In Socrates' exchanges of dialogues with Protagoras, Protagoras says that he is trying to teach people to be ethical citizens by teaching them to be "good". Socrates decides to bring up the topic of religion, which was mentioned as a qualification to be "good". Both Socrates and Protagoras agree that "being good is a single quality, and the things you're asking are parts of it" (329a), much in the same way parts of the face make up the whole face. Many traits make up that face, one of which is religion: "So that means no other part of being good is like knowledge, and no other part is like respect for what's right, and no other part is like bravery, and no other part is like being sensible, and no other part is like being religious?" (330b). Socrates brought up religion to clarify whether or not righteousness and religiousness are the same thing, or in a broader meaning if all the characteristics of "good" are not related in some way. But let's focus on the religious part for a second. Socrates and Protagoras agree than being religious is a way to become good. I realize this is not a religious philosophy class, but certain questions come to mind. My main question is: Does a person need to be religious in order to be a good person? And maybe in a broader sense, and in relation to earlier posts on religious interpretation of the soul vs. Socratic interpretation of the soul: Does Philosophy and Religion have to necessarily be at odds with one another? Does one need to be mutually exclusive from the other?
Let's tackle the first question: Do you need to be religious to be a good person? No, but it helps. I think we can agree that a person does not have to believe in a religion in order to become a good person within a society. It is not a requirement within the framework of modern societal norms. But it doesn't hurt to believe either. Religion teaches good moral and ethical values, something that Protagoras and Socrates recognized in their dialogue. Being religious is synonymous with being good, according to the Socrates: "...I'd say that doing what's right is required by religion, and that being religious is something right". (331b) There are exceptions, as history will provide us with many examples of religion being used as a way to control people and promote violence, but I think Socrates would agree that this wouldn't be right and therefore could not be religion.
On to the last two questions: Does Philosophy and Religion have to be at odds with one another? Does one need to be mutually exclusive from another? I have unfortunately found a certain amount of hostility when religion is brought up in a debate. It is often used by those who supposedly "know better" as a bludgeon against people of faith, as if the philosophical writings of one person are superior to and disprove the theory of religion. This is very unfortunate considering Socrates acknowledges the importance of religion in a society. It provides people with a standard set of ethics necessary to become good people within the society, the exact topic Socrates is discussing with Protagoras. Obviously Socrates doesn't think they are mutually exclusive but rather entwined with one another, and are in fact different words for the same thing. One could argue that religious texts such as the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita etc. are at the very least some of the greatest philosophical works ever composed by man, all of which strive to provide the reader with the knowledge of how to lead a moral and ethical life. It would be foolish to disregard these works from philosophical thought because they are actually answers to Socrates' questions about what it means to be "good".
