Literally the opposite. — javi2541997

Sure maybe, but don't you find this impulse to question everything stems from a desire to know truth in your individuality? Is that so different from what God-lovers do? Looking at some parts of the Bible, it seems to come from a place of sound reason in the sense that excessive forms like greed, gluttony, lust, deception, and pride do tend to be self-destructive. That isn't a long road from Aristotle's golden mean. What we do in philosophy will inevitably involve religion since both have the intended effect of directing followers to more reasonable and rational ways of thinking. In ideality both aim to produce a love of wisdom that enriches the self and leads to a higher mental state.

I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion. — Benedictus de Spinoza

Religion : philosophy- :: mythos : logos :: pathos : ethikos.

Generally they are and they aren't. Paul said, "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." Basically, early Christianity began incorporating philosophy into its dogma to combat pagan critics of the religion. And knowing that Christianity came to dominate Western Europe, they silenced many pagan philosophies that argued with Christian Ideals, so philosophy became synonymous with religion. Which is probably why he believes that.

I am agree with you in the point that both sides tend to find a meaningful life. But I still think that the main difference between these two is that how free we are of questioning everything.
Inside theology, God is unquestioned, while inside philosophy we as humans are pretty questionable. We try to find different thoughts to put a meaning about what is going on so since the moment where we do not even believe in ourselves, we do not have that necessity to surrender to something or someone as God.

Religion is philosophy to the extent it adopts & practices the philosophical method à la the scientific method which is, for simplicity's sake, use your head or, in formal terms, be rational.

Well not to be semantic, but in what sense do you use the word ‘question’? Part of the inner soul searching of religion is questioning oneself and one’s life choices.

What you may mean by ‘questioning’ is a sense of liberality to doubt, dissolution, and/or dissent that is avoided in many religions. This appears to me a rational structure to the pursuit of truth. In knowledge too, we seek to avoid excess egotism and arrogance in favour of diplomacy and clear vision (albeit at risk of inversion) as a path toward objectivity.

This type of structure of unquestionability can be found everywhere. It’s essentially the structure of keeping something from dissolving away. It amounts to the particular form of religion and differs in its defining character. Is there a universal issue here, or is it just a problem that religion hands itself down in non-conscious form that bothers you? Or maybe the particulars of individual interpretation...

(in religious views by religionists) wisdom isn't valued as much as obedience. — Tom Storm

That's a type or trend in philosophy, if you will.

But my response to the OP's question is (basically the same as Tom Storm's) that people of philosophy like reason, logic, and debating; whereas people of religions don't.

Religion is philosophy to the extent it adopts & practices the philosophical method à la the scientific method which is, for simplicity's sake, use your head or, in formal terms, be rational. — Agent Smith

I will sound as a naysayer, but what you claim is precisely what religion denies of its followers.

"3-1 is Zero!" say the Christians. What is a reasonable person who uses the scientific method and his head, in formal terms, rationally answer to that? I say he'd say, "This is stupid." Then he gets threatened by getting burned at the stakes, if he does not withdraw and reverse his "opinion".

what you claim is precisely what religion denies of its followers. — god must be atheist

So, all the arguments for God's existence are rationalityization at its best, perhaps worst.

Sorry, English language is not my native language so probably (sometimes) I make grammar mistakes. This is what I wanted to share with you:

One of the principles of philosophy is questioning the individual and all the aspect around it. So, we start in the base that at least we do not believe in ourselves or at least in what are we looking to. Then, we try to go further in analysis or theorizing about different aspects which involves us. For example: death, time, beginning, uncertainty, dreams, etc... We can even create a loop where we debate from the same issue again and again.

But, inside religion, I do not see (according to theologians) God as questioned. It literally exists. Then, they start to develop some theories about their existence or how could the world be without God's blessing.

However the idea of reincarnation certainly wasn't up for debate at all. — TiredThinker

Most Christians today are not aware that the early founders of Christianity were Platonists and there is evidence reincarnation was taught for the first few centuries.

One either 'seeks salvation' (safety) or 'opposes stupidity' (danger). But can one do both consistently, or without cognitive dissonance? Yes, compartmentally; not, however, with integrity.

Ok, so we have a fairly good handle on the philosophy in religion. What of religion in philosophy or to what degree is philosophy religion?

Religion is a form of philosophy for sure. But philosophy isn't a form of religion.
Though even using myths, religion still deals with basic existential questions that every human face in his life. Others turn into philosophy for some existential comfort.
It's the way of approaching these questions which is different in religion and philosophy but for sure they have common corners where they meet.
Jesus(if he actually was a historical person) was for sure the most influential philosopher throughout history.

