What is the difference, if any, between philosophy and religion?
What is the difference, if any, between philosophy and religion?
*Please don't ask me how to define philosophy and religion, as it is a question about your thoughts. If I were to predefined them I would be restricting the terms to my standards; I want it to be more open than that. Simply make sure to explain your position in a plain and easy to understand manner.
*Please don't ask me how to define philosophy and religion, as it is a question about your thoughts. If I were to predefined them I would be restricting the terms to my standards; I want it to be more open than that. Simply make sure to explain your position in a plain and easy to understand manner.
Comments (91)
Singing is far more common in religion than in philosophy.
Religion is far less 'open ended' than philosophy
Religion more readily judges the meaning of behavior than philosophy
Passion is probably more common in religion than in philosophy, but that depends on the topic and the debaters.
Religion is more of a going concern than philosophy -- more assets, more adherents, more employment, much better cash flow.
Professional theologians and philosophers share generally similar education levels.
Educated religion-shy western Europeans are currently religious outliers.
I'm not clear about Buddhism. Anybody?
The so-called humanistic, ethical "religious" "movements" like secular humanism avoid any supernaturalism.
All that aside, it is the case that what believers actually hold to be true about the supernatural varies a great deal. For instance, not all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead. Not all Catholics and Lutherans believe in transubstantiation. Not all Christians believe in miracles. Not all Jews believe in God.
How can this be?
Membership in the believing group, identity with the believing group, loyalty, abiding interest, etc. are also features of religion, as well as supernatural elements. Some people identify religion as "a good thing" even though they don't really believe any of it. And they don't show up on Sunday (maybe Christmas Eve, though).
There are priests, pastors, preachers who don't really believe what they are saying. This, however, is likely to lead to intense cognitive dissonance and usually would result in the priest, pastor, preacher departing--either on his own or with assistance.
Some people are outliers, doubters, disbelievers, skeptics, about a lot. They don't believe in various planks in the religious platform, aren't loyal to their country, don't believe in the law most of the time, doubt the honesty of all politicians no matter what, don't really believe their helping-profession job actually does any real good, don't really believe in the sanctity of the marriage they are in, aren't good soldiers, are likely to steal from the till if they get a chance, and so on.
Then there are true believers who are faithful down to the last comma and dotted i--and people in between the two extremes.
That's just life.
I would say that all religions are a part of philosophy.
Not all Lutherans believe this; in fact, some Lutheran pastors consume all of the remaining elements at the end of the distribution, so that the question simply does not arise. In any case, the more fundamental difference is that Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation), while Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine.
The way many philosophers cling to positions like materialism or realism reminds me of the way most religious fundamentalists cling to figures like Jesus, Allah, Joseph Smith, etc. (minus the occasional terrorist attack)
Additionally, both pursuits require a tremendous amount of faith. Philosophy requires a large amount of faith in the reliability of your cognitive faculties while religion requires a large amount of faith in the reliability/worship-worthiness of God in light of the tremendous amount of suffering/evil that plagues the world.
Have the Mormons been blowing things up lately? Unless you consider Mormon missionaries terrorists, they don't seem to be appropriately grouped with Jihadists.
8-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
https://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/
Not to mention there are still a good amount of Mormon fundamentalists throughout the US who do a lot of really creepy things (polygamy, blood atonement, blatant racism, child abuse, etc.) that generally flies under the radar.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/19/americas_little_known_isis_the_fundamentalist_mormon_sect_that_blends_polygamy_child_rape_and_organized_crime/
Yikes!
Rosalie Sorrels, 1961
Mormon satirical song based on Adele's Hello
It's a big question, but one I have some knowledge about, so will try and assist. Early Buddhism, as preserved in the so-called 'early Buddhist texts', was certainly not theistic in the usual sense. However the Indian gods are acknowledged as being part of the world in which it is set - for instance, one of those gods appears to the Buddha after his enlightenment and beseeches him to teach. There are many canonical stories which establish the idea that the Buddha is superior to the Vedic gods and is indeed 'teacher of Gods and men', but the existence of such narratives implies that there is a general acceptance of the reality of 'devas' (interestingly, a common Indo-European root which is the source of 'divine'.)
