Religion vs. Philosophy

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

Post Number:#61  Postby enegue » August 9th, 2011, 10:21 am

Wooden shoe wrote:Hello Enegue.

Your concept of a society all with the same goal, walking and acting in lockstep with each other according to the dictates of some leader scares the hell out of me.

I know it does, because it's based on a fundamental immutable truth. If you were dangled from the top of a fifty story building that would likely scare the hell out of you too, because you know the effect of gravity is a fundamental universal truth too.

Wooden shoe wrote:This has been tried, all with very negative result.
Can you back this statement up with some hard evidence? Please tell me the nations who you believe have adhered to the ten commandments and not prospered?

Wooden shoe wrote:Perhaps I am wrong but I sense you see things as black and white.
Your reference to the 10 commandments as being an absolute makes me think you have not really studied them.
For instance the "you shall not kill" seems to apply only to not killing other Jews as shortly after giving this command God orders the Jews to commit genocide.
Those who occupied the land had polluted it because the did not adhere to the ten commandments, so they were displaced. If you are polluting your world because you are not adhering to the ten commandments then you too will be displaced. Whatever you have will be taken from you. It is a fundamental immutable law.

I don't understand how you can be so blind. Why is the US economy in trouble? Because the US as a nation has dropped the ball. The weight of so many citizens engaged in self-indulgent behaviour has brought the nation to its knees. God doesn't have to do anything but let you have what you want. The fundamental immutable laws of the universe will do the rest.

Wooden shoe wrote:Giving honour to parents is disputed by Jesus and who can blame someone who is starving, for stealing food.

There is a clear order you know. If your parents are at variance with the fundamental laws of abundant life, then they should be defied because they are trying to persuade their children that their foolishness will not bring disaster.

Wooden shoe wrote:There are very few absolutes other then you and I were born and we will die at some time
You can not prove the existence of a deity just as I can not prove the non-existence of same, however the need for prove lies in your corner, not in mine.

I don't have to prove there's a God, because it is self-evident. We have his instructions for abundant life and we can prove for ourselves whether they are right or wrong. I'd like to see you teaching your kids that they shouldn't honour you? It's almost funny that you could suggest it.

If you adhere to the ten commandments you won't need to steal.

Cheers,
enegue
enegue
 
Posts: 2036 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Location: Australia
Favorite Philosopher: God



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#62  Postby Roger_pearse » August 9th, 2011, 4:36 pm

I see methodological problems on both sides here.

enegue wrote:
Wooden shoe wrote:You can not prove the existence of a deity just as I can not prove the non-existence of same, however the need for prove lies in your corner, not in mine.



This "prove things to me" should trigger a warning light in us all. All of us live by some set of values. No set of values should be a default, which is what is implied here. There are two value-sets on the table; one is some subset of conformity to the societal values of our times, as I can see from the points made; the other looks like Christianity. But both sides have to state their propositions explicitly and be evaluated explicitly. This is where the conformist side invariably fail; for the same reason that fish probably find it hard to discuss water. But we have to see this position as what it is -- living by contemporary values. And these values change every 50 years or so.

And now to the response.

I don't have to prove there's a God, because it is self-evident.


It is not self-evident to me. But what IS evident to me is that any argument about whether we should be Christians or conformists (I'd prefer some other term which contemporary values don't use as a boo-word, but I don't have one) is not usefully begun with "can we prove whether there is a god". People who say yes come to that conclusion based on other reasons; people who say no do so mainly for other reasons.

In short the debate gets mis-stated from day 1.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger_pearse
 
Posts: 19 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 6th, 2011, 9:16 am

Post Number:#63  Postby enegue » August 9th, 2011, 7:54 pm

Hi, Roger.

I'm not sure where you arrived in the debate, but I'm suggesting that the ten commandments transcend time and culture. There is never a time or mode of living that will prove them false. They are as immutable as the other laws of the physical universe.

When God declares, "You shall have no other gods besides me!", he is stating what any provider of resources would say, implicit or explicit, "These are my resources and I make them available to you. If you do well you will be accepted and prosper, if you don't do well then you will suffer the inevitable consequences of no longer having access to them. Parents, teachers, bosses, law enforcement representatives, governments, etc, all take such a position. It may not be politically correct to think of it in these terms, but it is what it is.

