NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering what people thought. Do you think philosophy or religion is better? I personally think philosophy because religion creates too much seperation. But what do you think?

"Do not put your trust in the philosophies or sophistries of men which are everywhere present, but put your trust in the living God and in His Son Jesus Christ, and all things that you desire in righteousness will come to pass."

Hmm... that covenant sounds pretty good... I think I'll stick to it :)

Philosophy...Mostly because it has caused so much less violence than religion.
Also I have never had anyone tell me I was a horrible person and going to hell because thier philosophy told them so.
However the real truths of life and the universe are found in spirituality, not religion or philosophy.

Religion, but only if you're talking about non-political/non-worldly religion... I'm talking about pure spirituality... a real relationship with God... knowledge of the real truth out there.

I'll take truth over 'best guess' anyday.

Both religion and philosophy are metaphysical concepts. Both dwell in the metaphysical world, that of the mind and ideas as opposed to the real world of matter. As much as we believe in either; their principles and ideas, to trully understand such ideas is beyond humanity. Because we dwell in the realm of matter, we cannot comprehend fully the realm of the mind.

Religion, but only if you're talking about non-political/non-worldly religion... I'm talking about pure spirituality... a real relationship with God... knowledge of the real truth out there.

I'll take truth over 'best guess' anyday.

....your opinion, and because you're mormon :?

Religion, but only if you're talking about non-political/non-worldly religion... I'm talking about pure spirituality... a real relationship with God... knowledge of the real truth out there.

I'll take truth over 'best guess' anyday.

....your opinion, and because you're mormon :?And that's YOUR opinion... non-mormon! :P

philosophy - is can be proved. :P

philosophy - is can be proved. :P??

....your opinion, and because you're mormon :?And that's YOUR opinion... non-mormon! :P

Aint opinions wonderful...

Religion, but only if you're talking about non-political/non-worldly religion... I'm talking about pure spirituality... a real relationship with God... knowledge of the real truth out there.

I'll take truth over 'best guess' anyday.

....your opinion, and because you're mormon :?And that's YOUR opinion... non-mormon! :P :lol:

There is a mormon church at the end of my street where I live. Never bothered us until around one month ago when a mormon missionary turned up on our doorstep and creepily asked in a very sickly sweet American accent; "Would you care to bask in the love of Jesus Christ."

We all shuddered after we politely said no....

Religion, but only if you're talking about non-political/non-worldly religion... I'm talking about pure spirituality... a real relationship with God... knowledge of the real truth out there.

I'll take truth over 'best guess' anyday.

....your opinion, and because you're mormon :?And that's YOUR opinion... non-mormon! :P :lol:

Stop post-whoring please...

There is a mormon church at the end of my street where I live. Never bothered us until around one month ago when a mormon missionary turned up on our doorstep and creepily asked in a very sickly sweet American accent; "Would you care to bask in the love of Jesus Christ."

We all shuddered after we politely said no.......that's nice... anyway, back to topic...

Atheist as I am, I have to say that it's not so black and white. I think everyone should just stick with what makes them feel so good about themselves. If that happens to be talking to their imaginary friend before every meal and before sleeping, so be it. If not, then read some philosophy and feel sophisticated.

Philosophy is often built upon empirical observations and reasoning, while religion usually involves blind faith. To me, the former is preferred.

Still, I don't think they can be divided up so easily. Most people's faith are more a combination of faith (religion) and empirical conclusions (philosophy). What varies is the ratio people have between the two. I myself lean strongly towards the philosophical side, amending my view of reality when new observation come to me.

you people havnt studied enough philosophy, some of those guys really hate each other and if they could find a way to get people to actually read what they say wed have an all out war between different philosophies

lucky for the world that no one cares

you people havnt studied enough philosophy, some of those guys really hate each other and if they could find a way to get people to actually read what they say wed have an all out war between different philosophies

lucky for the world that no one cares

who are you thinking of in particular? plato and zeno?

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy.

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy.

Nice.

"If all goes well, the time will come when one will take up the memorabilia of Socrates rather than the Bible as a guide to morals and reason... The pathways of the most various philosophical modes of life lead back to him... Socrates excels the founder of Christianity in being able to be serious cheerfully and in possessing that wisdom full of roguishness that constitutes the finest state of the human soul. And he also possessed the finer intellect."

