Religion vs. Philosophy

[cwes99_03]

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 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.

 

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 ...

 

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?

[CraigD]

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

”Philosophy” is a peculiar word, in that its literal meaning, philos sophia = love of wisdom, and its common meaning, which is something like “the study of important topics.”

 

As a “love”, philosophy may describe an entirely unreasoning, ecstatic activity. Or as the love of wisdom, it may be considered equivalent to the common religious admonition to “love God with all your heart.”

 

As a “study” with many branches, philosophy contains “moral philosophy.” One definition of religion is “applied moral philosophy”. By implication, then, religion may be simply a specialized branch of philosophy. Philosophy also contains theology, the study of God or gods. Theology, by most account, is not a synonym for religion.

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.

I think this is a pretty widely accepted definition of religion. I also think it is a fairly recent one, appearing roughly in the mid 18th century, AKA “the Age of Enlightenment.” Prior to this time, most people (at least most western people), even the literate elite, considered religious belief to be potentially rational, spirit and supernatural things to be as objectively real as ordinary, natural things. Even the term “supernatural” doesn’t appear to have been much used until about this time, and Enlightenment scientific rationalist (eg: Newton) appear to have believed that scientific methods would in short order result in increased understanding of and rigorous proof of the existence of God, angels, souls, etc.

 

This did not happen, marking the beginning of a split between scientific rationalism and “religious faith”. Reading documents defining “faith” from prior to that period, (eg: Luthor’s “An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans”, one get the impression that “faith” was not taken to mean “faith in the existence of God”, but “trust in God’s grace” and the innate human ability to perceive and act according to God’s will. Science, rather than confirming prevailing ideas about the nature of God and the cosmos, contradicted them, implying that the rational conclusion was atheism. In reaction (and to assure their survival), religious though appears to have redefined the idea of “faith” to mean “accepting the reality of religious ideas even when such appear contradicted by rational evidence”.

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.

I’ve known a lot of (and, for a time, been a) nature worshiper. In my experience, nature worshipers do not generally perceive nature to be the kind of hierarchical “higher power” that theists perceive God to be, but something more subtle. Most consider “mother nature” to be metaphorical, not real.

 

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 ...

 

Is there such a division? If not, how does one separate church and state? If so, where does that division exist?

The separation of church and state appears to work best as an article of constitutional law, as in the US Constitution. This position is, I think, a pragmatic conclusion following from the framers’ experience of the history of civil chaos and suffering under governments in which a strong separation between church and state was not mandated.

Is there some magical number of believers?

I think not. In the US, most people at most times have believed in the usual “God of Abraham”, yet had little difficulty seeing the wisdom of keeping this belief out of the operation of government.

Is there some scientific explanation that decides whether something is a religion or a philosophy?

Before one can have a scientific explanation of something, one must define a formalism for it. Although attempts have been made to do this (eg: Korzybski’s discipline of General Semantics), they have not been widely known, accepted, or effective. Natural language-based, “semantic” methods seem prevalent in making this distinction.

And can one worship a car as a god, or is that some fake religion?

As recent movements like 3984 have shown, one can worship practically anything. The position that FSMism appears to be championing is that an obviously invented religion is no more “fake” than a well established one.

 

:naughty: Interesting questions, all, though seemingly not ones that lend themselves to a rigorous scientific approach to answering.

[cwes99_03]

First might I state the following. I thank CraigD for his post, as it was most eloquent and well thought out. Due to it I have a few questions.

 

”Philosophy” is a peculiar word, in that its literal meaning, philos sophia = love of wisdom, and its common meaning, which is something like “the study of important topics.”

 

As a “love”, philosophy may describe an entirely unreasoning, ecstatic activity. Or as the love of wisdom, it may be considered equivalent to the common religious admonition to “love God with all your heart.”

 

I think there is one thing missing in this definition, that makes it wrong. The difference between philos and agape in the greek language.