However Buddhism was transformed over the centuries and in the Mah?y?na, there is the emergence of something very like a theistic religion, with the Buddha being transformed from an awakened human to the Adi-Buddha, the primordial Buddha who incarnates periodically for the salvation of beings. This Buddha is surrounded by a pantheon of 'celestial Bodhisattvas' whose function is very similar to that of the saints of medieval Catholicism. In Tibetan Buddhism, in particular, there are many rituals invoking the assistance or visualisation of the celestial bodhisattvas - although Buddhists will always go to great lengths to differentiate their beliefs from those of theistic religion.
Furthermore even in strongholds of Theravada Buddhism (the more conservative school purportedly nearer the early forms), village life is of course characterised by belief in nature spirits, 'nats', hungry ghosts, tree spirits, and so on, which are part of Asian life from time immemorial.
So the early 20th-c idea of Buddhism as being a 'scientific religion' free from the superstition and dogma, is in some respects a projection. That said, however, there is still a big difference between Buddhism and the theistic traditions, in that the emphasis is always put on 'understanding the cause of suffering' - attaining insight into the psycho-physical processes that cause suffering, rather than relying solely on belief in religious doctrine. But some schools of East Asian Buddhism, which emphasise faith in one of the various 'forms' of the Buddha, are at least highly reminiscent of devotional forms of Christianity.
---
With respect to the question in the OP - there are many porous boundaries between the two subjects. But philosophy as defined by Plato and successors distinguishes the knowledge that is obtained by reason from what they disparagingly refer to as 'mere belief' (with which, I dare say, they would categorise a lot of what we consider religion.). We ought not to forget that Socrates was put to death for atheism, among other charges, notably his questioning of the civic deity worship of Athens.
Plato was intensely religious, in a way, but both he and Aristotle were very different from today's 'theists'. However, there are again many porous boundaries, because Plato was an initiate of the Orphic school, and for that reason a textbook mystic ('mystic' meaning literally 'an initiate in the mystery schools', of which Orphism was one.)
Plato and his successors would certainly be regarded as 'religious' by today's standards, but then, we're generally highly irreligious and habitually materialist, so anything not materialist will look religious to us. But Plotinus, for instance, whose influence on Christian theology was to become enormous (via Augustine) is nevertheless categorised as a 'pagan philosopher' by the (Catholic) New Advent encyclopaedia. And his arguments, as preserved in the Enneads, are meticulously rational, indeed are one of the fountainheads of rationalist philosophy. But he went to great lengths to differentiate philosophy, as he understood it, from the various religious movements that he encountered.
Mention should also be made of the splendid work of Pierre Hadot, who sought to show that the original conception of philosophy was soteriological, that is, concerned with salvation from the 'world of appearances' and its vicissitudes by the apprehension of a higher truth - another thing which nowadays 'sounds religious' but which was hitherto the assumed aim of all philosophy.
So I think to add several more categories to Bittercrank's simple dichotomy of 'believers' and 'others', we also have to consider mystics, Gnostics, neoplatonists, Buddhists, traditional philosophers, and others, who are neither 'believers' in the mainstream sense, nor atheists (who define themselves in opposition to the former.)
Socrates did a great job of defending himself against that charge (as described in Plato's Apology).
Perhaps I should have typed "Can't it be said that to be considered a religion, a system/institution would have to have supernatural elements? While a philosophy may or may not have supernatural elements?"
Quoting Bitter Crank
Can you give an example of a religion (not people who claim to be followers) that doesn't include supernatural beliefs?
Quoting Bitter Crank
You're concentrating on the people. I'm talking about the institution and/or belief system. . It's still a pretty good rule of thumb. I can't think of any religion that doesn't include supernatural beliefs. But, there are plenty of forms of philosophy that don't.
There is some question about whether or not Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. Why? Because some forms of Buddhism don't include concepts of the supernatural.
There are no disembodied institutions or belief systems apart from people. No matter the institution or the belief system, it is always peopled (or it is dead).
Quoting anonymous66
I was thinking of some very small groups like 'ethical societies', secular humanist organizations, some unitarian groups that are just about free of supernaturalism, and the like.
What is it about them that makes you consider them to be religions?
I've been impressed by Alain De Botton. He's written Religion for Atheists, but the gist of his book is that religions have great qualities (like traditions that remind us what is important), he just rejects the idea that God exists.
lol
Scientology?
My point is that if it is the case that a religion includes supernatural beliefs, the fact that some people who follow said religion (or claim to be followers) don't take the supernatural beliefs seriously, it doesn't change the fact that a religion includes supernatural beliefs.
