Religion vs. Philosophy

[Southtown]

In Judaism, the written Torah and the Oral Torah (Mishnah, part of the Talmud) are important and exist side by side. There are also two other oral traditions that are important in Judaism, although I will not list them here.

By contrast, check out Karaite Judaism. =P

 

Also Isaiah 29:13.

[cwes99_03]

Straying from topic.

 

Would you thus recommend (on the definition put forth in this thread) that people stop referring to Hindu Dharma as religion and refer to it like they do the work of Plato, Socrates, and Rousseau?

 

I would

That was all that was necessary, though I agree that people tend to get drowned out because there are so many philosophies posing as religion out there. Thanks.

Please stick around. I want this thread to contain more than just christian viewpoints, and am continually attempting to steer things back on topic.

 

Freddy and Makeiru, I wasn't looking for a discussion of oral traditions and other books, which is the oldest book, what have you. While these do come into the equation when discussing whether or not something can or should be identified as a religion, and C1ay is on that part of the subject as to whether or not anything can be considered a religious holy writing or if they are all just man's philosophies, please try to keep on subject.

 

To do so, just reread a couple of the first posts and the last ones and see how far off topic you might be.

 

That said, thanks Maikeru for the info on oral tradition. I have noted above that some oral tradition is much like a writing, in that the way it was handed down was a mandatory memorization of the story word for word.

Likewise many cultures today have oral history handed down in song, and the young ones are taught the songs by the older ones. The young ones must learn the song word for word in order to pass it along, or else the oral history is lost due to change.

There is a particular part of china in which the women still work the rice paddies on the terraces. Their language is dieing and the oral history that goes with it because the younger ones are leaving the village for the city and promises of work. However, there are still a few young ones by which to pass on the oral tradition. But look at me, now I've strayed from topic.

[cwes99_03]

By contrast, check out Karaite Judaism. =P

 

Also Isaiah 29:13.

 

Good source there on the karaite jews.

 

Tell me. Does looking at these groups who adhere strictly to certain teachings (those found in either the torah or the mishnah or the talmud) help to bolster these claims of religion or philosophy? Or do they muddy the waters?

 

Obviously they each claim different holy writings. Whether or not they are holy, C1ay and others will undoubtedly question. However, my question is have the adherents questioned their holiness? Do non-karaite Jews question whether some teachings in the Talmud are in line with those teachings in the Torah?

Do they incorporate teachings into their own religious beliefs that are obviously contradictory? If they do, have they determined if one or the other teaching isn't founded on a holy writing?

 

These are the questions that need to be answered, on an individual basis.

 

My idea for this thread was to look at these things, and determine if we can separate the religious from the philosophers. Perhaps we can't. But if we can't, how can a government?

[Southtown]

Obviously they each claim different holy writings. Whether or not they are holy, C1ay and others will undoubtedly question. However, my question is have the adherents questioned their holiness? Do non-karaite Jews question whether some teachings in the Talmud are in line with those teachings in the Torah?

Do they incorporate teachings into their own religious beliefs that are obviously contradictory? If they do, have they determined if one or the other teaching isn't founded on a holy writing?

Do they actually read any of the texts, or do they let other people tell them what the scriptures say? In my mind, the difference between them is that philosophy first conceives an interpretation and then seeks to support it, while religion adheres to a text or principle and then seeks to interpret it. Perhaps some religious people will disagree. Perhaps they are closet philosophers.

[maikeru]

Straying from topic.

 

Yes, I agree but...

 

Freddy and Makeiru, I wasn't looking for a discussion of oral traditions and other books, which is the oldest book, what have you. While these do come into the equation when discussing whether or not something can or should be identified as a religion, and C1ay is on that part of the subject as to whether or not anything can be considered a religious holy writing or if they are all just man's philosophies, please try to keep on subject.

 

That's fine. I don't want to continue to discuss oral traditions, either, but I think you're missing the point: you provided no evidence for your claim that the first books of the Bible (i.e., Genesis, etc.) are based on earlier books, which was part of the evidence for your reasoning that monotheism predates polytheism. That was what I was trying to point out. You were drawing an important conclusion from what, at least, I consider shaky premises.