The following is from answers.com

Philia (φιλία philía): Friendship, Love (but especially "platonic").

Agape (ἀγάπη agápe): Divine, unconditioned love. italics mine

 

Greek philos= "friend" and phileō= "I love" As in to love a friend, or in this case the friend is one's own wisdom and discernment, really a love of self (one's own thoughts) then in the case of philosophy.

 

Agapē = "divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing love."

Greek philosophers at the time of Plato used it in a way that suggested a universal, as opposed a personal, love; this could mean love of truth, or love of humanity.

Note what it says Plato and his contemporaries did. They used the word for divine love to describe their own love for truth/wisdom. They worshipped wisdom as a god.

 

In that way, I believe philosophy in itself may have become something religious. It certainly is for some scientists, as they search for some truth to discredit other religions based upon the spiritual.

 

I'd like to edit a statement I made earlier.

 

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.

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, requiring faith that the higher power(s) exist(s) and can effect change if he/she/they so want.

 

Can anyone else find better definitions of religion and philosophy?

[CraigD]

…

”Philosophy” is a peculiar word, in that its literal meaning, philos sophia = love of wisdom, and its common meaning, which is something like “the study of important topics.”

 

As a “love”, philosophy may describe an entirely unreasoning, ecstatic activity. Or as the love of wisdom, it may be considered equivalent to the common religious admonition to “love God with all your heart.”

I think there is one thing missing in this definition, that makes it wrong. The difference between philos and agape in the greek language. …

cwes99_03’s analysis of the semantics of “love” points out, correctly I think, the shortcomings of my naively equating the “love of wisdom” implied by the word “philosophy” with the “love of God” central to the Abrahamic relgions.

 

I must confess that, like many Philosophy students, I acquired the “philosophy = love of wisdom” meme from Martin Heidegger’s “What is Philosophy” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0808403192 (alas, I know of no online addition). While far from Heidegger’s most involved or important work, this may be one of his most influential, by virtue of having been taught in so many introductory Philosophy classes. The idea that Philosophy can be as much or more passionate as intellectual can exert a strong influence on a beginning student (such as myself when I first read it).

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, requiring faith that the higher power(s) exist(s) and can effect change if he/she/they so want.

 

Can anyone else find better definitions of religion and philosophy?

I think cwess99_03 has given a good definition of “religion” as the word is most commonly used now.

 

My own interest lies more in understanding how the common usage definition of religion has changed over human history (and even pre-history), and how it differs between religious denominations and cultures today. I’m particularly interested in the question :) “what will the common usage definition of ‘relegion’ be in the future?” Several of Philosophy’s “top guns” over the centuries have predicted the demise of recognizable religion. Many denominations of Christianity have long prophesized the transformation of the secular world into one entirely consistent with their core doctrine (eg: the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, as proselytized by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists (strictly speaking, Adventists don’t proselytize, but living within walking distance of their Columbia Union College, and liking much their taste in food, I’ve been fairly immersed in their doctrine nonetheless)) Both have proven, to date, spectacularly wrong.

 

I think a “grand definition” of religion must describe not just what it is now, but what it has been, and make predictions about what it will become.

[cwes99_03]

Might want to question your use of sect, as it is usually a derogatory remark. Besides, the Adventists claim their numbers to be over 11,000,000 and Witnesses similarly claim over 6,000,000 worldwide. These are hardly small, and in some cases are the second largest group of christians in some countries.

 

So does everyone agree that for something to be defined as a religion it must involve the belief in/worship of a higher power? Otherwise, it would be categorized as a human philosophy of life.

[CraigD]

Might want to question your use of sect, as it is usually a derogatory remark.

Noted. I’ve replace the use of “sect” in my previous post with “denomination”. There is, I think, a minor semantic difference between the words – sect implies having been “split” from a parent population, while “denomination” implies having been recognized by a naming authority – but in the context I’m using it, this distinction is unimportant. I’d forgotten that the term “sect” has become offensive to some (I wonder when that happened, and why?).