What nation can pursue national goals unless the majority of its citizens are pulling in the same direction and are united behind a national leader who has a nation vision. This is a general statement of truth, regardless of the law at the heart of that nation. Whether or not the nation is good or evil does not change the immutable nature of this law. Good nations will persist, evil nations will not.

The existence of the law, proves the existence of God. Whether or not we choose to attribute the law to man or to God is immaterial and adherence to the law is not a matter or "having to", but "wanting to" because it is the only rational way for mankind to persist in this creation.

Cheers,
enegue
enegue
 
Posts: 2036 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Location: Australia
Favorite Philosopher: God

Post Number:#64  Postby Roger_pearse » August 10th, 2011, 3:49 am

Ah, I had misunderstood the point you were making - thanks!

The 10 commandments as an example of the natural law, then, and the natural law as something we can discover exists among us -- with that I would agree.
Roger_pearse
 
Posts: 19 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 6th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Religion vs. Philosophy

Post Number:#65  Postby nameless » August 15th, 2011, 4:12 am

cynicallyinsane wrote:What's the difference between religion and philosophy? Aren't they both the search for fundemental truths?

'Philosophy' is the way of knowing by 'critical thought', the practice thereof.

Critical Thinking Mini Lessons
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

'Religion' is the way of knowing by 'belief'.
Critical thought and belief are both 'thought'.
Another way of knowing is 'intuition', an immediate knowing sans the process of 'thought'
All are valid ways of knowing the features of the One Reality.
nameless
 
Posts: 1234 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Religion vs. Philosophy

Post Number:#66  Postby Stanley Huang » August 16th, 2011, 8:52 am

I read a book and the scholar says: "Philosophy is developed out of religion."

So, even if you think that philosophy is not the same as religion, at least, there must be a link.

To me, philosophy is the same as religion.

Otherwise, why is it that many philosophers in the beginning will show respect for religion, and it is only when philosophical ideas develop, that some people start to doubt about the idea of eternity, so and so forth.
Stanley Huang
 
Posts: 526 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 7th, 2011, 9:52 am

Post Number:#67  Postby Wooden shoe » August 16th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Stanley.

This so-called scholar is hardly believable as it seems he ignored Buddha, the Greek and the Roman philosophers.
Philosophy is trying for truth, whereas religion does not care for truth, only its dogma.

In the western world, once christianity started to dominate, not including religion was considered a sin, punishable by death.
This did not change until the reformation.
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
Wooden shoe
 
Posts: 1549 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Religion vs. Philosophy

Post Number:#68  Postby Stanley Huang » August 16th, 2011, 9:11 pm

Dear Wodden Shoe,

Buddhism is not even a religion, since Buddha does not talk about much about what is beyond speculative thinking.

Well, if you make a difference between feeling religion and belief religion, then, there is no confusion.

In the past, people in China follow feeling religion. Zen is feeling religion. Confucianism may be feeling religion and Taoism may be feeling religion.

Feeling religion is what you feel, like I feel there is a demon, which is not the same as I believe there is a demon.

So feeling religion is more liberal, where it does not force people what to believe, rather, it encourages people what to feel.

But Christian is following belief religion, and belief religion may tell people what to believe or what to do, and this may lead to war or inequality.

And I feel in the past, people outside Asia are following belief religion and people in India also follow belief religion so they have inequality or caste system.

And the countries influenced by Chinese culture like Japan and Korea are following feeling religion.

Will this clear up the confusion?
Stanley Huang
 
Posts: 526 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 7th, 2011, 9:52 am

Post Number:#69  Postby enegue » August 17th, 2011, 3:39 am

Wooden shoe wrote:In the western world, once christianity started to dominate, not including religion was considered a sin, punishable by death.
This did not change until the reformation.

Christianity never started to dominate. A secular humanist by the name of Constantine, could see that Christians had a way of life that was sensible and admirable and he decided to impose that way of life on his people.

Jesus' teaching did not support the way Constantine chose to behave:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

If someone is behaving or speaking in any way counter to what Jesus taught, then it is not Christianity. Christians are followers of Jesus, not followers of the church.