 

To do so, just reread a couple of the first posts and the last ones and see how far off topic you might be.

 

The sub-discussion of monotheism, polytheism, and dating in of itself is a diversion, and so are many others "guilty" of this offense. I think it would be best if we allowed the issue of off-topic posts to drop here and resume discussion as you suggest.

 

That said...

 

To Southtown, I think it suffices to say that I am aware of the error I made: going by the majority instead of totality. However, I will not discuss this further here. If I want to discuss oral traditions any time, there's the option of a new thread. All right, I think that wraps up the OT things for now.

[maikeru]

I thought I would ask a question here that poses perhaps the most important thought I've ever wondered about in regards to this discussion.

 

What is the deciding factor between calling something a religious movement or a philosophical movement? Where is the line drawn?

 

I don't know if a definite line can be drawn. It is obvious that religions can contain and influence philosophies, and philosophies may even be religions or "religion-philosophies." For example, what I've read from many Zen Buddhists is that Zen is more of a philosophy of life: one that teaches the importance of living *now* in our lives. This is what I'd say is "philosophical"--it implies a certain outlook and method to know reality and knowledge--yet it is the focus and practice in what is generally recognized as a religion. Hence the religion-philosophy label. It's inadequate, and I find the line and the deciding factor(s) to be seriously blurred.

 

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, that can't be explained only through science, but through a belief in some high ethereal power. After all someone who worships nature believes that there is some higher power called mother nature, right? If not, then I would say that they are simply worshipping a man, or rather the philosophy of a man.

 

People who worship nature may worship forces, elements, persons, or things or a creator God. There are examples for all these and probably more. I would say that religion is based on what induces or creates the "spiritual" in the person, rather than the "something" inherently being spiritual or unexplainable by science. It may be inherently supernatural or it may not. When you say it cannot be explained through science, I would then say that you are speaking of "faith."

 

The importance behind this question is that many today do not want someone else to teach them religion (separation of church and state). Yet they can't wait to learn about someone's philosophy, either on how to raise children (Rousseau) or how governments should be run (Republicans) or ...

 

That's a good point. (But I wish Rousseau followed his own advice on how to raise children, rather than littering them all over.) Religion and the state can be together, but it changes the nature and type of state (and who can live in it or tolerate it).

 

Is there such a division? If not, how does one separate church and state? If so, where does that division exist? Is there some magical number of believers? Is there some scientific explanation that decides whether something is a religion or a philosophy? And can one worship a car as a god, or is that some fake religion?

 

There is not a clear division, but we often think there is one. Also, sometimes scientific reasoning or evidence can help one, the deciding and thinking individual, whether something is a religion, philosophy, or something entirely else (possibly a falsehood). I also believe some religions and philosophies are more verifiable and subject to logic than others, by their doctrines, works, or inherent nature and logic.

 

For example, consider Mormonism, which claims an alternate history of the Americas through its primary text. Since the primary text claims to be a historical as well as religious record, I would say that it opens itself to logical and scientific inquiry. And that, by extension, the religion is also open to inquiry.

 

One can worship a car, a dog, or a donut as a god, but whether it is logical and scientifically reasonable to do so is another matter, especially since the objects of veneration here are well-rooted in reality and study.

 

My thinking's something along the lines of "all's possible, but what is probable?" I see a lot of inevitable fuzziness or inadequate distinctions in life. Sometimes it seems there is no clear dividing line except what is agreed on by the majority. Something which has influenced my thinking a lot is biology, where one often realizes that life and its forms often defy human convention.

[cwes99_03]

Do they actually read any of the texts, or do they let other people tell them what the scriptures say? In my mind, the difference between them is that philosophy first conceives an interpretation and then seeks to support it, while religion adheres to a text or principle and then seeks to interpret it. Perhaps some religious people will disagree. Perhaps they are closet philosophers.

