 1997).
Consequently, the enlightenment (the age of reason) helped to shape the
philosophical and intellectual climate of the eighteenth century. This intellectual
movement made conscious and deliberate break with the past and ushered in the
modern period by taking a fresh look at reality and presenting a different view of
the natural world, of human nature, of society, and of religion. Philosophy of
religion, therefore, appeared in the 18th century as a product of enlightenment.
In other words, people of the enlightenment raised questions about humanity
and its destiny, about the origin and character of religion, and about the source of
state authority. In the process, they called into question long-Christian beliefs and
various social sanctions. In fact, the principles of criticism applied by the thinkers
of the enlightenment struck at the very foundation of organized religious traditions
and government. Furthermore, some religious text began to lose its authority and
credibility as it became clear that certain accounts, such as the creation stories,
could not stand the test of reason, especially after the discoveries of Copernicus,
Galileo, and Newton had convincingly demonstrated that the earth was not the
center of the universe but revolves around the sun. Hence, the greatest attack on
religion in the Western society Karl Jaspers writes;
…When the splitting of philosophy and religion was eventually
actualized, religion became a philosophical problematique such that
the mystery, the cult, revelation, and the claim to power of a
community found on religion an interpretation that religion confers
upon itself became perennial objects of philosophical inquiry. The
inquiry here means the struggle and striving for truth exclusively
though intellectual means (Jaspers, 1967:268).
Philosophy of religion is thus, a philosophical reflection about topics that
comes up when the subject is religion; it is a philosophical examination of the
central themes and basic concepts involved in religious traditions. Thinking
philosophically involves reflecting critically about a set of issues with the aim of
figuring out what to believe about those issues. Hence, the major concern of
philosophy of religion includes the question of God‟s existence, reflection on

6
religious experience, analysis of religious language and text, and examination of
the relationship between religion and philosophy.
It is important to note that philosophy of religion is different from the
practice of theology. Philosophy of religion is not a systematic statement of
religious belief (which would be theological or dogmatic) but a second-order
activity focused on the basic fundamental issues of a given religious tradition.
Olukunle writes;
philosophy of religion attempts to examine religious issues not with
the dry and hard looks of philosophy nor with the sentimental
inclinations of religion, but from an entirely different perspective,
that of someone who knows about religion but would like to
consider alternative position, while also willing to listen to the
homilies and Platitudes of religion. Thus, philosophy of religion
makes an effort to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable (Olukunle,
1980:62).
Also important to the philosophical study of religion are the fundamental
areas in the broader field of philosophy. For instance, epistemology is the area of
philosophy that deals with knowledge, its sources and justification, it makes sense
to injure about the epistemology of religious belief, the legitimacy of its sources
and the manner in which it is rationally justified or considered to be knowledge
(Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger, 2013). Metaphysical questions
about religion might probe the nature of God, and God‟s attributes, or the nature of
human free-will in relation to divine power. The area of ethics helps us to form
various questions regarding religion. For example, we might investigate the
connection between a given religious tradition and certain ethical way of life or
examine the relationship between the divine and what we call moral laws or values.
Philosophy of religion therefore, centers largely on the metaphysical, ethical
and epistemological beliefs of religion that philosophers have sought to understand
and evaluate. It examines the principles of religious faith and conditions without
which religion cease to be religion.

7
Models of Relationship between Religion and Philosophy
There is considerable and vitriolic disagreement over the relationship
between religion and philosophy, and as such, to determine the relationship in
which religion stands to the other activities of the mind, philosophy, conduct and so
on may seems impossible, especially in a simple formal logical term of identity,
mutual intersection or subordination. This section, therefore, explores both the
divergence and convergence model on the relationship between religion and
philosophy.

The Divergence Model

The divergence model holds that religion and philosophy are two separate
and parallel lines that have evolved their different approaches and methods to lead
seekers to truth. The religious approach aims at massive mobilization of the
faithful; offers more scope for human emotions; with serious emphasis on creed,
code, cult, and community. In order to retain the faithful within the fold with
lifelong commitment, which have defined patterns and parameters that offer clarity
to the seeker‟s mind. On the other hand, philosophy also offers alternative ways of
approaching and realizing reality. The critical and creative reflective path opened
up by philosophy enables human beings to employ the best of abilities to approach
and understand the inner recesses of reality in various ways, thus, the differences in
the language employed by religion and philosophy.
In other words, while religion focuses on belief and faith in deity, spirits,
angels, and eternity etc., which are issues or concept that cannot be investigated
through scientific methods of discovering facts. Philosophy emphasize on reason
and critical thinking. In fact, a philosopher is concerned with the fundamental
principles or modes of thinking that enable rational human beings to deal most
effectively with problems of life. Again, Religion tells you what to think, for
example, both the Judeo-Christian and Islamic text assumes that the reader believes
in God or Allah hook line and sinker (without argument). By contrast, philosophy
shows you how to think. Philosophy carefully considers whether God exist, the

