Philosophy vs Religion

I think philosophy is much better at explaining the universe than any form of religions. The reason being that religions tends to lead humans to thinking a certain way but philosophy doesn't try to persuade, usually, but rather explain in a very logical, universal, reasonable way. It's my opinion and I want hear yours.

Not another thread aimed at religion. Seriously this topic has been beaten to death, if you really want to discuss this. Find the old SD thread pertaining to religion.

Ehhh don't feel like it.

Then your thread most likely be locked.

Really? Well this post suppose to be about which do prefer, philosophy or religion. Didn't really see that in the other posts.

honestly i feel as though religion is far better. it may persuade you but i feel as though it is to help better yourself and prepare you for a realistic future. (I an roman catholic but not crazy roman catholic).

I can't really say that philosophy truely explains the nature of the universe. As a phil majour, I actually find that Philosophy opens multiple doorways, but really none of them will lead anywhere in particular. Really what Philosophy does is expose you to the different theories and encourages you to find one that either you find relatable or the most logical. It's not an answer system as much as it is a suggestion system.



I'm not going to go into religion. Way too much of a can of worms for me to mess with.

What realistic future?

Religion is a subject, not a topic. OP could probably be more verbose in their post, though.

Erm...I just want to make a short point.

Philosophy...is not dichotomous with religion.

There are a lot of religious philosophers, who are far more skilled in philosophy and what it means than you or I.

Philosophy...is...all manners of thought. It's all manners of knowing, and believing, and acting, and being. Philosophy not only doesn't exclude religion, but it's an umbrella by which religion falls in.

Religion is philosophy, but philosophy is not religion.

So it shouldn't be the question of philosophy vs religion, but religious philosophy, vs. non religious philosophy...but even then you'll get into some murky waters concerning what actually constitutes 'religious' philosophy, because people are perfectly willing to delineate the word 'religious' to mean any sort of belief which postulates answers, or manners of coming about answers about life and the universe.

Basically, what Lundi said... I believe most people have that misconception about philosophy thought, that it is totally at odds with religiousness. Looking at it from a certain way, it makes sense that people would think so, as overly religious people tend to be (but are not always) overly close-minded. I myself find religious philosophy fascinating, specially Kierkegaard, even if it can be too easy to get lost sometimes. I haven't found something that entertained me as much in the non-religious philosophical side.

---

Hmmmmm you have a point there but according to the definition of religion, its highly similar to philosophy in the sense that both explain the origin of the universe, but they start differ when religion starts to refer existence of gods and give humans basic sense of morals to follow and that you must worship these gods without question. Basically, the difference between them is that philosophy is more of a scientific explanation that can be tested and is rational, while religion doesn't need to be tested and is accepted as truth and usually is irrational. So philosophy that can't be tested, it is irrational, and more importantly bias then it is a religion.

Hrm...I would have thought you can, sure, test a philosophy in the meaning of applying it to the real world... but saying it is 'scientific' is, I think, a misnomer, as you can't provide 'proof' for a philosophy the way you can provide proof for a scientific experiment.

---

Science, philosophy, and religion are almost the same thing, in the sense of explaining the universe. Science is the understanding of existence not just the universe. Only difference is that science gives far more complex explanation than either philosophy or religion. Well then again philosophy suppose be basic anyways which makes it universal. And I am pretty sure anyone reading this forum knows the difference between science and religion.

Philosophy is a big part of religion, and yet religion is a part of philosophy as well. For me, I find religion to be perfect to me as I'm not smart enough to create my own set of morals without upsetting other people. My Christian ways have stood against the test of time and while my religious views were challenged both physically and logically, I don't intend to give up on Christianity.

So to me, religion is a set of morals and ethics that I can adhere to at the blink of an eye. Philosophy on the other hand is a rather vague concept to me; right and wrong can be blurred so easily and I find that there isn't enough ground for me to stand on in the philosophical side of things. When I was in the US, I used to be taught that side A was justice since side A won the war, but when I went to China I was taught that side B was justice and that side A was a monster of injustice. Standing from both sides of the argument can be really taxing and in such cases, I'd like to think that Christianity has an answer to that, and it usually does have an answer to anything I can think of.

But then, religion can't always be used on everything. Sometimes religion can be constricting and at times like that one would have to look out of the box towards philosophy. Humanity evolves by reaching higher planes of thought but religion on the other hand may frown upon innovation (historical examples).

I'd say that an equal mix between the two is ideal.

Philosophy is not a more scientific explanation.

Science is a philosophy, that can also be compatible with theistic belief.

Science is what is known as methodological naturalism, that is, that metaphysical and ontological entities are discarded in reference to explaining any one phenomena in favor of a natural explanation. A theist can adopt an epistemological view that science can answer all the questions about the natural world, while their other beliefs about god and spirituality can answer all their questions about metaphysical and abstract concepts.

You say that if something cannot be tested, it is irrational, but can you test whether or not that statement is true?

It would appear that I once misuse my words again. It suppose to be something like,

"Philosophy that can't be tested, irrational, or bias then it is religion."

But the part something can't be tested, it is irrational is true since anything that is truly is logically can be tested no matter what.

Ok, then test that statement.

---

Ok I'll explain. Firstly, according to the definition of irrational, something is irrational if it doesn't follow any logic or have an absence of reason. Basically, being irrational is the same being crazy, insane, chaotic, or to put it simply it doesn't follow a plan. So being logical means your actions premeditated or plan and since logic can be tested, that means tests are planed out actions but you can't tested test something that is completely unpredictable, doesn't follow a plan, or changed frequently. This also means that results of the test should be the same or at close to being the same.

Dude, you are confusing the scientific method with philosophy.

They are not the same.

This is, in fact, the root of this thread's problem. You don't know the difference of philosophy and the scienfitic method.