Religion and Philosphy

dear cdenplz1, could you be as specific as possible about what you are asking. These are very complex ideas. The relationship of philosophy and religion is deeply interwoven historically - but the occurance of scientific method has allowed philosophy to address questions first raised by religious speculation in scientific terms. Withoput a more definitive question this is the best i can do for you - good luck with your studies. iconoclast.

I am a naturalist/skeptic/rationalist-agnostic/ignostic/strong atheist.Albeit a schizotypal, I objurate all the supernatural and the paranormal.I am an atheologian- posts in so many sites for atheism. I see philosophy as a foil to combat religion. [As Huxley defined agnosticism, it is just another term for rationalism- a method.Ignosticism denies that God means anything.]

cdenlpz1,

I would say they cannot exist together,philosophy deals with reason,religion with faith.Religion I would say is interested in creating meaning where none can be found.Philosophy ideally is interested in truth,they in no way compliment one another,in fact faith is oppossed to reason and as Martin Luther stated, reason is the enemy of faith.I would say also that religion is emotional,philosophy intellectual.Cdenlpz1,this topic will be moved I am afraid,this is the area for introductions,it is an excellent post,just needs to be relocated,Justin or Pythagorian will likely be in touch.

This is a very interesting question which certainly brings up many perspectives and points of view to seriously consider. I'd like to begin by saying that I am not an expert in the field of philosophy, nor theology, as I am still very much a philosophy, and to a lesser extent, theology, student, learning new ways and engaging new ideas everyday.

In order to get a better understanding of the question at hand, in my view, let's first consider the literal definition of the word "philosophy".

In Greek, where philosophy originated, the term means "The love of wisdom". This can also be translated to mean "love of knowledge" or "in search of truth". Keeping this in mind, philosophy can and does cover every topic imaginable including religion and theology. We can have a philosophy of anything from "The philosophy of ice cubes" to "The philosophy of ultimate reality". Therefore I ask "can we not have a philosophy of religion and theology?" If we are truly seeking truth, even in religion, I believe the two can and does co-exist. I do agree that religion, for the most part, as one post clearly states, is based upon "faith", "feelings", "emotions" and I'd like to add the "unknown". Philosophy, on the other hand does in fact deal with logic and right reasoning, contrasting the above referenced basic theological views and perspectives, but religion, too, same as philosophy, deals with the "unknown", hence the definition of "faith" as it relates to religious beliefs.

Another way of looking at this is to consider philosophy's sub-category "Value-Theory" which, of course, deals with what one places great value. These values often include cultural as well as religious beliefs. In this sense philosophy and religion, although not identical, are in a way one in the same.

Most philosophers consider the core philosophical quest which has to do with the "one" and the "many". The "one" is considered and believed to be the very "one", for lack or a better term, "thing" that the universe centers itself. There is nothing more once you reach, find and discover the "one". The "many" is everything else in existence, even virtual, that revolves around and supports the "one".

Although this is only a philosophical theory at present, some philosophers believe the "one" is indeed God, while others believe the "one" to be water (think about this before you discard it. Water is needed for all life forms as we know it. Without water, life, as we know it, would cease to exist. Hence "many", in fact, revolves around water).

To put it another way, consider that we can always ask a question relating to any topic and, hopefully, we'll get a satisfactory answer. As long as we are asking questions, we are really exploring the "many", meaning everything other than the "one" although our quest is to eventually reach and discover the "one". Once we reach the point where we can no longer break it down and ask any further questions, this, theoretically, is when we have found the "one". No further questions can be asked nor are they needed.

Now if we find that, indeed, the "one" is God, or perhaps gods, this brings us back to the theology question. If God exist, and if God is the "one", then we have to accept the idea that theology or religion and philosophy go hand-in-hand and cannot be totally separated.

I welcome anyone's comments, especially from the atheist and agnostics, regarding this philosophical theory and cognitive hypotheses.

