Religion vs. Philosophy

[cwes99_03]

I thought I would ask a question here that poses perhaps the most important thought I've ever wondered about in regards to this discussion.

What is the deciding factor between calling something a religious movement or a philosophical movement? Where is the line drawn?

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, that can't be explained only through science, but through a belief in some high ethereal power. After all someone who worships nature believes that there is some higher power called mother nature, right? If not, then I would say that they are simply worshipping a man, or rather the philosophy of a man.

The importance behind this question is that many today do not want someone else to teach them religion (separation of church and state). Yet they can't wait to learn about someone's philosophy, either on how to raise children (Rousseau) or how governments should be run (Republicans) or ...

Is there such a division? If not, how does one separate church and state? If so, where does that division exist? Is there some magical number of believers? Is there some scientific explanation that decides whether something is a religion or a philosophy? And can one worship a car as a god, or is that some fake religion?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

… What is the deciding factor between calling something a religious movement or a philosophical movement? Where is the line drawn?

”Philosophy” is a peculiar word, in that its literal meaning, philos sophia = love of wisdom, and its common meaning, which is something like “the study of important topics.”

As a “love”, philosophy may describe an entirely unreasoning, ecstatic activity. Or as the love of wisdom, it may be considered equivalent to the common religious admonition to “love God with all your heart.”

As a “study” with many branches, philosophy contains “moral philosophy.” One definition of religion is “applied moral philosophy”. By implication, then, religion may be simply a specialized branch of philosophy. Philosophy also contains theology, the study of God or gods. Theology, by most account, is not a synonym for religion.

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, that can't be explained only through science, but through a belief in some high ethereal power.

I think this is a pretty widely accepted definition of religion. I also think it is a fairly recent one, appearing roughly in the mid 18th century, AKA “the Age of Enlightenment.” Prior to this time, most people (at least most western people), even the literate elite, considered religious belief to be potentially rational, spirit and supernatural things to be as objectively real as ordinary, natural things. Even the term “supernatural” doesn’t appear to have been much used until about this time, and Enlightenment scientific rationalist (eg: Newton) appear to have believed that scientific methods would in short order result in increased understanding of and rigorous proof of the existence of God, angels, souls, etc.

This did not happen, marking the beginning of a split between scientific rationalism and “religious faith”. Reading documents defining “faith” from prior to that period, (eg: Luthor’s “An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans”, one get the impression that “faith” was not taken to mean “faith in the existence of God”, but “trust in God’s grace” and the innate human ability to perceive and act according to God’s will. Science, rather than confirming prevailing ideas about the nature of God and the cosmos, contradicted them, implying that the rational conclusion was atheism. In reaction (and to assure their survival), religious though appears to have redefined the idea of “faith” to mean “accepting the reality of religious ideas even when such appear contradicted by rational evidence”.

After all someone who worships nature believes that there is some higher power called mother nature, right? If not, then I would say that they are simply worshipping a man, or rather the philosophy of a man.

I’ve known a lot of (and, for a time, been a) nature worshiper. In my experience, nature worshipers do not generally perceive nature to be the kind of hierarchical “higher power” that theists perceive God to be, but something more subtle. Most consider “mother nature” to be metaphorical, not real.

The importance behind this question is that many today do not want someone else to teach them religion (separation of church and state). Yet they can't wait to learn about someone's philosophy, either on how to raise children (Rousseau) or how governments should be run (Republicans) or ...

Is there such a division? If not, how does one separate church and state? If so, where does that division exist?

The separation of church and state appears to work best as an article of constitutional law, as in the US Constitution. This position is, I think, a pragmatic conclusion following from the framers’ experience of the history of civil chaos and suffering under governments in which a strong separation between church and state was not mandated.

Is there some magical number of believers?

I think not. In the US, most people at most times have believed in the usual “God of Abraham”, yet had little difficulty seeing the wisdom of keeping this belief out of the operation of government.

Is there some scientific explanation that decides whether something is a religion or a philosophy?

Before one can have a scientific explanation of something, one must define a formalism for it. Although attempts have been made to do this (eg: Korzybski’s discipline of General Semantics), they have not been widely known, accepted, or effective. Natural language-based, “semantic” methods seem prevalent in making this distinction.

And can one worship a car as a god, or is that some fake religion?

