Religion vs Philosophy.

@diamantis,

diamantis wrote:

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

Yes, those were the views of the rationalists, from Descartes onward. Spinoza talked a lot on this subject.

But beware of worshipping philosophy and reason as one might worship a god. Modernity has taught us how irrational we can be. And philosophy has never changed the world -- it's just reflected and commented upon a world that changes around it.

0 Replies

@diamantis,

diamantis wrote:

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

Even though in religion one starts with dogmatic axioms, reason and rationality are still used to derive beliefs. That is what theology is.

For example, Christians didn't magically develop a belief system. Their dogmatic beliefs had to come from somewhere. Most of them stem from the works of Theologians who treat religion like philosophy. Try reading some Augustine or Aquanis.

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

Quote:

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgment ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

Religion provides more than dogma. Religion also provides spiritual practice, which includes the application and development of ethical action.

Philosophy has no scientific validity. When it does, it's not philosophy but science. Psychology, for instance, was once a study of philosophy. When psychology began to employ scientific methods, it ceased to be philosophy and became a science. Thinkers like Freud represent this shift.

Also, religion uses critical thinking and judgment just as much as philosophy. Revelation and myth have context - they are not arbitrary. Reason is not in any way opposed to religion.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I'm getting tired of religion compared with other things. You can't compare religion and philosophy if there's a "philosophy of religion" section to the forum

0 Replies

@diamantis,

diamantis wrote:

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

the founders of the religions were enlightened people (Christ, Buddha, Mahavira.)
Enlightenment (concept - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
who had clarity of perception, their teachings were based on enlightenment but recurred to reason in several times.

philosophers the people of reason, their philosophies were based on pure reason, although science is based on pure reason and comprobation.

1 Reply

@mashiaj,

mashiaj wrote:

the founders of the religions were enlightened people (Christ, Buddha, Mahavira.)

I'm not so convinced of this. Assuming that Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama (etc) were real historical people, it's impossible for us to know what is real, what is mythologized, and what is posthumously attributed.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm not so convinced of this. Assuming that Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama (etc) were real historical people, it's impossible for us to know what is real, what is mythologized, and what is posthumously attributed.

Aedes,

Actually these people are most useful as mythological characters don't you think, for what they teach as such, is the significance of the life. I often wonder why people are so set on admirable figures being historically real, the only possiable way to understand what they were, is out of what you yourself are, what was a shakespeare but a man with certain talents and a profound wisdom about the human conditon.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Exactly, Boagie. Whether or not the historical Jesus ever said anything meaningful is immaterial, because a new understanding of the historical Jesus would have little if any impact on religious belief (unless it was confirmatory).

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Absolutely. Doesn't matter if Jesus never said what is attributed to him, doesn't matter if Jesus never lived in the first place. Has absolutely no bearing on the value of the teachings attributed to him.

No one worries whether or not Lao Tzu was a real particular individual who wrote for the gatekeeper. Why worry about Jesus? Some go so far in demanding that their book is historically perfect that they are, for lack of a better term, idolaters. If only they'd open their book, chances are they'd find a passage warning against idolatry.

The only non-scriptural evidence that Jesus lived is the work of Josephus. Even then, there is serious scholarly doubt about the historical accuracy of the content of his work. What's more, the reference to Jesus might very well be a later addition to the original - and therefore not a reference to Jesus recorded during the supposed life of Jesus.

I'm not familiar with a school of Buddhism that places any sort of spiritual significance on the historical accuracy of the mythological account of the Buddha's life. The Buddha is more like a Socrates than a Jesus or a Lao Tzu. Chances are, a man lived a life roughly similar to the depictions.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Surely religion is responsible for the promotion of specific languages and dogmatic categorization. Philosophy is of course guilty of categorization, philosophized ideologies becoming dogmatic ideologies (at least in terms of the reference of specified works whilst debating, treating them almost like objects to be thrown around). So religion and philosophy are hardly dissimilar - both encourage language, and are practically speaking dependent upon language; of course the notion of the ineffable or the spiritual is promoted by religion, yet it seems philosophy seeks to undermine the ineffable by investigating the possibilities for further insight.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Compartmentalizing thought as though in columns of reference, is by no means a clear and cognitive thought process. God, Jesus, Budha or any other religious figure cannot be disproved or even questioned by philosophy. It is the interpretations of the doctrines that philosophy should deal with, not the figure. If one uses a modern philosopher to determine a concept, can we be sure that they have not used works from other great philosophers to determine their idea. So greater philosophy is built from great works and just like any dogma, it may fail just like it may succeed.
Panaramic thought should not be avoided when considering just about anything, otherwise we develop worlds of fundamentalists and extremists. This is just as significant in science as it is in religion and as it should be when you drive a car. To say that psychology was removed from philosophy because it became a science is like saying crust is removed from bread as it is not bread. Freud was a cupboard full of empty draws and science has been trying too hard to invent drugs to keep the draws full. Using less of the information you have, can only lead to a miss diagnosis.