~Friedrich Nietzsche

you people havnt studied enough philosophy, some of those guys really hate each other and if they could find a way to get people to actually read what they say wed have an all out war between different philosophies

lucky for the world that no one cares

who are you thinking of in particular? plato and zeno?

even recent ones, today i was reading an argument between dawkins (a sociobiologist(sort of a philosopher)) and midgley (a philosopher)

they were going nuts, id love to put them in the ring together, dawkins called her everything but a "silly little girl who should go home and play"

you people havnt studied enough philosophy, some of those guys really hate each other and if they could find a way to get people to actually read what they say wed have an all out war between different philosophies

lucky for the world that no one cares

who are you thinking of in particular? plato and zeno?

even recent ones, today i was reading an argument between dawkins (a sociobiologist(sort of a philosopher)) and midgley (a philosopher)

they were going nuts, id love to put them in the ring together, dawkins called her everything but a "silly little girl who should go home and play"

Still, I've never heard of anyone burning or suicide bombing someone else because of a philosophical disagreement. :?

Whether you realise it or not, most of you follow some sort of philosophy when it come to politics, which is a branch of philosophy anyway. If you believe in a political ideology on the grounds that it will provide the most benefit for the majority, be it communism or capitalism, you are most likely a utilitarian. If you are a libertarian then you are most likely an objectivist.

In regards to the philsophies going to war, the objectivists would probably win because they are probably the philosophy with the largest following and the only group that gives a damn.

you people havnt studied enough philosophy, some of those guys really hate each other and if they could find a way to get people to actually read what they say wed have an all out war between different philosophies

lucky for the world that no one cares

who are you thinking of in particular? plato and zeno?

even recent ones, today i was reading an argument between dawkins (a sociobiologist(sort of a philosopher)) and midgley (a philosopher)

they were going nuts, id love to put them in the ring together, dawkins called her everything but a "silly little girl who should go home and play"

Still, I've never heard of anyone burning or suicide bombing someone else because of a philosophical disagreement. :?

read my original post

im going to have to say though that after not much thought i dont see the difference between philosophy and religion

both are just things to belive in and ways of living your life

what realy is different about the two?

I'm a very religious person myself, but I feel that it is also importent to have a good philosophy about it. Plus, if you're really good at it, you're philosophy is reflected in your religion and vice versa.

However, this is really like comparing apples to beef. Sure, they are in the same catagory (food you eat) but how can you really say that one is better than the other when they are so different in consisitancy? Sure, a veggetarian will tell you that the apple is better, because they hate beef. Just like your stereotypical cowboy would say beef, because he's never seen an apple.

The comparison of philosophy and religion is about the same. They are in the same catagory (things that effect the way you think) but how can you say that one is better than the other when they are so different in composition? Sure, an hard core Christian will tell you that religion is better, because they don't want to admit philosophy in their lives. An atheist will tell you philosophy, most likely because they've never experienced religion.

I do both the same I feel. I do what I do because it makes sense to me in a life, and at the same time, to do God's will. I'd love a differing opinion if you've got one.

I prefer phliosophies better. While religion useually keeps you bogged down with rules, philosophies pertain more to your individual beliefs instead of believing in evrything that everybody else beileves in.

Whether you realise it or not, most of you follow some sort of philosophy when it come to politics, which is a branch of philosophy anyway. If you believe in a political ideology on the grounds that it will provide the most benefit for the majority, be it communism or capitalism, you are most likely a utilitarian. If you are a libertarian then you are most likely an objectivist.

In regards to the philsophies going to war, the objectivists would probably win because they are probably the philosophy with the largest following and the only group that gives a damn.

i dont know, as long as the reletivists belive they have a lot of followers, then they do have a lot of followers, because that is the truth for them

and as long as they dont belive that i am beating them over the head with plato, then the truth is i wont be beating them over the head with plato, as long as that remains the truth -for them

I'm a very religious person myself, but I feel that it is also importent to have a good philosophy about it. Plus, if you're really good at it, you're philosophy is reflected in your religion and vice versa.

However, this is really like comparing apples to beef. Sure, they are in the same catagory (food you eat) but how can you really say that one is better than the other when they are so different in consisitancy? Sure, a veggetarian will tell you that the apple is better, because they hate beef. Just like your stereotypical cowboy would say beef, because he's never seen an apple.

The comparison of philosophy and religion is about the same. They are in the same catagory (things that effect the way you think) but how can you say that one is better than the other when they are so different in composition? Sure, an hard core Christian will tell you that religion is better, because they don't want to admit philosophy in their lives. An atheist will tell you philosophy, most likely because they've never experienced religion.