J. Mark Tillery
Florida, USA

JMTillery,

It has been said that religion and philosophy are both preparations for death but where philosophy tends to define itself in terms of a quest for knowledge, love of wisdom and all that. religion claims to have knowledge in the absolute, knowledge of first cause, the prime mover ect.., well still maintaining that it is through faith they have this absolute knowledge, irrational but there you go. It is a little like the difference between swimming and that of treading water, treading water is dogma, swimming is curiousity.

Once again welcome to the forum, your off to a great start!

Boagie,

First I'd like to thank you for reading my post and considering my point of view while at the same time I welcome your differing perspective.

You bring up a very good point that is definitely worth consideration. I never really thought of comparing and constrasting religion and philosophy in the way you described, until now. I would difinitely welcome any further comments from you regarding this very issue. Would you care to further expound upon your original constrast - comparison?

I look forward to reading your reply.

Thank you!

Mark

Great thread and excellent question. Although he sort of introduced himself, the heading is on topic and it's starting to become a good discussion under the correct location.

What difference does it make?
Really think about that question? While it's a valid question from a classroom point of view, it really makes no difference because we are living with both Philosophy and Religion. There's long been disagreements between philosophy and religion and I've come to the conclusion that Religion is just a Philosophy and philosophy exist in all of mankind. One doesn't have to be a philosopher to think, desire, know and create.
Philosophy is seen as a study of written works, when it's really a resurrection and step in spiritual unfolding. Philosophy to some can be considered the result or effect of prudent study or to others Philosophy is the desire to unfold spiritually and discover the peace-of-mind and contentment of knowing and creating rather than registering information to later recall and repeat.

Both Religion and Philosophy are the product of two different schools of thought. One thinks outward and the other thinks inward. One thinks with the brain and his body and the other thinks with his mind and spirit? the rest are somewhere in between.

Thinkers
There are really two types of thinkers in this world. Those who think outwardly and those who think inwardly.[INDENT]Outward Thinking
Those who think outwardly generally think with the brain,(the mechanism that electro -whatever registers senses of the body). Their knowledge comes from the old school of remember and repeat. The brain is trained by outside sources of information by remembering and repeating the information received.

We are taught to think outward as a society. In that process, depending on the culture and influences surrounding us, the outward thinker will naturally lean towards religion and embrace faith and the leadership of whatever religion they were immersed in. To the outward thinker, external influences have the most control in their lives.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Inward Thinking
Inward thinkers will lean towards philosophy because they begin to discover that inherent spark of desire within themselves and practice diligently to communicate with it and let it shine.
Jmtillery gave a Greek definition of Philosophy and the love of wisdom is not how I'd describe it because it is really just thought. While outward thinkers may go to books to study philosophy for their want and will to obtain more knowledge, they are still thinking with the brain, just remember and repeat when needed. Being smart or intelligent doesn't bring a person any closer to the cause.

Philosophy to an inward thinker is just a term like Religion. It is just another word in the dictionary describing a term for the understanding of the outward thinkers. Philosophy to the inward thinker is like a seed of desire that grows each time you feed it.
[/INDENT]So I believe there are just two types of thinkers. Inward and Outward, and the many in between. Religion relates more to Outward thinking with the brain and Philosophy toward Inward thinking of the mind.

Can Religion and Philosophy co-exist?
Most certainly, they are now. Could they exist one without the other? Who knows and who really cares? My point is what difference does it make because in reality, mankind must discover the cause to have influence on the effect. If Religion is an effect and you stop there, then how are we going to change the world we live in without recognition of the cause? Currently, Religion has sent many countries to war and will continue to. Religion is just another Philosophy of the effect. The answers lie within the cause.

When mankind unfolds to the point where many have become inward thinkers, it will be the courtship of Religion and Philosophy and preparation for marriage. When we understand our selves, then the world around us will transform. Until then, we are self destructing and Religion is one of the great causes of this effect.

Philosophy and Religion are two separate seeds of thought entirely and the human race is going to continue to spiral towards self destruction if there isn't a marriage. After all the complex arguments, it is basically two separate thought patterns of one thing. If man is inspired to think inwardly, Philosophy and Religion will work in harmony as one. Outward thinking prevents this type engagement.

