Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Religion as Philosophy
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Lintilla



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Posts: 50
Location: California
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

No science is not a religion. Religion deals with the Supernatual relm. Science, by definition, has NO access to the supernatural realm. Science makes no comments on the supernatural, only the natural (which is why it is silly that religious people always ask science to DISPROVE God. Science does not deal with that, at best science can show that God is not necessary in the scheme of things, but that is all.)


Point against this, Quantum theory, it deals with the "supernatural" realm and is a scientific area trying to explain "supernatural" occurrences.
Again, what to us is natural was supernatural once.
As for Science in general, most theories dealt with, are exactly that, theories. They are "proven" by the same principles as early humaniy explained things with religion in many cases, trial and error, testing.

All three, Science, Religion, Philosphy are based on believes, or can you yourself prove that there is a moon, that the earth is round (for that you would have to go into space) or even that gravity really is what it seems? Do you KNOW that everything around you consists of atoms?
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
SoundDoctrine



Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 423
Location: Nomad
 Reply with quote  

I haven't read anything in this thread but the subject...It raises my eyebrow...I got into a discussion with my history teacher (who is very cool and looks like Sage Francis) about what separates religion from common philosophy...We arrived at the point that religion covers ideas of the afterlife as to where philosophy deals only with the way you live your life on earth...

Confucious' teachings - Philosophy, talks of how to live a good life yet mentions nothing of afterlife

Islam - Religion, Teaches of how to live life and what the afterlife is

Buddhism - Philosophy?/Religion?, Due to the fact that it is believed that once you achieve Nirvana and reincarnation stops you just become part of the universe, it is much debated on wether or not this is a Philosophy or Religion...

And that's all I've got to say about that...
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:53 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

Point against this, Quantum theory, it deals with the "supernatural" realm

??? uh... no it doesn't. Supernatural is the realm of gods, of miracles. It is stuff that exists outside of the natural world. Heaven, hell, zeus, witches. Quantum theory has nothing to do with that realm last time I checked.


Quote:

They are "proven" by the same principles as early humaniy explained things with religion in many cases, trial and error, testing.


hahah... what? religion is based on trial and error?

While science, religion and philsophy deal with similar subjects "Philosophy, Religion and Science are distinct and different because they rely on different sources, methods and criteria to find and to support what they claim. Whereas the source of Science is sense observation and testing through measurement and experiment and religion claims that the source of what it holds is God through revelation the source of Philosophy is one's own thinking. It may agree with or disagree with what Religion or Science claim but it does so because it makes up its own mind. "



Quote:

Where Philosophy, Religion and Science differ sharply is in the source they go to for their claims, in the methods they use to obtain and promote what they hold as true and in the criteria they employ to verify and confirm their claims.

Religion claims the source of what it teaches is a god. Philosophy and Science do not make this extraordinary claim. Religion is readily recognized when one introduces the claim of a beyond or of a supernatural being into any issue, any conversation.

from http://www.csudh.edu/philosophy/logos/pages/unknown_page_1.htm
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

no offense, but you aren't really putting forward an argument you are just making some rather anecdotal claims about things. What is your argument exactly? are you claiming the three are IDENTICAL!? are philosophy and religion subsets of science? are science and philosophy subsets of religion?

what are your definitions? what are your premises? what are you trying to say.
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:58 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
SoundDoctrine



Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 423
Location: Nomad
 Reply with quote  

I don't know if you are talking to me or what...But check my statement...It's pretty concrete...
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

no no, not you. Lintilla.

Although, SD, the confusion over buddhism might be due to the different kinds of buddhism (some strains don't believe in god/gods, some do)
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
SoundDoctrine



Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 423
Location: Nomad
 Reply with quote  

Yeah there's three branches...Thunderbolt, Middle something and another...I don't feel like remembering...
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
MrHourGlass



Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 384
Location: buddy cianci land
...  Reply with quote  

Damn, August Spies is on point, with his.

Haha

All I can say is, they are not two in the same.(Let's leave science out of this, if just confuses the fawk out of it even more.)

Obviously, religion and philosophy aren't the same, we already arrrived at this, Simply put, I'll reiterate, philosophy encourages teachings of virtues, along with explanation etc...but the teachings of virtues can be pointed to an innumerable amount of religions. There are relevant connections. St. Augustine...a devout Christian, whom was influenced by philosophy, wrote books connecting the two. It's much more complicated, but not neccessary to elaborate on.