I do both the same I feel. I do what I do because it makes sense to me in a life, and at the same time, to do God's will. I'd love a differing opinion if you've got one.

i know im just repeating but...


im going to have to say though that after not much thought i dont see the difference between philosophy and religion

both are just things to belive in and ways of living your life

what realy is different about the two?

im going to have to say though that after not much thought i dont see the difference between philosophy and religion

both are just things to belive in and ways of living your life

what realy is different about the two?

Philosphy is about how you should live your life

religion is about how other people should live thier lives.

My weak attempt at humor.

nah, its not bad actually

philosophy - is can be proved. :P

I thought this was meant to be a serious discussion. Silly me. ;)

What exactly does that mean that philosophy "can be proved"?

If you mean any particular philosophical position can be proved, then how do you explain thousands of years of debate, argument and counter-argument, and sometimes rancorous disagreement between philosophers?

If you mean philosophy as an approach to truth, how do you explain the way philosophical methodology is under constant review and change, in order to correct its inadequacies? And how do you account for the irrelevance of philosophy to answer certain kinds of questions in any appropriate fashion? There are such things as non-philosophical questions, just as there are non-scientific, non-linguistic, non-theological, non-political, and non-historical questions.

All philosophy can do in the end is to point in the direction of some tools for answering some questions, and to catalogue the results that some people have obtained when applying those tools. Anything more is a flirtation with creating a non-religious dogmatism.

(I would hold up Marxist-Leninist Bolshevism and modern day France as examples of what that can mean in practice -- just for the sake of reading the debate it starts off.)

Even claims made for philosophy that it is based on empiricism and reason overlook how many different ways philosophers down the millenia have found to build on what they called empiricism and reason, and such claims overlook the roles of presuppositions and cultural conditioning in the philosophers.

Philosophy is a human activity, and as such its processes and results are fallible.

Or so it seems to me. But then, whether I'm really here to think that, and whether I really do think that, may be questions of philosophical debate, right?

Peace,

PT

All the dead religious philosophers of history are now rolling in their graves, metaphorically speaking...

Understand this:

Philosophy and religion are overlapping areas of study dealing with similar topics. It is difficult to be deeply religious without being philosophical about it. Most great philosophers have had a great deal to say about religion - in one fashion or another - and most religious leaders have waxed philosophical in their writings and speeches. It is possible to have one without the other, but comparing the two and asking which is better is like asking if air or water is more important - there are usually seeds of one contained within the other, and most people would do well to pay careful attention to how they relate to both elements.

Religion is a set of tools that can be used to explore morality, ethics and metaphysics under the assumption that there is a prime motive force, in specific a God or gods.

Philosophy is a set of tools that can be used to explore morality, ethics and metaphysics under the assumption that there doesn't have to be a prime motive force, in specific a God or gods, but doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility.

Both have their purpose, place and appeal and do not need to mutually exclude each other.

Why is it we are so facinanted with A > B? First we wanted to know which religion was best. Then we wanted to know which was better, reason or faith. Now we want to know which is better between philosophy or religion. Why does there have to be all this either or? People have thrown up the idea that religion is inferior to philosophy because no one has suicide bombed a cafe for the sake of existential thought. However, looking at how badly people need to put down others who don't share their viewpoints, I say again religion isn't the problem, people are. Religion, philosophy and even rationality are all simply scape goats that people use to justify being inhuman to their fellow man.

Honestly, what's to be gained from this question? Neither one is "provable" as they both deal with subjective things that extend beyond the current sphere of rationalistic proof. You can't prove that Plato's cave is any more real than the tomb of Jesus. It's a ridiculous question. Yet again, though, instead of saying perhaps they are tools for different jobs or just different sides of the same coin, we have to attach a primary value to one and denegrate the other and anyone who may have found it useful.

seems to me that for the vast majority of people they are both just ways of justifying your behavior and beliefs after the fact.

and that either can be used to improve your life if you take them seriously

Religion is a set of tools that can be used to explore morality, ethics and metaphysics under the assumption that there is a prime motive force, in specific a God or gods.

Philosophy is a set of tools that can be used to explore morality, ethics and metaphysics under the assumption that there doesn't have to be a prime motive force, in specific a God or gods, but doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility.

Both have their purpose, place and appeal and do not need to mutually exclude each other.

Why is it we are so facinanted with A > B? First we wanted to know which religion was best. Then we wanted to know which was better, reason or faith. Now we want to know which is better between philosophy or religion. Why does there have to be all this either or? People have thrown up the idea that religion is inferior to philosophy because no one has suicide bombed a cafe for the sake of existential thought. However, looking at how badly people need to put down others who don't share their viewpoints, I say again religion isn't the problem, people are. Religion, philosophy and even rationality are all simply scape goats that people use to justify being inhuman to their fellow man.