8
philosopher weights all the arguments and then let you decide which, if any, are the
most convincing
A separation between the sacred and profane is something else lacking in
philosophy. Certainly, philosophers discuss the phenomena of religious awe,
feelings of mystery, and importance of sacred objects, but that is very different
from having feelings of awe and mystery around such objects within philosophy
(Cline, 2020). In other words, one cannot find Hegel, Kant or Russel saying that
their philosophies are revelations from a god or that their work should be taken on
faith. Instead, they base their philosophies on rational arguments. Those arguments
may not be also proving valid or successful, but it is the effort which differentiates
their works from religion. Furthermore, miracles play a large role in almost all
religious traditions but they are common features which you do not find in
philosophy. Nietzsche was not born of a virgin, no angels appeared to announce the
conception of Sartre, and Hume did not make the lame walk again.
Therefore, the conflict here refers to the sharp difference in mental habits
and outlook with regards to the same objects for attention. The question is then
asked, how can a religious person be a free philosopher? By the same token the
religious person asks, how can a philosopher who has not yet solved the basic
questions, exercise such unrestricted quest on religion?
The Convergence Model
The historic tension between religion and philosophy has not affected
mutual quest for meaning and understanding. This implies that their distinctiveness
does not mean that they are entirely separate. Because the issues and questions
discussed in religion and philosophy tend to be very much alike, and thus not
uncommon for a person to be engaged in both religion and philosophy
simultaneously.
Throughout history people have turned to the study of philosophy with the
hope that it would shed light upon some fundamental problems encountered in
connection with their religious beliefs. Hegel at the beginning of his lessons about
the philosophy of Religion remarks that religion and philosophy have the same
object which is the absolute. To him, the role of philosophy is to develop and
9
understand the necessity of religion as philosophy and religion intervene in the
same domain; the supra-reality. Hegel writes;
philosophy, therefore unfold itself when it unfolds religion, and in
unfolding itself, it unfold religion… thus, religion and philosophy is
itself, in fact, worship; it is religion, for in the same it renounces
subjective notions and opinion in order to occupy itself with God
(Hegel, 1970:145).
Despite the sharp differences, Hegel nevertheless declared that the object of
both disciplines-their contents, needs and interests are absolutely the same, with no
differences at all. In other words, both disciplines were seeking the Absolute Truth
of the Universe. Hegel calls this absolute idea “spirit” or “God”. In the same vein,
Aristotle argues in his Metaphysics that philosophy and religion have the same
object, the self in its inner form. The medieval philosophers (Aslem, Aquinas, and
Augustine) looked to establish truths about God and the Absolute, on the basis of
unaided reason, arguing that God can only be known through revelation. Modern
philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, and Locke have not given similar attention to
theological questions but affirm that some important truth about God can be
establish through philosophical inquiry.
Therefore, the relationship between philosophy and religion at this point of
intersection, though far from a well balance and mutually beneficial symbiosis
(Gregorio, 2017), is moving from conflict to dialogue, as they both move towards
the understanding of the truth or reality. Thus, when philosophy is in the form of
theology it acquires a right to reflect on the problems of religion. It immediately
brings with it an element of criticism – doubts, which is probably an integral part of
rational thinking. At the same time, religion categorically does not accept doubts in
a certain body of truths, fixed as dogmas. Hence, philosophy and religion serves as
dual way to reality and as such complementary. This is further demonstrated thus;

10
 Reality (Truth)

Religion Origin Philosophy

Fig. 1 Religion and philosophy as dual way to truth (Reality)

Thus, while religion finds its fullest expression in absolute surrender to the
object of its worship, the very existence of that object is the main theme of
philosophical disputation and the primary assurance of religion as the ultimate
question of philosophy. At this point, it is obvious that philosophy is about
questions that cannot be answered; while religion is about answers that cannot be
question.

Some Central Themes in Philosophy of Religion

The existence of God, the problem of evil, immortality of the soul, faith and
reason as well as religious language constitutes some of the central themes in
philosophy of religion discussed in this section.
1) Proving the existence of God: The prehistoric tribes manifested their
religious belief and conception of God through their worldviews and religio-
cultural practices, which serve as the lenses through which people conceive and
interpret reality. For example, God, for the Ogoni traditional religious people is
11
Kawaa-Bari (the Mother of Creation); for the Jews, it is Yahweh” for Christians, it
is the Triune God, for Muslims, it is Allah; for Hinduists, it is Shiva or Vishnu; for
Theravada Buddhist, it is Nirvana. However, there seems to be no gaps in the laws
of nature where God can feature considering the claims of some scientist that
everything can be explained by the process, regularities, and inter-relationships
described by physics, Chemistry and biology. Furthermore, the overbearing
influence of anthropomorphism in the God of religion is something that is
unacceptable to most philosophers; hence, many have tried to conceive an idea of
God that will be devoid of such influences like the God of religion. Consequently,
the early fathers of the church, who were mostly Neo-platonists, formed a
conception of God which is quite different from the religious deity.
(a) The Ontological Arguments: The root of the ontological arguments isfound
in Plato (427 – 347 B.C) and later in the writing, of St. Augustine (354-340 A.D).
Thus, St. Anslem (1033 – 1109) did not originally formulate the argument to prove
God‟s existence; rather he developed it in the context of his understanding to the
God in whom he already believed. According to Anslem in his Proslogion (1998);
“the fool who hath said in his heart, there is no God…” To him, God is the greatest
possible being “a being than which none greater can be achieved” Aslem further
write;
God cannot be conceived not to exist, God is that, than which
nothing greater can be conceived, that which can be conceived
not to exist (Anslem, 1998:81)

However, critiques of ontological argument begin with Gaunillo, a

contemporary of St. Anslem, who argues that one could prove the existence of all
sorts of unreal things, such as the greatest possible Island, merely by conceiving
them. In other words, Gaunillo produced a parody of the argument which attempted
to prove that a perfect Island–“an Island than which non greater can be conceived”-
must exist. Immanuel Kant (1974) asserts that one cannot legitimately think of
“existence” as a property that an entity may or may not have, or may have in
varying degrees. To him, the ontological arguments are ciliated assumptions that
“existence” is a predicate.