As for science, that's a whole other subject.
Post Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Lintilla



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Posts: 50
Location: California
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
no offense, but you aren't really putting forward an argument you are just making some rather anecdotal claims about things. What is your argument exactly? are you claiming the three are IDENTICAL!? are philosophy and religion subsets of science? are science and philosophy subsets of religion?

what are your definitions? what are your premises? what are you trying to say.


I think I obviously haven't made myself clear, what I am stating is that all three come from the same human urge of wanting to know a purpose in life and all three are belief structures, nothing less, nothing more.
They are not identical (how could they be as they stem from different eras) but they all have similar functions to make you believe in something you yourself cannot prove.


Quote:

??? uh... no it doesn't. Supernatural is the realm of gods, of miracles. It is stuff that exists outside of the natural world. Heaven, hell, zeus, witches. Quantum theory has nothing to do with that realm last time I checked.


If you read yourself into Quantum Principles, most Scientists will tell you that the Quantum theory leaks a lot into Philosophy for one. Quantum Mechanics is the study of atoms basically and so much more at the same time.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Again, a lightning has been a miracle once, a flooding has been a miracle, supposedly a sign from God, nowadays Science explains both of these (just as examples), Quantum mechanics is trying the same, what people see as miracles nowadays, something "god-sent" might have a scientific explanation very soon.
But again, nothing you or I could prove, we have to trust and believe in Scientists.

As I said, all three are belief structures, many Philosophers went into the realm of deities, so do a lot of scientists. Take your mind off yourself and your own small world and open your eyes to people who might not think like you, or could not think like you (in the past) as they have / had different subsets of reality.
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 12:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

Lintilla: my mind is plenty open, ive studied all these subjects. If you want to argue about this stuff, id love to, but drop the silly character assults. please.

---------
Okay I already agreed that they come form a similar desire to know the reality of things... several times. we agree there.

'how could they be as they stem from different eras'
haven't we established this is not true? Philosophy developed while religion was developing.

If you read yourself into Quantum Principles, most Scientists will tell you that the Quantum theory leaks a lot into Philosophy for one.


I know about quantum theory. However, NOTHING you said shows that it deals with the supernatural. Science can not, by definition, deal with the supernatural.

The confusion here seems to be that you are saying some phemonom that used to be considered supernatural is now explained by science. Yes of course. But there is a distinction here. Let us pretend lightening was thought to be God's sneezes. Okay, so science can examine the NATURAL aspect of this (the lightening) but it can make no claims about God. It never studies God, or deamons, or magic. It can not.

But again, nothing you or I could prove, we have to trust and believe in Scientists.

This is where you are wrong. You CAN go do the research. You can follow scientific studies and see their results. You can even conduct the expermints yourself. Likewise, you can read a philosophers work and study what he says and see his reasoning.

Religion is not like this. God sends a message to Moses and you have to accept it. You can't go back to the mountain and get the same message from God.

Now, to be sure, most people dont' follow every science report, or read philosophy. But this is a problem of the PERSON not the THING. Science and philosophy ALLOW you to follow their logic, and they encourage it. (and many people do follow it).
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

Let me also note that if we take your reasoning and take it logically to its extreme it becomes absurd.

(please correct me if I am wrong but you are claiming:
We believe in specialists like scientists or philosphers and that we have to just believe them, we dont' do all the scientific work or all the reasoning. Therefore science and philosphy are religions)

But, if you want to be consistant, virtually all subjects are then religions. History is certainly a religion. You can't possible go read all the primary sources and peace together what truly happened. ANd you certainly can't go back in time and SEE events unfold. So you have to BELIEVE what the experts tell you.

English = religion (you learn thigns about how literature was written, yet you dont' read all the books, you jsut accept what you are told)
Psychology= religion
Art history= religion
etc... etc...

so I contend that your definition of religion is untenable. It is umproductive for these types of discussions, since any subject is a religion.
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Lintilla



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Posts: 50
Location: California
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
Let me also note that if we take your reasoning and take it logically to its extreme it becomes absurd.

(please correct me if I am wrong but you are claiming:
We believe in specialists like scientists or philosphers and that we have to just believe them, we dont' do all the scientific work or all the reasoning. Therefore science and philosphy are religions)

But, if you want to be consistant, virtually all subjects are then religions. History is certainly a religion. You can't possible go read all the primary sources and peace together what truly happened. ANd you certainly can't go back in time and SEE events unfold. So you have to BELIEVE what the experts tell you.