Besides, the Adventists claim their numbers to be over 11,000,000 and Witnesses similarly claim over 6,000,000 worldwide. These are hardly small, and in some cases are the second largest group of christians in some countries.

I might add that, in my extended neighborhood (the Washington DC metro area), they also boast 2 first-rate hospitals. Adventist certainly constitute a significant world religion, and an excellent resource for vegetarians, theist or atheist.

 

I believe that most people would be surprised at Adventist doctrine, and find it far-out. For example, they believe that “the City of the Kingdom of Heaven” physically exists at this moment, is located somewhere in outer space, and will in the fairly near future approach the Earth, pass gently through its atmosphere, and come to rest at the present location of Washington DC!

So does everyone agree that for something to be defined as a religion it must involve the belief in/worship of a higher power? Otherwise, it would be categorized as a human philosophy of life.

I do. Some might object, however, because it excludes people who don’t believe only in the metaphorical, not actual existence of higher power(s). People in this group consist of many who are members of the congregations of churches of well-known denominations, and even many clergy. My father, for instance, was an MD and a Methodist missionary minister, yet held a non-supernatural world view, and considered the objective existence of God to be an open question.

 

PS: You might consider posting your question, with a link back to this thread, with a poll, in the Community Polls. Polls (which provide the option of voting without comment) often get a brisker response than Theology threads.

[InfiniteNow]

It might also be useful to point out that we have evolved and much of our success is due to our social character... groups helping each other, thus altruistically maximizing success. It's possible that religion, in some sense, is an extension of this evolved trend toward social grouping, and has risen alongside our shared language and attempts at understanding the world around us. Those views shared by others appear more likely than views held only by one...

[cwes99_03]

Yes, but that was my point/argument for this thread. In today's world everyone has their own ideas/independent philosophy, what differentiates philosophy from religion.

 

Your argument here seems to tend toward, religion was always just a philosophy of man until it caught on enough that a whole bunch of people applied themselves to it.

 

I strongly disagree with this thought, but besides that, what made those things catch on, or take hold, was that it offered something much higher as a power, not just man's own thoughts on how to live. Christianity, Judaism, Islam all offer a god. Hindus believe in both gods and in a higher plane of existence, Budhists and possibly shintoists etc are the same (I'd have to double check that, could someone please correct me here.) However, Marxism, stoicism, etc. are all just human philosophies on how one should lead their life. To that end democracy is just a philosophy on how one should live their life, namely independently for the most part with a few laws to govern the bad seeds.

[CraigD]

Here’s a fresh response to this thread’s original question

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

A distinction can be drawn between philosophical and religious movements (as the terms are commonly used) by examining shared attributes.

 

Despite the many and conflicting assertions made by various philosophical movements, it’s reasonable to characterize them by an adage “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish”. This adage is commonly attributed to 13th century philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas, but likely predates him by at least a century, and is better characterized as a central tenet of the scholastic school of philosophy, of which Aquinas is considered a part.

 

Despite the many and conflicting assertions made by the various religions, it’s reasonable to characterize them as all demanding unconditional belief in a higher power, or Faith.

 

So, Philosophical movements are skeptical, while religious ones are credulous.

 

This is not to say that individuals and cultures cannot follow both religious and philosophical movements, nor that they do not strongly influence and support one another, nor that they are of equal or even comparable importance, just that the fundamental approaches to the practice of each differ in a distinct way. The relationship of philosophy to religion may vary widely among individuals sharing philosophies and religions, to include sincerely religious people who are ultimately skeptical of the objective reality of their religion, to rigorously skeptical people who have unwavering religious Faith.

[ughaibu]

CraigD: Your remark about Newton is interesting. Did he feel that there was sufficient evidence for the existence of god, angels, soul, etc and evidence of a nature suitable to form an approach to the problem of proofing?