As recent movements like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism have shown, one can worship practically anything. The position that FSMism appears to be championing is that an obviously invented religion is no more “fake” than a well established one.

Interesting questions, all, though seemingly not ones that lend themselves to a rigorous scientific approach to answering.

[cwes99_03]

First might I state the following. I thank CraigD for his post, as it was most eloquent and well thought out. Due to it I have a few questions.

”Philosophy” is a peculiar word, in that its literal meaning, philos sophia = love of wisdom, and its common meaning, which is something like “the study of important topics.”

As a “love”, philosophy may describe an entirely unreasoning, ecstatic activity. Or as the love of wisdom, it may be considered equivalent to the common religious admonition to “love God with all your heart.”

I think there is one thing missing in this definition, that makes it wrong. The difference between philos and agape in the greek language.
The following is from answers.com
Philia (φιλία philía): Friendship, Love (but especially "platonic").
Agape (ἀγάπη agápe): Divine, unconditioned love. italics mine

Greek philos= "friend" and phileō= "I love" As in to love a friend, or in this case the friend is one's own wisdom and discernment, really a love of self (one's own thoughts) then in the case of philosophy.

Agapē = "divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing love."

Originally Posted by Answers.com

Greek philosophers at the time of Plato used it in a way that suggested a universal, as opposed a personal, love; this could mean love of truth, or love of humanity.

Note what it says Plato and his contemporaries did. They used the word for divine love to describe their own love for truth/wisdom. They worshipped wisdom as a god.

In that way, I believe philosophy in itself may have become something religious. It certainly is for some scientists, as they search for some truth to discredit other religions based upon the spiritual.

I'd like to edit a statement I made earlier.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, that can't be explained only through science, but through a belief in some high ethereal power.

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, requiring faith that the higher power(s) exist(s) and can effect change if he/she/they so want.

Can anyone else find better definitions of religion and philosophy?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

…

I think there is one thing missing in this definition, that makes it wrong. The difference between philos and agape in the greek language. …

cwes99_03’s analysis of the semantics of “love” points out, correctly I think, the shortcomings of my naively equating the “love of wisdom” implied by the word “philosophy” with the “love of God” central to the Abrahamic relgions.

I must confess that, like many Philosophy students, I acquired the “philosophy = love of wisdom” meme from Martin Heidegger’s

“What is Philosophy”
“What is Philosophy”

(alas, I know of no online addition). While far from Heidegger’s most involved or important work, this may be one of his most influential, by virtue of having been taught in so many introductory Philosophy classes. The idea that Philosophy can be as much or more passionate as intellectual can exert a strong influence on a beginning student (such as myself when I first read it).

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, requiring faith that the higher power(s) exist(s) and can effect change if he/she/they so want.

Can anyone else find better definitions of religion and philosophy?

I think cwess99_03 has given a good definition of “religion” as the word is most commonly used now.

My own interest lies more in understanding how the common usage definition of religion has changed over human history (and even pre-history), and how it differs between religious denominations and cultures today. I’m particularly interested in the question “what will the common usage definition of ‘relegion’ be in the future?” Several of Philosophy’s “top guns” over the centuries have predicted the demise of recognizable religion. Many denominations of Christianity have long prophesized the transformation of the secular world into one entirely consistent with their core doctrine (eg: the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, as proselytized by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists (strictly speaking, Adventists don’t proselytize, but living within walking distance of their Columbia Union College, and liking much their taste in food, I’ve been fairly immersed in their doctrine nonetheless)) Both have proven, to date, spectacularly wrong.

I think a “grand definition” of religion must describe not just what it is now, but what it has been, and make predictions about what it will become.

[cwes99_03]

Might want to question your use of sect, as it is usually a derogatory remark. Besides, the Adventists claim their numbers to be over 11,000,000 and Witnesses similarly claim over 6,000,000 worldwide. These are hardly small, and in some cases are the second largest group of christians in some countries.

So does everyone agree that for something to be defined as a religion it must involve the belief in/worship of a higher power? Otherwise, it would be categorized as a human philosophy of life.

[dduckwessel]

Philosophy is based on 'whatever', is sometimes intelligent and other times so off the wall one thinks the philosopher just has too much time on their hands.

Religion on the otherhand is based upon existing 'writings', it only and always revolves around a common base. So then I think that religion has the real potential to become ingrown and stagnant. Philosophy on the otherhand has no limits and so keeps us thinking.

