Religion vs Philosophy?

[Darkwolf]

Getting back to organized religion, there is more evidence pointing to the negatives than positives. The best thing religion has going for it is that it teaches people not to question it and so few people actually look into the history of religion and see its monstrous evil. Hand in hand with this is that the church never fails to point out how much "good" it, the church (not individuals like Bach, Michaelangelo, et al) does!

God save me from your followers.

Peace and love

One could say this about some religions, but not all. My religion encourages questions. Indeed, if most of the members of my religious group did not question things, they would not belong to the group in the first place. They would still be Christian (or whatnot).

 

[CSharp]

Forgive me for interrupting but I would really like to know... on what do you base your condemnation of Falun Gong?

 

[Vajradhara]

One could say this about some religions, but not all. My religion encourages questions. Indeed, if most of the members of my religious group did not question things, they would not belong to the group in the first place. They would still be Christian (or whatnot).

Namaste,

i should say that this is true of Buddhism as well. heck.. we are told not even to take the Buddha's word for it.. we are to investigate our selves.. and if we determine that its' true and is helpful, we are enjoined to put it into practice. if we find it's not true and/or not helpful, we are enjoined to put it aside.

quite a refreshing change for a major world religion, don't you think?

 

[achnai]

hi

i am new to these forums. the subject of inter-relationship between religion and philosophy, is one of my favourites, so i decided to insert my first post here.

I was not an actual philosophy student, but i studied a lot on my own.
among the many which i've spent time reading were Kant, Hegel, Nitzsche, and Heidegger.

I would think that the major breakthrough that kant made in the field of philosophy, was impossible to be made, unless religion had lost it's foothold as the regulator of the practice of thought in western culture and civiliazation.

Nowdays many theologists prefer to say that kant's doctrine does not contradict religion, but in my opinion this is born out of the fact that kant's theories (both moral and epystemological) have become so an integral part in western philosophy, so that no serious thinker can successfully ignore them without risking having the "serious" separated from the noun.

early christinanity has made Aristotales "the" Philosopher and i would assume metaphorically that if christiany was to be reborn today, it would have to intruduce many others to the honourary title.

 

[louis]

I agree

Individuals gave us every work of art, not organizations. Some of the artists that created masterpieces paid lip service to the church while secretly dispising the cardinals and bishops that doled out the money to pay for their materials and room and board.

Organized religion is no different from an organized corporation. It is a COMMITTEE made up of individuals. Some individuals are good and others are just there to obtain as much power as can be obtained in the organization. In climbing to the top of any organization, people do whatever is necessary including lying, cheating, stealing and even murder. The church is a perfect example of this.

From Louis...
Just a note to express how much I agree with you !
The only philosophy I ever liked is called "Objectivism",
( website : www.aynrand.org ) although I don't agree with all they advocate.
See my thread in Belief and Spirituality.

 

[bananabrain]

achnai, if you haven't already, you should read jonathan sacks' "one people", which discusses the effect on jewish philosophy of kantian epistemology in the context of the "haskalah".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

"hasnt taiwan been a part of china for basically all of chinas history before the communist rule? because i really dont know, i think it was but i dunno"Taiwan has been politically connected to China for only brief periods, and only in the recent history. It was occupied exclusively by aboriginal tribes (now only 1% of the population though many others have some degree of such ancestry), more closely related to Filipinos and Polynesians than to Chinese, until the 16th century. China knew of the existence of the island, but took no interest in it until the Portuguese (who called it "Formosa") began to colonize it.
China itself was being invaded from Manchuria at the time; a general Kuo Xing-hua, loyal to the overthrown Ming Dynasty, escaped to Taiwan and conquered it from Portugal (with help from the Dutch). Thus Taiwan served as a refuge for loyalists of the ousted regime, as in the 20th century, until it accepted the overlordship of the Qing (Manchu) emperors in 1685. It was then ruled from Beijing for a century and a half, until in the 1830's the Taiping Rebellion pretty much destroyed the administration in the whole south of China; when it was put down, China did not bother to re-establish control in Taiwan, which became a de facto independent pirate base. Many nations complained to the Chinese about letting Taiwan be a hazardous anarchy, and raided it from time to time; the British established a base at the port of Tainan, and got "treaty rights" there as in Hong Kong, but did not attempt to subdue the whole island.
In the 1880's the emperor finally got around to appointing a governor of Taiwan again, who began a vigorous campaign of industrialization; but then the Japanese fought China, siezed the island, and made the Chinese (in the treaty of Shimonoseki) "renounce all claims to Taiwan forevermore". Taiwan continued as a Japanese province (it still has about 5% Japanese population) until the Americans took it in 1945, and gave it to Chiang Kai-shek, who could not however manage to take control of it until 1947, by which time he was losing control of everything else.