[CraigD]

Even the term “supernatural” doesn’t appear to have been much used until about this time, and Enlightenment scientific rationalist (eg: Newton) appear to have believed that scientific methods would in short order result in increased understanding of and rigorous proof of the existence of God, angels, souls, etc.

CraigD: Your remark about Newton is interesting. Did he feel that there was sufficient evidence for the existence of god, angels, soul, etc and evidence of a nature suitable to form an approach to the problem of proofing?

As nearly as can be discerned by writing by and about him by his contemporaries, yes.

 

Though it’s not typically mentioned in introductory Science histories, Newton studied and wrote more about the Bible than physics, a study he combined with his intense study of Alchemy. He achievements in this area include placing the date for the crucifixion of Christ of 33 AD, the date most widely accepted by Bible scholars to this day, and ”An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture”. His writings give the clear impression that he considered no religious assertion to be beyond scientific proof or disproof.

 

This idea is also clear in the writings of René Descartes, with which Newton was expertly familiar. Descartes, also a devoutly religious man, explicitly stated his belief that God would not create a universe that could not be understood by man, because to do so to a rational being such as man would be cruel, in direct contradiction of his faith that God is loving. This and other tenets form the basis of continental rationalism.

 

Albert Einstein also appears to have shared this approach, having stated in an interview that he believed in “The God of Spinoza.” Spinoza was another important contemporary of Descartes and Newton.

[ughaibu]

CraigD: Thanks. The idea that the older version is somehow correct seems very odd to me. Newton himself must have been aware that the history of human achievement consists largely of the accumulation of changing interpretations of observable phenomena and exploitation of those interpretations. An immutability of ancient models of knowledge strikes me as necessarilly opposed to advancement of the knowledge concerned. The contradiction would disappear if Newton was arguing for the form of the religion rather than for it's content.

[FredFlash]

How does one separate church and state? Is there some scientific explanation that decides whether something is a religion or a philosophy?

 

You separate church and state by doing what James Madison said to do. You define religion as the duty which we owe to our Creator and then exclude it from the cognizance of the civil government.

 

Fred Von Flash Dallas Texas USA

[FredFlash]

”Philosophy” is a peculiar word, in that its literal meaning, philos sophia = love of wisdom, and its common meaning, which is something like “the study of important topics.”

 

As a “love”, philosophy may describe an entirely unreasoning, ecstatic activity. Or as the love of wisdom, it may be considered equivalent to the common religious admonition to “love God with all your heart.”

 

As a “study” with many branches, philosophy contains “moral philosophy.” One definition of religion is “applied moral philosophy”. By implication, then, religion may be simply a specialized branch of philosophy. Philosophy also contains theology, the study of God or gods. Theology, by most account, is not a synonym for religion.I think this is a pretty widely accepted definition of religion. I also think it is a fairly recent one, appearing roughly in the mid 18th century, AKA “the Age of Enlightenment.” Prior to this time, most people (at least most western people), even the literate elite, considered religious belief to be potentially rational, spirit and supernatural things to be as objectively real as ordinary, natural things. Even the term “supernatural” doesn’t appear to have been much used until about this time, and Enlightenment scientific rationalist (eg: Newton) appear to have believed that scientific methods would in short order result in increased understanding of and rigorous proof of the existence of God, angels, souls, etc.

 

This did not happen, marking the beginning of a split between scientific rationalism and “religious faith”. Reading documents defining “faith” from prior to that period, (eg: Luthor’s “An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans”, one get the impression that “faith” was not taken to mean “faith in the existence of God”, but “trust in God’s grace” and the innate human ability to perceive and act according to God’s will. Science, rather than confirming prevailing ideas about the nature of God and the cosmos, contradicted them, implying that the rational conclusion was atheism. In reaction (and to assure their survival), religious though appears to have redefined the idea of “faith” to mean “accepting the reality of religious ideas even when such appear contradicted by rational evidence”.I’ve known a lot of (and, for a time, been a) nature worshiper. In my experience, nature worshipers do not generally perceive nature to be the kind of hierarchical “higher power” that theists perceive God to be, but something more subtle. Most consider “mother nature” to be metaphorical, not real.