12
(b.) Cosmological Arguments: The historical roots of the cosmological
argument go back to the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, but it was fully
developed in the medieval period by Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), Samuel Clarke
(1675-1729), and Fredrick Copliston (1907-1994) and Sketch by Richard Taylor
(1919-2003). Some of the arguments raised by Thomas Aquinas include;
i) Argument on Motion: according to Thomas Aquinas in his Summa
Theological (1975) we witness things in motion. For something to move, it
must be moved by something else. That which moves things ether is moved
by another thing in motion or itself unmoved (in which case, an unmoved
mover exist)” In other words; it is certain and evident that whatever is
moved is moved by another, and the first unmoved mover is God.
ii) Argument on Efficient Causality: In the universe, we empirically noticed
that things are produced (caused by others). Nothing can be an efficient or
productive cause of itself; otherwise, it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Therefore, says Aquinas, it is necessary to admit a first efficient
cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The first cause is thus
God.
iii) Argument from Contingent and Necessary Being: Beings of our daily
experience come and go, begin and disappear. They are contingent and
ephemeral. What account for the existence of things that were merely
possible must be a reality that is itself outside of the possible. This reality is
a necessary being whose existence has a necessity that gives existence to all
other realities that have only possible or contingent existence. This
necessary cause of all contingent reality, itself uncaused, non-contingent,
and necessary is God.
By way of Criticism, empiricists like Hume and Kant reject the
cosmological proofs. They deny the progression into the transcendental, the
hormonal and the invisible world from the exponential one. They questioned the
motive of causality, as it is used to extend to the unknown world of God.
Causalities, Kant argues, applies only to the world of sense experience; beyond

13
experience we cannot venture. Hence, we cannot therefore, prove that God who is
outside our physical domain exist.

(c.) Moral Argument: The roots of the moral argument go back,

philosophically, to Plato‟s conviction that the source of all reality and truth must be
the “form of the God” and, religiously, to the biblical teaching that moral
obligations must be understood in terms of their connection to God‟s requirements
of us. Later development was from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who is today seen
as the founder and grated proponent of this proof.
Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason (1974) holds essentially that if moral
dictates are commands of conscience, there must be a commander to command
them. The commander is God. If there are laws, for example, natural laws, there
must be a law giver, God. In his book on Theodicy, he emphasizes religion within
the limits of reason alone, Kant conclusively argues to God‟s existence from the
idea of man‟s natural desire for different grades of goods up to his desire for the
highest good.
Critics of the moral argument access it of imposing God on humanity to
explain what could be socially, naturally and civilly explained. After all, they
conclude, the only objectivity in morals is its subjectivity and factual evolutions.
Humanity could as well be the authors of moral laws including the so call moral
absolutes.
(d) Teleological Arguments: Like the cosmological arguments, the
teleological argument finds its roots in classical Greece. Though, the arguments
from grades of perfection in things and design have been used in slightly different
ways by Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Leibniz. William
Paley‟s (1743-1805) presentation of the argument is particularly striking because he
based it on the analogy of a watch. Thus, its presentation in medieval times as the
fifth of Aquinas‟s “five ways” of proving God‟s existence.
William Paley in his Natural Theology (1964), asserts that in nature,
especially in living organisms, there is an ordering of means to an end. According

14
to him, how they are fixed, their various movements so coordinated as to produce
certain effects, we cannot but conclude that;
The watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at
some time, and at some place or order an artificer or artificers who
formed it (Paley, 1964:99-103).
In other words, things are so adopted and arranged that one sees the
handiwork of some primordial reality responsible for the order, end and purpose. At
the highest point of the biological world, is the human species. In him is also found
teleology that is a point of ultimacy. The perfection of human beings in the
depository of his/her intelligence, memory, and creativity, all combined to
announce the imperative existence of a perfect being that designed and worked out
these marvels of anthropology, personality and entire humanity, (National Open
University Handbook, 2008). Teleologically therefore, there is God who
purposefully designed these functions to all created reality to their ends.
Critics stress the facts that there are clear cases of disorder in the universe.
Examples include the earthquakes, desert, sea over-flooding, violent erosion etc.
Even at the rational and moral levels, evil and crimes are cases of disorder. If there
was a being that accounted for order, he would not be absolute indeed, for disorder
is evident as order, and thus did not order things enough.
From the above arguments, it is clear that the existence of God can neither
be proved nor be disproved. Thus, none of them can be judged to be a successful
proof or disproof of God‟s existence, and as such remains a matter of belief and not
of philosophical scientific demonstration.
(2) The Problem of Evil
Of all the themes in philosophy of religion, the problem of reconciling belief
in God with evil in the world; its origin, its justification, and its solution has
arguably commands more attention than any other in both philosophy and religion.

a) The logical problem of Evil: The logical problem of evil is an old one
expressed for different reasons in different contexts perhaps first by Epicurus, but
clearly expanded by, Lactantius, Marcion, Boethius, and Alvin Plantinga, and
Aquinas. The modern of this problem by John Mackie is also very similar to David

