Religion and Philosophy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Philosophy is secular religion.

I find it rather odd to find lovers of philosophy criticising religion without they themselves understanding that philosophy is itself a religion.

Christianity has the Bible philosophy have books of philosophy. The believers of Christianity study the Bible and the readers of philosophy studies books on philosophy mindlessly.

The texts of philosophy and religion are very similar. Jesus talks in parables, the reason being if we can understand him, then we would not debate the issue. By having us dangling, Jesus even in his death caused controversy, different interpretations. by being vague, Jesus inspired faith.

Philosophy, similarly is ambiguous linguistically to the extreme, in some instances to the point of being nonsense. This is where its strength lies, nonsense stimulates the imagination and so the readers of philosophy imagines they are seeing more of what there is.

But the most obvious and the undeniable similarity between religion and philosophy is worship of the author. In Christianity, worshipping Jesus. In philosophy Kant. In the study of Kant, his words are held to be infalliable, like that of Jesus. We ponder, we chew, we digest the mysteries of the saying of Kant, much like the parables of Jesus.

Philosophy is mystery so is religion. For they have both unknown aspects.

What I find most disturbing is that reader of philosophy do not realise they like the monks in a seminary are studying secular theology. They are worshipping Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, because they speak the ‘truth’ just as Jesus is ‘the way, the life and the truth’. Both displines seek the truth, in fact philosophy and religion are indistinguishable.

The only distinguishing between philosophy and christianity is that Christianity is a religion of monotheism while philosophers are Gods in their multiplicity.

Philosophy is a religion.

2

All things depend on the ‘I’

what is perfection, what is good bad. all depends on the ‘I’

I think that is perfect. I think that is good, I think that is bad.

can someone thing be good bad without I.

that is bad, that is good.

but that is only a linguistic trick. a person must say or think of it. so he or she that does so is only ignoring the “i” in pronounciation but not actually negating it.

3

How do you know this? It is through irony that you detect this because you certainly cannot know it. It is very possible that God still exists with or without Christianity, and that it is Religion that is the bastardization of philosophical thought and the cautious skeptical inquiry of the sciences.

By being clear, I inspire knowledge.

Whats the difference, other than that I am cooler than Jesus?

Both statements might very well exist in a fortune cookie somewhere, meaning nothing more than what crosses your mind while you are chewing the cookie, after ranting to the resturant owner about how the hush-puppies were cold and the bill was too much.

Yada…yada …yoda.

From now on, PoR, you should speak like Confucious did…put the predicate before the subject. That would be kewl.

4

Speaking of yadas and yodas, have any of you ever heard a ‘yoodler’ (did I spell that right?) in person?

I have and I must say that it is one of the strangest voice fluctuations I have ever heard. You think it is simple, but doing it correctly is a task. It involves diaphragmical control and lung capacity that does not come easy, especially in jumping octaves at that rate.

5

No, no, no… It’s not quite like that. Religion and philosophy are like the graphics of two functions that sometimes converge, at other times diverge. Saying that philosophy is a religion (and even putting them viceversa) shows a lack of thought on the matter.
Religion is, in a way, so much more. For a historian of religions, any manifestation of the sacred is important : every rite, every mith, every belief or divine figure reflects the experience of he sacred, hus implying the notions of “being”, “meaning”, and “truth”. It is the human spirit waking up and looking towards tha stars with the conviction that something real and irreducible exists and will forever more exist. Ofcourse , no one denies that there have been philosophers introducing a transcendental entity that is equally the same at any moment, and is also the “victim” of continual becoming.
However, religion tops that with the intuition of the sacred, placed in a dichotomy with the profane. This intuition gives birth to what is, probably, the greatest achievement of human kind so far: the aknowledgement of the difference between what is uncurtained as being profoundly real, stalwart, and full of significance, and what is devoid of these qualities, that is the chaotic and dangerous flow of things, their meaningless apparitions and extinction.
Philosophy, as that what it is today- an expression of whimsical extravagance and excentricity- has value only as far as it concerns originality and spectacularity, but it is not by far as complex as a religious conception. Philosophy is the assessment of “I”, an unhealthy exacerbation of a weak and frail nature that the human nature is.
Only by the dialectic of the sacred can one truly assess his potential. Philosophy is part of religion only when religion is profoundly philosophical.

6

In order for this to mean anything, we must first discover what is meant by the terms involved. Specifically, on the surface, the above is little more than a contradiction in terms: religious secularism? What’s next - theistic atheism? Philosophy and religion are quite distinct from one another, else you wouldn’t have made this post in the first place. Care to qualify what you mean by ‘religion’ and ‘philosophy’ above?

That said, you might be making a reasonable case that religious texts ought to be read in the same context as philosophical ones; yet to anyone with half a brain, this goes without saying. If, conversely, your implication is that texts which refer to an omnipotent being as the basis for their philosophical and moral claims are equal to their secular, introspective counterparts, you’re simply mistaken - at least in my view.

