Is philosophy an alternative to religion?

[LuisDantas]

That is the point, other things can do what religions does without the idiocy. We can help instead of praying, donate to foundations instead of the church, and seek a psychologist instead of a god. When it comes to understanding our world we can use science instead of myth.

How is that not religion without the superstition, though?

 

[metis]

I do indeed believe that philosophy can be and often is an alternative to religion, and its importance lies in that a person who delves into philosophy can help establish a general direction for their lives. However, all philosophical concepts are not equal, nor are all beneficial.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I do indeed believe that philosophy can be and often is an alternative to religion, and its importance lies in that a person who delves into philosophy can help establish a general direction for their lives. However, all philosophical concepts are not equal, nor are all beneficial.

This is why I would not tell anybody to make a philosophical view of the world but a scientific one. I for example find a lot of philosophy useless but will pride myself or anybody in general who studies epistemology

 

[metis]

How is that not religion without the superstition, though?

Science and religion are clearly not on the same page as their entire approach is different. For example, generally speaking, religious beliefs cannot be falsified but scientific data can. Religion posits deities-- science doesn't deal with whether they exist or not.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not all religions. Vedantic Hinduism has been evolving for about 1000 years. You had one scholar after another challenging the previous ones.

Regards

Unfortunately, I know scholars of our faith who have gone so far as to lose a sense of any religion at all. It has become only argument and intellect. How boring is that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion posits deities

Depending on how they approach the concept, that is either a flaw that can be fixed or an eccentricity that can be safely ignored.

 

[metis]

Depending on how they approach the concept, that is either a flaw that can be fixed or an eccentricity that can be safely ignored.

But the problem is not with the concept (science) but with the person under those circumstances.

 

[LuisDantas]

But the problem is not with the concept (science) but with the person under those circumstances.

No, I meant the concept of deity. Its overvaluation is not determinant of religion.

 

[metis]

No, I meant the concept of deity. Its overvaluation is not determinant of religion.

Could you please elaborate because I can't see how "overvaluation" relates in context? Are you saying that religion does not depend on deities? If so, I guess that would depend on which definition of "religion" one may use.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could you please elaborate because I can't see how "overvaluation" relates in context? Are you saying that religion does not depend on deities? If so, I guess that would depend on which definition of "religion" one may use.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

While there are religions that insist on using and even centering on some deity conception or another, there is no religion that needs such a concept.

Despite often self-inflicted misconceptions, religion is in actuality about far more concrete subjects: ethical decisions, moral values, personal choices and priorities, and to a not insignificant extent it is also about creating a sense of community and reciprocal commitment.

Deities are opcional at best, and all too often an actual hurdle. They end up being a name that creates an appearance of common understanding where there may very well be a serious disagreement instead.

 

[metis]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

While there are religions that insist on using and even centering on some deity conception or another, there is no religion that needs such a concept.

Despite often self-inflicted misconceptions, religion is in actuality about far more concrete subjects: ethical decisions, moral values, personal choices and priorities, and to a not insignificant extent it is also about creating a sense of community and reciprocal commitment.

Thanks for your clarification, but I do have to re-emphasize that not everyone defines religion the same way. For example, here's one of them from Dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (underline is mine) -- Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

Also, in my personal experiences, the vast majority of people I know who identify with any religion believe in a deity or deities. Even within Buddhism there has been the continued debate as to whether it's more of a religion or a philosophy?

 

[LuisDantas]

not everyone defines religion the same way.

If anything, that is an understatement.

For example, here's one of them from Dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (underline is mine) -- Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

That is a common, but IMO fairly misguided (and unduly Abrahamic-centric) understanding of "religion", indeed.

Also, in my personal experiences, the vast majority of people I know who identify with any religion believe in a deity or deities.

I wonder. That is not really all that true for Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, or even Judaism. Nor for Mimamsa and perhaps other lines of Hindu thought. Nor for Charvaka (which is admitedly extinct).

It seems to me that we are well beyond the level at which there are enough exceptions as to disqualify the rule itself.

Even within Buddhism there has been the continued debate as to whether it's more of a religion or a philosophy?

Actually, that debate is almost completely external to Buddhism. I don't offhand recall any Buddhist that considers Buddhism a philosophy as opposed to a religion.

 

[metis]

I wonder. That is not really all that true for Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, or even Judaism. Nor for Mimamsa and perhaps other lines of Hindu thought. Nor for Charvaka (which is admitedly extinct).

It seems to me that we are well beyond the level at which there are enough exceptions as to disqualify the rule itself.

