Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

Baldar

Hero Member

Karma: +65/-65
Posts: 528

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2007, 10:02:27 AM »

Truth, as in objective truth either does or does not exist. It is a simple concept. Dancing around the truth is a difficult concept. Finding the truth is a difficult concept.

It is demeaning to bring in fictional characters as an offront to truth. Unless of course you believe all truth to be subjective, which basically means that regardless of what the other person states you have your own subjective rules and so reject what you don't like. Intellectual balkanization.


	Logged

Gojira

Hero Member

Karma: +69/-101
Posts: 1,608

Blasphemy!

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2007, 12:38:58 PM »

Excuse me for butting into this debate with such a cliche comment but given that all subjects encompass the question "Why?" Philosophy is the one subject that instead asks "Why not?"

To me that sounds dangerous but is essential if anyone is to make any type of decision for themselves. It is easy to do something that religion and science has suggested you do however it takes a true hero of the dialectic to take the initiative to ask "Why not?."

Previous comments throughout this debate have hit the question about the challenge of different frontiers of thought. Throughout all subjects like religion and science there has always been a conflict of the current commonly accepted principles with a new revolutionary theory of thought. The break from the new and the old is done thanks to the philosophic tool of asking the opposite that all other theories try to enable and to me this is philosophy's purpose.


	Logged

Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.

If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.

Baldar

Hero Member

Karma: +65/-65
Posts: 528

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2007, 02:25:22 PM »

I see science as the "how" things are made and happen.

Belief systems are why they should or should not happen.

An atomic bomb, science is the how.

Dropping it. Belief systems as the why or why not. And when I say belief systems I see religion as being as much a philosophy of life as any other (and more so than most other philosophies).


	Logged

Philosofear

Jr. Member

Karma: +10/-10
Posts: 65

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2007, 03:13:56 PM »

Quote from: Baldar on October 23, 2007, 02:25:22 PM

Religion as a philosophy of life... Well in a figurative way of course, but in the true philosophic sense I would beg to differ.

The reason I would say that religion is not a philosophy of life is because it doesn't chiefly employ reason and rational methods, it relies mostly on revelation, authority, and tradition.


	Logged

Reasoned Faith

Hero Member

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2007, 04:44:54 PM »

A "Philosophy of Life" generally is taken to mean a set of values, principles and beliefs under which someone lives and it generally does not necessarily require the direct application of what you regard as the traditional philosophical approach.

However I generally find that many who hold to a worldview do know what they believe as well as why they believe it. To a large extent many do apply a degree of reason and logic in supporting their worldview. I am surprised you feel people like you are in the minority and somehow stand out.


	Logged

Callum

Sr. Member

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2007, 01:02:34 PM »

Quote from: Reasoned Faith on October 23, 2007, 04:44:54 PM

It seems to me that you are using 'phiosophy of life' in a very quotidian way. Its almost like a metaphor or very specific useof language - also found in the simpler use 'my philosophy is....'. This really means that ones guiding beliefs are something. Philosophy isn't this sort of thing when we consider it as a field of study. No more than when someone says that 'football is my religion'. Or 'there was an electricity between them'.

You are of course right that we all have our 'wordview' and most will be able to rationalise it in some way. Whether that will lead to generalised views of what comprises the world and how the entities therein are related is a good question. Perhaps you know many people who can get to the roots of reality and give good demonstrable repeatable examples of how the world ticks - just from their 'worldview'. I have no doubt quite few can open our eyes to the vagaries of 'human nature'. But even sensible formulations of some of the big questions? Uh-uh. Certainly none of us on this forum stand out for that: pilosofear does stand out for trying.


	Logged

Reasoned Faith

Hero Member

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893

Re: Philosophy V. Science V. Religion

« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2007, 06:50:09 AM »

I'm not so sure he does. He is quite open to the idea that others join his way of thinking but he seems very closed and often hostile to consideration of alternatives. He sees virtue in his approach to questions and sees others as having an inferior model, to the point that he presumes that they arrived at their conclusions without much of a process at all. Are you sure this constitutes trying?