the difference between philosophy and religion? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ARTelevision · 03-02-2004, 02:00 PM

To my way of thinking religion and philosophy are two different things. Philosophy implies an open-ended investigation into what may constitute "truth." I do not see religion having much to do with that at all.

I'm sure you will have some divergent thoughts on this.

Lebell · 03-02-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'm sure you will have some divergent thoughts on this.

You think??

The only way I could agree with your original statement is if you could scientifically show me that God does not exist.

Denominational dogma completely aside, neither you, me or anyone else can prove scientifically whether or not there is a supreme being.

There is however anectdotal evidence in abundance (again, not scientific, not reproducable).

Since we both agree that philosophy is an investigation into what may constitute "truth" and since there is a kind of "proof" for the existance of a God or Gods, I think religion is very much of interest to philosophy. How could it not, if God really exists? Heck, considering the role religion plays in human existance, I think I could still argue that philosophy must address it even if God didn't exist.

ARTelevision · 03-02-2004, 03:09 PM

Yes, philosophy does address questions like this.

The problem as I see it is that religion does not.
Religion simply posits a priori assumptions about truth.

rsl12 · 03-02-2004, 03:09 PM

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.

Lebell · 03-02-2004, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Yes, philosophy does address questions like this.

The problem as I see it is that religion does not.
Religion simply posits a priori assumptions about truth.

Yes, of course.

In that regard, it might be considered a subset of philosophy, since it starts with a given premise: There is a God.

But it is a common tool to start a given philosophical argument with an agreed upon premise and see where it leads.

rsl12 · 03-02-2004, 03:33 PM

lebell: i disagree with you partly. I do not know of a single religion based on the tenet that "there is a God". The tenet is always about particular historical figure(s). E.g., "Moses talked to God via a burning bush, therefore there is a God."

Otherwise, I agree--religious thinking can be considered a subset of philosophy, with the starting assumptions associated with the historical figures. However, religion as a social entity is often far removed from religious thinking. Although a denomination such as Lutheranism is based on philosophical disagreements with catholocism, in practicee i would guess that people were more swayed by their disgust with the excesses of Pope Leo X and agreed with the articles that martin luther published more on gut instinct than on any logical dissertation. The evolution of religions, as a process of refining thought, seems very divorced from religious thinking.

ARTelevision · 03-02-2004, 03:49 PM

It's very significant to be discussing a priori assumptions.
Many, if not most, so-called philosophical discussions are actually simply elaborations of unquestioned/unquestionable assumptions.

It's most fitting to examine those before setting out arguments, beliefs, or opinions.

rsl12 · 03-02-2004, 04:05 PM

art: there are some things which are beyond proof and therefore not really worth discussing. Consider these assumptions in science: occam's razor states that, given two possible explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is preferred. the scientific method itself (generation of a hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) is also beyond proof. if you take these ideas as given, you can move on to produce interesting scientific results.

similarly, it can be taken a priori that there is a god, because it feels right at some gut level. the arguments based on this assumption can still be very useful.

However, i would consider this the realm of philosophy, personally, and not religion. Religion to me is grounded in history. Your definitions may vary.

ARTelevision · 03-02-2004, 04:19 PM

Yes.
I do, however, see many folks expounding at length, seemingly unaware they are simply extrapolating from some highly suspect assumptions.

Basic assumptions in science are always posited, never hidden, and do not contaminate inquiry.

Again, it's a very valuable exercise to root out hidden assumptions. And it's key to unlocking significant strands of thought and promoting understanding.

iccky · 03-02-2004, 06:05 PM

I think the thing you want to contrast with philosophy is not religion, but theology. Religion encompasses a whole slew of social things not directly related to an investigation of truth (social customs, prayer, ritual etc.) Theology, in my mind, is philosophy with god and some set of his revealed wisdom as a starting point.

ARTelevision · 03-02-2004, 06:17 PM

Yes. Well no such distinctions are being drawn in this forum. That's part of my intention in posting this thread. There's a whole lot of religion in the Philosophy Forum lately.

Lebell · 03-03-2004, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Yes.
I do, however, see many folks expounding at length, seemingly unaware they are simply extrapolating from some highly suspect assumptions.

Basic assumptions in science are always posited, never hidden, and do not contaminate inquiry.

Again, it's a very valuable exercise to root out hidden assumptions. And it's key to unlocking significant strands of thought and promoting understanding.

An interesting post.