15
Hume‟s eighteen century version. J.L. Mackie claims that it is “positively
irrational” to affirm, on the one hand, that God exists, and is wholly good and
Omnipotent, and yet to admit, on the other, that evil exists (Mackie, 2008). Thus
making belief in God unreasonable (Hume, 2017). Mackie‟s formulation of the
problem looks like this;
1. God exists, is all good, all knowing and all powerful
2. Such being has no limit to its ability
3. A good being will always eliminate all the evil that it can
4. Evil exist, so God must not
The logical problem of evil is purely an apriori matter of finding out whether
God as conceived by orthodox theism is compatible with the concept of evil. If the
concept of God and evil are logically incompatible, then, if evil does in fact exist, it
follows that God does not exist
(b) Evidential Problem of Evil: The evidential problem admits that God and
the existence of evil are not logically incompatible, yet considers the amount or
kinds of evil in the world as probable evidence against the existence of God. This
approach argues that the large amount of unjustified evil (called surd, super flows,
pointless, gratuitous) mitigate against a plausible belief in God because we assume
God would not allow for the existence of evil that appears to have no good purpose.
The crux of these arguments has been put forth by William Rowe and Paul Draper
etc. The philosopher William Rowe states his argument as follows;
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient
being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or
permitting some evil equally bad or worse
2. An Omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any
intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing
some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. There does not exist an Omnipotent, Omniscient, wholly good being (Rowe,
2008).
In the same vein Draper looks at the biological and moral utility of pain and
pleasure, and argues that in each of these cases atheism provides a better
16
explanation than theism does (Draper, 2008). If God is all powerful He could create
sentient beings without biologically useful pain and pleasure. Because pain is
intrinsically bad and pleasure is intrinsically good, we expect that God would create
as little pain and as much pleasure as possible.
(c) The problem of Evil in World Religious Tradition:
In the Judaco-Christian Religious Traditions, Judaism does not have a single
unified theory about the origin of good and evil. While many ancient Jews seem to
have believed that evil originates from the first sin of Adam and Eve.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “you may freely eat
of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall
die… Behold, the man has become like us, knowing good and evil
(Genesis 2:16-17; 3:22).
This presupposes that the creation that was said to be “very good” apparently had
some element of evil. Some believe in the existence of supernatural evil. As in the
Judeo-Christian religion again explain evil as instrument of punishment in the hand
of God. Infact from Genesis to Revelation, it is clear that suffering and evil is used
by God as punishment for sin. Isaiah has declared;
Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat
the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him,
for what his hands have done shall be done to him (Isaiah, 3:10-11).
Sometimes, God uses others to bring punishment on sinners. He used the
Assyrians, Babylonians, Philistines, Persians Greeks, Romans and other nations to
punish Israel, at different times, and Israel were taken into exile. Another disturbing
fact about evil is that it is sometimes regarded as a test of faith, like in the case of
job, and also an instrument of discipline (Dopamu, 2000). In this case, it is taken as
corrective or reformatory. However, though God has allowed evil to exist, the
Judeo-Christian religion do not appear to make God directly responsible for evil.
Islam is in agreement with the Biblical religions (Judeo-Christian Religion),
both in its historical roots and in the fact that it embodies a theistic worldview that
God created the universe and everything in it (Sura, 46:2). Yet, the Qur‟an speaks
of evil existing in the perfect creation of Allah. The Qur‟an does not take evil as an
illusion but as a reality, and it warns against evil. It says that the gates of evil are
17
many (Sura 15:43-44), that evil will exchange for the wrong-doers (Sura 18:50),
that we should repel evil with that which is best (Surah 23:96), and that evil and
mischief may spread (Sura 30:41). However, like the Judeo-Christian religion,
Islam does not hold Allah responsible for evil. Misfortune, suffering, ills of life,
evil, and calamity are due to ill-deeds of human beings. The Qur‟an is apt to point
out in many places;
Whatever misfortune (that) happens to you, is because of the things
your hands have wrought, and for many (of them) He grants
forgiveness… is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made
alluring, so that he looks upon it as good … for God leaves to stray
whom He wills, and guides whom he wills. So let not thy soul go out
in (vain) signing after them; for God knows well all that do (Sura 35:
8; 42:30).
In the Eastern Religious Traditions evil is seen as the consequence of an
inconsistent dualism (Zoroastrianism); it is an eternal affliction and an
unquestionable attribute of physical Karma (Jainism); it is a result of clinging to the
impermanent, and as such a conceptual mistake (Buddhism); it is ultimately an
illusion they succumb to by a habit of forgetfulness. Thus, a drastic aspect of their
existence (Hinduism), and finally evil as an imbalance (Chinese thought).
Beyond the colonial garb and missionary coloration, the idea and concept of
an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God seems to be lacking in the
African Traditional Religion. For example, the Yoruba, God (Oldumare), and the
Igbo God (Chineke), the Ogoni God (Kawaa-Bari) and the Ikwerre God (Chiokike)
all differs from each other, and as such, none is referred to as Omniscient,
Omnipotent and Omnipresent in the whole world or Africa in particular. Thus, they
all have their territorial or Jurisdiction of operation. Consequently, this has put the
notion of an All-good God in Africa to doubt. Among the Ogoni indigenous people,
the motif of evil and human suffering are found in their myths, folklores or oral
traditional beliefs and literature. This shows that Ogoni-African people are also
concerned with the perennial problem of evil. Deezia writes;
Unlike the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religious traditions that
traced the sources/causes of evil and human suffering to a „mono-
demonic‟ factor, the Ogoni (Africans) trace to the sources/causes of
evil to a „multi-causal factor… evil and human suffering does not

18
 emanates from one source, while there are supernatural causations,
evil could also be traced to predestination and human destiny,
malicious spirit and mystical causation as well as human
responsibilities and free will (Deezia, 2018b:81).
However, none of the various philosophical and religious explanations of evil given
above is satisfactory. It is therefore observed that the problem of evil is the product
of an anthropomorphic conception of God