Honestly, what's to be gained from this question? Neither one is "provable" as they both deal with subjective things that extend beyond the current sphere of rationalistic proof. You can't prove that Plato's cave is any more real than the tomb of Jesus. It's a ridiculous question. Yet again, though, instead of saying perhaps they are tools for different jobs or just different sides of the same coin, we have to attach a primary value to one and denegrate the other and anyone who may have found it useful.

Nicely put.

The only trouble is, if we can't blame something or someone else for whatever we think is wrong with the world, that leaves us looking ourselves in the eye and noticing that the trouble starts with our own attitudes and choices. Then we either have to start fixing what's wrong with ourselves (and be more charitable to other people for sharing our faults) or we have to blind ourselves so we can keepblaming everyone else.

Ouch!

Peace.

PT

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy.

Wow...can we say ignorance.

As has been stated many times, religion is a form of philosophy. I fail to see how it is "primitive" in any way other than saying such things may boost your ego.

[/quote]

religion is a form of philosophy [/quote]

i wouldnt say the distinction is that clear cut

you could easily make a philosophy your religion
but in general id say your right

"Something is true only if it can be proven empirically..."

I love self-contradicting statements...

religion is a form of philosophy [/quote]

i wouldnt say the distinction is that clear cut

you could easily make a philosophy your religion
but in general id say your right[/quote]


Exactly. What is philosophy, anyway, other than a "blueprint" for someone's way of thinking. Come to think of it, what is religion, other than a "blueprint" for someone's way of thinking?
not all philosophies are tied to logic.
not all religions are tied to faith.
some words from you friendly neighborhood demagogue.

religion is a form of philosophy

i wouldnt say the distinction is that clear cut

you could easily make a philosophy your religion
but in general id say your right[/quote]


Exactly. What is philosophy, anyway, other than a "blueprint" for someone's way of thinking. Come to think of it, what is religion, other than a "blueprint" for someone's way of thinking?
not all philosophies are tied to logic.
not all religions are tied to faith.
some words from you friendly neighborhood demagogue.[/quote]

Is it time yet to note that this whole discussion has proceeded under the inevitable confusion that comes when the same words -- "religion" and "philosophy" in this case -- are used with more than one meaning, and without clarification being made as to which meaning is being used at any particular time?

So: "religion" and "philosophy" may each answer either the question "what" or "how" one comes to regard something as true. Or, either one may be used to refer to how one lives on the basis of what one has come to regard as true.

I've seen examples of all these, but neither the original question nor the responses are clear as to which they mean. So far this is leading to people talking at crossed purposes, and discussing different things, and arguing over misunderstood points of view, as well as to some very interesting observations.

Just a few thoughts.

PT

its not always easy to clearly set out your thoughts to a multicoloured piece of glass 1.5ft away from your face

"Do not put your trust in the philosophies or sophistries of men which are everywhere present, but put your trust in the living God and in His Son Jesus Christ, and all things that you desire in righteousness will come to pass."

Hmm... that covenant sounds pretty good... I think I'll stick to it :)

"think not, trust only in the almighty shoe!"

its not always easy to clearly set out your thoughts to a multicoloured piece of glass 1.5ft away from your face

So true; another reason why a co-operative approach on these boards is so much better than confrontative, combative one-upmanship that has served us so poorly throughout human history as well as here. It's easier to make allowances for others when we aren't invested in turning their shortcomings into weapons.

PT

I'll take philosophy over religion anyday

I'll take philosophy over religion anyday


Why settle for only one? Would you take one leg over the other anyday too? Or take one ear over the other? It seems to me this isn't much different than choosing whether chemistry, biology or physics is "the best" science.

PT

Atheist as I am, I have to say that it's not so black and white. I think everyone should just stick with what makes them feel so good about themselves. If that happens to be talking to their imaginary friend before every meal and before sleeping, so be it. If not, then read some philosophy and feel sophisticated.

This is the best answer to this question I've heard so far, and humerous too....

As a Matrix fan, I have to say that philosophy is cool.

Philosophy...Mostly because it has caused so much less violence than religion.


Hmm. Hegel... Young Hegelians... Karl Marx... Stalin.

Philosophy is not without blood on its hands.

Hmm. Hegel... Young Hegelians... Karl Marx... Stalin.

Philosophy is not without blood on its hands.

Religion has been around much longer than philosophy. I think if we just give it a bit of time philosophy may catch up to religion, or it may not. It would be interesting to see who ends up winning the "Most Violent" award.