English = religion (you learn thigns about how literature was written, yet you dont' read all the books, you jsut accept what you are told)
Psychology= religion
Art history= religion
etc... etc...

so I contend that your definition of religion is untenable. It is umproductive for these types of discussions, since any subject is a religion.


It was no personal attack, the only thing I'm saying is that there are billions of people out there right now, and there have been billions of people, all with different subsets of reality, you thinking them wrong doesn't make them necessarily wrong.

Finally, you're getting where I'm going, more or less, even though you yourself find it absurd. You cannot prove anything. If you do follow a scientist's vision, you do exactly that, follow his vision, you do not prove anything. Only because the apple falls to the ground 10 out of 10 times does not make it TRUE.

This is a discussion, yes, therefore different points of view will be brought forward, credible to you or not, but they will (that is what a discussion is about, isn't it). I don't intend to convert you to my point of view, neither do you want to convert me to your point of view, or do you? The only thing I am asking is to think about it, as I will think or have thought about your and other's points.
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
PokeHerFace



Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 361
Location: behind
 Reply with quote  

Succintroundabout wrote:
It's what I keep telling everybody, "looky here, we exist to reproduce and pass on our phenotypes; those phenotypes most successful survive, and increase in frequency in a population; thus we have evolution."

I don't possibly see how there COULD be a higher purpose than survival, after all, we are descended from bacteria. I mean do bacteria have a higher purpose or what?



The fact that we exist to survive is true. It's not a humanity as a whole effort, though, in which we realize that we have to continue to populate. Its our SELFISH GENE that wants to continue. Its that gene that realizes that its odds of surviving on and on from human carrier to human carier for ever and ever is increased by reproducing, multiplying, copying itself on forever. That, i believe, is the purest form of a subconscious.

The fact that we evolved from that submodial pool into rational beings with minds that we barely use is unbelievable. Animals don't have rational minds, their brains are wholly subconscious. Our minds allow us to realize we have a subconscious which provides us with will. The most extreme is to turn against our SELFISH GENE would be to kill ourselves--rationally taking ourselves and whatever genes we have that want to survive out. People say its selfish to kill yourself. It is aweful, but maybe not selfish. Those who morn may feel differently than me, and thank the God that does exist that I do not know anyone close to me who has killed themselves. But, getting back to my point that suicide isn't selfish, I feel that suicide is inspite of our selfish survivalist gene. Its taking our will in one hand and the selfish gene in the other and saying, "selfish gene, you're fatal flaw in evolution was creating me, creating a will to destroy us." And then suicide vicitims opt for will, other than for selfishness for spite. As irrational as it may sound, its the advent of the rational mind that created the possibilty for the irrational. Irrationality is an extension of ourselves. A human creation. People who say "God can't exist, too much bad shit happens". Our will is something we do, not something that god has planned. God's plan was Will, and whatever happens is our fault, or to our credit, but all the thanks is to God!

Let's stop saying "higher force, a higher power" will we please. I think we are all able to realize that religion is a human creation too. Spirituality is observing a divine force in the universe. Religion and the downfall of put a bad spin on the term God. God is not a perception of something singular. God is wholly different and opposite of tangible things, created things. Its something we cannot comprehend, but can perceive. God is a straight enough term, doesn't have to mean J.C., doesn't have to mean the white bearded man, it has everything to do with "i don't know but i believe in it, it is a good thing".

peace

check out my "Proof of God post"
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 3:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Krang
THE ORC BREATH


Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Location: NSW, australia
 Reply with quote  

In the future, even more so than the present, science and philosophy will be linked.

just some random food for thought
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

It was no personal attack,
telling me to take my mind off myself and my small world wasn't a personal attack? im sorrry but yes it was. it has nothing to do with any argument, its just a character assault.

, you thinking them wrong doesn't make them necessarily wrong.
did I say they were all wrong? more so did I say they were objectivly wrong?

Only because the apple falls to the ground 10 out of 10 times does not make it TRUE.

yeah yeah, we have dealt with this a lot in philosophy. But I am NOT going where you are going. You are claiming that because we can't know anything 100% then all things are religions? Is this really what you believe? do you think history is a religion?

therefore different points of view will be brought forward, credible to you or not, but they will

yes... but you must put forward arguments and back up your claims. I mean you can say "oh X is true" without backing it up and run away from discussion if you want, but this is not very productive.
Post Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:20 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon