@ obi

Sorry that I didn't thoroughly read the title. In my defense, it was a fairly long title.

Mafialligator, I have a faggy crush on you. That's why I "leave you alone". Please don't tell my wife.

Philosophy is the general study of existence, knowledge, and values. Now, I can see why someone who is a Christian might say they have no use for philosophy, since philosophy critically examines these issues in a logical way. The religious adherent simply treats these as settled questions.

"I suppose I just don't understand how it is warranted that philosophy is a field of study by itself."

Because no other field systematically analyzes questions related to 'first principles'.

Don't worry cupcake, your secret's safe with me. <3

You don't think religion is a form of philosophy, Putin?

It's just--sacrelidge as it may sound, on either side of the fence--the same as Plato, a bit, isn't it, in The Republic?

Try and define justice.
Then try and give a metaphysical underpinning to prove your idea is "right."
Then give ideas--commandments?--as to how to biuild this society around figureheads (God, the PKs.)

Religion is just ethics and metaphysics put into a blender for me...granted that doesn't mean I agree with it some of the time, or even a lot of the time, in the case of organized religion, but still, I think it counts as philosophy...

I do think religion is related to philosophy in that it addresses the kind of questions philosophy asks (science does also, with the exception of ethics). But I think one could argue that what separates philosophy from religion is that philosophy's whole purpose is to critically and logically analyze these questions, whereas religion for the most part just takes its particular answers to be true without any critical thinking. Now, this is not always true - we have people like Thomas Aquinas for example, who tried to critically and logically address these issues, from a religious point of view. (There are many others as well). But I think what is lost in defining philosophy is the emphasis on its *method*.

Religion seeks the reasoning from the answers. Philosophy seeks the answers from the reasoning.

They're different approaches to the same ideas, and related in that respect.

+1 Eden, my thoughts exactly--and more succinctly--on the comparison between the two. :)

@ Putin33 and Eden

Philosophy cannot get answers from reasoning because some of life's answers exist outside of philosophy (and science). That is where religion fits in. It is faith in the intangible.

I basically agree with Eden's above statement, but I do not think Christianity is philosophy with a Crucifix slapped on. Religion and philosophy share some goals, but (most) religion(s)' primary objective is eternal salvation, whereas philosophy's primary objective is gaining understanding about life, which is a secondary objective for religion.

Religion and philosophy are related because of that, but that is the only way they are related.

Taoism and Buddhism are philosophies then not religions, they have no god/gods and you can be Christian and Buddhist at the same time.

Yet they are considered religions. Why?

It might have something to do with their believing in immortality.

I'm glad people like the statement itself. I suppose they'll be less inclined to like my personal followup -- I feel like answers for which one doesn't have reasoning, and for which one is expected to find reasoning, is kind of bogus. If I'm looking to sign away my soul to your deity for eternity, and there are other deities I could be signing it away toward, and the consequence is supposedly eternal damnation for not signing it away to some of the other deities, you better damn well have something more for me than "We have answers! We just don't know why, you have to figure that out yourself." And frankly it seems like all of them go that route, and maybe I'm asking too much, but none of them instill that eternal confidence I'd need to sign my soul away.

Hence why I haven't picked any and don't really intend to anytime soon. If religion's primarily about eternal life, then I feel justified in taking a pragmatic angle about it -- it's a means to an end. And if none of them are convincing enough, then I'm going to go with not picking any, because I figure that if they're gonna get pissed off at me for not picking them they'll get even MORE pissed if I go with someone else, and even MORE pissed on top of that if I go with someone else and can't even justify WHY I'm going with that someone else in the first place! Plus it'd just be dishonest of me to sign up for something I don't believe in. I figure if these gods are half as reasonable as their followers make them out to be that they'd rather me be an honest atheist than a dishonest believer.

Not to mention reincarnation according to moral action...the same sort of "do what we consider good deeds, and the next life will be good for you, do poor deeds and suffer in the next life," it's just thate "next life" is a reincarnated state rather than the Pearly Gates.

Having visited various Buddhist temples when I visited the Tibetan plateau (Gansu province area), I can say that I've never seen Christians or Muslims prostrate themselves as much as they do. There is absolutely worship, or at least veneration going on. Taoist temples also involve the use of incense and bowing before shrines and such. But Tibetan Buddhism is absolutely a religion.