I think religion and philosophy are so very different, whereas a philosopher will include religion and God in his/her musing, a really religious person's mind will be focused upon what fits into their religious beliefs.

So whereas philosophy is openminded, religion tends to be restrictive.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Might want to question your use of sect, as it is usually a derogatory remark.

Noted. I’ve replace the use of “sect” in my previous post with “denomination”. There is, I think, a minor semantic difference between the words – sect implies having been “split” from a parent population, while “denomination” implies having been recognized by a naming authority – but in the context I’m using it, this distinction is unimportant. I’d forgotten that the term “sect” has become offensive to some (I wonder when that happened, and why?).

Besides, the Adventists claim their numbers to be over 11,000,000 and Witnesses similarly claim over 6,000,000 worldwide. These are hardly small, and in some cases are the second largest group of christians in some countries.

I might add that, in my extended neighborhood (the Washington DC metro area), they also boast 2 first-rate hospitals. Adventist certainly constitute a significant world religion, and an excellent resource for vegetarians, theist or atheist.

I believe that most people would be surprised at Adventist doctrine, and find it far-out. For example, they believe that “the City of the Kingdom of Heaven” physically exists at this moment, is located somewhere in outer space, and will in the fairly near future approach the Earth, pass gently through its atmosphere, and come to rest at the present location of Washington DC!

So does everyone agree that for something to be defined as a religion it must involve the belief in/worship of a higher power? Otherwise, it would be categorized as a human philosophy of life.

I do. Some might object, however, because it excludes people who don’t believe only in the metaphorical, not actual existence of higher power(s). People in this group consist of many who are members of the congregations of churches of well-known denominations, and even many clergy. My father, for instance, was an MD and a Methodist missionary minister, yet held a non-supernatural world view, and considered the objective existence of God to be an open question.

PS: You might consider posting your question, with a link back to this thread, with a poll, in the Community Polls. Polls (which provide the option of voting without comment) often get a brisker response than Theology threads.

[InfiniteNow]

It might also be useful to point out that we have evolved and much of our success is due to our social character... groups helping each other, thus altruistically maximizing success. It's possible that religion, in some sense, is an extension of this evolved trend toward social grouping, and has risen alongside our shared language and attempts at understanding the world around us. Those views shared by others appear more likely than views held only by one...

[cwes99_03]

Yes, but that was my point/argument for this thread. In today's world everyone has their own ideas/independent philosophy, what differentiates philosophy from religion.

Your argument here seems to tend toward, religion was always just a philosophy of man until it caught on enough that a whole bunch of people applied themselves to it.

I strongly disagree with this thought, but besides that, what made those things catch on, or take hold, was that it offered something much higher as a power, not just man's own thoughts on how to live. Christianity, Judaism, Islam all offer a god. Hindus believe in both gods and in a higher plane of existence, Budhists and possibly shintoists etc are the same (I'd have to double check that, could someone please correct me here.) However, Marxism, stoicism, etc. are all just human philosophies on how one should lead their life. To that end democracy is just a philosophy on how one should live their life, namely independently for the most part with a few laws to govern the bad seeds.

[CraigD]

Here’s a fresh response to this thread’s original question

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

What is the deciding factor between calling something a religious movement or a philosophical movement?

A distinction can be drawn between philosophical and religious movements (as the terms are commonly used) by examining shared attributes.

Despite the many and conflicting assertions made by various philosophical movements, it’s reasonable to characterize them by an adage “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish”. This adage is commonly attributed to 13th century philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas, but likely predates him by at least a century, and is better characterized as a central tenet of the scholastic school of philosophy, of which Aquinas is considered a part.

Despite the many and conflicting assertions made by the various religions, it’s reasonable to characterize them as all demanding unconditional belief in a higher power, or Faith.

So, Philosophical movements are skeptical, while religious ones are credulous.

This is not to say that individuals and cultures cannot follow both religious and philosophical movements, nor that they do not strongly influence and support one another, nor that they are of equal or even comparable importance, just that the fundamental approaches to the practice of each differ in a distinct way. The relationship of philosophy to religion may vary widely among individuals sharing philosophies and religions, to include sincerely religious people who are ultimately skeptical of the objective reality of their religion, to rigorously skeptical people who have unwavering religious Faith.