-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
religion and philosophy
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
Good question. There's quite a difference, actually. Philosophy basically has one guiding rule: Whatever you claim or assert to be the case must be rigorously supported by reason (i.e. logic). That's pretty much it. There really aren't any other rules to doing philosophy. And that one rule explains how philosophy approaches questions like "Does deity exist?", "What is the meaning of life?", "What is moral/ethical behavior?", etc.
Now, religion really doesn't have that rule. In religion, there is no such requirement to back up your claims with strictly logical reasoning. You can, perhaps, do it. But it's not an absolute requirement -- as it is in philosophy. For instance, in religion, you can assert something is the case based on faith. Or based on revelation. Or based on the authority of scriptures or teachers. etc.
That is one of the key differences between religion and philosophy. There are others, but to my mind, that's a big one.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
PureX
Veteran Member
Philosophy is the human intellectual query into the nature of being.
Theology is the human intellectual query into the nature of being as it relates to the concept of "God" (divine entities, divine imperatives, metaphysical deities, etc.).
Religions are a collection of practical tools that we humans use to live by and advance our various chosen theological determinations.
So religion is not directly related to philosophy. Nor are the tools of religion intended to be held responsible to philosophical debate. Sorry, atheists, but trying to hold an ancient religious myth up for philosophical or scientific debate is just an act of pointless foolishness. That's not what they are for, nor what they are about. Though I will concede that a lot of theists don't understand this, either.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Shaw said something similar:
I've seen that somewhere on RF. A bit bias, though.
It's a pithy way of describing the differences between philosophy and religion - how information is processed and disseminated.
[1] Philosophy is one of the liberal arts, and as such, embodies the fundamental priciples of academia and secular thought such as:
- skepticism - the willingness to question all claims
- critical thought - the ability to examine a claim or argument and recognize what premises, evidence and reason actually suggest is the case
- tentative thought - less than certain conclusions amenable to revision pending additional evidence
- open-mindedness - the willingness to review an argument impartially and to be convinced by a compelling argument
- faith - ideas are to be accepted without reason or evidence
- expectation of belief - it's not enough just to know doctrine; it must be believed
- certitude - doubt is considered a lack of faith and to be squelched
- closed-mindedness - contradictory evidence is to be ignored
Incidentally, bias is only a problem when it is irrational - especially when it is directed at people and harmful to them, in which case it rises to the criteria of bigotry.
If one's bias is rational and/or compassionate, it is a good thing. For example, believing that it is a good idea to save for one's future, preferring to be kind over malicious, and both avoiding and objecting to drunk driving are all appropriate biases.
Preferring Italian food to French food is a bias that is harmless to others, but one that may be helpful to you in having a meal that you will like when choosing a restaurant or menu item.
Much of learning is the accumulation of biases, where they are called beliefs and values.
So what was your objection to Shaw's observation, "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned"? Did you consider it derogatory? It's basically a rejection of authoritarian, faith based thinking and an endorsement of reason and evidence based thought in a setting of intellectual freedom.
Uh? That is an oddly restrictive definition.
Religion is a vague concept to begin with, and has gained diverging, even directly conflicting definitions in recent decades. At this point delimiting "religion" is unavoidably an arbitrary call, and that complicates any answer to your question.
Generally, though, religion is understood to have a necessary emotional support component, while philosophy doesn't always.
On the other hand, as pointed out by @Sunstone , a philosophy will at least attempt to have internal logical coherence, while not all doctrines that claim religions nature do. There are those who see a place for all-out arbitrary, even internally inconsistent claims "just because".
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Religion: answers that must never questioned?
Religion provides answers but only a few religions I know dislikes anyone questioning its authority. Not all god-religions fall in this category. Eatern religions encourage exploration.
They all provide some sort of answers or guides to the follower but only a few I know says doesnt like questions. Then it depends on the sects within that religion. Nichiren shoshu and SGI doesnt like people questiong the authority of the gohonzon. Nichiren Shu probably doesnt mind. Nichiren himself wouldnt. The Buddha encourages questions.
Philosophy ask questions of life but its more pondering rather than answers. (Probably why the man looks like he is thinking)
Religion provides answers to questions.
The bias part is that there must be a requirement somewhere. Thats geared towarda evangalistic faiths. The influence could be from christianity. A lot of philosophers are influenced by christian thought.
Using the cross is a huge clue.
SabahTheLoner
Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
The way I think of it, religion is belief with ritual or the practice of observation. Philosophy is a worldview, mainly. A religion can have philosophy, and many do, but a philosophy doesn't have ritual and doesn't demand the practice of observing its principles, so it's not automatically a religion.
Philosophy is a very broad topic. For example, the philosophy of aesthetics (a course I took in school many years ago)
Aesthetics - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Aesthetics - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
An Dà Shealladh
New Member
Religion is encountering One's Truth. Philosophy is thinking deeply about any subject one usually does not think and question so deeply of.
It's not definition. It's just a response to the OP.
The differences would depend on the religion, I think. Some religious paths are grounded in philosophy. Druidry is one such path - some Druids consider themselves to be followers of a philosophy rather than a religion, in fact.
In general, I would say the philosophical components of Druidry are the more intellectual aspects that underpin everything else. Druidry isn't solely an intellectual pursuit, though, so I would say that the philosophy is part of the religion, but not the entirety of Druidry practiced as a religion. Druidry as a religion we might describe as one part philosophy, one part science, one part ritual, one part mysticism, and one part artistry. That is how it is for me, anyway - Druidic paths vary as much as individuals do, of course!
In general, I would say the philosophical components of Druidry are the more intellectual aspects that underpin everything else. Druidry isn't solely an intellectual pursuit, though, so I would say that the philosophy is part of the religion, but not the entirety of Druidry practiced as a religion. Druidry as a religion we might describe as one part philosophy, one part science, one part ritual, one part mysticism, and one part artistry. That is how it is for me, anyway - Druidic paths vary as much as individuals do, of course!