[CENTER]How can man know the truth if man cannot know himself?
[/CENTER]

Chicken or the Egg
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither. First came the thought, then came the manifestation of that thought.

1. Thought - Energy registering sensations of the body or universal thinking which comes from within. Either way, thought is the very first impression prior to anything else. Thought comes first, then manifestation? the expression of that thought.
   
2. Philosophy - Could be more described as desire for understanding and peace-of-mind yet applied to everything. The sum of what you know? recognition of oneself. Philosophy is also considered a study.
   
3. Religion - Just another Philosophy.

My point is, it all starts with thought. Nothing will manifest itself into creation with out thought first. The thought would then be the cause of the effects? hmm?

We live in a world of effect. Most often times effects can blind out the cause? Doctors treat effects and Science measures effects, yet we continue to live each day not knowing the One cause of all effect. Philosophy and Religion are just an effect. Until man discovers the cause of all effect, he'll keep putting out fires while others start a new cycle. Medication to treat effects will cause other effects because they don't know of the cause. Science will discover and analyze one effect after another in a never ending cycle until science recognizes that they cannot measure the cause of all effect and understanding Cause could ultimately control and manipulate all effects.

Philosophy was born on the day of consciousness in man. Religion is just another philosophy. So in essence it's One, yet separated by the thinking of man? which is also One.

I jumped... topics
This is exactly why it's difficult to talk about one area of philosophy without clarifying it with another. I've sort of jumped topics but it's in support of the actual question. It all intertwines. Comes from One and ends back at One. Man creates whats in between by his thoughts. Thoughts really do become things.

I must disagree with the statements that religion and philosophy are 'opposites'. Philosophy begat religion, and religion is merely a codified form of philosophy.They share the same objective: that of understanding the truth about our existence. Likewise Logic and Science are children of Philosophy, and share this same objective.

The goal of both philosophy and religion are the same in this respect: Each tries through its vision of truth to empower man and mankind. Religion perhaps preceeds philosophy, but not by much. For every man saying to bribe this god or that god there was likely to be another saying, oh bulshet.

As technology, god is a failure, and not that he does not answer every prayer; but he usually says: no. The technology that has come from philosophy is extensive, but use less without an application of philosophy to its use. And that is where we fail, that in having technology we lose sight of the underlying understanding that kept previous tecnologies in balance with nature, and having technology we lose sight of the God that made each person his brother's brother.

Technology makes some people believe there is no God, and if there is no God then it is all about this life, this status, this wealth, this power; and nothing of the eternal. If there is no God they reason, then there is no sin. God did not create sin, but man, for his benefit, enjoyment, and power. No person can live as anything but an animal without either philosophy or religion. I accept the value of philosophy, but I doubt it has led me far from the conclusions of religion.

Very interesting comments Fido.

Firstly, that God, "as technology, is a failure" is highly debatable. We harness the potential inherent in the structure of the Universe through our ability to reason. How did that structure come into being? You might just as easily state that Philosophy, in failing to answer this question, is a failure.

And then, how do you justify religion preceding philosophy?

The primary distinguishing feature of man is his intellect, his ability to reason and to create from that ability to reason. The first time a human left the metaphorical Garden of Eden, where all was provided, he began to use his intellect to direct his actions and philosophy was created. Rudimentary, perhaps, but we began collecting knowledge of the nature of natural conditions by reasoning. Our conclusions have not always been accurate.

Where man is in harmony with nature, religion has no usefulness; and a relationship with God is not even questioned. It is only in seeking a harmony with God that we are compelled to follow a religion as a means to that objective. The conclusions, as revealed through a knowledge of God, are elemental.

Religion seems contemptable to most 'philosophers'; I set forth that historically this Western contempt is drawn from the actions of the Emperor Constantine,who in seeking to hold together his Empire, united it under one religion, and created in Christianity a powerful political force. As we know, the Empire eventually collapsed, but the religion remained steadfast. Religion then became the political force that has shaped nearly two thousand years of Western culture, and not particularly due to its spiritual message (which is diluted for the masses), but due to the strength of its dogma and its highly organised response to questions as to 'how we should behave'. From a modern perspective the idea that we should be ruled by a structure accepted 'on faith' is against our, hmm, God-given right to reason.