 

If they don't read the texts, it is like any other person. A person who claims to be a scientist and yet does not read any scientific articles, just claims to be a scientist, is not a scientist.

 

As far as philosophy goes you yourself posted the scripture I think you're looking for as regards the distinction here.

Romans 2:14 identifies those that do not know the law (the scriptures) and yet do things in harmony with the (scriptures). These ones are still not doing all things according to the scriptures but according to their own thoughts and conscience, which occasionally does things approved of by God by sheer accident.

Hey can someone find the quote I'm thinking of? It's something to the effect of

"an unguided conscience is a dangerous thing"

Anyway, when a person does something because they think they should, and not because a supernatural power suggests they should, they may still do some things that please that supernatural power, but that doesn't make them a religious person, it makes them a philosopher, one who trusts in his own views.

Likewise, many governments today hold similar philosophies as to the 10 commandments. One is that murder is unacceptable. Does this make the government a theocracy? No.

 

 

I don't know if a definite line can be drawn. It is obvious that religions can contain and influence philosophies, and philosophies may even be religions or "religion-philosophies." For example, what I've read from many Zen Buddhists is that Zen is more of a philosophy of life: one that teaches the importance of living *now* in our lives. This is what I'd say is "philosophical"--it implies a certain outlook and method to know reality and knowledge--yet it is the focus and practice in what is generally recognized as a religion. Hence the religion-philosophy label. It's inadequate, and I find the line and the deciding factor(s) to be seriously blurred.

 

Blurred by what? If a window is muddy, do you not clean it to view what's on the other side? This thread is an attempt to wipe away the mud.

 

 

People who worship nature may worship forces, elements, persons, or things or a creator God. There are examples for all these and probably more. I would say that religion is based on what induces or creates the "spiritual" in the person, rather than the "something" inherently being spiritual or unexplainable by science. It may be inherently supernatural or it may not. When you say it cannot be explained through science, I would then say that you are speaking of "faith."

 

Hmm, again someone attempts to bring up the idea of unexplainable. Scientists will say nothing is unexplainable, just unknown at this time. Thus nothing is unexplainable by science. Forces or elements, persons or things, all of these have power or something more than just material attributes placed on them when worshipped. A person who worships things in nature, like the sun, or a tree, all place more than just physical attributes on or in the tree. Thus they worship the tree as if it had powers or a personality, and not just as a tree. Many, however, worship the whole (of nature) as a living cognizant being, which currently is at odds with science thought. Scientific theory though is often at odds with other theory in one area or another.

 

 

That's a good point. (But I wish Rousseau followed his own advice on how to raise children, rather than littering them all over.) Religion and the state can be together, but it changes the nature and type of state (and who can live in it or tolerate it).

 

At that point though it would cease to be the democracy that we are discussing here that stipulates a separation of church and state. It would not be a "human" government any more, it would be a government according to the way of the god(s) if it rules by that god's methods. Otherwise, it is a government based on human philosophy, one such government based on the philosophy that all people deserve equal rights and freedoms.

 

 

One can worship a car, a dog, or a donut as a god, but whether it is logical and scientifically reasonable to do so is another matter, especially since the objects of veneration here are well-rooted in reality and study.

 

My thinking's something along the lines of "all's possible, but what is probable?" I see a lot of inevitable fuzziness or inadequate distinctions in life. Sometimes it seems there is no clear dividing line except what is agreed on by the majority. Something which has influenced my thinking a lot is biology, where one often realizes that life and its forms often defy human convention.

 

Of course, majority rule is a philosophy, or some would say a fact of life. It was not how Plato thought the world should run, as he thought that the majority of mankind couldn't rule themselves, which is actually the underlying theme of the Bible.

[maikeru]

Blurred by what? If a window is muddy, do you not clean it to view what's on the other side? This thread is an attempt to wipe away the mud.