Religion has been around much longer than philosophy. I think if we just give it a bit of time philosophy may catch up to religion, or it may not. It would be interesting to see who ends up winning the "Most Violent" award.

Ah, but really shouldn't we also be making a distinction between justified violence, and unjustified violence?

As a Matrix fan, I have to say that philosophy is cool.

As a philosphy MA, I have to say that the Matrix was arse.

Ah, but really shouldn't we also be making a distinction between justified violence, and unjustified violence?

I wasn't aware that violence is ever justified.

I wasn't aware that violence is ever justified.

That is why we have philosophy - in an attempt to answer whether it is or not. Frex: is there such a thing as a just war?

Both religion and philosophy have many things in common..

Both religion and philosophy have many things in common..

So too do an elephant and an artichoke, but merely pointing that out doesn't further the debate.

That is why we have philosophy - in an attempt to answer whether it is or not.

I'm well aware of that, but thanks.

Frex: is there such a thing as a just war?

I don't think so personally. Of course that question often comes up in connection with the Iraq War, which I think is silly. I don't think the "justness" of the war is really relevant to any political discussion. I think the question of whether the war was executed in a competent fashion is rather more important. But that's just me.

Hmm. Hegel... Young Hegelians... Karl Marx... Stalin.

Philosophy is not without blood on its hands.


True, but when you compare these few and far between examples of philosophically fueled voilence with the abundance of religeous violence through the ages, you start to seem kind of silly.

Look at the crusades or the protestant reformation or Hindu/Muslim violence in India or Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland, I guarentee you will find that religeon has become far more blood-stained than philosophy.

The word Philosophy, literaly means "love of knowing," and is esentailly a quest for individual knowledge. It (usually) encourages an overall attitude of infinite skepticism, that nothing can be believed without evidence. This is why Descartes began with the sole premise of his own existence, "I think therfore I am" and sought to prove the existence of God in this method. His eventual proof of God's existence (in a much simplified form) is that "God exists because I am able to hold the concept of God in my mind."

Descartes failed in his attempt to prove the existence of God through logical methods, simply because he began with the existence of God as a premise that was to be proved, insead of ignoring all that could not be logically deduced from the fact of his existence, as he claimed to do. I believe that this illustrates a fundamental flaw in religous systems of thought, which is that the conclusion is defined from the outset, instead of being determined based on the knowable facts and probabilities, as is done in philosophical systems of thought.

Religeon is a method of transfering memes to the masses without the need for time and resource wasting scepticism. How could a philosophy that supports individual thought and expression raise an army? Religeon is the tool for raising armies, because it forgoes knowledge in favor of action. If soldiers are told they must go to war because the wrongs of killing are outweighed by the rights achieved by victory, they may well go back to their farms. If they are told that they must fight the minions of Satan or spend eternity in torment, they are much less likely to desert.

Thus, I conclude that religeon is a cudgel and philosophy a scalpel; that their goals are not even similar. The goal of religeon is to induce a particular course of action in a group of people. The purpose of philosophy is to induce particular questions to be answered by the invdividual. Thus I would argue that in modern times the scalpel is a more useful tool than the cudgel. Religeon is now doing more harm than good to civilization, and philosophy is now becoming more viable as a system for arriving at ethical consensus. Religeon was better tool before a system educating every individual was feasible, and before communication technology. I aruge that while once our ends were best served by a cudgels in the hands of the ignorant masses, now they are best served by a scalpels in the hands of skilled surgeons.

I just raise one very important question. How many lives have been taken in the name of a religious cause (I cite the crusades, if nothing else) as opposed to how many lives have been taken in the name of philosophy? The only lives lost to the cause of philosophy that I can think of would be those who were "burned at the stake" so to speak by religious fanatics rejecting new ideas, thus religion is once again the root of their deaths. I can't think of a single thing that has been more detrimental to the peace and stability of the world than the concept of religion. Look at the Middle-East! There's a region who's been engaged in a "holy war" for over 2000 years. People can say what they want about religion giving people hope or something to believe in; I say it gives people something to fight about. The only way to create a world of peace (which, I'll admit, is a rather idealistic thing to hope for) is to abandon our fixation with organized religion. It's that simple.

So too do an elephant and an artichoke, but merely pointing that out doesn't further the debate.
I agree, it doesnt further the debate. The debate is an either/or one, since they are similar its nearly impossibe. It could be argued that religion as such is just philosophy, just in a different form.

Begining an arguement one must first define what is being argued. So, I ask you to please define religion and philosophy.

