Religion vs. Philosophy

[cwes99_03]

 

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.

 

I disagree with what I bolded. You are asserting, with this, that religion is not personal, but a set of laws laid out in a book. Given that every book is written by a man, for you it seems the only difference between a religion and personal philosophy is that a religion is a personal philosophy that was codified and now has many followers. This I disagree with.

 

As I have previously mentioned, I also disagree that the study of any good literature is a scientific process.

-Will

The preceding was copied from another thread, to continue the discussion here.

[cwes99_03]

I would agree with your synopsis of my viewpoint to a degree. I believe that religion is not personal in that it is yours and yours alone. That is a philosophy. Religion transcends men and their personal viewpoints. I did not however require that a religion relate a set of laws on how to live, though that isn't completely out of question.

 

Think of this for a moment. If I were to go out and begin worshipping a particular tree as my God and hold the belief that that tree told me to kill some and pay bribes to others and do all kinds of other odd things, would I be a member of a religion of 1? If 100s of people began to worship the same tree but in different ways than I did, would that make us a religious group, or just a bunch of philosophers?

 

What rules, definition, do governmental bodies have for defining whether something is a religion or not? Obviously they have to draw a line somewhere. This is just a small part of the debate, however. A government may choose to draw the line wherever it chooses, as it holds sovereignty over its people. Governments throughout eastern Europe have done just that.

 

There is a natural difference between philosophy and religion. Some who deny that a higher power exists say that religion is just a form of philosophy (as they say it originates not with a supernatural power but with men).

 

People who believe in the supernatural however say that religion originates with a supernatural power. How does this fit in, however, with religious groups who claim to serve a particular supernatural power but invent new ways to serve that power whenever they want, and redefine who that power is whenever they want?

[Erasmus00]

I would agree with your synopsis of my viewpoint to a degree. I believe that religion is not personal in that it is yours and yours alone. That is a philosophy. Religion transcends men and their personal viewpoints. I did not however require that a religion relate a set of laws on how to live, though that isn't completely out of question.

 

My point is that nearly every single religion on the planet was at some point, the personal religion of only one person. Books were written by authors. Before the author wrote the book, it was his personal philosophy.

 

Think of this for a moment. If I were to go out and begin worshipping a particular tree as my God and hold the belief that that tree told me to kill some and pay bribes to others and do all kinds of other odd things, would I be a member of a religion of 1? If 100s of people began to worship the same tree but in different ways than I did, would that make us a religious group, or just a bunch of philosophers?

 

By your own argument, if you wrote a book and your followers followed it, then yes, you would have a religious movement.

 

People who believe in the supernatural however say that religion originates with a supernatural power.

 

A caveat. Religion originates with man's ideas about a supernatural power. Unless, of course, god himself came down and handed the original person the book. (This is claimed for the Quran and certian parts of Jewish scripture, but by this standard Christianity is right out).

 

How does this fit in, however, with religious groups who claim to serve a particular supernatural power but invent new ways to serve that power whenever they want, and redefine who that power is whenever they want?

 

Consider: Religious people believe God divinely inspires man (this is where they often claim religious texts come from). If man is imperfect, then perhaps they get it wrong every not and then, so God comes along and gives inspiration to someone new, etc, etc. Why can't redeffinitions be God's will?

 

Why can't a God change its mind later on, hence divinely inspiring a rewrite Some Christians argue that the King James version of the bible was divinely inspired(indeed I've been told by certain priests it was the only divinely inspired English translation). Wouldn't that, in some sense, be suggesting God called in a rewrite? (A rewrite from the original languages).

 

All of these can fit in with a changing religious movement. Not to mention my point that interpretation of poetry is constantly changing with the times (which is the whole utility of poetry). Hence, you naturally expect religious books filled wtih poetry to lead to evolving religious practice.

-Will

[cwes99_03]

Actually you make one initial mistake which I think the rest of your argument hangs on. I also note that there has to be a divine, there has to be a supernatural. Thus religion is the love and study of "godly" wisdom.