 

Blurred by a multiplicity of religions and philosophies and things that exist in between, which do not fall neatly into the former two categories/extremes. As an example, I mentioned Zen Buddhism, which is often considered a religion, but is philosophical in its basic outlook, beliefs, and practices. From Wikipedia: "Zen is a form of Mahayana Buddhism that places great importance on moment-by-moment awareness and 'seeing deeply into the nature of things' by direct experience." This sounds like a form of empirical philosophy (knowledge is gained by the senses and observation). I've heard it said that one can be a Zen Buddhist and an atheist or agnostic, not believing in the "divinity" of Buddha, but in insights and spiritual awakening through practice. That's the type of "blur" I'm talking about. It's considered a religion, a philosophy, a way of life. What is it then?

 

Take the analogy of language, in which the differences between dialects and languages are sometimes impossible to determine, because of the multiplicity of varying forms. Some are closer to each other and others further away. This, therefore, defies our categorical thinking. More from Wiki on the article on language: "There is no clear distinction between a language and a dialect, notwithstanding linguist Max Weinreich's famous aphorism that 'a language is a dialect with an army and navy.' In other words, the distinction may hinge on political considerations as much as on cultural differences, distinctive writing systems, or degree of mutual intelligibility." What I'm saying is that we may be trying to box in reality with our understanding rather than taking reality as it really is. Religions and philosophies show this same tendency of forms and functions, making it hard to group all religions or all philosophies into neat categories.

 

Hmm, again someone attempts to bring up the idea of unexplainable. Scientists will say nothing is unexplainable, just unknown at this time. Thus nothing is unexplainable by science. Forces or elements, persons or things, all of these have power or something more than just material attributes placed on them when worshipped. A person who worships things in nature, like the sun, or a tree, all place more than just physical attributes on or in the tree. Thus they worship the tree as if it had powers or a personality, and not just as a tree. Many, however, worship the whole (of nature) as a living cognizant being, which currently is at odds with science thought. Scientific theory though is often at odds with other theory in one area or another.

 

I would say that anything testable by the scientific method is knowable as scientific knowledge. Some of the "unknown" is explainable but untestable as far as we know, such as String Theory (how does one experiment on a string?). In that case, it's a "best guess" based on reasoning, work, and evidence (quantum mechanics and mathematics that fry my brain). You said the "spiritual" lies inherently in things that are worshipped, things that cannot be explained by science. I believe the "spiritual" is in the person, a part of the person. Does a palm of dirt, a rock, or a picture have "spirituality" imbued into it? Or does it bring out the "spiritual" in the person who regards it a certain way? Does it work on the mind to make that person "spiritual"? That's not the same as the "unexplainable."

 

At that point though it would cease to be the democracy that we are discussing here that stipulates a separation of church and state. It would not be a "human" government any more, it would be a government according to the way of the god(s) if it rules by that god's methods. Otherwise, it is a government based on human philosophy, one such government based on the philosophy that all people deserve equal rights and freedoms.

 

I wrote my reply in more general terms. Of course it would lead to the end of the democracy as we know it, and it would violate the objectives (ideals) originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. But I don't think we're special having split Church and State. We met the objectives, for the most part, and that's what counts. Human philosophy had a large part in this, and I think it's because the philosophical ideas come closer to modeling human nature than many others have. They may still not be perfect, but I don't know if perfection, or at least accurate modeling, can be attained here. Some philosophical ideas even from great philosophers can be strange or naive by our current thinking. E.g., Rousseau's idea about the "noble savage" is romantic but unrealistic.

 

Of course, majority rule is a philosophy, or some would say a fact of life. It was not how Plato thought the world should run, as he thought that the majority of mankind couldn't rule themselves, which is actually the underlying theme of the Bible.

 

Majority rule is a fact of life, but it needn't define life in all its details or its reality. Much of what we do and believe in life is a matter of convenience and standardization, a matter of approximations, even in science. E.g., what is a species? Well, there's the scientific definition and consensus, but nature herself maybe isn't so picky...

[Southtown]

Romans 2:14 identifies those that do not know the law (the scriptures) and yet do things in harmony with the (scriptures). These ones are still not doing all things according to the scriptures but according to their own thoughts and conscience, which occasionally does things approved of by God by sheer accident.