It's a good question. If someone like De Botton succeeds in creating something (Religion for Atheists) that looks a lot like a religion, but that thing doesn't include supernatural beliefs, should it be considered a religion?
I don't think your statement is accurate.
I think the main difference between the two is that philosophy is grounded in human wisdom, while religion is framed in a supposed transcendent wisdom.
Philosophy comes from humans, while religion supposedly comes from some higher source.
I think this sums it up. If we look to something higher than ourselves, that's religion. If we see our humans selves as the highest thing, that's philosophy. (Of course this is an opinion, an option offered for consideration.)
I consider them "religious" because they seem to think they are practicing a religion. I attended socialist meetings for a long time, which had a similar feel to them, but we explicitly did not think we were practicing a religion. We thought we were practicing politics. Maybe we were mostly whistling dixie, but that's another story.
I like this: "religions have great qualities (like traditions that remind us what is important)".
Religion provides useful services that are not provided by secular society -- not just in the present era, but in past times as well. Society is usually composed of competing interests, some of which--if unchallenged--have the capacity to totally degrade society. Nazi Germany is a prime example. Catholic and Protestant organizations in Germany by and large failed to challenge Nazi ideology early on, when a vigorous challenge might have had more consequence.
Religion, of course, can have deleterious effects on society too. Fundamentalist Christianity is a prime example. So also is the equivalent strains in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. In these cases, it is secularists who must do the challenging.
Quoting anonymous66
Quoting Bitter Crank
The UU's definitely think of themselves as a practicing a religion, the history includes supernatural beliefs, and they don't currently deny the supernatural (even if many atheists feel comfortable attending- I know this from first hand experience). So they fit my definition of a religion And there has been a call to return to these original beliefs...
But, do "ethical societies" and secular humanist organizations think of themselves as practicing a religion?
If anything, De Botton is making my point for me. He also thinks of religions as including a belief in the supernatural... he is making it clear that he is doing something very different by suggesting that atheists can benefit from specific practices/traditions of religions w/o giving up their atheism.
But I'll hold onto this: Whether an attendee of explicitly religious or explicitly secular organizations, what people actually believe does vary. There are people who attend religious services who don't, in fact, believe in supernatural stuff. There are very secular atheists who hold onto some supernaturalistic ideas. Why? Because people just aren't 100% consistent in what they think, or 100% consistent between what they do and think. People waffle, slip and slide, and sneak in the back door of all sorts of things, including belief and disbelief.
Under the best of circumstances, we are not entirely rational beings. What we rationally think doesn't strictly govern what we feel, and what we feel can alter what we think -- round and round we go.
I'm still thinking about the way people categorize systems like religions and philosophy. People think of religions as being about supernatural beliefs, and people think of philosophy as not necessarily including supernatural beliefs.
So, I see no reason to argue with this observation Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm still thinking about this topic in relation to the way people categorize systems like religions and philosophy. It seems to me that people think of religions as being about supernatural beliefs, and people think of philosophy as not necessarily including supernatural beliefs.
So, I see no reason to argue with this observation Quoting Bitter Crank
I guess it's pretty tangengial, but what about movements like gnosticism and theosophy?
On the other forum, Mariner often used to remind us that 'metaphysical' and 'supernatural' are basically synonymous, the first derived from Greek, the second from Latin.
I think 'supernatural' has become a 'boo word', because of the inherent naturalism of today's culture. We instinctively want to believe in only those things for which there is, or might be, a scientific account. And culturally, it's not too hard to draw the line; there are ideas and beliefs that will be generally regard as being outside the bounds of naturalistic explanation. So in that sense, much of the debate is shaped by about what to include, and what to keep out, of what might constitute 'a naturalistic account'.
But then I often reflect that we still don't know enough about nature to know what is 'super' to it. Much of what we do every day would have seemed supernatural to our forbears.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I recall reading in one of those Pew research reports that a significant proportion of self-described atheists still believe that there is a higher intelligence. (Just don't call it 'God'!)
Indeed, I find that the main belief of most people is ietsism.
Yeah, I can buy into that. But, I wonder what distinguishes ietsism from deism or a belief in Logos or some kind of pantheism or panentheism (Stoic theology has qualities of both pantheism and panentheism)?
Perhaps deism, pantheism, panentheism, and Logos could be seen as forms of ietsism?
Religion, in general, has the feature of there being some ancient doctrine according to which adherents are expected to think and behave.
This doctrine may perhaps discreetly be changed by the religious leaders of the day, but remains generally constant.