 

You have to meet at least those two criteria. I'm not of the conclusion that this is the only criteria, and I invite you discussion on the subject further. However, you can see how if one were to simply pick and choose which tennets he or she wanted to follow, they would not be worshipping in the prescribed (by the supernatural) way.

 

If, however, you are of the opinion that religion is just another form of philosophy, in that it all originated with man and there is no divine, then I return you to the top of the thread where I asked, "how does a legislator or a judge separate philosophy from philosophy?"

[cwes99_03]

I reread your post, and while I don't think you are specifically weighing each part as separate but dependent, I see a couple of things which I do like in your thinking, but which I think you fail to question.

 

Consider: Religious people believe God divinely inspires man (this is where they often claim religious texts come from). If man is imperfect, then perhaps they get it wrong every not and then, so God comes along and gives inspiration to someone new, etc, etc. Why can't redeffinitions be God's will?

 

This is a very good thought. I think someone would have to be able to give some evidence that it was their god's will.

 

Why can't a God change its mind later on, hence divinely inspiring a rewrite Some Christians argue that the King James version of the bible was divinely inspired(indeed I've been told by certain priests it was the only divinely inspired English translation). Wouldn't that, in some sense, be suggesting God called in a rewrite? (A rewrite from the original languages).

A fickle God. Possible, but not one that I would want to serve myself. Again, I suppose one would have to give evidence that this was their god's will.

 

BTW, the following is inaccurate.

A caveat. Religion originates with man's ideas about a supernatural power. Unless, of course, god himself came down and handed the original person the book. (This is claimed for the Quran and certian parts of Jewish scripture, but by this standard Christianity is right out).

 

As far as the religions that originate with Genesis, all the books were divinely inspired. While not necessarily said word for word, all parts of the OT claim divine inspirate in some way. They all attribute the wisdom contained within the texts to their god, often times quoting god or his representative. In the NT there are two specific scriptures that say exactly that all scripture is inspired by God, and not born by any personal interpretation. (2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20,21)

 

Furthermore, the point you seem to be stuck on about poetry, is a philosophy about poetry. I can take any speech and turn it into a poem. Would that speech be open to interpretation? Was Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech open to the interpretation that he wished all black people to get over themselves and immerse themselves in the white culture and stop being different? No. If I set it to music and read it as poetry could it then be interpretted? If it could not be before, then it cannot be after.

 

Will, I would like you to continue thinking about this and posting, because I think it is important to solving some of the problems in the world. Consider the thought on how you separate religious philosophy from philosophy which is the crux of the constitutional issue of separation of church and state. Furthermore, how do you identify a religion, if that religion can change daily or yearly? Finally, how would any one religion be identified as a religion at all if anyone could claim divine inspiration?

[rising crescent]

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?

Religion is beyond empirics (what we called "ghaib" in arabic word)-or in english"spiritual form"

Philosophy is world between "ghaib" and empirics.Ambigue indeed...

 

someone "worship" nature, already take Nature is His God by his own will.

 

in Islam, there is NO division because everthing in human"s life is ONE

[cwes99_03]

That seems a bit cryptic to me. Everything is one, doesn't sound, to me, like an islamic teaching, it sounds more like a Budhist or Hindu teaching.

 

Philosophy as stated earlier on this thread is the love of human wisdom. To think about anything you can think about and apply a human solution to it, instead of relying on a higher power to supply one with the needed solution.

Thus philosophy is very empirical in some cases, in that it is human philosophy that we can improve life through scientific means, or at the very least by looking at a problem and thinking about as many different situations we can and figuring out what solution would best serve the situation.

A religion on the other hand says that we should follow the path provided by a spiritually enlightened one, one who has or can commune with a higher power.

[rising crescent]

That seems a bit cryptic to me. Everything is one, doesn't sound, to me, like an islamic teaching, it sounds more like a Budhist or Hindu teaching.

No,In Islam.That is called tasybih = Liking.

Everything is One,It means everything is Unity.

