What distinguishes religion from philosophy?

[ohwilleke]

In the Judeo-Christian tradition we know very clear what religion is and what philosophy is. Sure, there are occassional blurry spots, but on the whole, it is fairly easy to say, for example, that post-modernism or existentialism are philosophies, while Christianity or Judaism are religions.

Yet, this seems a harder line to draw outside this tradition. Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion? What about Confucianism? What about Taoism?

Also, why does it matter? For what purposes do you care if something is a religion or a philosophy? If there is more than one definition, which distinction makes sense when? (E.g. it might make sense to call Buddhism a religion for purposes of describing the predominant religious groups in a country, but not for the purpose of distinguishing between theists and atheists).

[Toto]

Another question - how do you distinguish between religion and psychotherapy? A lot of the Easter religions that emphasize meditation seem to be looking for the same results as psychotherapy (without the Prozac.)

Yes, Toto, but lately there has been a book on the market called Plato, not Prozac that attempts to use philosophy for the same purpose.

[Toto]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eudaimonia:
Yes, Toto, but lately there has been a book on the market called Plato, not Prozac that attempts to use philosophy for the same purpose.</font>

I started to read that book. It looks like an attempt to find employment for underutilized philosophers by turning them into therapists. It seems to be more a way of problem solving or thinking through problems.

I think of psychotherapy and Buddhist meditation as dealing with a person's emotional state, rather than attempting to solve career or life problems. And I don't usually think of philosophy as dealing with emotional states of being, with the problems of fear or love.

I think people describe eastern religions as "philosophies" because we identify religion with god, and god is absent or not important in eastern religions. But eastern religions have a view of the supernatural and a moral code of conduct. It may be that our definition of religion is the problem.

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited April 14, 2001).]

[Ernest Sparks]

While the East has produced many philosophies (Hindu Upanishads and Vedanta, Buddhist Suttas, Confucian Analects), there has also been a rich admixture of the specifically religious (great human and super-human heroes, worship and ritual, attention to special duties and reparation for the bad that follows from lives). Sometimes the philosophies add extra rational purposes to the specific religious aspects. Sometimes the mixture is with indigenous faiths, such as Tao magic and Family veneration in China and Shinto spirits in Japan), or the founders and teachers become the heroes (Mahavira in Jainism, Boddhisatvas in northern Buddhism, Amida Buddha in Japanese Buddhism).

To me, the difference between phylosophy and religion is that religion tends to be biased toward edifying some sort of deity or god, whereas phylosophy is more about edifying oneself or mankind as a whole.

Simplistic, but that's my opinion.

Chas

[Bill]

I sort-of agree with Chas, but.....

From my perspective as a metaphysical naturalist, "philosophy" is anything which adheres to "metaphysical naturalism," while "religion" is anything which advocates, relies on, or otherwise embraces the "supernatural."

Buddhism is thus properly seen as a "religion" (even in its "atheistic" form) since the belief in reincarnation is a reliance upon the supernatural.

At least, that's my $0.02 worth.....

== Bill

Everyone,
There are a large number of Mystical Traditions all over the world that are based on empirical wisdom. Many consider mysticism as the outcome of carrying the search for Truth/God/Self/Soul, and you name it, to its peak by looking inward rather than outward.
Take Buddhism, it has many great things about it. It is a psychology, philosophy, religion and metaphysic depending on how you use it. But, when he Buddha said, “I am Awake,” we get to the cream. Because the mystics claim we can wake up also. What are they talking about? And why have these traditions lasted so many years, if no one wakes up, etc.

It is actually amusing that physics is now reaching conclusions that sound metaphysical to many.
S9

As I recall, Taoism began as less a religion than a philosophy. After the Tao Te Ching was completed, "Taoism" split into two schools, Huang Lao and Tao Chuang.

Huang Lao was the "lower" Taoism, that is the folk-religion version of Taoism. This school of thought maintained that the Tao Te Ching was a book of sorcery, and its adherents practiced alchemy.

Tao Chuang Taoism, meanwhile, was the philosophical school. (The "Chuang" comes from Chuang-tzu, who further expanded on the philosophical aspects of the Tao Te Ching.) This school of thought emphasized "doing not doing" -- that is, behaving naturally, acting without conscious thought. Sort of like being in "the zone" -- when you're acting on almost pure impulse and instinct rather than premeditating every single action. I swim best when I'm letting my body think instead of my mind, if that makes any sense. Even when I get caught up in a complex math problem, it's like I'm on autopilot. Despite the fact that math is perhaps one of the most rational exercises possible, I did best when I "intuitively" understood what was going on.

This all makes me wonder, when we discuss "Taoism", which school are we discussing? The former is obviously religious and involves the supernatural, though I think that's perfectly natural given the dearth of scientific knowledge at the time. If the people couldn't find natural explanations for various phenomena, they would obviously look to the supernatural. Of course it's irrelevant now, but does that take away from the legitimacy of the original text?

Meanwhile, I would very much hesitate to dismiss the latter school of thought out of hand. It may not fit into a Western philosophical discussion, because it simply doesn't follow the same rules. Should we take it on its own terms or not?

Actually, I have a hard time discussing Taoism because it is so intuitive. I can't quite put into words what it is or says, but I don't think that necessarily detracts from its philosophical value.


[This message has been edited by Monkeybot (edited April 16, 2001).]

Call it "philosophy," or call it "religion," everyone has a world-view. http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/wink.gif

From a 1964 interview in Playboy magazine:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Playboy: "Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?"

Rand: "Qua religion, no--in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy."</font>



[This message has been edited by Eudaimonia (edited April 17, 2001).]

Philosophy is a process of thinking. It is possible in philosophy for one to discard things that he no longer needs. Things that may have seemed to explain something one day, may not the next and in philosophy we are able to throw that explaination away and look for another.

This is not possible in Buddhism nor Confucianism nor Taoism. Tenents exist in all of these religions, tenents that are said to be universal and everlasting truths matter-of-factly and are not for "throwing away" if found to not work. Books exist, techniques exist all professing everlasting truths in these religions and these are not to be pondered on, they are to be followed and believed. Religion does not necessarily need a God.

I believe this is the major difference between all religions and philosophy

[This message has been edited by isa457 (edited April 17, 2001).]

[g-21-lto]

Philosophy is a process of thinking. It is possible in philosophy for one to discard things that he no longer needs. Things that may have seemed to explain something one day, may not the next and in philosophy we are able to throw that explaination away and look for another.
So this would make "beliefs" in philosophy more a means to an end (truth), while in religion they are the end? On a side note, this is a partial explanation for why my church is so anti-intellectual.

[Heathen Dawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a fascinating case of...

NECROMANCY!