 

[iBrian]

Thanks for that, Bob - and glad to see you still around.

 

[Avinash]

I think that religion and philosophy do not go hand in hand as is traditionally believed, but are actually fundamental opposites. It seems to me that for a long time, nonconformist beliefs such as Satanism have often been viewed as the flipside of the religious coin. But from the external viewpoint I take, esoteric beliefs such as these are simply other religions with vastly differing centers of worship. Surely the doubt of all such beliefs is actually the alternative to religion. Or am I wrong?

I think you are right. Religion as you describe it cannot go together with a practical philosophy. But most philosophies are actually also of the speculative type. So the real alternative to religion is not philosophy in general but a spiritual philosophy based largely on spiritual practices.

 

[samabudhi]

I think you are wrong. I have never departed from my philosophical Taoist roots in adventuring into practical Buddhism. I consider the philosophical nature that I have nurtured to be one of my greatest foundations for experimenting with practical methods. Theory and practice should always go hand in hand. The Greek philosophy, however, has been merely a point of amusement for me, than anything else. They try to invent problems which cannot be solved and then mince their brains over trying to solve them. It's always interesting, but it has no value other than intellectualism.

The biggest problem is there is no connection between their findings. Each philosophy comes up with some idea and then that's it. In the east, philosophers worked on what was known and tried to arrange those unsolvable problems so that there is a common thread running through them. I remember reading 'The Book of Tea' by a Japanese author. He says that Westerners fail to practise what they preach. In the east, philosophy is incorporated into daily life. Where the west was lacking in a means, this means, most obviously meditation, has been the key for the east.
If one reads Abrahamic texts, the philosophy behind the actions are never made clear. There is rarely a logical explanation to the rules.

About Taiwan...
For one thing, they all speak Mandarin. In fact, many people travel between Taiwan and China on such a regular basis that they're quite keen to see it part of the mainland again. The military is out in force over here though. Conscription into the army lasts for 2 years. Some people chop off their trigger finger so they don't have to go. Personally I don't see Taiwan staying independent for much longer. Few countries acknowledge their independence and China is only getting stronger and stronger. The merge will happen eventually. Let's just hope China becomes more open and that things end peacefully, not like in Tibet, or what seems to be happening in Hong Kong.

 

[Avinash]

Theory and practice should always go hand in hand.

Yes, that's what I meant to say also. Philosophy that bears no relation to real life is for amusement only. I think that Bigmacscanlan was referring to this kind of speculative philosophy only, hence my agreement with his posting.

 

[CalgaryKat]

I agree with you on most points, but what I am unclear on is whether you view practical Buddhism as a religion. It is my understanding that Buddhism is really more of a holistic philosophy than a religion. The greek meaning for the word 'religion' is more closely related to being bound to something, which would make it closer in meaning to the word 'cult'.
I wouldn't think it is a stretch to retain traditional Taoist roots while adopting Buddhism at all. As I understand it, when a new ideology was introduced and accepted throughout Asia, it didn't necessarily mean a subjugation of the formerly accepted ideology. On the contrary, it would simply meld into an amalgamation. These new amalgamations would surface and become dominant without a violent struggle to preserve to former in its entirety, such as was more common in Judeo-Christian history.

I think you are wrong. I have never departed from my philosophical Taoist roots in adventuring into practical Buddhism. I consider the philosophical nature that I have nurtured to be one of my greatest foundations for experimenting with practical methods. QUOTE]