7

Mucios, can you simplify your words a bit, I cannot understand what you were saying. My opinion, philosophy is a never ending road, religon is different towns along the way. These towns offer different things to different travelers, pick one you wish to live in, and build your house. Settle in a dull routine, and raise a family or something.

8

Philosophy and Religion are one and the same for they all worship useless idiots who drivels on and on. I’ll write an essay on this topic, the similarity between religion and philosophy.

I’ll answer all questions this saturday, now I have to go back to work.

9

To David Redden : I’m sorry, you may have a point. Sometimes, when I find myself in an euphoria of ideas, I try to say everything that I think in an instant, thus losing my composure and making myself obscure.

Anyway, my point was that philosophy is NOT religion. It may have close encounters with it, but they are not basically the same thing, and this is why : religion presupposes the conscience of the sacred, as opposition to the profane.

“In various religions, sacred (from Latin, sacrum, “sacrifice”) or “holy”, objects, places or concepts are believed by followers to be intimately connected with the supernatural, or divinity, and are thus greatly revered. For example, pagans consider the Earth sacred, while Roman Catholics consider the transubstantiated host sacred. Reverence is the “deep respect and veneration for some thing, place, or person regarded as having a sacred or exalted character.”” (Wikipedia)

This is not present in philosophy, where the dichotomy: sacred - profane is not present.
If you find a counterexample to that, please feel free to present it.

10

Mucius Scevola

Have you ever read on Nietzsche? and his use of Latin?

In philosophy, I always hear, Nietzsche said this or that or this or that… how kant is the man, so much better than some other Hume. always Kant said this, or that. the study of philosophy is the study of the works of the men, like study in the Gospel of Jesus. in fact all students of philosophy treat the words of philosophers like the gospel, which I find rather distasteful and disgusting.

11

ENOUGH!

Ok, i have “faith”, because i have a want,
and i have an expectation…
I will seek what satisfies me and what feels good,
and what i will force myself to think out of fear and craveing,
and force a belief, instead of the flow of common sence being within it at all times, and i will step up to the religion and say:
“Teach me the truth about God…”
And he sais to me:
“He wants you to do this, and he is this, and he judges this as wrong”
And what if i stopped with my expectation,
and also stopped supressing my common sence?
And i replied:
“Why?”
preist:
“Well… he wants you to(Dan inturupts!)”

Dan - (* raaant*)
You sickening filth!
This was an extention of pety want of you,
because of your exagorated desire and want and theory,
and it was never a need,
and never was of use,
and you exite your false spirit with your false faith,
and your improvable repulseive lies,
then come strait to me,
and say that i am to go to hell and have more pain then your lies and shame within me, because of God’s petty in-explainable and un-nessisary “wants” being “un-fulfilled”, which you had never proven or needed!

Preist:
“?..your just angery.”

Dan:
“At the un-true and the inspirers of fear and longing for the impossable, which was greater fear and temptation then naturaly ever true.”

Preist:
“…”

So im not sure… damn am i sick of anti-truth and false claims…
then again, the word “religion” can mean difforent things to difforent people… I thought once science or religion got to the ultimet level they would each compliment the other and complete the other…?
The objective and subjective, pure truth, would unite?..

Who liked my anti-religious rant thing? :smiley:
It helps me feel less pissed.
My faith dies and comes back to life again and again,
and is changeing, as you may see here?

12

That doesn’t make philosophy a religion.

The presence of the sacred implies something that is not human, nor is it within the limits of our understanding. It suggests a perfect state of being, of an eternal and irrevocable essence, that stamps its presence in our lives.
You can never speak of a religious experience in philosophy. Unless you are trying to make a metaphore.

13

Also, the concept of relgiion ensues a certain relation between man and The Supreme Being. This is closely linked with Revelation, which is the hallmark of any type of religion, -this you must admit- whereas philosophy bases itself only on human ratiocination. Some systems admit the existence of a deity, but none of the pantheistic or demiurgical views in philosophy comes even close to the implicated gods of affirmed religions.[/i]

14

what the hell?

Philosophy like religion entails the seeking of the truth. religious experience? have you read Heiddiger’s later works. oh and what about metaphysics. if they are not mystic experiences… about death… a philosopher is never treated as a human being. the concept of philosophy ensues a certain relation between the idiot and the philosopher. which is the supreme being. REVELATION in philosophy is ‘truth’ which is a completely rubbish concept. in philosophy, students worship the Great philosophers UNQUESTIONABLY. Philosophy is closer to a personality cult, have you read on Indian Gurus. they are philosophers. using philosophy which is simply random rubbish to create a mystic experience that lures followers to complete mind control dependance on their lies.

Philosophy at its worst is a cult.

15

students of philosophy analyze and question philosophical works and formulate their own inferances throughout the work, whereas a follower of a religion has complete and perfect belief in that religion.