Unity and Diversity.Tanzih and Tasybih. Two View unite one another.

 

Budhis,Hindu,indeed like tasybih.

One dimension closer to this is Spiritual Sufi.

 

Of course,you hard to find this in rational people-most of it in moslems.

Because Liking is danger in their view...

 

Philosophy as stated earlier on this thread is the love of human wisdom. To think about anything you can think about and apply a human solution to it, instead of relying on a higher power to supply one with the needed solution.

Thus philosophy is very empirical in some cases, in that it is human philosophy that we can improve life through scientific means, or at the very least by looking at a problem and thinking about as many different situations we can and figuring out what solution would best serve the situation.

we can ask anything in phiolosophy but not solved.

who can we are able to answer question beyond our life???

 

Philosopy is very light that sometimes didnt touch empirics again on earth

philosophy is Gate betweeen 2 worlds.Light and darkness, empirical and spiritual.

 

A religion on the other hand says that we should follow the path provided by a spiritually enlightened one, one who has or can commune with a higher power.

correction.

Religion is not just spiritual.But System Govern the world. In other world,Working on earth based on God knowledge as Chaliph, not seek light of fire called science.

 

Religion have 3 dimension : Spiritual/ghaib,Minds,and Acting/Laws.

 

so we must not see religion lightly, considering we have little knowledge about it...:)

[cwes99_03]

Sorry crescent, there is a language barrier here. I don't understand the full extent of your words, and am a bit confused. Perhaps someone else can chime in here to clarify what is being said for me?

 

Perhaps you can point me to a website or other material I can read to better understand your viewpoint.

[Erasmus00]

Actually you make one initial mistake which I think the rest of your argument hangs on. I also note that there has to be a divine, there has to be a supernatural. Thus religion is the love and study of "godly" wisdom.

 

You have to meet at least those two criteria. I'm not of the conclusion that this is the only criteria, and I invite you discussion on the subject further. However, you can see how if one were to simply pick and choose which tennets he or she wanted to follow, they would not be worshipping in the prescribed (by the supernatural) way.

 

You miss my point. How do we know the way in which the supernatural wants to be worshipped? All the books we have are MAN'S IDEA about how the supernatural wants to be worshipped. Perhaps the exceptions are the Koran (supposedly handed down by an angel), the ten commandments(ditto), and the book of latter day saints(also ditto).

 

How do you know your particular book was what the supernatural wanted, and not simply the ideas of some men/women who claimed divine inspiration?

 

This is a very good thought. I think someone would have to be able to give some evidence that it was their god's will.

 

How do you prove divine inspiration? How has anyone ever proven divine inspiration?

 

A fickle God. Possible, but not one that I would want to serve myself.

 

Aren't you trying to tell God what he/she/it can and can't do? Isn't this your personal philosophy,then, that God can't change its mind?

 

As far as the religions that originate with Genesis, all the books were divinely inspired. ... In the NT there are two specific scriptures that say exactly that all scripture is inspired by God, and not born by any personal interpretation.

 

You miss my point. Unless they claim God himself/herself/itself handed the book down as is, that book was written by man. As such, the men/women can claim divine inspiration, but how do they prove it?

 

Furthermore, the point you seem to be stuck on about poetry, is a philosophy about poetry. I can take any speech and turn it into a poem. Would that speech be open to interpretation?

 

This is a question of how you identify poetry, which isn't the subject. I ahve no doubt that many portions of the bible are not poetry. However, you have to admit, there are portions that almost certainly ARE (the song of solomon, for instance).

 

Finally, how would any one religion be identified as a religion at all if anyone could claim divine inspiration?

 

What seperates divine inspriation from a really good idea? To a religious person, don't all ideas come from God? Why would a multitude of religions prevent any religion from being recognized? If an otherwise devout Christian feels strongly, morally that homosexuals should be able to marry, how does he/she know that internal voice isn't divine inspiration? If an otherwise devout Jew feels that God didn't create the world in six days, but instead over millenia, how does he/she know this isn't God talking to them? etc.