Along with this doctrine comes a multitude of traditions,etc picked up over time and constricting the followers of the religion into some specific frame of life.
Philosophy on the other hand, is a lot less fixed and indeed quite visibly changes and develops as time passes.
Although some common culture may naturally form around philosophers of some particular school of thought, this is entirely accidental and not something promoted by the philosophy itself, although that may of course differ according to the focus of the philosophy in question.
There are however, entities such as buddhism, which straddle the line between philosophy and religion.
In addition to Scientology, another example is LaVeyan Satanism.
From the Scientology site above... "DOES SCIENTOLOGY HAVE A CONCEPT OF GOD?
Most definitely. In Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being."
They did not have super natural beliefs, but were they a cult or a religion?
Do you have to have a large enough fellowship to be considered a religion?
Yeah, I'd say they count, too. And yeah, the cult/religion line seems to be one of just how many followers/just how much history, etc. the movement has, which makes it a pretty gray line.
Maybe! However, I would tend to think these -isms are more defined than ietsism, which picks out that supremely (and seemingly deliberately) vague, unhelpful, and frustrating reply that one's typical fellow apes give in response to whether they believe in God: "I think there must be something out there," "I believe in a higher power," or "I think there's something bigger than myself." These phrases are fit to make any philosopher fly into a rage, but they represent, in my view, the extent to which people have pondered anything metaphysical and make up the predominant belief of most people today, at least in the industrialized world.
And vice versa
What do you think this means?
It sounds like the suggestion that there is something truly Supernatural encoded by or hinted at by tales of miracles. (Hope you don't mind the interjection.)
(There is an essay online by Cecilia Rofena from a book 'Wittgenstein and Plato' which expressly links their notions of the divine, you can find bits of it in Google books. She argues that the added word 'something' in the English translation has a wrong implication which isn't in the German.)
To me Witt is writing about what I think of not as supernatural but as 'extra-natural'. Our ordinary use of language, and the scientific enterprise, both assume a 'natural' world. This is the world of facts as he would have put it at the time of his writing the Tractatus.
But section 6.4 of the Tractatus outlines what such language - and science - cannot talk about. Having spent most of his book on the world that is the case, does this make sense of the world? No. (No wonder Russell was shocked at what his pupil came up with) 'The sense of the world must lie outside the world.' (6.41) 'It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.)' (6.421) Of course, he does very occasionally put ethics into words all the same :)
So I suggest he talking about what we would currently call a different discourse or level of discourse. These are things of which it's difficult to speak, because our language is ill-suited to such matters. Ethical behaviour has effects but...
'If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts--not what can be expressed by means of language. In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole. The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.' (6.43)
I think there is an unresolved contradiction here. The word 'only' is odd. For earlier in the Tractatus of course the limits of my language are the limits of my world. So to alter those limits is to alter something profound. And indeed this seems implied in 'altogether different world'. But there isn't then a clear link between good exercise of the will and happiness, or bad and unhappiness. Some debate is heavily abbreviated here.
I don't mean Witt wasn't in some way religious. He was particularly drawn to Kierkegaard and debated what Kierkegaard implied for him. But most of the time religious concern wasn't - back to the op - what for him his own philosophy was about.
Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.
How do you know this?
I do this like this bruv... :D
The faithful say its revelation, and they believe it's true. I don't doubt their belief, do you?
Quoting Cavacava
Do you know this because of religious revelation?
I am not sure what you are asking. Can you rephrase.
And I wanted to know how you know this is true.
Quoting Cavacava
Was that a truth that religion revealed to you?
It reveals truths about God and life, why and how to live a life of faith. It adds something material, substantial to their lives. [to best of my understanding]
This my opinion about Philosophy role's , and it was presented to differentiate between Philosophy and what Religion says and does.
Well, it's not my belief that revelation is the only way to have truths revealed about life. God is another narrative, it's a story I can appreciate, but that I don't believe in.
You may be too quick to dismiss these people. I've found that most people can explain what they believe, and why, if given the chance.
How so?
I see it like this.
We live in a world where we observe many phenomena and we are trying to understand what causes them to happen like they do. Thus, human kind, knowing little about its reality, has came up with many hypotheses for what could be causing those phenomena to exist. The more elegant hypotheses came to be the main religions we know today. It is important to note that those hypotheses can only be compared to one another by what we call their elegance, since they purely are the product of our imagination. (By that, I don't imply they are wrong). Throughout history, practically everyone sought confort in showing faith for a religion or another.