Cheers,
enegue
enegue
 
Posts: 2036 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Location: Australia
Favorite Philosopher: God

Post Number:#70  Postby Wooden shoe » August 17th, 2011, 10:41 pm

Enegue.

Do you make that fine kind of distinction between a Muslim extremist and Islam generally?
Just because the type of Christianity practiced during the dark ages in Europe does not meet your standard is irrelevant as to the pressure put on philosophers in that time period.
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
Wooden shoe
 
Posts: 1549 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Post Number:#71  Postby enegue » August 17th, 2011, 11:23 pm

Wooden shoe wrote:Enegue.

Do you make that fine kind of distinction between a Muslim extremist and Islam generally?

Absolutely!

Wooden shoe wrote:Just because the type of Christianity practiced during the dark ages in Europe does not meet your standard is irrelevant as to the pressure put on philosophers in that time period.
It's not my standard. It is the standard that was established by the one who gave his life for many.

No Christians used strength of arms, finance, intellectual argument, etc to force Constantine to adopt Christian principles. He could see that their "way of life" was powerful and he decided that it would be a good model to impose on his people. You are mistaking the beginnings of the church with the teachings of Christ.

I understand how you might make such a mistake, but you have the resources necessary to judge for yourself the differences. It's only a matter of whether you want to or not.

Cheers,
enegue
enegue
 
Posts: 2036 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Location: Australia
Favorite Philosopher: God

Post Number:#72  Postby Wooden shoe » August 24th, 2011, 4:48 pm

Enegue.

I have no interest in determining who is a real christian or not, In my mind they are all deluded and I was one of them for a large part of my life.
The point I was making regarding philosophers during the ages the catholic church dominated still holds.
Is it possible for you to stay on topic and stop throwing up red herrings?
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
Wooden shoe
 
Posts: 1549 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Post Number:#73  Postby enegue » August 24th, 2011, 5:06 pm

Wooden shoe wrote:Enegue.

I have no interest in determining who is a real christian or not, In my mind they are all deluded and I was one of them for a large part of my life.
The point I was making regarding philosophers during the ages the catholic church dominated still holds.
Is it possible for you to stay on topic and stop throwing up red herrings?

I don't think you understand the notion of a discussion. One of the most important things to do is to agree on definitions, otherwise you will go round and round and never arrive at any useful conclusions.

I'm very happy that it was YOU who used the term "real christian" because it means you understand there is a difference between what is real and what is sham. So then, regardless of your opinion about their all being deluded, do you imagine the demise of the philosophers, you are referring to was caused by the real or the sham Christians? You're not a bigot are you?

Were you a real Christian or a sham christian?

Cheers,
enegue
enegue
 
Posts: 2036 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Location: Australia
Favorite Philosopher: God

Post Number:#74  Postby Nubbles » August 24th, 2011, 6:04 pm

enegue wrote:
Wooden shoe wrote:Enegue.

I have no interest in determining who is a real christian or not, In my mind they are all deluded and I was one of them for a large part of my life.
The point I was making regarding philosophers during the ages the catholic church dominated still holds.
Is it possible for you to stay on topic and stop throwing up red herrings?

I don't think you understand the notion of a discussion. One of the most important things to do is to agree on definitions, otherwise you will go round and round and never arrive at any useful conclusions.

I'm very happy that it was YOU who used the term "real christian" because it means you understand there is a difference between what is real and what is sham. So then, regardless of your opinion about their all being deluded, do you imagine the demise of the philosophers, you are referring to was caused by the real or the sham Christians? You're not a bigot are you?

Were you a real Christian or a sham christian?

Cheers,
enegue


So everyone needs to agree on definitions?

Define "discussion".
You're not a bigot, are you?

See what I'm saying?
Nubbles
 
Posts: 131 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 19th, 2011, 2:09 pm

Post Number:#75  Postby Wooden shoe » August 24th, 2011, 6:30 pm

I am not going to get into a discussion as to who of the thousands of denominations who call themselves christian are good or bad because it has nothing to do with what I posted.
The same pressure occurred in the islamic world, and has nothing to do with good or bad islam as it has nothing to do with good or bad christianity.
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
Wooden shoe
 
Posts: 1549 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gamnot, Rederic and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST