Religion vs Philosophy.

[diamantis]

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by diamantis

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

Yes, those were the views of the rationalists, from Descartes onward. Spinoza talked a lot on this subject.

But beware of worshipping philosophy and reason as one might worship a god. Modernity has taught us how irrational we can be. And philosophy has never changed the world -- it's just reflected and commented upon a world that changes around it.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by diamantis

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

Even though in religion one starts with dogmatic axioms, reason and rationality are still used to derive beliefs. That is what theology is.

For example, Christians didn't magically develop a belief system. Their dogmatic beliefs had to come from somewhere. Most of them stem from the works of Theologians who treat religion like philosophy. Try reading some Augustine or Aquanis.

[Didymos Thomas]

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgment ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

Religion provides more than dogma. Religion also provides spiritual practice, which includes the application and development of ethical action.

Philosophy has no scientific validity. When it does, it's not philosophy but science. Psychology, for instance, was once a study of philosophy. When psychology began to employ scientific methods, it ceased to be philosophy and became a science. Thinkers like Freud represent this shift.

Also, religion uses critical thinking and judgment just as much as philosophy. Revelation and myth have context - they are not arbitrary. Reason is not in any way opposed to religion.

[Holiday20310401]

I'm getting tired of religion compared with other things. You can't compare religion and philosophy if there's a "philosophy of religion" section to the forum

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by diamantis

In my view, religion and philosophy ought to be in total contrast,since religion is based in revelations and myths,has no scientific validity,it provides no evidence or proofs but dogmas.
On the other hand, philosophy is based in critical thinking and judgement ,in sound reasoning and rationality.

the founders of the religions were enlightened people (Christ, Buddha, Mahavira.)
Enlightenment (concept - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
who had clarity of perception, their teachings were based on enlightenment but recurred to reason in several times.

philosophers the people of reason, their philosophies were based on pure reason, although science is based on pure reason and comprobation.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

the founders of the religions were enlightened people (Christ, Buddha, Mahavira.)

I'm not so convinced of this. Assuming that Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama (etc) were real historical people, it's impossible for us to know what is real, what is mythologized, and what is posthumously attributed.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I'm not so convinced of this. Assuming that Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama (etc) were real historical people, it's impossible for us to know what is real, what is mythologized, and what is posthumously attributed.

Aedes,

Actually these people are most useful as mythological characters don't you think, for what they teach as such, is the significance of the life. I often wonder why people are so set on admirable figures being historically real, the only possiable way to understand what they were, is out of what you yourself are, what was a shakespeare but a man with certain talents and a profound wisdom about the human conditon.

[Aedes]

Exactly, Boagie. Whether or not the historical Jesus ever said anything meaningful is immaterial, because a new understanding of the historical Jesus would have little if any impact on religious belief (unless it was confirmatory).

[Didymos Thomas]

Absolutely. Doesn't matter if Jesus never said what is attributed to him, doesn't matter if Jesus never lived in the first place. Has absolutely no bearing on the value of the teachings attributed to him.

No one worries whether or not Lao Tzu was a real particular individual who wrote for the gatekeeper. Why worry about Jesus? Some go so far in demanding that their book is historically perfect that they are, for lack of a better term, idolaters. If only they'd open their book, chances are they'd find a passage warning against idolatry.

The only non-scriptural evidence that Jesus lived is the work of Josephus. Even then, there is serious scholarly doubt about the historical accuracy of the content of his work. What's more, the reference to Jesus might very well be a later addition to the original - and therefore not a reference to Jesus recorded during the supposed life of Jesus.

I'm not familiar with a school of Buddhism that places any sort of spiritual significance on the historical accuracy of the mythological account of the Buddha's life. The Buddha is more like a Socrates than a Jesus or a Lao Tzu. Chances are, a man lived a life roughly similar to the depictions.