Religion vs. Philosophy

[maikeru]

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.)

 

I spent some time in a bookstore today, and I read Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker (which I had never read before). In particular, Chapter 10 explains the same "fuzziness" that I was trying to relate to you earlier. He also uses language as an example similarly to how I used it. If you have a chance, I suggest you read that chapter and think about it.

[Southtown]

Cwes is no longer with us. :)

 

[maikeru]

Well, may his e-spirit rest in peace. I should've looked at his profile before replying... Thanks for the heads up, Southtown.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I am revived from my banning. Maikeru, while your recommendations are somewhat appreciated, I do not plan on reading anything by Dawkins soon. Perhaps you could share what your thoughts were on reading that book.

 

What are your thoughts on why there can't be a clear dividing line between religion and philosophy? Please answer as simply and succinctly as you can, because I've been confused by some of your earlier posts on that question.

[Erasmus00]

What are your thoughts on why there can't be a clear dividing line between religion and philosophy?

 

Even by your deffinition, there is no clear dividing line. There is no way at all to establish whether a book claiming to be supernatural was actually written by a man. Hence, no way to determine whether we have religion or philosophy. I would in fact argue that no book has ever existed that wasn't the work of man.

-Will

[cwes99_03]

Point 1) the definition is not yet finished. This thread is supposed to be working on that definition, finding suggestions that will improve the definition so a better division can be made between the two parts.

 

Point 2) there are ways a book or oral tradition that is nearly as good as a written source, can be suggested to be supernatural in nature. I do agree however that many will balk at such a suggestion, but that is easily stated, due to their extreme bias (at least as easily stated as saying that my belief in such to be due to an extreme bias). A bias which is so ingrained in their minds that they refuse to admit to any possibility because it would mean the need for a severe change in their thinking and life.

However, that second portion can be discussed as a subpoint after the main point becomes assured. That is to say, if you can define a religion to have a need for a supernatural source of informaiton in (book or oral form) and a philosophy to have a need for a human source of information.

[InfiniteNow]

Point 1) the definition is not yet finished. This thread is supposed to be working on that definition, finding suggestions that will improve the definition so a better division can be made between the two parts.

This causes me extreme duress... 92 posts, and we still aren't finished?

 

 

At a snail's pace...

[cwes99_03]

Sometimes a snail pace is better than the pace of a machine gun that opens fire to ask questions later. :doh: I'm just hoping that it is moving forward. KAC has another thread that is being discussed somewhat simultaneously on the same topic.