Hey can someone find the quote I'm thinking of? It's something to the effect of "an unguided conscience is a dangerous thing"

That depends on what you think a conscience is I guess. Though, I would point to verse 12 and ask how one can "sin apart from the law."

 

I didn't find anything per your request. Feel free to parouse the results yourself.

 

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: conscience

[cwes99_03]

Blurred by a multiplicity of religions and philosophies and things that exist in between, which do not fall neatly into the former two categories/extremes.

 

In my mind there is very little if any blurring. According to the definition I have put forth, you would say and I would agree that Zen Budhism has been miscategorized as religion. It is a human philosophy, based off of the writings of men. If it does contain any "spiritual" reference, it is not solely based on such. Thus any "religion" that is actually a mixture of religion and philosophy, is no longer a religion, but a philosophy of religions, which is still a philosophy (meaning a set of ideas formed by men, not by a higher (supernatural) being.

 

I would say that anything testable by the scientific method is knowable as scientific knowledge. Some of the "unknown" is explainable but untestable as far as we know, such as String Theory (how does one experiment on a string?).

 

This is where the discussion tends toward another thread. I like that you at least think about it though. String theory is being tested. How does one test it? One looks for all the data that one can that supports or debunks the model. If one finds tons of data that supports it, and only a little bit that debunks it, then one looks critically at the "anti"-data to determine if it really is anti-string theory, bad data due to bad research methods, or one of many other things. If it is decided the data is good and correct, one alters the model of string theory to fit the "anti"-data.

In religion it is much the same. However, I suggest that if one is not able to incorporate the data, one cannot change the religion to fit the new data, as this would be turning the religion into a philosophy of men (iow, you'd be stripping the religion of it's original authority found in the supernatural.) Of course, this isn't always the case. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding in a translation, or misinterpretation that can be checked against the new data and supported without applying human philosophy.

Think of the new wave of christian evolutionists. I don't see how they can say what they say, as the Bible clearly states that God created things according to their kinds (including man), not God created the first amoeba and after that let nature evolve it into everything else.

 

That depends on what you think a conscience is I guess. Though, I would point to verse 12 and ask how one can "sin apart from the law."

Since this applies to your understanding of the difference between religion and philosophy, I'll talk about this.

If a man does something that goes against a law of his land, but he doesn't recognize the law of the land, particularly the part that he broke, has he still broken a law? Yes. Since, God's law is supposed to encompass all mankind, as he created them and therefore set the law that their bodies and minds are supposed to follow, then whether or not a man chooses to recognize God's law as the highest law in the universe, it still is. Thus when one fails to attain to that law (sin) one is still subject to the ruling of that law (death). Thus to paraphrase verse three "But do you have this idea, O man, that you will escape the judgment of God?"

 

This is intrinsic to my point. How can anyone change their god's laws? Man can't, because his god is supposed to be higher (more powerful/more righteous) than he. An interesting thought for you to think about now is "softening the face of god." What does it mean?

[hallenrm]

God's law is supposed to encompass all mankind, as he created them and therefore set the law that their bodies and minds are supposed to follow, then whether or not a man chooses to recognize God's law as the highest law in the universe, it still is. Thus when one fails to attain to that law (sin) one is still subject to the ruling of that law (death). Thus to paraphrase verse three "But do you have this idea, O man, that you will escape the judgment of God?"

 

This is intrinsic to my point. How can anyone change their god's laws? Man can't, because his god is supposed to be higher (more powerful/more righteous) than he. An interesting thought for you to think about now is "softening the face of god." What does it mean?

 

Intersesting thoughts dear cwes, but you are using the concept of law as it is prevalent in modern societies and I think no human law is totally unchangeable. Law's are enacted by human beings and they are often subject to revision by some body in the society, that is human beings themselves.