Except that the Asian forms of the above actually cite various deities, and one can read this for one's self in the Pali Canon, for example. Many in the west, especially with those who self-identify as being part of the Zen tradition, strip away these deities, which is "kosher" but certainly not the norm in Asia.

Actually, that debate is almost completely external to Buddhism. I don't offhand recall any Buddhist that considers Buddhism a philosophy as opposed to a religion.

Well, I've had many discussions with Buddhists at another website, so I very much disagree with you, and some monks do not like to call Buddhism a "religion" because it can be misinterpreted. Plus some don't even want to use the name "Buddhist" at all to identify themselves. For example, one of the common names for Buddhism in Vietnam is exactly the same word for "common sense"-- iow, it's all just logical.

A central approach in dharma is a non-belief in a creator-god, but that doesn't negate lesser deities that are abundant in the various sutras.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I've had many discussions with Buddhists at another website, so I very much disagree with you, and some monks do not like to call Buddhism a "religion" because it can be misinterpreted.

Yes, it is often misinterpreted. Most Brazilian non-Buddhists assume that we see Buddha as a God, for instance.

Plus some don't even want to use the name "Buddhist" at all to identify themselves. For example, one of the common names for Buddhism in Vietnam is exactly the same word for "common sense"-- iow, it's all just logical.

That is to be expected, from an Anthropological perspective. It is my understanding that similar situations exist in Japan, Haiti and, for that matter, among the Jewish People.

A central approach in dharma is a non-belief in a creator-god, but that doesn't negate lesser deities that are abundant in the various sutras.

As I understand it, in the average Dharmic use deities are (as they should always be IMO) little more than a figure of language to personify, underscore and represent certain ideals and virtues. It is not nearly so much a matter of whether people believe or negate them as of whether they feel like using them to teach, learn or practice their Dharmas.

Maybe what we are truly discussing here in this thread is whether Dharma and (Abrahamic and/or Theistic) Religion should be split apart as concepts. There are certainly significant differences between Dharmic Religions and Abrahamic Theistic Religions as to make some difference in terminology advisable.

I guess it comes down to what one feels to be most significant in defining religion. It would be a shame if belief in deities were eventually perceived as the core attribute, though.

 

[metis]

As I understand it, in the average Dharmic use deities are (as they should always be IMO) little more than a figure of language to personify, underscore and represent certain ideals and virtues. It is not nearly so much a matter of whether people believe or negate them as of whether they feel like using them to teach, learn or practice their Dharmas...

I guess it comes down to what one feels to be most significant in defining religion. It would be a shame if belief in deities were eventually perceived as the core attribute, though.

I put these two parts of your post together because they relate plus it makes it easier for me to respond.

Generally speaking, the vast majority of those both here and in the east that posit deities do indeed believe these are lesser gods, but at least the more learned that have read at least some of the sutras tend to feel that their effect is negligible. On top of that, they are impermanent and ever-changing and subject to both birth and death.

Now, there can be quite a difference in a lay approach whereas it's quite common for some to have pray to them in general, hoping for better fortune. HHDL has commented on this, along with the fact that some tend to identify more with a personal deity, as being pretty much harmless.

So, as for your last sentence above, I think Buddhists whom have studied dharma would completely agree, as do I. I use dharma a great deal, but I pretty much strip away what I believe are more "religious" attachments. If you have ever read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Steven Batchelor, he pretty much states my general drift. However, I do not call myself a "Buddhist".

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I see Dharma as the core of all meaningful religion, even if many do not even use the concept.

 

[metis]

I guess I see Dharma as the core of all meaningful religion, even if many do not even use the concept.

That's the way I prefer it as well. By chance, have you read any of Joseph Campbell's works? One of his main points is to concentrate on the message and not spend so much time on the "messenger" (deities).

Therefore, my approach, although I'm not claiming it's the right one, is to treat all dharma in all religions as myth*, contemplate their main teachings, and utilize that which may be useful.


* doesn't mean falsehood in this context.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm, come to think of it, Dharma is nearly as tricky to define as Religion. It is said that Boddhidharma insisted on refusing Dharma because the Tatagatha supposedly did not need it either. Of course, his take on the meaning of the word was closer to "Scripture" than mine.

The way I prefer to use the concept, Dharma is "religion proper", which I define as the living flow of religious teachings among sincere practicioners.

 

[xkatz]

Religion is basically philosophy w/ a practice and some semblance of tradition.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Religion is basically philosophy w/ a practice and some semblance of tradition.

Couldn't have said it better myself.