 

The separation of church and state appears to work best as an article of constitutional law, as in the US Constitution. This position is, I think, a pragmatic conclusion following from the framers’ experience of the history of civil chaos and suffering under governments in which a strong separation between church and state was not mandated.I think not. In the US, most people at most times have believed in the usual “God of Abraham”, yet had little difficulty seeing the wisdom of keeping this belief out of the operation of government.Before one can have a scientific explanation of something, one must define a formalism for it. Although attempts have been made to do this (eg: Korzybski’s discipline of General Semantics), they have not been widely known, accepted, or effective. Natural language-based, “semantic” methods seem prevalent in making this distinction.As recent movements like 3984 have shown, one can worship practically anything. The position that FSMism appears to be championing is that an obviously invented religion is no more “fake” than a well established one.

 

:) Interesting questions, all, though seemingly not ones that lend themselves to a rigorous scientific approach to answering.

 

 

Religion is duty which we owe to our Creator - James Madison

[FredFlash]

The Presbyterian's Argument (Circa 1834) That The National Religion is Atheism

 

We proceed now to establish the charge of immorality against the Constitution of the United States.

 

1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference, to the existence or providence of the Supreme Being. The nation, as such, has no God. This is an essential evil in the constitution, which involves the hideous charge of national atheism! "The general government is erected for the general good of the United States, and especially for the management of their foreign concerns: but no association of men for moral purposes can be justified in an entire neglect of the Sovereign of the World. No consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his anointed from the grand charter of the nation."[6]

 

2. The United States Constitution, does not recognise the revealed will of God. All moral government flows from God the Sovereign the Universe, and must be regulated by his will, otherwise it cannot bind the conscience. In the original state of man, the moral law, which we written on his heart, included in it the will of God relative to this as we as all other moral duties. To meet the exigency of man’s fallen condition, God has given a new revelation of his will, in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. All who enjoy this new, and now more perfect revelation of the will of God, are bound to regulate their civil and political relations by it, as well as those that immediately relate to the worship of God. To proceed on the ground that man may dispense with the instruction of scripture in the constitution and management civil government, is unquestionably to set aside the authority of God when He speaks to us in the holy scriptures. The universal depravity of human nature unfits men for performing either the personal or social duties of life, in a manner agreeable to the will of God. The scriptures contain instructions how all these duties are to be performed. "To the law and to the testimony" we are commanded to look. And no moral principle whatever can it be admitted, that men may form their constitutions of civil government according to the mere light nature, when the author of nature has given another and a more perfect rule by which they may be flamed. The authority which binds men to the light of nature, as far as it is applicable, binds them also to the scriptures, as the subsequent and more complete revelation of the will of God. "Revelation contains the true standard of civil government. It prescribes the supreme criterion according to which those states which have ordained this superior light should act in forming their constitutions, choosing their officers, and determining their leading objects."[7] In the Constitution of the United States, however, there is not the most distant allusion to the revealed will of God. The Bible, as containing the fundamental principles of political morality, is not even indirectly acknowledged. Here then is an evident violation of a moral duty.—Men are bound, as has been proved by the preceding observations, to make the Bible the basis of their political constitutions; but the United States of America have entirely excluded it from the charter which binds them together as a nation.