When representation of an idea becomes a fixed model, it must have a tangible element. True or false.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

Quote:

To say that psychology was removed from philosophy because it became a science is like saying crust is removed from bread as it is not bread.

I suppose we could, then, re-categorize all of the sciences, mathematics included, as philosophy. But this wouldn't fit with the modern world. As far as I know, psychology courses are not typically offered by the philosophy department.

The two are certainly related, but psychology has progressed just as astronomy, math, biology, ect progressed beyond philosophy.

Quote:

Freud was a cupboard full of empty draws and science has been trying too hard to invent drugs to keep the draws full. Using less of the information you have, can only lead to a miss diagnosis.

We've come a long way since Freud, and we've developed a great deal more than drugs in the process. Each individual has a certain degree of responsibility for their own psychology and for the minds of others. We have to check up on what we do for ourselves, but the modern science of psychology is incredibly valuable for those who are having trouble doing this, and has provided many insights into the human mind.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Yeah I thought I was going overboard, Didymos Thomas but once I open my mouth I can't seem to get my foot out. Even rethinking the point I made, I knew I was in it but I posted it just the same.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

The two studies are closely related - and I think that's important to keep in mind. We have to let our various studies inform one another.

In the original sense of the word, I think you're right - the pursuit of psychology is philosophy. Love of wisdom.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

It is noticeable that too often, posts and threads try to exclude connections that were present in the formation of the idea. It is the same reasoning that developed the conflict between the Catholic church and the Reformation. Ancient philosophers did not disprove the presence of God but they did question the motives and decisions that lead from the belief in such deities. If it could be shown to those who believed that the God Apollo was merely a planet in orbitory motion, does it automatically prove that the God Apollo does not exist or should it prove that the decision made based on belief that Mars is entering the forces of Jupiter do not indicate necessarily that this is a good time for war.

Perhaps it is wiser to credit this line of the thread not as religion vs philosophy but as dogma vs philosophy.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

If we are talking about strict dogma, some articles of belief that are demanded and held up as immune to reconsideration, then we are talking about something completely contrary to philosophy.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I think that is my point. The definition of religion cannot clearly be overruled by philosophy and so neither can the figures that are portrayed ahead of the religion. Dogma whether strict or plain doctrine can be argued, denounced or praised by the inclusion of philosophical process.

0 Replies

@diamantis,

Diamantis, debating mythical improvable theories vs. contradictory scientific evidence is one of the great highlights of philosophy. To logically disprove certain theories, as well as create new, better ones is part of the entire purpose-without religion in philosophy, there would be far less contradiction. Say you were confronted with a highly religious statement, and you wished to contradict, would you only choose to stand there because it is not one of the "chosen" subjects?
Philosophy is the combination of all existing mediums, and the individual's logic to form a complete, and logical judgment. It is not a specific medium capable of change, inclusion, or choice of disclusion by itself.

0 Replies

@diamantis,

diamantis said:

Quote:

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.

First off, that is a completely inaccurate portrayal of religion for a multitude of reasons so I'm going to break it down line by line:

"Religion is based in relelations.."

Which religion are you refering to? -- Not all religions are based on revelation, for example: Buddhism, Wicca, Unitarian Universalism, Judaism,
Rastafarianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Sikhism, etc.

"...and myths..."

Was not early science considered "myth"? I'll remind you that scientific minds once declared that the sun revolved around the earth. They also declared that the atom was the smallest particle. Even Bill Gates once declared that computers would never need more than 16K of RAM. All of those 'scientific facts' have been proven wrong.

"Religion...has no scientific basis."

Nor does it claim to. This is a Strawman Argument that is used all the time: trying to judge one system by the criteria of another system. If you're going to use that argument, you may also argue that cats make lousy pets because they do not typically demonstrate the same affection as dogs do.
Dogs and cats, however, are different. So too are religion and science. Religion is based on faith, science is based on factual evidence.

"Religion....provides no evidence or proofs.."

Once again, you're trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. Religion doesn't try to offer evidence or proofs, so this argument is nullified.

"Religion...provides dogmas."

And, again, you are generalizing. There is no dogma in shamanistic religions such as Native American, Neo-Paganism, Dream Time, etc.

Further, I'd be interested to hear the difference in religious dogma and scientific dogma.

Quote:

On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement

You generalize again. Theology is a form of philosophy, is it not? If so, then by your own argument, theology is based on critical thinking and judgement, which would contradict your premise that is not. Very Happy

Quote:

in sound reasoning and rationality.

Oh, I beg to differ. Is all philosophy based on rationality? That would include political philosphy which would include Nazism. Care to formulate an argument demonstrating the 'rationality' of Nazism? Be my guest.

Be careful making these absolute statement of yours without fully considering the ramifications of them.

0 Replies

Religion vs Philosophy.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know