16

they are not students, they are free thinkers of philosophy. meaning they are philosophers themselves and not students. think of Aristotle, how many idiots follow him, through all his ambiguity, vagueness. oh what rubbish. philosohy is secular religion. you only have to look how closely aristotle is linked with the Catholic Church. the herd psychology and mental laziness meaning people are afraid to be their own authority. they are manifestations of cowardice.

a philosopher is a human full of rubbish, we pay them too much honor.

17

Excerpts of Pinnacle of Reason’s post:

I agree, although Heidegger’s mark is obvious, and think Heidegger is rather inconsistent.
However, truth is not the main declared purpose - at least not in religion. Religious manifestation, as I stated numerous times before, insinuates itself under the aegis of a sempiternal and perfect state of being - widely known as God. It also includes revelation, as part of God’s concern with people, which He manifests directly, and its main goal is to bring the adept closer to God through various ethical means, based on faith.
On a large scale, religious concepts are structures built on the concept of the sacred, around an axis consisting of a handed-down code, of divine origins. So far, nothing bordering philosophy.
With time, beliefs sediment and different thinkers arise from among the ranks of the votaries, that tend to give a philosophical side to religion by ensuing metaphysical aspects, ethical or psychological remarks, but, mind you, they are always careful not to transgress the boundaries of the given limits, that is - not to fall into heresy. Because it comes directly from God, religion claims to be faultless, thus being a member of its group, you are forced to carefully attend to your thaughts, so they do not fall out of order. Religion, however, can be made philosophical through the efforts of those who possess a wider knowledge of life, but philosophy is in no way tenable as religion - I have never heard kantians describe non-kantians as heretics.

A good example for how to make your own religion are the Hebrews and the process of their Mozaic cult.
The first account that we have of the Hebrews as a distinct population comes from the book of Exodus, where they are mentioned in relation with their status of sclaves within Pharaoh’s land. Moses,chosen by God to free them, has his first encounter with God, while driving the flocks of Raguel:

" 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."(Exodus, cap. 3)

Notice -“thou standest is holy ground”- signifies the delimitation between the sacred ground and the prophane. The dichotomy is further pointed out when Moses is requested to take his shoes off. Notice also the Angel of the Lord and the miraculous burning of the bush, which are all theophanies, a demonstration of God’s power.

Later, after Moses proves himself worthy, drives the Hebrews out of Egypt and embarks them on the quest for the promised land, he will receive the Ten Commandments written by God’s hand - another divine occurrence. Only after this will Moses compose the Pentateuch, but also under the tuition of revelation.

All right. The validity of the Bible is not questioned now, but the building blocks of any religious system. What I want to point out is that religion at first is far too centered on theophanies and exhibitions of divine omnipotence to tackle philosophic matters. This dimension arises naturally prior to the deposition of the ground principles, whereas a philosophical system is, at its basis, more like a personal conquest for the Holy Graal.

I’m sensing what you’re trying to say. The manner in which Heidegger dissmises technological attempts and philosophy as scientific, for being “unauthentic”, his lithurgic language, where poetic enunciations repeat themselves as to conjure some abstruse forces, do give him an aura of mysticism. Nevertheless, he was a philosopher, “one of the only ones in our times”, as Jaspers used to say.

I doubt that. The only close example that I can find is Gautama Siddharta Buddha, but that’s more complicated. The Buddha concept has a deeper essence and it describes a being that is “forever existing and immortal”

That would move the center of philosophy from teaching to teacher, which is essentially undesirable.

I disagree… Philosophers were humans like all others, only they had more questions to answer. They are not infallible.

18

Realism could be described as a secular religion.

19

Mucius Scevola

Could you spare the reader next time with your long winded post. just get to your point. after reading it all. you are basically looping religion onto Christianity. as if Christianity is the religion. Christianity is a revealed religion in that it is revealed by God, which continues to Jesus to St Peter to our Popes, which means Catholicism is the right religion.

but nevertheless. religions have one thing in common, they worship, whether it is Christ, budda, Koran… the central theme in religion is religious worship of the great. this is the central point that makes it identitical to philosophy, which also worships.

philosophers are regarded by the zealots as infalliable, why study their work? what have they said that is worth studying? the similarity between philosophy and religion is so great that any difference are only minor differences between religions. their essential character, that entails worship is the same.

i mean read Kant, Hegel, the ‘great’ philosophers, being talked up because they speak in ununderstandable parables.

you are way into details, which is unhelpful in our discussion because philosophy and religion are general studies, and our discussion ought be concentrating on their core similarities, that is they both worship. not all religious people are as devote as you make them out to be.

religion is secular theology.

xanderman

so is starwars.

20

Both Religion and Philosophy involves manipulating the intellect of the people. They are both Opiums of the people. Philosophy and Religion is like this, they vary in degrees of Mysticism

…Philosophy… Devote scholars of philosophy… religion… cults…

students of philosophy thinks too hard, so later they stop thinking and join cults. Philosophy like religion is a manifestation of the psychology, they are both interested in manipulating others to adopt their truth.

when someone says, ‘why ought I listen to Jesus’ why not say ‘why ought I listen to Kantian Ethics?’