| Jul 15, 2006 @ 4:45 PM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,278
|
Personally, I can't see much difference between referring to a certain belief/belief system as either a "religion" or a "philosophy"...a way to live.
I'm not even sure if all religions have a diety (or dieties) that they worship. Someone or something that they hold in esteem, perhaps, but is "worship" necessary to call it "religion"?
Where is the fine line drawn -- or is it always? Is a 'religion' a philosophy with 'accessories'? Do some philosophies evolve into formal religions? What's the difference? Or are they the same, depending on who's participating?
religion
1.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
philosophy
1.Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2.Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3.A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4.The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5.The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6.The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
philosophy
1: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school [syn: doctrine, philosophical system, school of thought, ism]
2: the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
3: any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 15, 2006 @ 6:52 PM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"? |
|
Haban3ro
Posts: 1,197
|
Sunny, you always ask the good questions. Since everyone else is leaving this alone, I'll be brave and take a shot at it.
Your definitions are a good place to start. Before anything else, let's remember that the fundamental assumption is that the world/cosmos/reality is knowable, and that there is an ultimate goal (an "end") to the effort.
"re ligio", the Latin root of "religion", means to tie or link back together something that had once been joined. So there is a basic feeling that a certain positive state once existed, that it was somehow damaged, and that there is a need to re-establish contact to resume the positive state. Looking back to the lost positive state, the seeker consults every means of instruction possible: the order of nature/cosmos, relationships between persons, reason and logic, "mythic" archetypes, as well as the testimony of scripture and persons who have achieved such re-connection.
I qualify the term "mythic" because I'm seeking as universal a definition as possible. I believe this definition would satisfy a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Wiccan or a Taoist; although each would have much to add about the value to be given to each of the elements. For example, a Muslim, believing that the Q'uran has been ever-existent and never-changing, would give far more weight to scripture and less to archetypes, although reason would come into play in the application of the Q'uran to life situations ("shari'a"). A Wiccan would value more the testimony of nature, a Confucian the relations between people, etc. A Buddhist, having found the self/reality/order of nature, etc. to be an illusion ("maya"), would then transcend it. So Religion is an attempt to recreate what ought to be.
"philo sophia", the Greek roots of philosophy, mean a love of wisdom. Usually wisdom for its own sake, rather than the acquiring of knowledge to develop skill or functional excellence (Gk. "arete", frequently translated "virtue"). It's much more a person-centric seeking to understand the order and meaning of the world as it is than a search to restore a lost positive state. Although the same tools would generally be used, (i.e., the order of nature/cosmos, relationships between persons, reason and logic,and to a lesser extent, "mythic" archetypes) there would be a sense that obtaining a definitive answer from an outside source would be "cheating".
For the philosopher, the life journey of inquiry and ever-increasing knowledge would be an end in itself, although I must not omit the possibility that someone who has discovered an organizing principle in their inquiry might not use that in an effort to organize the world around them into its image. (For example, Plato might have welcomed an opportunity to implement his "Republic", and Marx and Lenin certainly made an effort to implement dialectical materialism.) The scientific method has much in common with the philosophical, as they both seek empirical (testable, measureable, reproducible) results or evidence on which to build a world view.
Religion gains much value from the philosophical method, in that it is good to evaluate the truth claims of scripture against what can be known empirically, or by the use of logic. "Test all things; hold fast to what is true." Paul tell us in 1 Thessalonians, 5:21. The pholosopher does this as a matter of course. But eventually, one reaches points where there is a need to believe (have faith), where the data is insufficient, or when one must humbly state, " I do not yet understand". For the philosopher, this would be the launching point for a new thesis to be proved by testing and reason. For the religious, this would be the point where one trusts what they have learned, and acts upon it.
The questions always lead us to the point of realizing how much we yet do not know. The difference in between Philosophy and Religion is in how one approaches the next step which must be taken.
I welcome correction; it's just one guy's opinion here.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15, 2006 @ 10:24 PM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,086
|
well sunbabe, if ya boxed me in i would have to pick door #4. so, what do i win? 
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16, 2006 @ 3:06 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"? |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,278
|
That was the "Exit" door.
Congratulations.
Enjoy.
|
| |
|
| Jul 16, 2006 @ 9:22 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,086
|
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16, 2006 @ 2:02 PM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"? |
|
waterfire
Posts: 2,947
|
Personally, I can't see much difference between referring to a certain belief/belief system as either a "religion" or a "philosophy"...a way to live.
Yes, you adapt yourself to both.
|
| |
|
| Dec 19, 2006 @ 9:24 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
carpediem48
Posts: 3,482
|
I like this thread but I have no idea what to say here.....maybe I'll be back??? 
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 19, 2006 @ 10:28 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"? |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 10,218
|
Hi Sunny!
I think all religions started out as a philosophy.
I agree with and applaud Haban's post. As always you can see the thought and effort he puts into his responses.
A goo example of a religion starting out as a philosophy would be the Church of Scientology. I only picked it because it is still a fairly young religion and most people know it's roots.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Dec 19, 2006 @ 11:00 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
baldy855
Posts: 451
|
Haban,
Great post.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 19, 2006 @ 10:19 PM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"? |
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,273
|
Based on the Buddhas teachings, Buddhism would not fit as a religion within Sunbabes definition. The existence of god or any supernatural being is not considered a part of Buddhist practice.
