...who grouped Philosophy and Religion into the same discussion board? They are hardly the same, and "proponents" from both sides usually have differing views.
What kind of sick freak did this?
What kind of sick freak did this?
Who was the person...
Most people think that philosophy is just aimless "thinking"; just put together a set of beliefs and then - voilà - you have a philosophy!
It's not.
Philosophy is closer to science than religion (in fact, many of the most distinguished scientists turned into philosophers in their later years), but that's not how it's commonly perceived.
At any rate, i don't see what you propose to do about it.
It's not.
Philosophy is closer to science than religion (in fact, many of the most distinguished scientists turned into philosophers in their later years), but that's not how it's commonly perceived.
At any rate, i don't see what you propose to do about it.
In my mind this thread is actually intresting.
I my case my philisophy is my religion!
So there can be a similarity - actually!
Since I find religion to be outdated - just powermonging...
And philosophies can go a bit religious - some greek do - so you can mix it!
I my case my philisophy is my religion!
So there can be a similarity - actually!
Since I find religion to be outdated - just powermonging...
And philosophies can go a bit religious - some greek do - so you can mix it!
| roxys_art wrote: |
| ...who grouped Philosophy and Religion into the same discussion board? They are hardly the same, and "proponents" from both sides usually have differing views.
What kind of sick freak did this? |
On a non-dedicated, general forum such as FriHost, lumping these two together is probably sensible. I would assume that a separate "Philosophy" section would end up containing as many religion-based arguments about the meaning of life, metaphysics, ontology, cosmology, and epistemology as a "Religion" forum.
************ OFF-OFF-TOPIC ************
| roxys_art wrote: |
| "Infectious or environmental...all we have to do is check for parasites, viruses, bacteria, fungi, prions, radiation, toxins, chemicals...or it's Internet porn related. I'll check the Internet, you guys get the rest of the stuff." (limps away to his computer) - Gregory House |
I seriously need to pick up some English-language "House" DVDs; watching this series in German is as depressing as viewing "M*A*S*H" in Spanish (which I did, missing 85% of all jokes and puns).
************ OFF-OFF-TOPIC ************
Well the religion of Confucianism is actually based on a Philosophy of the chinese philospher Confucius. They hardly mean the opposite.
It's not just this forum that does this. As was mentioned before, it's a very mainstream idea to combine these two topics. Just take a walk into a Barnes & Noble. The philosophy shelf in right next to the Religion section.
Personally, I don't like it either. But that's primarily because I suscribe to a rationalist approach to philosophy. Of course, there is a whole universe of philosophical thought on this very assumption. It is also this rationalist outlook that forces me to reject religion.
Personally, I don't like it either. But that's primarily because I suscribe to a rationalist approach to philosophy. Of course, there is a whole universe of philosophical thought on this very assumption. It is also this rationalist outlook that forces me to reject religion.
| roxys_art wrote: |
| ...who grouped Philosophy and Religion into the same discussion board? They are hardly the same, and "proponents" from both sides usually have differing views.
What kind of sick freak did this? |
Some philosophies are similar to religion, in that they either do not accurately correspond to reality or they rely on authoritarian concepts.
| TBSC wrote: | ||
Some philosophies are similar to religion, in that they either do not accurately correspond to reality or they rely on authoritarian concepts. |
No, no philosophies are like that. Some belief systems that laypersons refer to as philosophies are like that. Those people are mistaken.
Every philosophical argument/claim/writing/belief/whatever must follow reason, or it is not philosophy. If it opts to "not correspond to reality", or to ditch the idea of reality altogether, it is free to do so... but it must give reason for doing so. And when i say "give reason", i don't mean "give a reason", i mean give a well-formed, valid, rational argument.
This is not the same as religion, it is the opposite. Religion requires the absence of reason (again, not the absence of "a reason", the absence of "reason", as described above). This is just another way of saying that religion must be taken on faith. If you don't need faith to believe something, then it is not religion, it is either deduction or induction.
In the past, religion used to get confounded into everything, usually with poor results. Science, history - even math! - were all considered to be subject to religious beliefs in one form or another at their earliest stages of development. Philosophy is no different. Once upon a time religion infected philosophy as much as it did science and everything else. We grew out of it.
If you have a philosophical claim that can be confused with religion, it is either hundreds or thousands of years old... or it is not a philosophical claim.