While everyone was confortably believing in certain things, some guys began to think it would be useful to add rigor to people's lines of reasonning. Thus, they began the practice of a new sport: philosophy. The goal was to reason about things while respecting some concepts such as logic and coherence. With only those simple rules, philosophy came to be what we know of it today.
To summarize, I would state it like this:
Philosophy is a way of reasonning about things while a religion is an hypothesis developped in order to try and explain our reality.
I don't doubt their belief, I doubt their claim of having possession of the truth.
Religious 'truth' I think is existential truth or troth, in the sense of fidelity to what one believes.
I think for the religious, truth needs faith
The truths that religions tell are not always easy to take. "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.", it takes faith.
I really don't know. I am an agnostic, but I grow up in a Faith which I practiced, until I no longer believed in it, but who knows, it certainly seems to propel some people through life. I read & think about it but I have no commitment at this point.
What about you Heister?
Religion is an attempt by the rational mind to make sense of life, the universe. Isn't that philosophy?
Vice versa
So then you see no difference between religion and philosophy?
Actually I think the relationship between the two can be described as below...
Philosophy is the question
And
Religion is one of the answers
...even though nowadays, few seem to be satisfied with the answer
Perhaps because they're wrong? Are you stopping on the threshold of having faith merely because it's hard, or is there a degree of doubt in your mind that you might be wrong in choosing to have one faith over another?
Quoting Cavacava
How so?
Quoting Cavacava
I also was raised in "faith". When I was younger, though, I realized that I didn't really have faith, I merely believed in my belief. I was wrestling more with whether my "faith" (belief) was true, whatever that entailed, rather than if my conception of "God" did or did not exist. As I've grown older, however, neither faith, nor any understanding of God that I've come across, has made me change my opinion all that much.
I don't know what religious background you've come from, but I remember telling Agustino (to his confusion) that I see myself as being Christian, but a Christian. I find there to be truths within the New Testament, but I don't think that the New Testament is the truth, just as I might agree with this or that Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox bit of theology, yet am not, therefore, a Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian...or a Buddhist, Sufist, etc.
I'll say of myself that I've committed to the truth. This doesn't mean I have to commit to having faith in a "truth", though.
"few seem to be satisfied with the answer"
Probably because they are empty phrases without any real meaning. I think you just say things because you like the way it sounds.
Yes, as we all know religion is never dogmatic.
Depending upon the religion, it may be characterized as more or less dogmatic. This is totally dependent upon the nature of the local group. For example, Universalist-Unitarian groups and individuals may be far more open to new ideas than a group of Skeptics. It all depends.
Several religious groups are extremely dogmatic. I don't think you can single out science or philosophy on this one.
Dismissing the herd can never be done too quickly. Although I generally try to ignore it and let it stampede in ignorance.
But in a religion what it does is different from what it does in a philosophy -- in a religion faith is a justification. But in philosophy, while faith can play as motive, it can never be provided as a justification. It may be an (honest, admitted) reason for a stance to some interlocutor or audience, but the expectations of philosophy is that in addressing said audience you will not expect faith to compel said audience to whatever it is you are proposing.
I agree. One cannot single out one type of group as being more or less dogmatic. It varies by degree and where the dogma is taught.
I agree to an extent. But now we are talking more about style rather than substance. Hence, the dogma is there it is just we don't publically call it dogma or admit to it. Instead we might call it foundational or a core belief system.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Thou shalt not take the LORD's name in vain :-* Have you forgotten that commandment? :P
Don't be so quick to judge. Perhaps there's a grain of truth hidden somewhere.
Quoting Jeremiah
You're right but I try to be truthful.
There is a grain of truth in every vague ill-defined statement. For example: It is best in the winter.
Assuming I understand you correctly, what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness? And how does religion fail?
"what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness"
You want me to type out a book? I don't really think I could sufficiently answer that question on an internet forum.
"And how does religion fail?"
Never said it fails.
Sometimes a single word may describe an entire book e.g. The Bible can be represented by the word ''hogwash'' to an atheist and ''God'' to a theist. Can you not express your views in a paragraph or so?
Quoting Jeremiah
What's the difference between religion and philosophy?
"Sometimes a single word may describe an entire book"
That is a description; not an explanation.
"Can you not express your views in a paragraph or so?"
No.
"What's the difference between religion and philosophy?"
Already posted my views on their differences.