 

Will, I would like you to continue thinking about this and posting, because I think it is important to solving some of the problems in the world.

 

Why? Whether something is classified as "religion" or "philosophy" is entirely an academic question. It certainly won't help members of different religions get along better (in fact, I could see bickering about who ACTUALLY has a religion, and who merely follows a philosophy).

-Will

[cwes99_03]

You miss my point. How do we know the way in which the supernatural wants to be worshipped? All the books we have are MAN'S IDEA about how the supernatural wants to be worshipped. Perhaps the exceptions are the Koran (supposedly handed down by an angel), the ten commandments(ditto), and the book of latter day saints(also ditto).

 

How do you know your particular book was what the supernatural wanted, and not simply the ideas of some men/women who claimed divine inspiration?

 

This is a very good thought. I think someone would have to be able to give some evidence that it was their god's will.

 

How do you prove divine inspiration? How has anyone ever proven divine inspiration?

As you noted, I did miss your point initially, but then you caught up to the issue that I posted only minutes later. We have these two parts of discernment, but you say a third part is needed, and I would agree.

 

3) A religion - must state a way of testing out whether its teachings are divinely originated. Simply stating that it is divine is not enough.

 

I could claim an angel or a dead loved one is sitting next to me right now telling me what to write, but I would not be able to provide any evidence for it.

In the past people have proven divine inspiration through prophesy miraculous acts, etc. While today we have much better tools to determine whether one is using natural phenomenon and scientific method to produce such prophesy or miracles, simply stating that it could have been produced by such methods does not make it certain that it was, it does however create doubt.

[cwes99_03]

A fickle God. Possible, but not one that I would want to serve myself.

 

Aren't you trying to tell God what he/she/it can and can't do? Isn't this your personal philosophy,then, that God can't change its mind?

 

Not from where I am standing. The Bible teaches that God is unchanging (Mal. 3:6). Thus since I worship a God that is unchanging, it isn't my philosophy, it is Biblical teaching.

[cwes99_03]

What seperates divine inspriation from a really good idea? To a religious person, don't all ideas come from God? Why would a multitude of religions prevent any religion from being recognized? If an otherwise devout Christian feels strongly, morally that homosexuals should be able to marry, how does he/she know that internal voice isn't divine inspiration? If an otherwise devout Jew feels that God didn't create the world in six days, but instead over millenia, how does he/she know this isn't God talking to them? etc.

 

Will, I would like you to continue thinking about this and posting, because I think it is important to solving some of the problems in the world.

 

Why? Whether something is classified as "religion" or "philosophy" is entirely an academic question. It certainly won't help members of different religions get along better (in fact, I could see bickering about who ACTUALLY has a religion, and who merely follows a philosophy).

-Will

 

Will, this is the point. I don't know how you don't understand that the question you are asking and the points you are making are answering your own questions.

This is the academic issue. If academically we can find a reason to separate philosophy from religion, we will have discovered a method for ending some of the debate. We will have identified that many do not actually practice any religion. Instead they follow human philosophy and raise it on high as divine.

 

The Bible answers your question about "If an otherwise devout Christian feels strongly, morally that homosexuals should be able to marry, how does he/she know that internal voice isn't divine inspiration?". Thus the point of defining the difference, and the necessity of defining religion vs philosophy.

 

I obviously speak from a Christian standpoint. However, I asked that people of all faiths and backgrounds (including those without faith) participate on this thread. Perhaps it is hindu teaching that all thoughts are from god, and thus every human philosophy is divine. I know it is not a Bible teaching (check out the book of Job). I also find it hard to believe that such a God could care at all about humans, as human philosophy has often been the cause of wars, poverty, sickness, etc.

 

So, Will, can we get on with our defining the difference between religion and philosophy? I do appreciate your input.

[rising crescent]

Sorry crescent, there is a language barrier here. I don't understand the full extent of your words, and am a bit confused. Perhaps someone else can chime in here to clarify what is being said for me?

