9 replies to this topic

[Gwinevere]

phi·los·o·phy /fəˈläsəfē/

 

Noun:

1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

 

 

re·li·gion /riˈlijən/

 

Noun:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

 

 

Definitions never tell the whole story, but they are a start. If a philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of reality and existence, and religion is belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, why do religions have philosophic underpinnings?

 

And if religion are the details of a particular belief system (perhaps one could even use the word "cosmology?") and philosophy is the set of a views of a particular belief system, where do you draw the line between them? 

 

The most natural line is the advent of organization, or structure, or institutionalization, of the set of beliefs, but by that line, it seems to me that science and religion become hard to separate. (Don't crucify me, atheists, just bear with me for a moment.) The study and testing of structures and nature through scientific method is a particular practice of philosophy, since the scientific method is a set of philosophic principles of inquiry.

 

Further, we think of "organized" religion and other religions. For example, one of the attractions of paganism for many is that it's unorganized and highly individualistic. The appeal of many Eastern religions in the Western world (Buddhism, Taoism) also seems to stem largely from the individualized practice of religious principles, although most of that rests on some hefty misinterpretations. There are definitely temples and hierarchies for these religions we think of as "disorganized," and one can certainly develop a personal practice of any major religion, including Christianity or Islam if one wants to.

 

So without the line that is organization or institutionalization, where do we draw the line? And why? What's the difference between a set of beliefs about the world reasoned to and adhered to, and one presented externally and adhered to? Should we demand that each person reason their own beliefs? Doesn't that seem like reinventing the wheel over and over again? 

 

 

 

[Caulfield]

I prefer to go further back, into the etymology of words. Philosophy comes from the Greek philosophia, which is a conjunction of philia (love) and sophia (wisdom). Philosophy is literally a love of wisdom. 

In light of this, the philosophical underpinnings of religion begin to make sense.

[Gwinevere]

Well, they always DID make sense to me. You can't construct a belief system without constructing a system, and philosophy is largely concerned with constructing a working system to explain the world. I think the thrust of my question, when framed thusly, is when exactly "belief" enters into a thing. What are the limits of knowledge, what is the starting point of 'faith.'

[Rhuen]

When you stop asking questions, and tell others to do the same.

 

Also a "philosophy" is more like a suggestion

 

while a religon is more like a demand.

[Darkness]

"Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics." - Stephen Hawking

I think in another 1,000 years the same will be said of religion, once we're sufficiently advanced and have answers that are impossible to reconcile with the world's religions.  I love the Dalai Lama's response.  "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

[Arawan]

The intermingling is inherent to the definitions. Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence, etc, according to the first definition. Religion's second definition indicates the relationship, the details of the belief as taught or discussed. Religion generally deals with hidden truths, philosophy is the mechanism by which those truths are revealed. Once revealed, the truths are reiterated rather than constantly having to be revealed again. Philosophy will continue to be integral in religion due to changes in technology and society. Take the the transition from serfdom to wage living. A philosophy had to be developed to see how a religion would act in regards to that change. For the Catholic Church it became the concept of a living wage. 

 

 

Darkness, I'm not surprised Hawking feels that way. He is a scientist, he relies solely on deductive reasoning while large segments of philosophy use inductive reason and don't even have to be factual in some cases to be seen a legitimate. Hawking is a genius but that doesn't make him right 100% of the time. Fred Hoyle showed us how wrong people of incredible intellect can be at times. 

[Caulfield]

Well, they always DID make sense to me. You can't construct a belief system without constructing a system, and philosophy is largely concerned with constructing a working system to explain the world. I think the thrust of my question, when framed thusly, is when exactly "belief" enters into a thing. What are the limits of knowledge, what is the starting point of 'faith.'

Ah, yes, of course. It again depends on how you look at the term "belief". Belief at its core merely means a certain conviction of facts. You can have this with evidence, or without evidence. The way we use it today is almost entirely the latter (that is, being convinced of something as fact without evidence) but it should not really be limited in such a way. 

Philosophy becomes religion when the person becomes convinced (believes) that the wisdom (sophia) they are investigating is factually true - and here's the important bit - and then acts on it.

 

 

 

"Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics." - Stephen Hawking

I think in another 1,000 years the same will be said of religion, once we're sufficiently advanced and have answers that are impossible to reconcile with the world's religions.  I love the Dalai Lama's response.  "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

Not to bad mouth Stephen Hawking but when he made that comment he showed a distinct lack of understanding of what philosophy is. Science, incidentally, is a branch of philosophy. Engineering is the scientific religion.

[UrbanDecay]

"Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics." - Stephen Hawking

I think in another 1,000 years the same will be said of religion, once we're sufficiently advanced and have answers that are impossible to reconcile with the world's religions.  I love the Dalai Lama's response.  "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

 

I do have to agree with Caulfield here. Much of philosophy contemplates the application and implication of science.

"The will to truth requires a critique ... the value of truth must for once be experimentally called into question." -Nietzsche

[Einder]

phi·los·o·phy /fəˈläsəfē/

 

Noun:

1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

 

 

 

re·li·gion /riˈlijən/

 

Noun:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

 

 

Definitions never tell the whole story, but they are a start. If a philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of reality and existence, and religion is belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, why do religions have philosophic underpinnings?

 

And if religion are the details of a particular belief system (perhaps one could even use the word "cosmology?") and philosophy is the set of a views of a particular belief system, where do you draw the line between them? 

 

The most natural line is the advent of organization, or structure, or institutionalization, of the set of beliefs, but by that line, it seems to me that science and religion become hard to separate. (Don't crucify me, atheists, just bear with me for a moment.) The study and testing of structures and nature through scientific method is a particular practice of philosophy, since the scientific method is a set of philosophic principles of inquiry.

 

Further, we think of "organized" religion and other religions. For example, one of the attractions of paganism for many is that it's unorganized and highly individualistic. The appeal of many Eastern religions in the Western world (Buddhism, Taoism) also seems to stem largely from the individualized practice of religious principles, although most of that rests on some hefty misinterpretations. There are definitely temples and hierarchies for these religions we think of as "disorganized," and one can certainly develop a personal practice of any major religion, including Christianity or Islam if one wants to.

 

So without the line that is organization or institutionalization, where do we draw the line? And why? What's the difference between a set of beliefs about the world reasoned to and adhered to, and one presented externally and adhered to? Should we demand that each person reason their own beliefs? Doesn't that seem like reinventing the wheel over and over again? 

 

 

 

 

You have posed a very interesting question here.

 

From what I have read of Aristotle, Pythogras, and some of the other ancient philosophers it seems the way we view philosophy would make the difference. These ancients viewed philosophy as a way of understanding the world around them. It wasn't what they could not see, but what they could influenced this view.

 

As religions are generally a way of explaining the things that we are unable to see and/or explain, I would think that philosophy never becomes religion.

 

However, there are many that believe now days that you cannot have wisdom without Religion. Personally I don't find this neccessary to be wise. I do think though that some measure of inner peace can be found with religion for those that need it.

[Beorht]

I have heard that a lot of our knowledge of organized religions is merely the exoteric interpretation, the esoteric interpretation being hidden behind a veil of mystery.

 

It's possible that various thought processes could have been communicated allegorically.

Edited by Bright One, 26 February 2013 - 09:21 PM.