"It might have something to do with their believing in immortality."

Belief in immortality does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with religion.

@ obiwan

May I suggest a topic for the next Philosophy Weekly?

@ Eden. As an agnostic from logic and religious from belief I would say two things in response to your post:

1) I am a believer but do not place consideration of eternal live high in that belief system. Unless our description encompasses the memories of others after one is dead.

2) Re, what I might call your ''many religions argument'', by analogy I look to the top of a hill. Many other people do too and there are a variety of paths to take to reach that destination. Often they converge and sometimes they might diverge, they do, however, all lead to the top in the end.

I'm pretty sure Taoists believe in deities like Guanyin and such. And have temples for prayer. Is believing in a deity the defining characteristic of a religion?

@Gunfighter:

By all means. :D

Jumping in somewhat late -- obi, without philosophy of some sort, I simply wouldn't know what to do about anything. If you think and analyze stuff enough, at some point you're going to run into very hard questions about why you think and act as you do. Chances are, this will lead you right into the same questions philosophers have been discussing a long time. That's why philosophy exists. It answers the questions anybody would want to know the answer to, just to live, if they thought about it enough.

To say that most branches of philosophy have "no application to the real world" is already taking a ton of philosophical positions.

And I say all this, by the way, as a religious person. No, they're not the same, but to believe what I believe, I have to understand why -- why I believe anything, how I might know, what is the nature of thought and belief. There's no way around it. Certainly I don't view religious belief as an end run around the hard work of philosophy!

"1) I am a believer but do not place consideration of eternal live high in that belief system. Unless our description encompasses the memories of others after one is dead."

I don't think of religion in the "it's for eternal life" manner either, to be sure -- that was specifically in response to Gunfighter's argument that it was.

That said, I see no compelling reason to join a religion, so... yeah. Even the nebulous eternal life claim is pretty sketchy with me, and the rest is just forced adherence to a set of ideals in which I don't believe for no conceivable gain. Hardly fits the "make your own purpose in life" framework I mentioned earlier.

"2) Re, what I might call your ''many religions argument'', by analogy I look to the top of a hill. Many other people do too and there are a variety of paths to take to reach that destination. Often they converge and sometimes they might diverge, they do, however, all lead to the top in the end."

So all roads lead to heaven? Why not mine, then?

1) On the puurpose of religion - maybe it is to make this earth a better place both in the present and the future? OK here come all the historical arguments about the inquisition etc., where I, in turn, counter with the great atheist murderers of the 20th century. We have been down this path many times before, but I still feel that my argument holds at least as much as any counter-argument put up so far.

2) On the many religions argument - heaven does not lie at the top of the allegorical hill, but a better Earth for the here and now. To that extent I would include humanism as being one of the paths too.

The interesting thing, to me anyway, is what drives some/most of us to hold 1) and by extension 2) as being desirable?

''To say that most branches of philosophy have "no application to the real world" is already taking a ton of philosophical positions.''

I have very limited philosophical knowledge and absolutely no training. I must say, however, as someone who works in and around the sciences, that the most valuable tool I have gained is the acceptance of doubt. Indeed I would go further and embrace it as, certainly in my work, creativity would be much hampered without it.

@ obiwan

I suggest that next week's "Philosophy Weekly" is over absolutes. Are there absolute standards? Do right and wrong exist?

@ fulhamish and President Eden

Every religion has a different purpose. For Christians, Muslims, and Jews the goal is eternity in Heaven, paridise (whatever). However, that is open to interpretation from extremists. For example, Muslim extremists' purpose in human life is blowing up non-Muslims. Radical Christians believe their earthy purpose is harassing (and sometimes killing) gays and abortion doctors.

@ President Eden

Is your name a Fallout 3 reference?

"maybe it is to make this earth a better place both in the present and the future?"

I thought Christianity rejected this kind of materialist thinking. Surely the point is not to improve this temporal world but to prepare for the future one?

@ Putin33

Saying Christianity does anything is a very broad statement. The only thing that two Christians will always have in common is the belief that Jesus Christ saved them from sin. Every sect of Christianity will have different views on the meaning of life, materialism, and everything else. Remember, some Christians drive to church in Lincolns and Audis. Some Christians live in isolated communes.

@ Putin33

You can bring people to Christ by improving this temporal world. Ever heard of missions?