No belief ever predates the philosophy that generated it. Every mind has a philosophy concerning how to obtain and deal with information (epistemology). A belief (ontology) cannot be formed until such is true. A set of beliefs can then form a recommended behavior based upon a behavioral philosophy for dealing with the believed situation (a “personal” religion). One must accept the ontological issue of God’s existence before one can recommend a proper behavior for addressing it. The recommended behavior for dealing with the nature of God and life CAN then become a religion as such behavior is taught to the public as a necessary behavior.
Every belief (or disbelief) concerning any existence is an ontological issue. How that belief came about is an epistemological issue. What to do because of the ontological issue is a philosophy of life (a strategy) issue. It doesn’t become a religion until such a behavioral philosophy is taught to the public.
It has nothing to do with anthropomorphism. A mind is only required for cognitive thoughts concerning what might exist or not. Behavioral philosophies (strategies for survival) are inherent in all that has a behavior to it. Mind is not required.
Ants, for example, have a social strategy, a socialist philosophy, that allows them to continue as a species. They do not think about it in any way, they merely do it, a “pre-wired” philosophy for dealing with life. A part of that pre-wired philosophy is an inherent ontology that involves the existence of food, water, enemies, queens, and so on.
There is a great deal of internal religious criticism and discussion, though not every religious group allows it or subgroup. Theology has all sorts of criticism, argument, debate…
The very idea of apriori suggests some things are simply obvious or based on intuition. There are religious people and philosophers who believe in rationalism - taken in the philosophical sense meaning as opposed to empiricism.
And sure, philosophers are generally not going to SAY that they are basing their ideas on emotion, but this does not mean it is the case, and religious people tend not to say this either. Many of the latter will in fact say that their ideas are based on empirical ‘research’ available to anyone.
And saying that something is philosophical or religious or based on the former does not mean that it is correct. The set of philosophies obviously includes mistaken ones and partially mistaken ones.
You can’t treat the terms as if they were epistemic evaluations.
If this is the way to evaluate whether something is a religion or a philosophy then much of Christianity and Judaism is philosophy. The beliefs have changed over time, many do not take the texts as literal and/or accept various interpretations of portions of the texts as valid. IOW are not fundamentalists, though even fundamentalists disagree with each other. All of the large religions have gone through changes over time. The way Catholics view the truth of scripture, science, morals, epistemology have changed radically through the centuries and even the Popes speak and write quite differently. Does this mean Catholicism is a philosophy and not really a religion?
I do not disagree much with what you said. But, you are taking philosophy at a different level, which is quite different from what is perceived in the context of religions.
So does a “‘pre-wired’ philosophy for dealing with life” mean something like an instinctive philosophy for dealing with life? And, if so, what can a philosophy of non-life things be?
There is nothing to deny in it that Judaism and Christianity are philosophies also. Every religion has to turn into philosophy by default, sooner or later. But, that is not what the subject of this thread. It merely asks whether they start as a religion or philosophy!
As I see it, the basic difference between the two types of religions is how they handle the basic idea. Some religions take basic idea as an actual event, while some take it as a metaphor.
Now, take Abrahamic religions again. No pope will ever agree that the story of Adam and Eve in their Bible did not happen in reality and Jesus was talking about a metaphor just to make is comprehensible for the folks.That is religion before philosophy.
On the other hand, Vedanta never claims that Vedas are reveled by Brahma. Vedanta does not reject Vedas but refuses it take them as a final authority and unchangeable. It considers Vedas written by sages on their own, and its events merely as a metaphors, not real. And, it takes from the Vedas what it thinks worthy, but also leaves and amends what it considers unworthy. Now, that is philosophy before religion.
Once a philosophy becomes a religion or a science, those who adhere to it disavow any more effort to further philosophize. It is the effort to philosophize that they are rejecting, not philosophy itself. If they reject literally all philosophy, they would reject themselves.
So they typically call philosophy what those other people do instead of merely accept our fixed philosophy (our “religion” or “science”).
Certainly.
Every behavior that leads to an end effect is an inherent philosophy to produce that end effect. A rock has the philosophy of yielding very little to pressure, not bending or changing shape. An ocean has the philosophy of engulfing anything and everything while never becoming any of it, basking in the Sun, feathering the breeze, refusing precise form, and eternally seeking “downward”. That is just what it does. It’s strategy for remaining what it is, its philosophy, and its spirit.
What priests or philosophers are willing to say to the public is a part of their philosophy for dealing with the public. Both philosophers and religions use metaphor and allegory. But that doesn’t mean they are going to necessarily explain anything concerning such things. Their philosophy is going to tell them how to say what to say for sake of their religion.
Someone might have a physical and spiritual health philosophy of waking up at 4 AM and running for 5 miles. That would be a behavioral philosophy. Most people have an instinctive health philosophy that entails scratching an itch. A baby has an inherent health philosophy of growing. None of those have anything to do with politics.