Care to expound?

irateplatypus · 03-03-2004, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Yes. Well no such distinctions are being drawn in this forum. That's part of my intention in posting this thread. There's a whole lot of religion in the Philosophy Forum lately.

True, but I don't think that has everything to do with people being unable to distinguish between the two. I'm pretty sure that we all agree that religious discussion has its place on TFP, and undoubtedly the most appropriate forum available is Tilted Philosophy.

It would seem to me that having distinct philosophy and religion forums would be helpful, but very hard to moderate. While each pursuit certainly has areas that have little to do with the other, there a quite a bit of overlap when it comes down to application.

Epistemology... I love that word.

Thagrastay · 03-03-2004, 08:33 AM

Perhaps it's time that TFP expand and create a Tilted Beliefs or Tilted Faiths section or perhaps both. Maybe even a Tilted Religions, as well.
These things are integral parts of many, many people's lives, and it seems that since the events of 9-11 more and more people are willing and ready and in many cases, needing to discuss these things. There are a lot of people out there who have serious questions about life, death and the meaning of it all. This is a valuable place to discuss that.
There's my 2 cents.

ARTelevision · 03-03-2004, 09:15 AM

Lebell,
Well, on the positive side of this, you, for example, are always quick to state your theistic assumptions. That makes for efficient dialogs - of which we've had many.

The down side though, can be seen in many a tête-à-tête on this forum and site. It's either that folks are purposely concealing their assumptions or - most probably - just unaware they're positions are pinioned on them.

I've always felt that the paradigm of the scientific method shows us a methodology we can apply to rational discourse: state the assumptions in front, and carry on from there. What happens is the arguments that contain real wheat are more easily separated from those consisting mainly of chaff.

irateplatypus and Thagrastay, I'm leaning toward a two-forum approach myself. We'll consider it.

Thanks.

Ustwo · 03-03-2004, 11:23 AM

I don't think two forums are needed.

Philosophy and religion are intertwined. While I personally don't see religion as having any answers, its obvious that a great many do.

Segregating the forum would be equivalent to saying we have a board for reason and a board for mythology, which I don't think is productive.

iman · 03-03-2004, 06:05 PM

Please don't split philosophy and religion into two foums!

My fear is that the "faith" forum would devolve into battles between hardcore defenders of specific religions vs. hardcore atheists looking to pick fights with religious folk.

Even if it doesn't get that bad, moving religious discussion to its own board would give license to lots of bible quotes, koran quotes and the like. That would be great, but we would lose the abstact philosophical discussions about religion that I love and devolve into exgeses of specific texts and specific faiths. Not my cup of tea.

ARTelevision · 03-03-2004, 06:26 PM

In any event, I see very positive trends and evolution of cross-faith discussions rather than devolution into smallmidedness. I've see it happening here. If a new forum were to be created it would be a result of the elevated level of dialog and not a sequestration into "battles between hardcore defenders of specific religions vs. hardcore atheists looking to pick fights with religious folk."

We really do better than that already...

mr sticky · 03-04-2004, 06:10 AM

I for one, would hate to see a split in the forums.

My faith is strengthened in the debates. I feel that some of those "religious" tenets really don't hold water. For example, some religious advocate the condemnation of people based on their behaviors or beliefs. In my world, this is antithetical to the truth that my particular belief ascribes.

A humanistic, or even an atheist view is often healthy to sharpen your debate. As well as rethinking your belief structure. It is a forging process, if you will.

I realize that for non-believers, it's tough to ask for an educating opinion and just get back religious diatribes, but a split in the forums would most likely keep the secularists on one side and the religious on the other, thereby eliminating any contrary opinions. Therein providing merely a sounding board instead of an avenue to healthy debate.

This combined approach leads both the religious and the secularist to challenge their point of view.

ARTelevision · 03-04-2004, 06:15 AM

Back to the intention of this thread.
The relationship between belief and inquiry is crucial.
I believe we've established that all human thought proceeds from basic assumptions about the nature of things.

I'd say the prerequisite for "philosophical" inquiry regarding any subject, including those that may be theological, would be to be clear about one's a priori positions and to be up front in referencing them as relevant to ongoing discussions.

There are several viable subthreads here.

What are your thoughts on the distinctions between religion and theology vis-a-vis philosophy?

Does your religious belief system preclude open-minded inquiry? Personally, I don't see any reason that it should.