Isn't religion the philosophy of God(s)?
Well, philosophy and religion certainly are interrelated. Far more than hobbies and animals are.
| RubySlasher wrote: |
| Isn't religion the philosophy of God(s)? |
No.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Well, philosophy and religion certainly are interrelated. Far more than hobbies and animals are. |
No.
-----------------------------------
There is a branch of philosophy that studies religious ideas and claims rationally - it is called theology. That is the only part of philosophy that has anything to do with religion. And if theology makes philosophy and religion "interrelated", then geology makes science and dirt "interrelated".
And of course, religions want to stick their fingers in everything, no matter how ridiculous (religions want to govern what you eat, what you wear, how you speak, how you walk, the kind of people you can be friends with, how you act in business, the books and movies you can enjoy; religions want to dictate the rules in politics, physics, history, biology, anthropology, law, medicine). So, naturally, religions do want to try to take over philosophy (and for centuries, they succeeded). But, just as with science, we can tell when we are dealing with real philosophy and when we are dealing with pseudo-philosophy that has been infected by religion.
There is no relationship. Philosophy and religion are two totally different things. It just so happens that religious claims are one of the many things that philosophy studies. And, of course, religion wants to infect philosophy as much as it wants to infect every other aspect of human knowledge. That is the only way that they are "related", if you can call it that.
A quote from Wikipedia about how hard is to define philosophy:
Another Wikipedia quote:
An the last quote:
So what philosophy and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues not answerable by science (at least not yet!): how one should live (ethics), knowledge (epistemology), existence (ontology), fate of the world (eschatology), etc.
- History. Until a few centuries ago, most philosophers were also deeply interested in the deities, many trying to rationalize them, give proof of their existence, etc.
What's the main difference?
Religion overtly accepts revelation and myth as arguments.
Conclusion: they are different things (at least as these terms are understood nowadays) but they are undeniably related.
| Quote: |
| Every definition of philosophy is controversial. The field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era. It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy. |
Another Wikipedia quote:
| Quote: |
| Philosophy can be distinguished from empirical science and religion. The Penguin Encyclopedia says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation. MTP says philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but uses reason, "without reference to sensible observation and experiments". By contrast, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy states that "the late 20th-century... prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry." |
An the last quote:
| Quote: |
| Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). The word is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning love of wisdom. |
So what philosophy and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues not answerable by science (at least not yet!): how one should live (ethics), knowledge (epistemology), existence (ontology), fate of the world (eschatology), etc.
- History. Until a few centuries ago, most philosophers were also deeply interested in the deities, many trying to rationalize them, give proof of their existence, etc.
What's the main difference?
Religion overtly accepts revelation and myth as arguments.
Conclusion: they are different things (at least as these terms are understood nowadays) but they are undeniably related.
| smarter wrote: |
| So what philosophy and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues not answerable by science (at least not yet!): how one should live (ethics), knowledge (epistemology), existence (ontology), fate of the world (eschatology), etc. - History. Until a few centuries ago, most philosophers were also deeply interested in the deities, many trying to rationalize them, give proof of their existence, etc. What's the main difference? Religion overtly accepts revelation and myth as arguments. Conclusion: they are different things (at least as these terms are understood nowadays) but they are undeniably related. |
If that's the standard for "undeniably related", then religion is "undeniably related" to everything.
Observe:
What do science and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues about the natural world.
- Until a few centuries ago, most "scientists" happily explained the natural world by appealing to deities and other religious concepts.
What do politics and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues about how we should organize our society.
- Until a few centuries ago, most "politicians" were also religious leaders, and they appealed to deities and other religious concepts to justify their rules.
What do scatology and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues about how we should poop. (Yes, many religions do have toilet guidelines.)
- Until a few centuries ago, most people who studied poop were looking for signs from their deities in it.
And so on.
In other words, that's a really weak link to file under "undeniably related". In point of fact, philosophy and religion are exactly opposite in how they work. Calling them "related" is a bit of a stretch. Calling that relationship "undeniable" is nonsense.
| Indi wrote: |
| If that's the standard for "undeniably related", then religion is "undeniably related" to everything. |
Yes, religion has something to say about almost everything. But only religion and philosophy have at their core these questions: why? for what purpose?
| Indi wrote: |
| What do science and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues about the natural world. - Until a few centuries ago, most "scientists" happily explained the natural world by appealing to deities and other religious concepts. |
WRONG! Even though both notions are loose they are almost complementary things. New advancements in science almost always mean more limits to religion. Science is about HOW, religion is concerned with WHY. Of course many people try to appease both.
| Indi wrote: |
| What do politics and religion have in common?