 

3. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges no subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ. A moral right to exercise universal dominion bas been given to Him as the Mediator, by God the Father, "He hath put all things under his feet, and set him far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."[8] In the whole universe of created existence there is not a solitary exception to the mediatorial rule of Christ. He has moral authority given to him over all things for the sake of the Church, which is his body. Every intelligent being is bound to obey the Redeemer, and submit to his authority. Civil society, and all communities, are in their congregated character equally bound with individuals to honor Him. On their part it is not a matter of choice—"nations and their rulers are placed in a state of subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of the kings of the earth, and are bound to acknowledge his mediatorial authority, and submit to his law; framing their laws, appointing their officers, and regulating their obedience in subserviency to the interests of his kingdom."[9] The revealed commands of God bind them to give obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ in all their social relations. "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little."[10] The claim which the Mediator has to the homage of nations is held forth by his mediatorial exaltation and dignity. "He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords."[11] The constitution and government which have no respect to the Mediator and his authority, as "Prince of the kings of the earth," are in a state of rebellion and opposition against "the Lord and his Anointed." They are destitute of an important moral feature, that justly exposes them to the charge of impiety. The Constitution of the United States is chargeable with this impiety. It makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor his right of rule, over the nations. It contemns the commands of God that enjoin obedience to his authority, and as far as moral principle is concerned, the language of the Constitution respecting "the Lord and his Anointed" is, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."[12]

 

There are principles essential to the moral character of a civil constitution and government, destitute of which, no government can be the ordinance of God. Of three of these essential and radical principles of the ordinance of God, the Constitution of the United States is destitute. That a government may furnish an exemplification of magistracy agreeable to the will of God, from whom this ordinance flows, the constitution of government must explicitly avow and acknowledge the existence, providence and authority of God. It must be framed according to the revealed will of God: and it must include a professed subjection of the government to the Lord Jesus Christ the Mediator. The Constitution of the United States is destitute of all these three essential characteristics of God’s moral ordinance of government. It has no regard to the mediatorial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ; and is therefore chargeable with rebellion against Him. It rejects the revealed will of God; and is therefore infidel. It does not acknowledge the existence of the Supreme Being; and is thus godless.

 

End Notes

 

[6] Scriptural View, &c. by Alexander McLeod. D. D. [back]

[7] Application of Scriptural Principles to Political Government, by the Rev. Peter Macindoe, A. M. [back]

[8] Eph. 1:22, 20, 21. [back]

[9] Summary of the Principles and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, p. 55. [back]

[10] Ps, 2:10, 11, 12. [back]

[11] Rev. 19:16. [back]

[12] Ps. 2:3. [back]

 

http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/jurylaw.htm

[cwes99_03]

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 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.

 

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 ...

 

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?

Ok, now I've read your posts, and it would appear you have not read the rest of the thread. This is not a thread about religion and government, it is a thread about religion vs. philosophy.

The question posted by myself the thread starter on how to separate religion from state was supposed to point out; that in today's world a stunning number of people are saying that religion is just a philosphy. I point out then that so is politics. So how does one separate the philosophy from the philosophy?

Of course my side of the point is that religion is not a philosophy, and therefore it is easy to separate religion from philosophy of state.

[cwes99_03]

As promised this post is being placed here to invite further discussion on this subject.

 

1) philosophy is the love of and study of human wisdom. While this thinking may take on a universal position, and be adhered to by many, it makes no claims as to divinity.

2) religion - is the love of and study of "godly" wisdom. This is not relegated only to the Christian god, but to all who believe in a spiritual world. However, when one identifies with a particular religion, then they must demonstrate adherence to those religious beliefs, and not just "pick and choose" those beliefs they like. Such treatment of a religion is in fact a way of converting that religion into a personal philosophy.

In order to know whether something is personal philosophy or religious teaching, a text should be evident. In absence of a text, oral tradition may be accepted, however, oral tradition must not vary from person to person. The accuracy of oral tradition makes it similar to a text in that many people know of the oral tradition (stories) and can all equally come to agreement in the literal word for word passage of that story. Absent that, the tradition is considered largely lost, except for those portions that can be agreed upon by a significantly large group who has good reason to believe that it is not simply based upon an earlier philosophy.