Philosophy Discussion Forums

Religion, philosophy, and science are commonly regarded as three branches of our culture. What is the order of our need for them – their relative value in helping us to lead the good life? Please explain your hierarchy. Do we need all three? Why or why not?

My present answers to these questions are too positive, going-on-arrogant – a sure sign I need to get the thoughts of my fellow truth-seekers.

Dewey

That depends on what you define as "need".

If we are in need of a growth in technology, science is obviously the best way in order to achieve this.

A philosopher will perhaps say that philisophy is the most important, because it gives us a reflected mind.

A religios person will perhaps say that religion is the most important, because of the importance to his own life. He may think that his religion is alpha and omega.

I don't think we need any of them, but considering the status of the current world, I think we'd be better off without religion.

Hi Jarle10,

Look again! It's just that I defined "need" broadly. The aim of everyone is "the good life" but each must define for himself what it consists of.

We will benefit more from your comments if you give us some idea of what the good life means to you.

I admit I didn't quite catch that sentence. Nevertheless, my answer is applicable. It will of course depend on the person you ask. Religion filled the needs humans had for explanation before, that now sophisticated philosophy and science are overlapping. I think religion is the first branch to disappear, as our need for explanation is stimulated in a much more satisfying sense with science/metaphysics.

Note that I define the 'good life' as a life that stimulates basic human needs. In this case: The need for explanation - which is the only thing science, philosophy and religion can offer. Some may argue that religion brings a certain completeness and a feeling of security. I will though not speculate over that issue now.

We need all three because people vary according to which idiom is most easily understood.

By the way I'm inferring that by 'religion' you don't mean religious institutions, but something more like personal religious experiences. These may touch on science, or art, philosophy, rituals or any other activities and still be called 'religious'/

Hi Belinda,

In effect then, I think you’re advising each of us to choose whichever of the three branches is “most easily understood” by the individual as her means of defining the good life she aspires to.

Is it all that easy? Is that which we can most easily understand all we need to know? Should we establish our goal of a good life based on ignorance of that which is most difficult to understand? Please help me "most easily understand" your meaning.

My definition of religion in this forum is a set of beliefs possibly including the attributes you mentioned and also including a belief in the existence of a deity.

Yes Dewey, I think 'most' of us are in tune with science as evidenced by the produce of advertisers who use 'science' to attract paying customers.

Far fewer are in touch with philosophy which is a pity in my view, and I trust that schools are making good this shortcoming.

Since by religion you include transcendent God, I would prefer that religion is deleted from the list of what makes life good.I hope that philosophy or a combination of philosophy and science fill up the space. By the way, you have not included arts in your list, and arts are a big influence for good.

I like the idea of the broad- based school qualification called the baccalaureat which may possibly be adopted in this country(UK) and which is used in France.This sort of curriculum may allow learners to range widely, to make connections and to specialise when the time comes to specialise.Arts and sciences can inform each other.

But for Goodness's sake, let's do away with the transcendent God! The old man is dead .

Anyone that is "intune" with science? Very well:

Please describe to me the growth process of nannites.

Please explain the two exceptions governing the three strong forces.

Then we move to String theory, if you would explain how the other 8 dimensions of existence are woven beneath and above our own.


I am truly not trying to be condescending, however stating that someone is in tune with something that, really, even those doing the research barely understand, is somewhat silly.

Our minds project emotions, intuition, and autonomic function.... automatically. Science requires effort and a conscious "ignoring" of ones own emotional and intuitive conclusions on most matters (granted most of our greatest discoveries were done by men who ascribed to philosophy greater than science, but hey...).

Even Einstein refused to believe many of his -own- calculations, due to his belief in God... a philosophy. Any of you more in tune with science than he was?

The human race is about as in tune with Science, as it is harmonically similiar to a black hole... Neat to look at, and yes it effects us, but ultimately the one thing that our sciences prove to us is how little we do understand, in the same way I understand Mount Everest because I found a pebble.


P.S. This is not directed at any individual. Don't get arrogant.

Hi Akhenaten,

Your discussion of the meaning of “in tune” is interesting, but I don’t think it addresses the questions I have asked. You appear to know a lot about science, so I would particularly appreciate your ideas about science as a partial or entire basis for defining and living a good life.

