Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
kingofsquares1 02-Dec-09, 06:28	Is religion A Philosophy? I'm curious to know if religion would be considered a philosophy.
rilke 02-Dec-09, 13:45	Religion and Philosophy If is a Philosophy of Religion; than is a thinking part of Philosophy. Very interesting topic to discuss!
obsteve 02-Dec-09, 14:09	No, Because Philosophy is "Love of Knowledge". No belief system could be considered a philosophy if it holds certain tenets as self evident, without question, putting faith above knowledge IMO, philosophy is about questioning and "doubt". Most religions require you not to question, and instead to "believe". However, because religious beliefs and systems can be objectively "known", there exists a "philosophy of religion", which asks questions about religions and their tenets. "Religion is believin what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain) Steve
obsteve 03-Dec-09, 12:17	amendment *Faith* is believin what you know ain't so Apologies to Mr Twain
kingofsquares1 03-Dec-09, 20:08	Philosophy is a garden! Philosophy is the garden from where religion, psychology, sociology, politics, medicine and theory where grown and cultivated. How can any other form of thinking be first in the mind of the human being? Philosophy to me is the imagination at work, that refined all of mans great works, it truly is universal in it's origin. Am I wrong? What's your thoughts?
obsteve 03-Dec-09, 20:20	Spot on, kingofsquares I do like a spot of creative thinking too, mind. If philosophy is the garden, creativity is the toolshed... or maybe the hot tub...
lbrryknght 25-Mar-10, 15:17	I'd say yes I would suggest that Philosophy is not about a "Love of Knowledge" entirely as obsteve suggests. This is just to broad since, I love to seek greater knowledge in many things but hardly see these subjects as philosophical. Philosophy has always been about the search for Truth. Since all religious practice has been and will continue to be a search for the Truth, I suggest religion is indeed a philosophy. Mortimer Adler and even the great Cicero, among others, have approached the subject in this matter. Cicero even went further to address the difference between superstition and religion. He stated that we do not need superstition but he proposed the need for religion.
j2000 26-Mar-10, 02:30	I'd say no Because religion relies on blind faith, whereas philosophy relies on rational logical thought, and doubt. Philosophy is a search for the truth through logic, while religion is a search for the truth through faith.
lbrryknght 26-Mar-10, 07:37	reply for j2000 Although I do not strongly disagree with your statement, I do disagree with this old habit of defining faith as "blind", and the current philosophical trend as "rational". It assumes an absolute, which of course has yet to be revealed.
j2000 27-Mar-10, 15:39	Faith Rejects reason by definition, and abandons the evidence of our senses, so it is blind. Philosophy is based on reason, and takes the most rational view to situations.
grege79 05-Apr-10, 15:16	Just to play devils advocate, our senses developed to allow us to survive this world, not to show us the true nature of the universe. Indeed, in many cases our senses deceive us. Knowledge, logic and reason can get beyond this.....as long as they are not based on false sensory information. This is why mathematics is so beautiful.
j2000 06-Apr-10, 01:31	However Mathematics can reveal nothing to us about the real world. Our senses create the world we perceive, and our subjective world. There is no particular reason to believe that an objective world even exists. In our world, what we perceive is what is really there.
grege79 06-Apr-10, 06:51	I would say that mathematics reveals much about the real world and enlightens us about the world our senses cannot reach. For instance, the orbits of distant stars and planets can be determined by mathematics. Black holes were found by mathematical theory long before their actual existence was verified, there are many examples of mathematical theory predicting the existence of phenomena before it is empirically tested. As well as this mathematics can provide frameworks upon which further predictions about the world can be made. I don't think our senses create the world we perceive, our senses respond to information in our environment and turn this into electrical signals. In some situations, I agree, this results in a perceptual creation. For instance, what I would call an objective world knows nothing of color. It works in varying wavelengths. Our optical pathway via wavelength sensitive pigments and the movement of ions sends this information along the optic nerve, through the LGN and into into V1 where we have developed an ability to allow us to interpret these wavelengths in terms of color. In humans our visual system is based on a trichromatic model. There is a crustacean that has 12 different pigments sensitive to 12 different wavelengths, hence it's perceptual experience would be different from ours. No less real of course, but different. Put another way if a color blind individual and an individual with normal sight looked at color patterns designed to test for such a condition, the color blind individual would not see the pattern in the graphic, whilst the other individual would. But just because the color blind individual did not perceive it does not mean it does not exist. Hence an understanding of how our senses work can allow us to understand their limitations. Once we understand these limitations we can look for that which we were unable to see before. Examining the microwaves and radio waves permeating the universe is an example of us moving beyond our perceptual limitations. It may be argued that we are perceiving this information, but I would say we have created machines able to detect this stimulus and they transform the data into a mode accepted by our perception. I think this in itself is evidence for an objective world. If 50 people see the natural world differently, who is correct? They all are subjectively correct, however there are underlying laws that can explain why these people may see the world differently, these laws are describing an objective universe. I believe mathematics is the language of this objective universe. I speak only of the natural world of course and not of politics, culture the arts and morality. Those are another can of worms!
obsteve 06-Apr-10, 15:54	I have bumped the Truth thread as it seemed relevant to this argument
rilke 05-Apr-11, 08:34	The Vedas Schools of Indian philosophy take the Vedas scriptures as a spiritual authority; while some sects differs this idea.
piratelars 23-May-11, 11:17	Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. Unknown
rilke 24-Sep-20, 16:50	Piratelars: Very true !!

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.