rsl12

religion is always based on a historical figure or group of figures who have supernatural powers (son of god, prophet, enlightened). the philosophy that is derived is secondary. This is to say, the legitimacy of the religious figure does not depend on the philosophy that is spouted from them; rather, the philosophy is legitimate because the religious figure is legitimate. denominations of a particular religion may be based on philosophical arguments (the development of lutheranism, seventh day adventists) or historical debate and legitimacy of religious figures (joseph smith and the mormons, the papal schism).

philosophy has as its basis the concepts of definition, syllogism, and other tenets of logic. it has been that way since the term was invented. over the course of time, it turned out that, from those basic logical tenets, a whole slew of information developed in fields such as biology, physics, rhetoric, etc., and nowdays those fields are considered distinct from philosophy, but they all had common roots. nowdays the idea of philosophy is confined to the derivation of concepts that can be derived from basic tenets of logic, but also have as their base some as-yet unprovable axioms. these axioms are often exempt from proof via the scientific method.

There are people who look at solely historical evidence to determine the proper way of living, or base their argument on historically produced texts such as the bible (jerry falwell, fundamentalists, zionists) These I would consider to be religous arguments. Whether or not you agree with these kinds of arguments depends on whether you agree with their version of historical events or the intent of historical figures.

Others have created arguments using as their basis only logic and other axioms independent of religious figures or text (epistomologists, karl popper, bertrand russell, descartes). These I would consider to be philosophical arguments. Even though someone like descartes tries to prove the existence of God, he does it without invoking a single line from the bible or making reference to the legitimacy of Jesus. Whether or not you agree with philosophical arguments depends on whether you agree with the logical process--whether or not you believe in the axioms is not important, because philosophers present their argument in terms of, "If x is true, y must be true."

There are plenty of people who have combined religious and philosophical thinking, taking the tenets of a particular religion and philosophy (kierkegaard, st. thomas aquinas). Whether or not you agree with the statements depends on both agreeing with the historical interpretation (the axioms) and the logical process.

However, for practical purposes, I see no problem with separating philosophy and religion into separate groups. It is no different from separating any of the sciences from philosophy. They are all fields in which the object in to discern the truth, but they are just different ways of going about it. Science uses the scientific method, philosophy uses logical processes, and religion uses the history of supernatural figures.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.