I'm a proud Muslim and I'd pick religion over philosophy any day but I still say too much violence and friction between religions.

Philosophy. The reastion is because philosophy is open to the interpretation of whoever reads it, so you can morph it to better fit your morals and values. Religion typically requires the adherance to a code of conduct adopted by a group of elite members of that religion. There are exceptions, but usually that is the case so in the majority of cases philosophy is better than religion for placing your beliefs in. This is my opinion.

If philosophies were adopted instead of religions, there would still be tension between people who's philosophies contradicted someone else's; humans fight, that is a fact and nothing will change it. We are animals, and animals are constantly struggling for dominance over another.

On the contrary, there is quite the difference between philosophy and religion. Philosophy would be a broad guideline by which an individual strives to live. Religion would be a belief in the supernatural and a strict adherence to whichever rules have been set down by the "god(s)" of the faith. My argument is clear (and if you're that dense, I'll spell it out for you--I am arguing against religion).

On the contrary, there is quite the difference between philosophy and religion. Philosophy would be a broad guideline by which an individual strives to live. Religion would be a belief in the supernatural and a strict adhereance to whichever rules have been set down by the "god(s)" of the faith. My argument is clear (and if you're that dense, I'll spell it out for you--I am arguing against religion).

Not all religions revolve around "god" or anything supernatural as such.

Take Budhism, there is no god as such, just an understanding. And many religions often can be interpreted in different ways, arent there many types of christianity?

Philosophy, philosophy is open to the interpretation of whoever reads it, so you can morph it to better fit your morals and values. Religion typically requires the adherance to a code of conduct adopted by a group of elite members of that religion. There are exceptions, but usually that is the case so in the majority of cases philosophy is better than religion for placing your beliefs in.

So philosophy is better because it doesn't have strict rules like those adopted by the religions? What is wrong with having strict rules? Shouldn't you be evaluating the rules themselves rather than basing your decision on their having the quality of being strict or not?

I would say the error here would be in the classification of things. Buddhism, since you list it as an example, technically is not a religion, but a philosophy. Anything that deals with a "god" or "gods" is a religion, and that is what should be avoided at all costs, whether it's a Christian, Pagan, or Islamic faith (to name a few).

There's nothing wrong with strict rules. It's dangerous, however, when you start convincing yourself that a "higher power" has willed you to do something. I believe a result of this we all may be familiar with is the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those fanatical supporters of the US, but this is a good case in point for my argument). Osama Bin Laden was convinced that he was waging a "holy war" by the will of his "god" against the United States. Over 3000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS were killed in ONE DAY in the name of a religious cause. I challenge anyone to name something more evil than that.

The debate is an either/or one, since they are similar its nearly impossibe.

Only in the form which it appears here. The two are not neccessarilly hostile. Interestingly enough it was Kierkegaard, a deeply religious man and philosopher who introduced the phrase "Either/or" into common parlance after using it as the title of one of his works...

I would say the error here would be in the classification of things. Buddhism, since you list it as an example, technically is not a religion, but a philosophy. Anything that deals with a "god" or "gods" is a religion, and that is what should be avoided at all costs, whether it's a Christian, Pagan, or Islamic faith (to name a few).

Just because a religion does not fit your definition of what a religion is, is no reason to exclude it.

Go with hinduism, that involves gods, that is open to interpretation. If you read into the deeper meaning of what hinduism says it is just a philosophy.

How has philosopy caused harm? Take china, in the early years of the revolution millions of people died of famine because of one mans idea of what the world should be like, what he understood by it.

Only in the form which it appears here. The two are not neccessarilly hostile. Interestingly enough it was Kierkegaard, a deeply religious man and philosopher who introduced the phrase "Either/or" into common parlance after using it as the title of one of his works...
Ill be sure to check Kierkegaard out soon.

*adds to list*

Osama Bin Laden was convinced that he was waging a "holy war" by the will of his "god" against the United States. Over 3000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS were killed in ONE DAY in the name of a religious cause. I challenge anyone to name something more evil than that.

Surely you don't give the title of "Evilest act EVER" to 9/11, what about the Holocaust or the multitude of other slaughters (of many more than 3000) that have happened throughout history. Or is 9/11 worse because it was the first-ever attack on Americna soil? Not that I think you believe that, just pointing out how misguided a lot of peoles conception of "evil" is..

Hmm. Hegel... Young Hegelians... Karl Marx... Stalin.

Philosophy is not without blood on its hands.