 

So, whenever it is claimed that the laws of gods are permanent, one is in fact abusing the term law

[cwes99_03]

No, I would disagree. There are two meanings of the term law here. There are in fact many different uses of the word law throughout the world. Perhaps I can be clearer though when I use the word here.

 

A god's law is a set of principles and commands that that supernatural being(s) wants those who worship him/her to follow. This law many not encompass all things in the case of some religions, but the principles generally are extended within reason (this is what the oral law of the pharisees was an attempt to do, however, Jesus identified that they were placing more emphasis on their own interpretation of the law and missing out on the main parts, in effect skimming a gnat from their soup while the camel swims in it.)

This is not the law of a society, it is a set of higher laws/principles that a worshipper must follow.

[maikeru]

In my mind there is very little if any blurring. According to the definition I have put forth, you would say and I would agree that Zen Budhism has been miscategorized as religion. It is a human philosophy, based off of the writings of men. If it does contain any "spiritual" reference, it is not solely based on such. Thus any "religion" that is actually a mixture of religion and philosophy, is no longer a religion, but a philosophy of religions, which is still a philosophy (meaning a set of ideas formed by men, not by a higher (supernatural) being).

 

Mu. This is a typical Zen reply to koans, but one that I think has merit; i.e., yes and no and none of the above. It may be miscategorized as a religion, but the possibility also exists that the definitions which create the categories of religion and philosophy themselves are suspect. I'd be taking this thread off course if I started to get into Buddhist scriptures or counter-examples from Christianity and philosophy. I get the feeling our views are probably irreconciliable; we will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

This is where the discussion tends toward another thread. I like that you at least think about it though. String theory is being tested. How does one test it? One looks for all the data that one can that supports or debunks the model. If one finds tons of data that supports it, and only a little bit that debunks it, then one looks critically at the "anti"-data to determine if it really is anti-string theory, bad data due to bad research methods, or one of many other things. If it is decided the data is good and correct, one alters the model of string theory to fit the "anti"-data.

 

String theory is being worked out, but I remember watching Brian Green's "The Elegant Universe" on PBS, and one thing he made clear, and I rather take his word for it, is that it's incredibly hard, maybe impossible, to experiment on strings directly, which is what I meant. We can blow apart atoms and study protons, neutrons, and electrons; manipulate quarks and photons and neutrinos and other itty-bitty things. But a string is a hell of a lot smaller than even these specks of matter and energy. All right, enough on strings.

 

In religion it is much the same. However, I suggest that if one is not able to incorporate the data, one cannot change the religion to fit the new data, as this would be turning the religion into a philosophy of men (iow, you'd be stripping the religion of it's original authority found in the supernatural.) Of course, this isn't always the case. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding in a translation, or misinterpretation that can be checked against the new data and supported without applying human philosophy.

Think of the new wave of christian evolutionists. I don't see how they can say what they say, as the Bible clearly states that God created things according to their kinds (including man), not God created the first amoeba and after that let nature evolve it into everything else.

 

Hmm, still disagree. As I mentioned earlier, I have a problem with assuming that the supernatural itself is the basis for religion. Several but not all. And if we're talking about "The Unified Theory of Religion" (sorry Einstein), it should be able to explain all phenomena characterized as religion, and I don't think the ultimate answer is simply the supernatural. That ignores too much.

 

I think most Christian evolutionists hinge their acceptance of both evolution and Genesis on the well-known fact that many Bible passages and phrases are not meant to be read literally. Instead, they reach for the figurative--the allegorical, the metaphorical, and the symbolic. And this expands meaning and interpretation, much as it does in poetry and language. Would one accept Jesus's parables word for word? I hope not. How about these oft-quoted lines:

 

--"Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it" (Luke 18:19). Accept the Kingdom like a child? What? Jesus wants us to become children again? Wait..maybe Jesus is talking about the qualities of a child--the openness, love, sincerity, compassion, willingness to learn, etc.--that one should possess to enter the Kingdom. There are other possible interpretations, but any figurative intrepretation and meaning clearly leaps ahead of what it literally says.