- Both try to give answers to questions/issues about how we should organize our society. - Until a few centuries ago, most "politicians" were also religious leaders, and they appealed to deities and other religious concepts to justify their rules. |
WRONG: Again both are loose notions. But at the core politics is about power struggle between groups of people. Of course politicians used religion (like anything else) for their purposes. Religion at the core is centered on the individual (salvation, enlightenment, winning god's favor, whatever... is personal) only as a side effect concerns the society. Of course some religions (as Islam) may seek political power but there are counter examples (as some Christian Orthodoxies where politics is forbidden for priests).
| Indi wrote: |
|
What do scatology and religion have in common? - Both try to give answers to questions/issues about how we should poop. (Yes, many religions do have toilet guidelines.) - Until a few centuries ago, most people who studied poop were looking for signs from their deities in it. |
That only shows your ignorance: scatology is a pretty clear notion and means study of the feces. Some religions may have some cleanliness rules. That is so far fetched as saying divination from the feces is the same as medical study of the feces (coprology/scatology) because both give them a second look.
| Indi wrote: |
| In other words, that's a really weak link to file under "undeniably related". In point of fact, philosophy and religion are exactly opposite in how they work. Calling them "related" is a bit of a stretch. Calling that relationship "undeniable" is nonsense. |
Weak links are your 3 examples. Between philosophy and religion there is a strong link. Saying that they are not related or weakly related shows only ignorance.
Of course, even for clear and settled matters there are some "slow-thinking persons" out there who will deny them. So much for the complicated relationships as the one between religion and philosophy (love in the beginning and hate now).
| Indi wrote: |
| Most people think that philosophy is just aimless "thinking"; just put together a set of beliefs and then - voilà - you have a philosophy!
It's not. Philosophy is closer to science than religion (in fact, many of the most distinguished scientists turned into philosophers in their later years), but that's not how it's commonly perceived. At any rate, i don't see what you propose to do about it. |
I don't think I propose to do anything about it. I guess I just like to nitpick at things. I don't see why these two subjects are grouped together, because like I said (and you agree), they are not the same.
Maybe the Forum should be changed to Philosophy and Theology (okay, maybe I do propose to do something about it). For some reason grouping Philosophy and Religion together just really bugs me.
Ehhh...I'm probably the only one.
It only bothers me when people don't realize there's a difference, and when they should be dealing with one or the other. i have seen boards that link science and philosophy or science and math - and those have the same problem... sometimes people don't realize when they're dealing with one discipline or the other.
Some questions are obviously in the domain of religion ("Why did God create the Devil?", "Is homosexuality a sin?"), some are obviously in the domain of philosophy ("Are morals absolute or relative?", "Does God exist?"), but there are some that can go either way ("Why does evil exist?", "Is euthanasia wrong?"). Sometimes when people ask those questions that can go either way, they're smart enough to specifically say which way they want it to go (i recall a thread on homosexuality and/or gay marriage that specifically said "no religion allowed", for example)... but some people can't seem to honour those requests (like clockwork, religion came up in that thread). But often, they do not, which just creates confusion.
If only people would be clear about when they want to talk philosophy vs. when they want to talk religion... and if only people would honour those requests... there would be no problems.
Some questions are obviously in the domain of religion ("Why did God create the Devil?", "Is homosexuality a sin?"), some are obviously in the domain of philosophy ("Are morals absolute or relative?", "Does God exist?"), but there are some that can go either way ("Why does evil exist?", "Is euthanasia wrong?"). Sometimes when people ask those questions that can go either way, they're smart enough to specifically say which way they want it to go (i recall a thread on homosexuality and/or gay marriage that specifically said "no religion allowed", for example)... but some people can't seem to honour those requests (like clockwork, religion came up in that thread). But often, they do not, which just creates confusion.
If only people would be clear about when they want to talk philosophy vs. when they want to talk religion... and if only people would honour those requests... there would be no problems.
 |