(3) Immortality of the Soul

What happens to the human life after death is another subject area that has
not escaped the full glare and critical inquiry of the philosopher. The major world
religions have their theological postulations, or rather beliefs, about what happens
when man dies. There is the view in the west that that the mind alone is enough to
guarantee one‟s personal identity in the afterlife, the body is not required
(Sweetman, 2007). The second western view is that the body would be resurrected
and, will eventually be re-united with the non-physical mind. In the east there is the
belief in reincarnation. Reincarnation involves a belief in dualism, because it holds
that the mind or soul survives bodily death, and is then reincarnated in another
body. This process can go on over several generations, before the soul eventually
escapes the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (Sweetman, 2007). When this happens,
according to Hindu belief, the soul attains salvation or nirvana. The individual soul
(atman) at this point then unites with the universal soul (Brahmatman) in an
undivided and unseparated unity.
In African traditional religion and philosophy, death is conceived as a
departure and not a complete annihilation of a person (Mbiti, 1969). The individual
moves on to join the company of the departed and the only major change is the
decay of the physical body, but the spirit moves on to another state of existence.
For the majority of African peoples, the hereafter is only a continuation of life more
or less as it is in its human form. This means that personalities are retained, social
and political statuses are maintained, sex distinction is contained, human activities
are reproduced in the hereafter; wealth or poverty of the individual remains
unchanged and in many ways, the hereafter is a carbon copy of the present life
(Mbiti, 1969). Also in African belief, the individual becomes an ancestor if he died
19
a good death and was accorded good burial rites. Mbiti calls the ancestors the
living-dead. Though, the ancestors are dead physically, they are alive spiritually
and are still regarded as part of the family. It is also reported among many African
societies that the soul of the dead can reincarnate in a new born child or even in an
animal depending on the person‟s Kharmicdebts.
Reincarnation is a phenomenon wherein a deceased member of the family is
reborn in a child. There could be partial reincarnation in which case only some
human features or characteristics of the living-dead are said to be re-born in some
children (Mbiti, 1969). However, the living-dead continues his separate existence
in the world of spirits. Awolalu and Dopamu (1979) lend credence to the bodily
existence of the soul in the world of spirits when they maintained that if a person
dies and the family does not accord the person full burial rites, he is a homeless
wanderer since he has not been given a permanent place in the spirit world. They
also maintain that those who are good but die young through an accident or human
evil machinations may change places by living away from their home until they get
old again and die.
Attempts to find the birth place for the belief in the immortality of the soul
are still in the realms of conjectures. However, some have suggested that the belief
originated from the fact that the primordial people saw the dead in their dreams as
living beings and so thought that the dead are alive somewhere. The concern of
philosophers of religion is whether or not this belief is true, rational or verifiable or
if actually the body possesses a soul which is capable of living outside the body?
Some philosophers believe that the human body has a soul. Others contend that the
human life is composed only of atoms which dissolve with the body at death. Plato
is one of the philosophers who believed that the body possessed a soul and this soul
is immortal. In his view, the soul is something divine, immaterial, spiritual or
immortal. According to him, the soul, pre-existed without a body and will continue
to exist after its separation from the body at death. Plato further posited that the
soul is the principle of life and so cannot admit death. But Augustine, though
argues in support of the thesis that the human life has a soul, rejects Plato‟s idea