--"For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:25). Camels, needles, and the rich man on his way to the afterlife. Indeed, if I take this literally, rich men have almost no chance to go to the afterlife...but that's not what it really means, right?

 

These invite readers to think, but not to think literally. For similar reasons, that is why I said that much of the stories of Genesis are probably orally transmitted stories and perhaps as oral poetry. Poetry is intertwined with figurative thought and expression. Religion also. Much of the meaning is not found in the details of these stories, but in their essences, what they suggest and what we think.

[cwes99_03]

As far as the first part, I don't want you to shy away, because I'm still confused as to what you think. Don't draw the line of irreconcilability just yet.

 

It may be miscategorized as a religion, but the possibility also exists that the definitions which create the categories of religion and philosophy themselves are suspect.

I would say that is precisely the point. The definition that many hold today is that just about anything is a religion if you want to call it that. This is of course a terrible definition, as it allows anything and everything.

Some will say that "such and such" is a religion. Another will say no it isn't, it is a tree. How does one decide one way or another? Of course, the majority don't look at a tree and call it a religion. But when it comes to the ideas of men (philosophy) they often don't know the distinction between the two because for the last 2000 years or so the water has been steadily muddied. Philosophies large and small have crept into religion and confused the matter. One need only look back a few thousand years to see what the difference was in many cases. Some religions are older so you might have too look back further. Some have been miscategorized for a seriously long time due to bad translation dictionaries what have you.

 

String theory is being worked out, but I remember watching Brian Green's "The Elegant Universe" on PBS, and one thing he made clear, and I rather take his word for it, is that it's incredibly hard, maybe impossible, to experiment on strings directly, which is what I meant. We can blow apart atoms and study protons, neutrons, and electrons; manipulate quarks and photons and neutrinos and other itty-bitty things. But a string is a hell of a lot smaller than even these specks of matter and energy. All right, enough on strings.

I rather like the analogy. String theory can be tested even if one can't find the string. Maybe someday someone will find a string (a particle or subparticle of a particle that will be quantified as a string). It is much the same as quarks and leptons. They were theorized before someone ever figured out a way to measure their existence.

Similarly, some day there may be overwhelming evidence that a supernatural power does exist, in the meantime the models seem to fit quite nicely. Many will say that any model can be created that will map a super complex system. However, these are required to be super complex themselves. While some religions may appear super complex, others do not, but in some way they should all model what we see.

But perhaps that is a bit off topic.

The important thing here is that one does not have to give up on decrypting the differences between philosophy and religion on the basic level. The hard part will be studying each religion and determining if it is a philosophy or a religion. I don't propose doing such here. I'll leave that up to the individual reader.

What I would like to see here is a consensus on what tools each person can use to identify a religion from a philosophy. The tools are a definition.

[Southtown]

If a man does something that goes against a law of his land, but he doesn't recognize the law of the land, particularly the part that he broke, has he still broken a law? Yes. Since, God's law is supposed to encompass all mankind, as he created them and therefore set the law that their bodies and minds are supposed to follow, then whether or not a man chooses to recognize God's law as the highest law in the universe, it still is. Thus when one fails to attain to that law (sin) one is still subject to the ruling of that law (death). Thus to paraphrase verse three "But do you have this idea, O man, that you will escape the judgment of God?"

Then I would ask how one can be "judged apart from the law" (same verse.)

 

This is intrinsic to my point. How can anyone change their god's laws? Man can't, because his god is supposed to be higher (more powerful/more righteous) than he. An interesting thought for you to think about now is "softening the face of god." What does it mean?

Discussing that would require diving head first into the bible. I'm prepared, but I don't know if this is the right thread. The topic is supposed to be more fundamental and form a basis for interpreting scriptures and what not, correct? Then again, it may serve as a good case study.

[maikeru]

As far as the first part, I don't want you to shy away, because I'm still confused as to what you think. Don't draw the line of irreconcilability just yet.

 

I think I've stated many times what I think. There is no clear dividing line, for the reasons I mentioned before.