What of religion in philosophy or to what degree is philosophy religion? — Agent Smith

For the sake of discussion, I think it's reasonable to claim 'to the degree a philosophy is fundamentally disembodied (immaterial) and/or transcendent (essentialist), it functions as a religion'. Spinoza has it right (reread his quote in my first post above) that philosophy is first and foremost an internal critique of its own religiousity (re: the disembodied, the transcendent), which, as a consequence, undermines any rational pretenses for "justifying" religious ideas and practices (e.g. theology, theodicy, theocracy).

Religious traditions are a mix of history, science, folklore, politics, law, ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy.

This means that whatever a particular community draws out of this heritage reflects that community rather than some sort of monolithic Religion.

:up:

Religion is a form of philosophy for sure. — dimosthenis9

Sophistry in pictures and folktales rather than reasoning with coherent concepts and valid arguments.

But philosophy isn't a form of religion.

Yeah, at best philosophy reflects (2nd/3rd order questions) for its own sake without dogmatic beliefs (1st order answers).

Yeah, at best philosophy reflects (2nd/3rd order) for its own sake without dogmatic beliefs (1st order) — 180 Proof

:up: :fire:

For the sake of discussion, I think it's reasonable to claim 'to the degree a philosophy is fundamentally disembodied (immaterial) and/or transcendent (essentialist), it functions as a religion'. Spinoza has it right (reread his quote in my first post above) that philosophy is first and foremost an internal critique of its own religiousity (re: the disembodied, the transcendent), which, as a consequence, undermines any rational pretenses for justifying religious ideas and practices (e.g. theology, theodicy, theocracy). — 180 Proof

:clap: Self-criticism. Feeling blue lately, o philosopher true?

Warning: Philosophizing is injurious to health.

Not sure exactly what your point is, but it sounds a little like Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology wherein God is seen as a properly basic belief, the necessary foundation for objective reality and coherence. This is worked up from Kant's transcendentals. — Tom Storm

I'm not familiar with Plantinga, but from what you've written that sounds like just what I'm talking about.

believing nonsense under the guise of impressive, intimidating and esoteric arguments. — _db

Sounds like philosophy to me. Not all of it, but definitely some of it.

any serious thought about it dispels the illusion that it can be anything more than faith. — Janus

Faith - if by that you mean belief without evidence - no. Faith - if by that you mean belief based on the evidence of personal experience - ok.

Feeling blue lately, o philosopher true? — Agent Smith

To quote the great man:

Damn right, I"ve got the blues! — Buddy Guy, b. 1936 ...

Imagine ol' Sisyphus happy, Smith. :smirk:

Yes, I’d say that’s a fair (if simplistic) way of framing the distinction. Religions typically insist on the acceptance of a set of dogmas among its adherents. Persistent failure to accept and enact such dogma is often grounds for excommunication. It’s important to note, however, that some religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism allow for a much greater degree of autonomy in this regard. For instance, some of the canonical holy books of Hinduism acknowledge that ultimate truth can be reached via many paths and expressed through many diverse images, stories and doctrines. Whether or not this tolerance is always achieved in practice is another story.

It's also worth noting that "religions" often form around the philosophies of various thinkers. One may be a Thomist, a Kantian, a Hegelian, a Marxist, etc. And one may find themselves excommunicated from the group if they stray too far from orthodoxy.

That seemed strange and it was several years after that comment that I realised how the philosophy issues lead to deep questions about religious truth. — Jack Cummins

This was precisely why, after an initial period of tolerance, Islam opted to suppress philosophy. :smile:

The problem with philosophy is that when taken to extremes it starts questioning not only other systems but even itself. This can lead to nihilism which can be as bad as blind faith or religious fanaticism. The antidote recommended by Classical philosophy is wisdom (or common sense) and moderation ....

Sophistry in pictures and folktales rather than reasoning with coherent concepts and valid arguments. — 180 Proof

Even sophistry is nothing more than a bad form of executing philosophy.

(2nd/3rd order) — 180 Proof

What that means?

Imagine ol' Sisyphus happy, Smith. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Sisyphus reminds me of how poor I'm at reading. I start at the beginning of a sentence, then word by word I work my way to the end. Then I realize I didn't understand the sentence. Back to square one I go. This is called rereading, a bad habit according to reading experts and indicates poor concentration.

May be Sisyphus has severe ADHD and so has to, well, "read" life again and again, ad infinitum to finally comprehend what life is all about. :grin:

Faith - if by that you mean belief without evidence - no. Faith - if by that you mean belief based on the evidence of personal experience - ok. — T Clark

The distinction there is between inter-subjectively evident and subjectively evident. It seems to me that whatever cannot be evident in any way more than to oneself, cannot be a good reason for anyone else's beliefs except one's own.

First you should define philosophy. As way to live and make sense of the world I think think religion, in particular Christianity, is the ultimate philosophy.

https://christianscholars.com/jesus-the-great-philosopher/