The founding of religious freedom, at last, severed this aspect of political power that religion held. But religion, as a result, was lead back two thousand years. Do we, as philosophically minded people, prefer to reject religion due to its historical implications, or do we ask ourselves the questions that our predecessors were asking two thousand and some odd years ago?

Philosophy should not discredit religion, but must examine the knowledge that it holds.

I can see that you are making the same metaphysical mistake as Plato and many others in presuming an over arching order is responsible for the quite obvious order we see around us. We know nothing in fact of what lies beyond our grasp. We cannot pretend to infinite knowledge even if it helps us to imagine the face of God. Do you see the similarity of your thoughts with Plato's perfect ideas, or with the medieval notion that God, responsible for truth -could not be false, that is, in contradiction. People accept philosophy because it is effective. People seek religion because it helps them to accept all that philosophy will never understand. Religion is only as good as it does not hurt us since it is mostly placebo. But it is still more than placebo. It is an institution of great power controlled by people intent upon maintaining their power, who ultimately have no regard for truth, good, or people. They are political, and in a sense, have always been political in trying to get even the most casual spirits to work for your people and injure your people's enemies. People, being always approximately equal in ability and determination have always made gods and magic the first weapon in their arsenal. So what does God want in this land that the rich and power do not want? God wants the powerful to step on the throats of the weak, and he wants the weak to accept that it is their lot, their fate, and the will of God so they will not resist.

Fido,

You make a very interesting yet profound statement.

Why do you believe an "all loving God" wants this to be the case? I'm very interested in hearing a more detailed explanation on this statement.

I have deliberately placed "all loving God" in quotaion marks since this is how most religions portary the God most of us know as Jehovah.

I'll eagerly await your response.

Mark

God is smart enough to do what he is told. That is why he gets the tall dollar.

Here is the thing. God has been around a long time. He used to only talk with the big shots like Hamarrabi, and Noah, and Abraham. Now he talks to everyone, but does that get him any credit? The more he talks to the common man the more political is his massage. If you look at the behavior of those who confess to being his greatest supporters he is either telling them to follow their leader or chase their tails. He is not telling them they have a right to justice. He is not telling them they have a right to peace or a sustainable environment. He is successful because he tells them what they already believe, that they have not got a hope without the hope that hate will triumph. The real reason people follow religions is their justification of bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination. It is a social club and a political organization. It is a community, but its purpose is the manipulation of God, same as it was for those who once sacrificed their children for a good crop. Our will be done is the universal motto of all religions.

There was nothing loving about Jehovah. He was a kick butt kind of God. But the God of the protestants is little different. They trample all over Jesus to get back to God almighty. They don't want a fair God, or a fair trial. They want a God that calls it as they see it. They want a God who justifies them. They want a God that is as narrow minded and as short tempered as they are. In other words, nothing has changed, and God is not about change, but is about preventing change. If Christianity were not so dangerous, and so anti democratic, it would be nothing more than a mental circle jerk. It is all about feeling good while being a victim.

Firstly, I have made no statement from which you should imply that I refer to an 'over arching order' that 'lays outside of our grasp'. That is an interpretation that you have projected into my words.

Perhaps I should define what I mean when I attempt to discuss the structure of the Universe. I mean the structure of all things that exist, if they exist they are certainly not outside our grasp.


Yes, I do. Shall I thank you for noticing, or ask that you justify the opposing point of view?
Thought becomes manifest: is this not what advances technology?
When your thinking and my thinking our opposed there is a contradiction, God however has no contradictions. Nor as far as I have been able to determine is there a contradiction between the world's major religions.


Personally I 'seek' Religion and Philosophy as sources of understanding. Or more appropriately stated: Religion and Philosophy both allow me to seek understanding. The more effective, in my experience, is religion. But philosophy helps me organise and assimilate the knowledge that religion reveals.