Looking again at your comments, I do see some connection with the subject at hand. You refer to Albert Einstein and the influence of his religious beliefs on his scientific work. You might want to recheck your understanding that he believed in a god. I think you’ll find that, despite some public statements that were so construed, over and over again in his private letters and other writings he made it clear he was an atheist.

Yes, looking at it now it does seem rather silly. It would perhaps have been better if I had written 'scientific' language. The look and sound of scientific language that so often carries the connotation of people (scientists)who are able to provide us with safety etc.is more familiar to 'most'people than the language of philosophy.

The only idiom in which the language of philosophy is approximately equal in the popular mind to the language of science is sci fi.Sci fi at its best is a good educator.

Dewey:

Please help me "most easily understand" your meaning

I had in mind that a learner can start only from where she is in her enthusiasms. Therefore since science is the taste of the moment, it might be better to have science as the leader into learning.And by 'learning' I mean something quite grand. Not vocational skills although they do of course have their place, but 'learning' meaning raising of consciousnesses so that morality and beauty are learned as well as scientific facts.

Oh and please! Morality is not the special preserve of the God religions.

Hi Jarle10.

You don't think we need any of the three (religion, philosophy, and science) to help us to lead the good life. All they offer, you say, is explanation. What, then, do we need and where do we get it?

You define the good life as a life that stimulates basic human needs. I see that as a bad life. What don't I understand?

in order of value, and logical evolution, that is most suiting, to the most productive and efficient method of learning and using all 3

a life with none of these is void of life at all, and life by any less than all, can hardly be considered a life at all. I think of it as 1d, 2d, 3d....which one do you want to live in, and which one do you think has the most opportunities? (sort of a suggestive, rhetorical question, sorry)

philosophy- I lump this in with reason and critical thinking then followed by...

science-since we can now reason, we may now interpret our data using our skills and reason, for science

religion-an intuition in to the unknown and unexplainable, lastly but most importantly an optimism to keep us trying even though things may look bleak

I think that is the basic/necessary 3, generally. too add to the list, I cant think of any others to add that wouldn't encroach on another's territory

in some form of the other, I think this triad must exist, the smallest shape is a triangle.

one could argue we don't need religion, but then without it, that eliminates styles and cultures almost, of people. and that diversity of ideas and influences is both our curse, and our blessing

no we don't need to speculate about the unknown (((religion and I'm not saying that's all there is to it, it does so much more for us.))) but that would be akin to a life without fun, and there is most certainly a need for that, to create a real desire to live. now if you find fun in philosophy or science, then great, but there are so many unknowns in both, that like I said, its a necessity.

Hi wanabe,

In your opinion, after philosophy and science, religion helps you to define and live the good life. It’s needed, you say, because it provides us “an intuition in to the unknown and unexplainable”. You see it fulfilling a need not satisfied by philosophy and science in which “there are so many unknowns”.

That surprises me, especially with regard to science which I think of as a process entirely dedicated to erasing the unknown and creating the known.

Please expound on this if you will (including, of course, correcting anything I have misinterpreted). Some examples of these unknowns might help me and perhaps others to better understand this matter.

when I say religion, I mean MY religion which is just, so hard to explain...think budism hinduism "jedi" with heavy concerns to all the worlds religions.

in most cases I think that the bible is a huge metaphor, and at the same time a teller of patterns of human action.....i would assume that the Koran is much the same, along with what ever other big books are out there...so if that helped at all, that is what I mean by religion, I know I wasn't clear on that sorry.

in a lot of ways science and philosophy are intertwined in my religion, as I made my religion up of scientific "fact" and "philosophical reasoning" just like every other religion.

oh and the god I worship, is the group conciousness of all dead things in the havens...and a separate entity entirely...chance/probability, but as of yet I'm not sure which side of the "/", it is. not that it's all that important, the name doesn't change what it does...

now you see what I mean, its a necessity every one has beliefs, that is a religion.....

yea, this is why I wasn't clear... um don't join my cult I'm just as wrong/right as everybody else.

so now, its crystal clear I hope. and yes I'm just as crazy as everyone else, but who is more crazy? one who makes up his own beliefs, or one the follows anthers?

Thanks, wanabe. I do understand you better now. Perhaps the key is in the intertwining relationship of your particular religion with philosophy and science. (I don't agree, however, that's "just like every other religion.)