 

Perhaps you can point me to a website or other material I can read to better understand your viewpoint.

Vision of Islam by Sachiko Murata.She is one of teacher in NY university.

[cwes99_03]

While the comments on the book at Amazon.com are all positive, as far that I've read, I do not know that this is a book by which one can truly learn about Islam. Perhaps it is, but let me put it to you this way and hopefully I will understand your reply.

 

According to the definition, that I've put forth, can you see there being a problem with the say this book approaches Islam. Does it go above and beyond the original texts in trying to show what Islam has become since the Koran and Hadith were provided by Allah? If so, are the teachings that have shaped the faith into what it is today (which really is much like christianity in that there are many different viewpoints on the teachings of the Koran) still based solely on the Koran, or are they based on human philosophy, or has the Koran been updated with other holy books provided by Allah?

 

Here's an interesting blurb from a website on the tennets of Islam. I cannot be sure of their veracity because I have not read the Koran, but perhaps you can say whether they are correct.

 

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/june02_index.php?l=5

 

In this hadith, the basic foundations have been laid out. Islam is to observe the five pillars of Islam, which are the affirmation of the Oneness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad, as well as the institutions of prayer, zakat, fasting and pilgrimage. Iman, or faith, requires belief in God, His angels, books, messengers, the divine destiny of good and evil, and the Day of Judgement. And Ihsan, or spiritual excellence, is to worship God as though you see Him, knowing that He sees you.

[rising crescent]

While the comments on the book at Amazon.com are all positive, as far that I've read, I do not know that this is a book by which one can truly learn about Islam. Perhaps it is, but let me put it to you this way and hopefully I will understand your reply.

that book is one of Good for your culture better understand it.

for me,born in most people in my country are moslems,that book brings new knowledge.

you must know,Parental education believes daily acting will form a child to better people.

most Our people happy in normal life that dont really have attention in advancement Religion teaching.

 

According to the definition, that I've put forth, can you see there being a problem with the say this book approaches Islam. Does it go above and beyond the original texts in trying to show what Islam has become since the Koran and Hadith were provided by Allah? If so, are the teachings that have shaped the faith into what it is today (which really is much like christianity in that there are many different viewpoints on the teachings of the Koran) still based solely on the Koran, or are they based on human philosophy, or has the Koran been updated with other holy books provided by Allah?

 

Here's an interesting blurb from a website on the tennets of Islam. I cannot be sure of their veracity because I have not read the Koran, but perhaps you can say whether they are correct.

 

Quote:

In this hadith, the basic foundations have been laid out. Islam is to observe the five pillars of Islam, which are the affirmation of the Oneness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad, as well as the institutions of prayer, zakat, fasting and pilgrimage. Iman, or faith, requires belief in God, His angels, books, messengers, the divine destiny of good and evil, and the Day of Judgement. And Ihsan, or spiritual excellence, is to worship God as though you see Him, knowing that He sees you.

yes.those are 3 dimension Islam depends on each other. that three : spiritual=ihsan,minds=iman,acting=islam,is True developing Capability of human. in history,Society succeed develop 3 aspect simultaneously,is in prophet age.

 

in Vision of Islam book ,3 aspects,are studied more deeper that brings answer for question :

what is soul and body

what is angel ?

what is Truth ?

What is Promised Land,Back to God in Forever Journey,etc :)

 

I think that is better you read it firstly,slowly.

because true knowledge needs times...

even if is very tiny, that are very valuable to us and have measurement in God"s view.

[cwes99_03]

Ok, missing the one comment though that was most important.

 

can you see there being a problem with the way this book approaches Islam. Does it go above and beyond the original texts in trying to show what Islam has become since the Koran and Hadith were provided by Allah? If so, are the teachings that have shaped the faith into what it is today (which really is much like christianity in that there are many different viewpoints on the teachings of the Koran) still based solely on the Koran, or are they based on human philosophy, or has the Koran been updated with other holy books provided by Allah?