How do you reconcile your faith with scientific thought and other epistemological issues?

Ustwo · 03-04-2004, 06:40 AM

I'm an athetist.

Next questions ART? :P

ARTelevision · 03-04-2004, 07:12 AM

Yes, duly noted, Ustwo.
I have no comprehension of religious truth.
I see that it is a significant part of the lives of others.
I'm also aware that it has some sort of relationship to philosophical territory. That relationship is problematic but not necessarily unresolvable, IMO.

There is evidently a large interest in discussing religion in a philosophical context. Perhaps the very discussions themselves are proving illuminating.
I'm not completely clear though, how they are furthering philosophical inquiry.
Hence this thread...

thingstodo · 03-06-2004, 11:18 AM

Religion, phylosophy, mythology.... seems they are all about opinions and different people's way of trying to make concrete and explain their particular beliefs. Ans since there is no scientific way to explain any of it, it is all opinion.

03-02-2004, 02:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	the difference between philosophy and religion? To my way of thinking religion and philosophy are two different things. Philosophy implies an open-ended investigation into what may constitute "truth." I do not see religion having much to do with that at all. I'm sure you will have some divergent thoughts on this. __________________ create evolution

03-02-2004, 03:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes, philosophy does address questions like this. The problem as I see it is that religion does not. Religion simply posits a priori assumptions about truth. __________________ create evolution

03-02-2004, 03:09 PM	#4 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	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. Last edited by rsl12; 03-02-2004 at 03:44 PM..

03-02-2004, 03:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	lebell: i disagree with you partly. I do not know of a single religion based on the tenet that "there is a God". The tenet is always about particular historical figure(s). E.g., "Moses talked to God via a burning bush, therefore there is a God." Otherwise, I agree--religious thinking can be considered a subset of philosophy, with the starting assumptions associated with the historical figures. However, religion as a social entity is often far removed from religious thinking. Although a denomination such as Lutheranism is based on philosophical disagreements with catholocism, in practicee i would guess that people were more swayed by their disgust with the excesses of Pope Leo X and agreed with the articles that martin luther published more on gut instinct than on any logical dissertation. The evolution of religions, as a process of refining thought, seems very divorced from religious thinking. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy. Last edited by rsl12; 03-02-2004 at 04:00 PM..

03-02-2004, 03:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	It's very significant to be discussing a priori assumptions. Many, if not most, so-called philosophical discussions are actually simply elaborations of unquestioned/unquestionable assumptions. It's most fitting to examine those before setting out arguments, beliefs, or opinions. __________________ create evolution

03-02-2004, 04:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	art: there are some things which are beyond proof and therefore not really worth discussing. Consider these assumptions in science: occam's razor states that, given two possible explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is preferred. the scientific method itself (generation of a hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) is also beyond proof. if you take these ideas as given, you can move on to produce interesting scientific results. similarly, it can be taken a priori that there is a god, because it feels right at some gut level. the arguments based on this assumption can still be very useful. However, i would consider this the realm of philosophy, personally, and not religion. Religion to me is grounded in history. Your definitions may vary. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

03-02-2004, 04:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes. I do, however, see many folks expounding at length, seemingly unaware they are simply extrapolating from some highly suspect assumptions. Basic assumptions in science are always posited, never hidden, and do not contaminate inquiry. Again, it's a very valuable exercise to root out hidden assumptions. And it's key to unlocking significant strands of thought and promoting understanding. __________________ create evolution

03-02-2004, 06:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
iccky Psycho Location: Princeton, NJ	I think the thing you want to contrast with philosophy is not religion, but theology. Religion encompasses a whole slew of social things not directly related to an investigation of truth (social customs, prayer, ritual etc.) Theology, in my mind, is philosophy with god and some set of his revealed wisdom as a starting point.