20
that the soul is the principle of life. For him, God is the principle of life and the soul
participates in that principle.
Plotinus is another philosopher who gave a unique explanation of the soul.
He was the last of the major Greek philosophers who revived the doctrine of Plato.
His philosophy contains elements of phythagorianism, orphism, Platonism,
Aristotelianism, Stoicism and the philosophy of Heraclitus, all blended into one
system with some original elements of his own (Ekpo, 2014). His philosophy
begins with the doctrine of the One. The one is absolutely incomprehensible, and
transcendent, immortal, immutable, and is absolute goodness. After the One, there
is another being known as Nous (Mind) which proceeds from the one as a matter of
necessity. The Nous (mind) is also rational, close to the One and is like the image
of the one. It is the mirror through which the Nous sees itself. The third divine
being (the soul) emanated from the mind. It is of two kinds, namely; the higher and
the lower (inner and outer). The inner soul is closer to the mind and turns towards
the mind. The material universe emanated from the lower soul and Plotinus calls
this nature. The individual-human soul emanated from the world-soul and
possesses two elements, the higher and the lower element. This is in direct contact
with the body. According to Plotinus, the human soul pre-existed before its union
with the body. The goal of the soul is the ecstatic union with the One and this can
be attained through the process of purification which consists in the practice of
asceticism, virtue, study and contemplation (Ekpo, 2014). In the same vein,
Omoregbe (2011) opines that the mind or soul is an immaterial substance, the
subject of the psychological experiences of perception, thinking or consciousness.
Ockham criticizes the traditional argument which believes in the
immateriality of the soul. For him the soul is not a spiritual substance and it cannot
be shown by argument or by experience. He contends that the soul is capable of
intellectual operations but that this does not make it a spiritual substance. He
postulates two other souls in addition to the intellectual soul in man. They are the
form of corporeality and the sensitive form (Omoregbe, 2011). Aristotle denies the
immortality of the soul by his conception of man. Man, according to him, is a
unified composite of body and soul, none of which can exist separately without the
21
other (Omoregbe, 2011). This union is substantial and not accidental. He maintains
that man is made of matter and form. The body is made of matter while the soul is
made of form and these two elements are mutually dependent. However, in his De
Anima, it seems he believed in the existence of a cosmic soul. He speaks of the
active intellect which is a kind of the cosmic Divine intellect, distinct from the
passive intellect of the individual man. He describes the active intellect as eternal
and immortal. For Epicurus (341-270B.C) since the soul is a material substance it
dissolves at death and perishes with the body. Death, according to Epicurus is the
end of sensation and life. He said: So death, the most terrifying of all ills is nothing
to us, since so long as we exist death is not with us; but when death comes then we
do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead since for the
former, it is not, and the later are no more. This is why their popular slogan was,
“Non fui fui,non sum, non curo.” That is, “I was not, I was, I am not, I care not”
(Orji, 2019). In the same vein, David Hume‟s epiphenomenalistic conception of
man implies a denial of immortality. He denies that there is any entity in man called
soul. He holds that we cannot perceive the soul nor do we perceive that our
psychological experiences come from a common subject whether material or
immaterial. But according to Omoregbe (2011), Hume does not seem to realize that
the idea of a series of perceptions without a subject is in itself unintelligible.
Further, Bertrand Russell explicitly denies the possibility of life after death. He also
denies the reality of the soul as a substance distinct from the body organs and
which could be contrasted with the body. He said the continuity of a human body is
a matter of appearance and behavior, not of substance. But Sweetman (2007) has
debunked the idea that man is completely material. He contends that if experiences
such as telepathy, near death experience, extra sensory perception, etc., do occur,
then, it pokes the materialist‟s view that the soul is physical. Some of these
experiences involve going out of one‟s body as in mysticism to be yoked with the
divine. It seems no arguments can prove substantially whether the soul is immortal
or not or whether there is life after death or not. However, the arguments advanced
in favour of the immortality of the soul can strengthen the faith of those who
believe in the immortality of the soul. But suffice it to know that belief in the
22
immortality of the soul can compensate for a life of ill-requited toil because of the
hope of a better and ethereal existence after here or of having a loved one
reincarnate. It can serve as a cudgel for a drooping soul and a balm for the pain of
losing a loved one.
(4.) Faith and Reason
The relationship between faith and reason is a controversial theme in many
philosophical discourses. To some philosophers and theologians faith and reason
are not antithetical to each other while to others, there is a sharp line of demarcation
between them. This later view is espoused by Peterson et al (2013) when they
opined that the relationship between faith and reason has seldom been tranquil or
peaceful; conflict and controversy appear at every turn. Their relationship is that of
mutual rejection and hostility. In the same vein, the early Christian writer,
Tertullian (160-220) once said, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Athens,
here, means Greek philosophy and Jerusalem, no doubt, refers to the Christian
church. The implication is that philosophy or reason has nothing to do with faith.
Some of these controversies arise from an incorrect definition of both terms.
Paul, who for instance, wrote to the Colossian Christians, “To see that no man
makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit”(Colossians 2:8) used rational
arguments to present his messages most of the time. But a close look at the text
seems to portray a meaning different from what it is thought to be. Maybe, Paul
warned them against worldly wisdom which is the product of human conceit which
shuts itself up against truth rather than outright rejection of reason. Also, Tertullian
who said Athens has nothing to do with Jerusalem was a trained philosophy and
made use of philosophical arguments in his defense of Christian doctrines. The
medieval philosopher, St. Anselm, posited that his motive in probing the rationality
of religious belief was fides quaerensintellectum, that is, “faith seeking
understanding.” This is actually the motto of the scholastics who saw philosophy as
the handmaid of theology which can be used to explain and interpret theological
assertions and doctrines. Orji (2019) cites the argument which ensued between
Rutherford and John Wesley. Rutherford, according to Orji “All who become
Methodists must renounce their reason.” But John Wesley retorted, “How can you
23
utter so gross an untruth. It is a fundamental principle with us that to renounce
reason is to renounce religion; that religion and reason go hand in hand and that
irrational religion is false religion.” It seems, therefore, that the problem between
faith and reason is not whether or not reason has any place in religion, as the
preceding argument supposes, but what kind of place reason does and should have
in religion. The controversial question should be, thus: What role (if any) should
reason play in the validation or invalidation of religious belief systems? Or as
Michael opined, granted that we may have to make use of reason in understanding
the faith, is it also true, in any sense, that having faith at all depends (or should
depend) on having good reasons to believe that one‟s faith is true? (Peterson, et al
2013). Here lies the real problem of faith and reason.
Some approaches have been adopted to examine the relationship between