Nor would it fit in under habans definition of religion, even though --and in part because--that definition has been broadened so far to include all thought systems we might call a "religion" that it has ended up so broad that it probably includes some systems that we could all agree are not religions in any sense.
As to it's status as a philosophy, the definitions of this are so various and so wide (not just in sun's definitions or habans definitions, but generally) that it would be problematic to not include it as a philosophy on some levels.
|
| |
|
| Dec 20, 2006 @ 12:48 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 19,005
|
One of my favorite ancient Philosophers was "Philo"
The first century Jewish historian Josephus wrote in his" Antiquities of the Jews", of Philo's selection by the Alexandrian Jewish community as their principal representative before the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula.
He says that Philo was sent to represent the Alexandrian Jews in regard to civil disorder that had arisen between the Jews and the Greeks in Alexandria (in Egypt). Josephus tells also that Philo was skilled in philosophy and that he was brother to an official called Alexander the alabarch. According to Josephus, Philo and the larger Jewish community refused to treat the emperor as a god to erect statues in honor of the emperor and to build altars and temples to the emperor. Josephus says Philo believed that God actively supports this refusal. This portrait of Philo matches the character of Philo that is expressed in his own writings:
"[I]There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews and among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him as well as to swear by his name.
Many of these severe things were said by Apion by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts brother to Alexander the alabarch and one not unskillful in philosophy was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations, but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone. He was also in such a rage that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him that they should be of good courage since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 20, 2006 @ 8:36 AM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"? |
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,273
|
Hi Angel--
Nice to see you. Got all your christmas shopping done? 
Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.
Happy Holidays!
|
| |
|
| Dec 27, 2006 @ 12:45 PM |
"Religion" or "Philosophy"?
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 10,289
|
Perhaps if we view, "Religion" and "Philosophy", from both the Western and Eastern way of viewing them, we will find that both started from something other!
Neither, started in a vacuum, they both began with the kernal of a idea, that formed a thought, to which someone applied "Eureka" too. In the West we look at the simplest building block, add to it, then try to understand how something works, or should work. In the East they look at the whole of something to make the same determination.
There is one religion, that is not a religion, because it is considered an informal concept or idea without the trappings of a religion, or ceremony. Although a debate rages on to this day, is it or is it not a religion.
Pantheism, the concept of all that there is, in concert with the idea that we are one, with all that there is. It has close association to the Tao De Ching, a living philosophy contributed to Laozi, which joined Indian Buddhism to form Chan in China. Later after traveling to Japan, Zen was formed from this living philosophy.
I should mention that when Chan was formed another religion was formed to counter it's influence, that is the Taoist Religion, not to be confused with the living philosophy.
If we look at the big remaining belief systems of today, Buddism, Judeo Christian and Islamic belief systems, we can say Buddha and Jesus held a living philosophy, core value. Neither, ever wrote anything themselves and neither had any concept of a church or temple to practice their living philosophies. (I will not comment on Islam). The concept of Christianity never even started until 30 years after the death of Jesus. For India the core belief system on which all else is based, started as a Earth Based belief system in Ancient Greece or Persia that migrated there. For the Jews (Hebrews), they had a nomadic way of life that encountered many Earth Based belief systems along the way as tribes who practiced a living philosophy, long before it became a religion.
The Jesuits in their writings have said, as great researchers, that at one time, "All thought alike".
In that, we are all part of something greater and reside within it. Some belief systems looked for a way to make themselves stand apart from others and embraced "The Atomists", concept where we are separate and apart from all that there is, not one with it, ie. God. An idea and concept that has been the source of much misery.
I think, therefore, I am!!! So before we can apply Philosophy or Religion we must come to terms with the fact we exist. The body as a machine and the Eastern thought of Chi, Ki, Hara as a life force, or the Western concept of Soul, Spirit and both define as True Self. Both assume when the machine called body ceases to function, the life force continues on.
In very ancient earth based belief systems, a idea or concept can apply initially without any philosophy and people could kow tow to the unknown in supplication without any concept of a religion. But once people evolved to the "Age of Reason", another path is clear, that of an idea, evolving to a concept, which a philosophy is derived from, then a living philosophy, that is built upon, politically and metaphysically to form the basis of a religion.
Shintoism, serves as an example of Polytheism and Judeo Christian belief as Monotheism. But when you look at unity within belief systems Judeo Christian, Islam, Buddhisim and most other belief systems are very splintered. Why is that, well the philosophy of living and believing in a system used philosophy to split with the oringinal system of belief.
So if philosophy can be applied to a Formal Established Religion to form a splinter group, then philosophy was used in it's original formation.
About 16 years ago I read a book that outlined the differing Protestant Religions in America, of which there were over 2,000 and counting. But these started as a Jewish belief system, that became a Catholic belief systems, then a singular Protestant belief system. The original Jewish belief system was not homogenious unto itself, but borrowed along the way from more ancient systems during tribal migrations, as they encountered them.
Just how does one explain what a religion or a philosophy is? Like in Zen, it is easier to explain what it is not, then what it is.
Yasha
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|