03-02-2004, 06:17 PM	#11 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes. Well no such distinctions are being drawn in this forum. That's part of my intention in posting this thread. There's a whole lot of religion in the Philosophy Forum lately. __________________ create evolution

03-03-2004, 08:33 AM	#14 (permalink)
Thagrastay Crazy Location: Handrail, Montana	Perhaps it's time that TFP expand and create a Tilted Beliefs or Tilted Faiths section or perhaps both. Maybe even a Tilted Religions, as well. These things are integral parts of many, many people's lives, and it seems that since the events of 9-11 more and more people are willing and ready and in many cases, needing to discuss these things. There are a lot of people out there who have serious questions about life, death and the meaning of it all. This is a valuable place to discuss that. There's my 2 cents. __________________ "That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

03-03-2004, 09:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Lebell, Well, on the positive side of this, you, for example, are always quick to state your theistic assumptions. That makes for efficient dialogs - of which we've had many. The down side though, can be seen in many a tête-à-tête on this forum and site. It's either that folks are purposely concealing their assumptions or - most probably - just unaware they're positions are pinioned on them. I've always felt that the paradigm of the scientific method shows us a methodology we can apply to rational discourse: state the assumptions in front, and carry on from there. What happens is the arguments that contain real wheat are more easily separated from those consisting mainly of chaff. irateplatypus and Thagrastay, I'm leaning toward a two-forum approach myself. We'll consider it. Thanks. __________________ create evolution

03-03-2004, 11:23 AM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I don't think two forums are needed. Philosophy and religion are intertwined. While I personally don't see religion as having any answers, its obvious that a great many do. Segregating the forum would be equivalent to saying we have a board for reason and a board for mythology, which I don't think is productive. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-03-2004, 06:05 PM	#17 (permalink)
iman Upright Location: NYC	Please don't split philosophy and religion into two foums! My fear is that the "faith" forum would devolve into battles between hardcore defenders of specific religions vs. hardcore atheists looking to pick fights with religious folk. Even if it doesn't get that bad, moving religious discussion to its own board would give license to lots of bible quotes, koran quotes and the like. That would be great, but we would lose the abstact philosophical discussions about religion that I love and devolve into exgeses of specific texts and specific faiths. Not my cup of tea.

03-03-2004, 06:26 PM	#18 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	In any event, I see very positive trends and evolution of cross-faith discussions rather than devolution into smallmidedness. I've see it happening here. If a new forum were to be created it would be a result of the elevated level of dialog and not a sequestration into "battles between hardcore defenders of specific religions vs. hardcore atheists looking to pick fights with religious folk." We really do better than that already... __________________ create evolution

03-04-2004, 06:10 AM	#19 (permalink)
mr sticky Psycho Location: NC	I for one, would hate to see a split in the forums. My faith is strengthened in the debates. I feel that some of those "religious" tenets really don't hold water. For example, some religious advocate the condemnation of people based on their behaviors or beliefs. In my world, this is antithetical to the truth that my particular belief ascribes. A humanistic, or even an atheist view is often healthy to sharpen your debate. As well as rethinking your belief structure. It is a forging process, if you will. I realize that for non-believers, it's tough to ask for an educating opinion and just get back religious diatribes, but a split in the forums would most likely keep the secularists on one side and the religious on the other, thereby eliminating any contrary opinions. Therein providing merely a sounding board instead of an avenue to healthy debate. This combined approach leads both the religious and the secularist to challenge their point of view. __________________ The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

03-04-2004, 06:15 AM	#20 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Back to the intention of this thread. The relationship between belief and inquiry is crucial. I believe we've established that all human thought proceeds from basic assumptions about the nature of things. I'd say the prerequisite for "philosophical" inquiry regarding any subject, including those that may be theological, would be to be clear about one's a priori positions and to be up front in referencing them as relevant to ongoing discussions. There are several viable subthreads here. What are your thoughts on the distinctions between religion and theology vis-a-vis philosophy? Does your religious belief system preclude open-minded inquiry? Personally, I don't see any reason that it should. How do you reconcile your faith with scientific thought and other epistemological issues? __________________ create evolution

03-04-2004, 06:40 AM	#21 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm an athetist. Next questions ART? :P __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-04-2004, 07:12 AM	#22 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes, duly noted, Ustwo. I have no comprehension of religious truth. I see that it is a significant part of the lives of others. I'm also aware that it has some sort of relationship to philosophical territory. That relationship is problematic but not necessarily unresolvable, IMO. There is evidently a large interest in discussing religion in a philosophical context. Perhaps the very discussions themselves are proving illuminating. I'm not completely clear though, how they are furthering philosophical inquiry. Hence this thread... __________________ create evolution

03-06-2004, 11:18 AM	#23 (permalink)
thingstodo A Storm Is Coming Location: The Great White North	Religion, phylosophy, mythology.... seems they are all about opinions and different people's way of trying to make concrete and explain their particular beliefs. Ans since there is no scientific way to explain any of it, it is all opinion. __________________ If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves. Stangers have the best candy.