Philosophy Vs. Religon

[bushy]

Is there really a difference? I mean, Philosophy is generaly the theory of god. To an extent, thats all god is.

Am I far off? I just finished Alburey Castells book An Introduction to modern Philosophy in 6 Philosophical Problems And from what I got from the book, God is only theory, and well no one can prove it wrong or right.

My favorite part was the history problem, As far as Shit happens and well, you cant change it.

Its a great read, but it has gotten me thinking.

[Graemy]

A religion is more of a collection of philosophies.

It is true that God, Allah, Brahman, Xenu, or whatever you wish to call it, is non-falsifiable, but that is no reason to believe it.

Let's take Xenu as an example. L Ron Hubbard clearly made him up off the top of his head, but scientologists assert that he is real with no evidence whatsover. But of course, we would be quite made to accept their belief in Xenu with no evidence whatsoever.

To not believe in something because of lack of evidence is rational, to believe in something in spite of lack of evidence is irrational.

I also think it is a crime against philosophy to compare it to something so dogmatic as religion is.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 11-21-2006).]

They both raise similar and identical points, but differ in their justification.

Philosophy uses rationality and a degree of evidence, whilst religion uses faith.

Edit: Are you confusing philosophy with theology?

[This message has been edited by Kooper0 (edited 11-21-2006).]

[bushy]

The book covers theology.

The whole Three options:

A. I can believe in god, and he dosen't exist: I lose nothing

B. I can not believe in god, and he dosen't exist: I lose nothing

c. I can believe in god, and he exists: I gain everything.

Now, the problem is Whos god? Is god in our heads? Is god an individual thing? Thats the problem.

What if there is a god who rewards people who don't believe in him, because they proved they could manage on their own as individuals?

[JesuitArtiste]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:



I also think it is a crime against philosophy to compare it to something so dogmatic as religion is.

How can you say that? What are philosophies but individually dogmatic pieces? How many philosophers constantly revise their theories? And if they did , would we still respect them?

As someone says above , Religion is often a collection of philosophies. I see religion and philosophy as two sides of the same coin, they require each other to be. They essentially are each other in my mind, but with differant names.

For instance, I am nigh on certain I could compare a religious and philosophical text and find things they had in common.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

[b]What if there is a god who rewards people who don't believe in him, because they proved they could manage on their own as individuals

[b]

Does religion stop you from being an individual? In that case are you an individual?

If by belonging to a group you associate with you lose your individuality, are any of us individuals? Have you ever read ,for example, The Bible as a Philosophical text? I reccomend that you read the new testament in the same way that you would read a philosophical text (Seeing as I have a poor knowledge of both, but I am running through the new testament now).

I feel that to say that religion and philosophy are exclusive from each other in many respects is wrong. Many of the Abrahmic traditions of the world get there understanding from previous philosophers.

quote:How many philosophers constantly revise their theories?

Quite a few, that's why you often find people's works in biographies called "later philosophy" and "earlier philosophy". And their philosophy certainly doesn't stay stagnate, it matures, such as Marx's and Nietzsche's did.

And let me redo the example: what if there was a God who punished those who believed in him, but rewarded atheists? You may think it is strange, but God works in mysterious ways and is too hard for our brains to comprehend.

EDIT:

With a lot of philosophers you can use logic and reasoning to argue with their moral beliefs, with a religious person, their beliefs, however destructive, are set in stone and based on stories quite possibly made up.

To compare organized religion and philosophy is still, in my books, a crime against philosophy.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 11-23-2006).]

[JesuitArtiste]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Quite a few, that's why you often find people's works in biographies called "later philosophy" and "earlier philosophy". And their philosophy certainly doesn't stay stagnate, it matures, such as Marx's and Nietzsche's did.

They mature , but thay have a fixed path usually, don't they? Nietzsche , I feel, has a similar flavour all the way through. In the same way religion often has a similar flavour, but as you say there are revisions. (I didn't phrase my previous quote well enough ,apologies. I meant more along the lines of radical change, sudden departure from previous beliefs , tha kind of thing.) For example, christianity has changed vastly, from the vengeful god of the old testament, to the forgiving god of the New. And the ever expanding idea of an afterlife.



Even religions change, and stagation occurs only in extremists. I will agree that religion as a rigid dogmatic system, such as some of the fundamentalist christian "sects" ,for lack of a better term, are harmful. However religion has changed, as a tool of control it has diminshed, now it is a tool of purpose ,a way to live your life. Religion in itself is good or as good as philosophy, it is People that twist it.

In the same way a person may use philosophy as a way to view their world, religion can be used in a differant way.



And let me redo the example: what if there was a God who punished those who believed in him, but rewarded atheists? You may think it is strange, but God works in mysterious ways and is too hard for our brains to comprehend.

I don't find it strange, IF there is a god he could very well be comepletely differant to anything. After all, there are so many interpretations of him. One view of God ,in my eyes, is as good as another. Not to say that God solely has a subjectie existence, he may have an objective existence, but while we can have no knowledge of God here any view makes sense, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Like I said before, have you read the bible not as a religious text but as a philosophical one (that sounds kind condescending, I don't mean it to sound that way.)? My interpreatation is that it not faith in God that is neccesary for salvation (Although there are parts that say this, I ignore them ) For example, "And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest is Love."

Now, I'm not a christian, but I've held to the view that IF there is a god he won't be a god that discrimnates due to belief. My philosophy is that doing good is good in itself, and though there is probaly not an objective good (Where the hell would it live?). If religion makes people better they should stick to it, if it makes them worse they should abandon it.

Sht... I'm rambling a LOT here....

EDIT:

With a lot of philosophers you can use logic and reasoning to argue with their moral beliefs, with a religious person, their beliefs, however destructive, are set in stone and based on stories quite possibly made up.

I agree that with fundamentalist believers, of whatever religion, won't listen to logic or reasoning to argue there moral beliefs. However I woud say the same of steadfast believers in a philosophy. Could we make Nietzsche change his mind on the aspect of the SuperMan? Probaly not. Like I said, anyone who is unflexible is wrong, anyone that cannot bend there beliefs is wrong. But having faith in God and having faith in a philosophy are similar, in my mind.



To compare organized religion and philosophy is still, in my books, a crime against philosophy.

I can agree with this, if we define organised religion as a dogmatic ,inlexible whole, rather than a belief system ,or way of viewing the world. I didn't really clarify myself, so, my bad.

I still hold that philosophy and religion are linked when applied to indviduals but if they are incorparated into a system that refuses to discuss interpretation then it becomes stagnat and wrong.

Well... I've raved some crap, that's not wholly related to you post for a while, but ... I blame it on english coursework.

Excellent arguement.