Religion (or faith) and philosophy are often compared and contrasted. Theologians and religious apologists typically come down on the side of religion and faith while philosophers typically come down on the side of philosophy ? is anyone surprised.

• Philosophy has no end in view save truth; faith looks for nothing but obedience and piety.
  - Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670)

Spinoza, here, promotes philosophy over faith ? perhaps one of many reasons why he has been accused of atheism over the many years.

Are his characterizations here accurate? In some ways they are and in some ways they are not. I would not characterize philosophy as a quest for ?truth? but, rather, ?understanding.? Those are not concepts which are opposed to each other, but they are a different way of looking at things and I think that the latter is a better approximation for what philosophy entails. Philosophy is not so much an attempt to arrive at ?truths? like mathematics or physics, but an ?understanding? of the world around us. Naturally the more ?truths? we arrive at the better our understanding, but even without perfect truth we can understand more and better.

Unfortunately for religious believers, I think that the characterization of faith here is accurate. In nearly all religious systems, there is a regular and consistent emphasis on the necessity of both obedience and piety. In terms of obedience, believers are exhorted to be submissive and obedient to God or gods, to religious authorities, and even to other family members who are somehow granted authority and dominion over one another.

In terms of piety, believers are certainly expected to demonstrate the necessary devotion to God, to gods, to saints, and to whomever else they are told to show devotion to (remembering, of course, to be obedient in this matter as well as all others).

Interestingly, not all would argue that these are bad things. It would certainly be an uncharacteristic and surprising move for, say, a Dominican monk to argue that obedience and piety are not primary values in his life. It?s not necessarily bad to emphasize obedience and piety; the real problem lies in the idea, expressed here by Spinoza, that one?s religious faith ultimately values nothing else (or at least, nothing nearly so great as them).

Is it too extreme to say that religious faith looks for nothing other than obedience and piety? I?m not so sure. Perhaps the most important reason for thinking that Spinoza is accurate here is that faith itself must rely upon either obedience (because one obeys the expectation to believe what they are told and to have faith that it is true), piety (because one is devoted to God and has faith not only that God exists, but that God is good as well), or both. If religious faith had any other basis ? like logic or empirical evidence ? then it wouldn?t be the sort of faith described so eloquently by Paul.

It is true that believers might argue that their religious faith seeks other things, like helping fellow human beings and understanding God ? but there is problem here. Both of those goals are themselves dependent upon the values of obedience and piety. Thus, it seems arguable that whatever other values might be promoted by their religious faith, obedience and piety are promoted first and foremost. Everything else one might name only follows from them.

Little to none of this can be found in philosophy. Granted, ?cults of personality? can develop in which students become excessively submissive so the pronouncements of a teacher ? sometimes leading to almost fanatical devotion to what that teacher writes. This, however, is an aberration which most in the field would reject. Ideally, philosophy knows no ?sacred cows? and is not inclined to any sort of devotion to anything save the desire to better understand the world around us.

Given an option between philosophy and religious faith, I find it easier to prefer the former over the latter.