Are you referring to television or religion?
I would that Religion were a placebo, but alas, it makes me feel, and feel intensely. One is extremely vulnerable in moments of great emotion, and the safest place to be is within a community that is able to protect such passion from harmful influence. I argue that it is philosophy that is mis-used as a placebo; it allows one to hide behind a face of rationality and logic which has no place for questions of the heart.



God wants nothing. Man wants and God provides.

Well I would have to say that most existence is beyond our grasp, perhaps even beyond our sight. What we can be more or less certain of is a local sort of reality that may hold true beyond our grasp;, or not.

Now, see; that is exactly the sort of thing medieval philosopher were saying about God. He might follow our rules, and he may not. I guess he would not be much of a God if he could not make rules meaningless.

You don't need either religion or philosophy for understanding. What you need, and what every prophet and philosopher is born with, is an understanding mind.

They used to sing a song where I churched, called, God hears the cry of the poor. That made me feel. There was a time, the weekend after 911 when the priest got up and counted up how much death and war this country exports, that we will not sign a chemical weapons or land mine ban, and etc., and the very next week the bishop made him get up, and apologize before mass. I felt intensly too. First like cheering, and then like crying. If people go to pray to their vision of God, but are not brave enough to hear the truth, what will they ever do with the word of God that the godless would not do without the word? What ever the truth, if ones God does not empower a person to bear it, what is one buying with their donations?

Do you mean questions about emotions. What does the heart do, really?



Now, here you should spare your humble dog. Every God demands exactly that which every community demands, and that is sacrifice. Every religion is primarily social, and not personal, and each demands a moral standard of behavior. It is spiritual goal, but the need is practical, or real. However few reach the goal is unimportant so long as the social need is met. Perhaps, in a sense, one has to go through the labor of being a brothers keeper, to bear his weight, and share his suffering before one will make a total sacrifice of self, and in this fashion transcend the real for the spiritual. It really is not just communities at large that demand a sacrifice as the price of membership, but every relationship. No person can love in a love relationship if they are unwilling to sacrifice themselves for a larger cause.

Fido,

Your explanation is quite impressive and eloquent, and I appreciate you taking the time to further expound upon your initial statement in relation to my question.

However, keeping in mind there is always room for error and misunderstanding from the receiver, that receiver being me, what I am understanding from your most recent reply is that you are simply restating and further explaning "what" you believe instead of explaning "why" you believe your statements about God wanting the rich and powerful to trample the weak as being truth? Can you explain in greater detail why you believe this to be true rather than simply restating and expounding upon what you believe as truth? I'm very curious how you came to these conclusions.

Thank you. I'm looking forward to reading your response.

J. Mark Tillery

Philosophy likes to discuss Religion;

Religion prefers to preach Philosophy.

The preacher's actions speak louder than words.

The philosopher speaks but fails to act.

The facts are simple. Those who use God out of vanity are the most cynical, and barren of belief. It is more obvious to them than to others that God, the God who made the universe, is without power, or without the desire to intervene directly in the lives of human beings. The poor get something entirely different out of God than do the rich. The sheep get something entirely different from religion than do the shepherds. Some people are clearly used by God and the notion of God; but for many, and usually those most imbued with the aura of God, there is no belief in anything but personal power, and public authority. If you look at the pre reformation Catholic church, and what a reoccuring theme was the need to police the church, to clean out the fornicators and the drunks and theives, it is enough to make one wonder if the trinity god was not just too preposterous for the most intelligent and educated to believe in, even when they were charged with its teaching. Today, equally bizarre and unacceptible notions are preached from every pulpit in America, and they are believed all the more easily because they are unreasoned and unreasonable; but this makes their consequences all the more dangerous.

God may not support corruption, but those who support God do. I believe in God, but I lead my life as though I believe in something better: reason, because reason is not so easily perverted, or turned into a tool of vanity. Religion is not a source of wisdom, but of power. Faith may be a source of wisdom for some, but is a general cause of the inequality of wealth, resources, power, and education. Faith does not add to the goodness of the individual, nor to the happiness of the society. Faith predestines a man to slavery, which is an unatural condition for human beings. I can support religion as long as religions can show some objective good result for all. They are not there, yet.

When did speaking fall from the list of verbs?