EDIT by BDP: Communist china would be another good example. someone posted it above, and I though I'd add it




True, but when you compare these few and far between examples of philosophically fueled voilence with the abundance of religeous violence through the ages, you start to seem kind of silly.

Look at the crusades or the protestant reformation or Hindu/Muslim violence in India or Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland, I guarentee you will find that religeon has become far more blood-stained than philosophy.

The word Philosophy, literaly means "love of knowing," and is esentailly a quest for individual knowledge. It (usually) encourages an overall attitude of infinite skepticism, that nothing can be believed without evidence. This is why Descartes began with the sole premise of his own existence, "I think therfore I am" and sought to prove the existence of God in this method. His eventual proof of God's existence (in a much simplified form) is that "God exists because I am able to hold the concept of God in my mind."

Descartes failed in his attempt to prove the existence of God through logical methods, simply because he began with the existence of God as a premise that was to be proved, insead of ignoring all that could not be logically deduced from the fact of his existence, as he claimed to do. I believe that this illustrates a fundamental flaw in religous systems of thought, which is that the conclusion is defined from the outset, instead of being determined based on the knowable facts and probabilities, as is done in philosophical systems of thought.

Religeon is a method of transfering memes to the masses without the need for time and resource wasting scepticism. How could a philosophy that supports individual thought and expression raise an army? Religeon is the tool for raising armies, because it forgoes knowledge in favor of action. If soldiers are told they must go to war because the wrongs of killing are outweighed by the rights achieved by victory, they may well go back to their farms. If they are told that they must fight the minions of Satan or spend eternity in torment, they are much less likely to desert.

Thus, I conclude that religeon is a cudgel and philosophy a scalpel; that their goals are not even similar. The goal of religeon is to induce a particular course of action in a group of people. The purpose of philosophy is to induce particular questions to be answered by the invdividual. Thus I would argue that in modern times the scalpel is a more useful tool than the cudgel. Religeon is now doing more harm than good to civilization, and philosophy is now becoming more viable as a system for arriving at ethical consensus. Religeon was better tool before a system educating every individual was feasible, and before communication technology. I aruge that while once our ends were best served by a cudgels in the hands of the ignorant masses, now they are best served by a scalpels in the hands of skilled surgeons.

WE say philosophy over religion. because organised religion causes violence and ignorance and above all else is advertised as a freakin product! We feel that religion should be private and not public. No shame here just it is a personal thing. It has no buissness in politics. Religion is based on emotion and not pure logic. Whil we believe in a god we do not claim to know what he/she or it is. We accept any religion as long as it treats human life, animals and the environment with respect and dignity. We were raised catholic but hate the catholic church because it sells it's beliefs as if it were some product you need. I pray the only way I know how with my christian prayers
but rathers it's muhhamed, buddha, jesus whomever I do not really care. It is a private matter for me as I feel it should be for everyone and not emblazoned on T.V., radio, and road signs. Religion in mass(at least christianity) has unfortunatly become cheapened by advertisement as if Jesus is a damn Lexus or something, also Our bible says that Jesus was a man of humility and simple needs very simple yet we have these churches w/ gold challises and fine linens etc put your money in the basket, 10% of your income for tithing etc etc. People who try to dress up better than the other
blah blah blah blah blah! A place of worship should be humble(at least in the christian faith) I would have much more respect for it then. We like philosophy based in it's reason and thought but also believe in god and pray in our own private way.

A place of worship should be humble(at least in the christian faith) I would have much more respect for it then. We like philosophy based in it's reason and thought but also believe in god and pray in our own private way.

YES! Belief in a diety is a private matter. I believe that any path to enlightenment laid out ahead of you, (in the bible for example) is inherantly false because no two paths to enlightenment are the same. That does not forbid metaphysical discourse, just forbids any definitive set of tenets from becoming law. Faith should come from within the self, if you believe in God it should be because God has some effect on your life, not because some ancient book said that theres a big white man in the sky. Diety by definition transcends all texts, and h would have no reason to place one person above another, (the pope for example) This is why I describe religeon as a cudgel and philosophy as a scalpel.

If you think about religeon as an affair of the individual, it falls squarely in the realm of philosophy. Religeon in this form is reconciliable with the philosophical tenet of skepticism, because if God has a material impact on one life, God can be said to exists. However, the bible is not reconciliable with this tenet, because it dissolves at the first touch of skepticism.

Polish Warriors, My hat is off to you.

True, but when you compare these few and far between examples of philosophically fueled voilence with the abundance of religeous violence through the ages, you start to seem kind of silly.

...