 

I would say that is precisely the point. The definition that many hold today is that just about anything is a religion if you want to call it that. This is of course a terrible definition, as it allows anything and everything.

 

Then what is a better definition? Or how do we alter the categories if the categories are flawed by inadequate definitions?

 

But when it comes to the ideas of men (philosophy) they often don't know the distinction between the two because for the last 2000 years or so the water has been steadily muddied. Philosophies large and small have crept into religion and confused the matter. One need only look back a few thousand years to see what the difference was in many cases. Some religions are older so you might have too look back further. Some have been miscategorized for a seriously long time due to bad translation dictionaries what have you.

 

This illustrates another difference between our views. I think the water has been muddied early on, prior to 2,000 years ago. Religion does not arise in some "pure" form only to be muddied by philosophy. No, it can take many progressively evolving, similar or divergent, forms. Philosophies, religions, stories, and the thoughts of individuals all "muddy" the water! Many religions give rise to philosophies, and philosophies may give rise to religions. Men may have inspiration and start new religions. It is not a process of degeneration, but one of change and diversity.

 

I rather like the analogy. String theory can be tested even if one can't find the string. Maybe someday someone will find a string (a particle or subparticle of a particle that will be quantified as a string). It is much the same as quarks and leptons. They were theorized before someone ever figured out a way to measure their existence.

 

Maybe but doesn't seem likely at this point. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on string theory. From the controversy section: "No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. ... Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists[7] have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory: it is not falsifiable in the sense of Popper."

 

Similarly, some day there may be overwhelming evidence that a supernatural power does exist, in the meantime the models seem to fit quite nicely.

 

I hope you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical here, because I have heard similar arguments all my life for Mormonism.

 

Sometimes, you have to take a hard look at the evidence, or the lack of evidence, and draw some conclusions--but always, always keep your mind open. It's a continual struggle to know what our world is and isn't. Some will interpret this as a lack of faith. I see this as an affirmation of life.

 

The important thing here is that one does not have to give up on decrypting the differences between philosophy and religion on the basic level. The hard part will be studying each religion and determining if it is a philosophy or a religion. I don't propose doing such here. I'll leave that up to the individual reader.

What I would like to see here is a consensus on what tools each person can use to identify a religion from a philosophy. The tools are a definition.

 

This is a good ideal, but I think you will have a very hard time finding a consensus on which tools are universal and work well. Religion and philosophy are not quite as measurable as say DNA or RNA.

 

BTW, I don't dismiss religion. I have generally warm feelings about religion, and I like to learn about other religions. I experience questions or discussions about religion regularly, because of my friends, my area, and some of my family who are Mormons. But I have a big problem with certain prejudices or concepts, which arise from inadeqaute or incorrect information and faulty analysis. (Such as Book of Mormon stories, racist doctrines in the Mormon Church which I grew up with, faith-only-based teachings, ban on coffee and tea and alcohol, etc. We do not live in a world where everything we are taught is right. Much of it, if not most, is left for us to figure out.)

[cwes99_03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

As far as the first part, I don't want you to shy away, because I'm still confused as to what you think. Don't draw the line of irreconcilability just yet.

 

I think I've stated many times what I think. There is no clear dividing line, for the reasons I mentioned before.

 

 

Quote:

I would say that is precisely the point. The definition that many hold today is that just about anything is a religion if you want to call it that. This is of course a terrible definition, as it allows anything and everything.

 

Then what is a better definition? Or how do we alter the categories if the categories are flawed by inadequate definitions?

 

As to these two points (I think we are both getting confused because we are discussing too many points at once), let's flesh them out a bit.

 

I've been missing your thought on why you think there can't be a clear dividing line between religion and philosophy. You ask what is a better definition. That is the point of the thread. I am asking that very question. What is a better definition? I have provided a starting point, had some input from others, some of which I have used to modify some of the original starting points for the definition.

Give me some time, and I'll edit this post and bring the definition back to the forefront of this conversation. Meantime, I've got some work I need to accomplish (at my job.)