reason and faith. One of them is strong rationalism. Strong rationalism is a
philosophical position which holds that for a religious belief system to be properly
and rationally accepted, it must be possible to prove that the belief system is true.
Rationalism is used here in contrast to irrationalism. The central idea of strong
rationalism was forcefully set up by W. K. Clifford (1845-1879) who contended
that it is wrong for any person to believe anything without sufficient evidence.
Again that any belief held upon insufficient evidence is reprehensible. One major
problem with such a position is that not everybody has the time to go into rigorous
proofs and argument before he can believe. To this objection, Clifford replies that if
anyone has no time to question, then he should have no time to believe. Another
problem of strong rationalism derives from the fact that no religious belief is
capable of meeting the high standard of proof that should govern all believing in
the way Clifford expects it. The implication is that all religious beliefs would be
thrown away. The third problem is that there are different worldviews, that is,
different ways of conceiving realities. The scientific approach is one. Others are the
rationalistic approach, the naturalistic approach, the religious approach and so on.
Another approach to faith and reason is called fideism. This is the view that
religious belief systems are not subject to rational investigations and evaluation.
This view maintains that we believe and accept, for instance, that God exists,
24
without attempting to know whether it is rationally true or not. It is faith which
involves commitment, trusts, risk, etc. without proofs. This method of approaching
religious belief is also faulty because it gives no room for understanding and may
lead to crippling irrationalism. We think faith needs some understanding though not
in the same light as the scholastics whose underlying philosophy is “credo
utintellegam.” That is, “I believe to understand.” It is possible that reason can lead
to faith and vice versa.
The third approach is called critical rationalism. This approach recommends
rational evaluation of religious beliefs but warns against being over confident and
overoptimistic about the conclusions of one‟s investigation. It holds that reason can
play roles in evaluating religious beliefs but does not arrogate infallibility to reason.
Reason and faith can be engaged meaningfully to validate religious beliefs. Reason
can strengthen faith and faith can lead to rational inquiry. But caution must be
applied and we think that Blaise Paschal has already given clues to the application
of this caution. According to Blaise Paschal as cited in Wotogbe-Weneka (2012),
“If one subjects everything to reason, our religion will lose its mystery and its
supernatural character. If one offends the principle of reason, our religion will be
absurd and ridiculous.” This is the approach that this study deems fit in evaluating
the relationship between reason and religious belief. It upholds the notion that the
heart knows reason which reason itself does not know.
(4) Religious Language
Another area of thought that has drawn the attention of philosophers is the
meaning and use of religious language. For instance, when a religious person talks
of worshipping God he presupposes that there is God and that this God deserves
worship or when he says that he saw a cancer patient cured after prayers were
offered for him. The second part of the assertion makes some claims which
uncritical minds may overlook; that is, that the supernatural exists, and has the
power do what human beings or rather, medical science cannot do. Further, when a
religious person talks of the love of God, the philosopher wants to understand what
he means by this. He would want to know if the term is used in the same way as a
father loves his children. Or does he mean something else? Sometimes, the
25
religious talk of God who is personal but not a person. The philosopher would want
to know what he means. This has been the preoccupation of some philosophers for
over a century now. There are different perspectives to the problem of religious
language.
Immanuel Kant opines that human language cannot express ineffable things.
In his view, the categories of human understanding, that is, the a priori concepts of
human knowledge can only be meaningfully employed within the scope of sense
experience or the phenomenal world. That is, human language is derived from
human experience and can only communicate such experience. To employ such
language to communicate realities in the nouminal world (that is, realities outside
the phenomenal/physical world), according to Kant, would only communicate
illusion and not knowledge. The logical positivists (the Vienna circle) emphasize
verifiability in their approach to religious language. Therefore, any proposition
that is verifiable is meaningful whereas any proposition that is unverifiable is
meaningless (Omoregbe, 2011). This is why A.J. Ayer in his Language, Truth and
Logic (1946), maintains that the propositions about God are meaningless because
they cannot be verified. He opines that to say that God exists is to make
metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false and that no sentence
which purports to describe the nature of the transcendent God can possess any
literal significance. By this, Ayer neither supports the theistic nor the atheistic
position about God. But that all utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical.
This is why the logical positivists recommend the language of science, which to
them, is precise, logical, verifiable and universal.
In the same vein, Anthony Flew argues that propositions about God are
pseudo propositions which say nothing. Any assertion, he contends, must be
capable of being negated by another assertion which the assertion itself denies. In
his words “If there is nothing which a putative assertion denies then there is nothing
which it asserts either and it is not really an assertion” (Flew, 1955). This is,
perhaps, a reaction to the view of some medieval philosophers that when we say
God loves man, is kind and merciful, that it is not in the exact sense that we use it
for human beings. But Aquinas refused the above submission and charted a
26
different course by employing the doctrine of analogy. For him, when we say God
loves mankind, the word love is not predicated of God in exactly the same way it is
predicated of human beings (Omoregbe, 2011). This is known as univocal
prediction. But God‟s love, according to Aquinas, is not totally different from
man‟s love. Thus, the word, “love” is not predicated of God in a way that is totally
different from the way it is predicated of human beings. This is known as equivocal
predication. This implies that God‟s love is not exactly the same as man‟s love and
not at the same time totally different from man‟s love. Aquinas rejects both
univocal predication and equivocal predication and sues for analogical predication.
This analogical predication derives from the similarities and differences between
God and man. In other words, man‟s love is used as an analogy of God‟s love. The
problem understanding this predication is that as human beings we may know what
human beings are like but we do not know what God is like. To this problem,
Aquinas refers to the Bible as containing the characteristic nature of God. But this
creates another difficulty. What about those who do not believe in the Bible or lay
credence to any holy book? How would they come to an understanding of the
characteristics of God?
It would be preposterous to assume that religious propositions are
meaningless because they do not pass the crucible of verifiability. In the first place,
every discipline has its language register. In other words, there are discipline -
bound lexicons and they only make sense, and in fact, are only understood within
the discipline involved. That is, their meanings are sought in the context in which
they are used. So to use the language of science to assess the truth claims of
religious assertions is to suggest that scientific language is the ideal language
structure. But this, no doubt, is not true. However, the quest for understanding
religious language continues.