Hmmm ... over six million in less than 10 years under Hitler, somewhere between 15 million and 30 million under Stalin, and who knows how many in Red China.... *taps keys on calculator* ...

no, I think that despite the time factor, religion has a hard time reaching those kinds of numbers.

PT

Surely you don't give the title of "Evilest act EVER" to 9/11, what about the Holocaust or the multitude of other slaughters (of many more than 3000) that have happened throughout history. Or is 9/11 worse because it was the first-ever attack on Americna soil? Not that I think you believe that, just pointing out how misguided a lot of peoles conception of "evil" is..

I'm not saying Semptember 11th was the most evil thing that's ever happened. It certainly does not compare with the Holocaust, or various other tragedies that can be documented throughout history. When I say "name something more evil than that" I'm referring not to the act, but more to the inspiration. I accuse religion of being the most evil concept ever devised by man because it inspires acts like 9/11.

As an interesting sidenote, Hitler was a devout Catholic. Explain that!

Just because a religion does not fit your definition of what a religion is, is no reason to exclude it.

Go with hinduism, that involves gods, that is open to interpretation. If you read into the deeper meaning of what hinduism says it is just a philosophy.

How has philosopy caused harm? Take china, in the early years of the revolution millions of people died of famine because of one mans idea of what the world should be like, what he understood by it.

If there is a deity or deities involved, it constitutes a religion. If there is no deity, you have a philosophy. Don't argue semantics--it's childish, and it detracts from the main point.

Hmmm ... over six million in less than 10 years under Hitler, somewhere between 15 million and 30 million under Stalin, and who knows how many in Red China.... *taps keys on calculator* ...

no, I think that despite the time factor, religion has a hard time reaching those kinds of numbers.

PT

It's unfair for you to regard the blood at the hands of Hitler, Stalin, or Red China as philosophically drawn. Allow me to elaborate. Hitler's motivations were not philosophical, they were political (as were Red China's, although that can be more attributed to a strict domestic policy than political aspirations), and Stalin was working based on an economic system. These are not philosophies, these are systems of government.

It's unfair for you to regard the blood at the hands of Hitler, Stalin, or Red China as philosophically drawn. Allow me to elaborate. Hitler's motivations were not philosophical, they were political (as were Red China's, although that can be more attributed to a strict domestic policy than political aspirations), and Stalin was working based on an economic system. These are not philosophies, these are systems of government.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Even if you include all those, if you adjust for population growth, religeon has cause more death than all that put together.

It's unfair for you to regard the blood at the hands of Hitler, Stalin, or Red China as philosophically drawn. Allow me to elaborate. Hitler's motivations were not philosophical, they were political (as were Red China's, although that can be more attributed to a strict domestic policy than political aspirations), and Stalin was working based on an economic system. These are not philosophies, these are systems of government.


Ah, so you imagine that political systems in general, and these political systems in particular, are not philosophical in their origin and bases? Or is it that you imagine that philosophy has no dealings with politics?

If the former, may I invite you to read things like the writings of Marx and Engels and the those of Nietzsche and then the Aryan thinkers who followed him.

If the latter, you might like to start with Plato (_The Republic_) and work forward.

The fact that not all politicians have an explicit cosmology, anthropology, ontology and all the rest, does not always mean they have no implicit philosophy, although this doesn't help you with regard to Hitler or the communists, as their political systems were plainly philosophical in their underpinnings.

Hitler's "politics" in isolation were no better than a series of questions, observations of problems. The answers he offered derived from his philosophy. What you call Red China's "strict domestic policy" is founded on political philosophy.

Regarding your particular comment about Stalin, he was working on much much more than an economic system. By the time he began the purges, he was building what amounts to a thorough-going philosophical system, complete with cosmology and anthropology and much more. That he didn't make it explicit to the populace in any systematic way tells us more about his psychology than about his system or the lack thereof.

As I see it, these systems of government are doctrinnaire, almost fundamentalist philosophies (not "religions" because they're anti-religious).

Instead of trying to find ways to reclassify historical phenomena in order to turn them into tools for blaming one side or the other, why not just observe that all humans are fallible, and if they are disposed to harm others, will find some excuse --- even if it means blaming their grannies, their society, their parents, their children, or their religion or philosophy? That doesn't mean we have to believe them. I don't blame Muhammad for 9/11 or Nietzsche for the Holocaust. But I do notice that the perpetrators of both horrors constructed their evils in the shape of those men's teachings, and then threw the camoflage of those two men over their horrors. One invented a religion, the other a philosophy. The problem was with the perpetrators, not the teachers.

PT