Conclusion
The central thrust of this paper is the attention it has drawn to the fulsome
engagement with religion as a phenomenon worthy of philosophical reflections,
thus, the consideration of some central themes in philosophy of religion. In popular
perception, religion and philosophy are seen as two distinct realities, which in many
27
respects seem to be paradoxical to each other. Despite the apparent differences
between religion and philosophical approaches, they have many commonalities that
can enrich the human quest if they were to operate as a collective platform and
adopt a collaborative pattern of action. In other words, religion and philosophy
form two sides of the same human quest for ultimate truth. As every human being
aspires to seek the truth and to realize it in the best way possible, religion and
philosophy continue to play their own roles in the process, and as such will do good
to humanity, if they consciously adopts a complementary approach in their search
for truth.
Philosophy of religion can actually play a role in the contemporary world in
so far as it remains philosophy (Bubbio and Quadrio; 2011). This implies that
philosophy of religion can speak every religious language insofar as it speaks a
philosophical language, maintaining non apologetic and dogmatic atheist
standpoint. This does not mean that it must necessarily be neutral, but that its
outcome should be the result of a philosophical analysis that takes its objects
seriously.

References
Anslem (1998).“Proslogion”, in William L.R. & William, J.W. (eds), Philosophy of
religion: Selected readings 3rdedn. New york: Oxford University Press
Aquinas, T. (1975) Summa Theological I., Q. 2, A. 3; On the truth of the catholic
faith, Notre-Dame: University of Nortre Dame
Awolalu, J. D. Dopamu, P.A. (1979). West African traditional religion. Ibadan:
Onibonoge Press and Book Industries (Nig.) Limited.
Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, truth and logic. New York: Dover Publications.
Bubbio, P. D. & Quadrio, P.A. (2011).The relationship of Philosophy to religion
today. New Casttle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Cline, A, (2020).The similarities between religion and philosophy. Retrieved from
https:///www.learnreligions.com/religion-vs-philosophy-250711 accessed
6/6/2020.
Deezia, B. S. (2017). Asceticism: A match towards absolute, IAFOR Journal of
Ethics, Religion and Philosophy, Vol. 3, issue 2 pp.85-98

28
Deezia, B. S. (2018a). A philosophical inquiry into the nature of God and human
suffering: The Ogoni religious experience. M.A. Thesis, Department of
Religious and Cultural Studies, University of Port Harcourt
Deezia, B. S. (2018b). “Evil and Human suffering in Ogoni Traditional Philosophy:
Towards the multi-causal factor analysis”. Research and Analysis Journal
1(3) 70-82
Dopamu, A.A. (2008) Esu-The invisible foe of man: A comparative study of Satan
in Christianity, Islam and Yoruba Religion. Ilorin: Shebiotimo Publication
Droper, P. (2008) “Pain and pleasure: An evidential problem for theism” In D.
Howard-Snyder (ed) The evidential argument from evil, Boomington:
Indiana University Press
Ekpo, J. (2014). Introductory studies in philosophy and nature. Uyo: Ventures and
publishers limited.
Evans C. S & Maris, R. Z. (2009). Philosophy of religion; Thinking about faith,
USA, University Press
Flew, A. (1955).Theology and verifications. In Anthony Flew, A Maclntyre (eds.).
New Essays in Philosophical Theology. SCM Press: London.\
Gregorio, R.S. (2017). Philosophy and its relation to religion and Arts. Special
edition. Kazan Federal University
Hegel, G.W.F. (1970). On art, religion, philosophy, J. Glenn Gray (ed). New York:
Harper and Row
Hume, D. (2017). “Evil makes belief in God Unreasonable”in L.M. Peterson (ed)
The problem of evil, USA; University of Nortre Dame Press
Iheoma, E.O. (1997). The philosophy of religious education: An introduction.
Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers
Jasper, K. (1967). “Philosophy and religion” in Alexander Bambassis (ed), Human
experience and its problems. Belmont, California: Wadswoth.
Kant, E. (1974). Critique of pure reason, New York: Everyman‟s Edition,
paperback
Lawhead, W.F. (2015). The voyage of discovery: A historical introduction to
philosophy (4thedn), USA: Cengage Advantage Books
Mackie, J.L. (2008). “Evil and Omnipotence” in P.P. Louis and R, Michael (ed)
Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, BenmontCalif: Thompson Wards
worth.
Mbiti, J.S. (1969). African religions and philosophy. Ibadan: Heinemann
Educational books (Nigeria).
29
National Open University Handbook (2008).(TH233) Philosophy of Religion.
Lagos; National Open University Press
Okon, E.E. (2012). Foundations of philosophy of religion.Calabar: University of
Calabar Press
Olukunle, O.A. (1987). Philosophy, ethics and national development in Nigeria:
The people and their heritage, J.U. Obot (ed) Calabar: Wusen
Omeregbe, J. (1990) Knowing philosophy: A general introduction Lagos: Joja
Omeregbe, J.I. (193). A philosophical look at religion. Lagos: Joja Press limited
Omoregbe, J. (2011). A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and
Medieval Philosophy Vol.1. Ikeja: Joja Press limited.
Omoregbe, J. (2011). Metaphysics Without Tears. Ikeja: Joja Press Limited.
Orji, B.N. (2019). Emmanuel ChinedumNyeche of St. Andrew’s (Ang.) Church,
Omunwei-Omuma’s Evangelistic strides: A Historico-Philosophical
Appraisal. Archbishop Print: Port Harcourt.
Paley, W. (1986).Natural theology Charlottesville, Va:Ibis
Peterson, M. Hasker, W.; Reichenbach, B. &Basinger, D. (2013).Reason and
religious belief: An introduction to philosophy of religion (5thedn) Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Popkin, R. & Stroll, A. (2007).Philosophy made simple(4thedn). Oxford Else Vier
Ltd.
Quinton, A. (1995). The oxford companion to philosophy, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Rowe, W.L. (2008). The problem of evil and some varieties of Atheism” in D.
Howard-Snyder (ed), The evidential argument from evil, Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Smith, W. C. (1964). The meaning and end of religion, Mentor Books
Sweetman, B. (2007). Religion: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New York: MPA
Books Limited.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1975).Philosophy of Religion, ed. 15, pp 529-
603
Uduigwomen, A. F. (1987). “Philosophy, ethics and national development,” in
Obot (ed) Nigeria: The people and their culture, Calabar: Wusen Press.
Wotogbe-Weneka, W.O. (2010) (ed) Themes in comparative religion, Port
Harcourt: Stepson Printing Press.

30
 Wotogbe-Weneka, W.O. (2012). Religion: Modern Denigrators and Rehabilitators
in National Development. An Inaugural lecture series No 98, University of
Port Harcourt, University of Port Harcourt Press

31

View publication stats