Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!


  1. Feb 2, 2004 #1
    I'm not really going to comment to much on this. I was just wondering what some people's opinions were on the differences, if any, between philosophy and religion.

    I think some confusion arises because there can be more than one meaning to the word "philosophy". It could mean a belief system or set of truth. It also could mean the search for a belief system or truth. Or maybe it is the study of various philosophies. What do you think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 2, 2004 #2
    Philosophy is uncertain
    Religion is certain

    It's difficult to believe in things a person doesn't understand.
  4. Feb 3, 2004 #3
    philosophy is an idea of what is happening within an arena of activity.

    religion is taking 'a philosophy' as being "THE TRUTH" and creating a mythology, dogma, and rools. faith gone wild.

  5. Feb 5, 2004 #4
    "Philosophy is uncertain
    Religion is certain

    It's difficult to believe in things a person doesn't understand"

    Religion is not for certain. It is merely assumed to be certain. I shall redefine your statement.

    Religion is unreasonable
    Religious philosophy is reasonable, unless it conflicts with the above statement.
    Philosophy is reasonable.


    You cannot prove the existence of god using reasonning. It is reasonable to have faith in a religion, if it works. It is unreasonable to believe in god.

    Is it unreasonable to believe in god in order to maintain faith? Obviously if the belief in god had no purpose or conflicted with your image of reality it would be unreasonable. Though if your belief in god only improves your performance in reality, does this make it reasonable to believe in god.

    This pretty much sums up the difference between creationist christians and evolutionist christians. My mum, was a christian and an evolutionist. She had faith, but did not let superstition affect her judgement.

    I believe this is the model religious person.

    As for creationists and the like, they are ignorant and unreasonable lunatics.
  6. Feb 5, 2004 #5
    That makes good sense.
  7. Feb 6, 2004 #6
    "As for creationists and the like, they are ignorant and unreasonable lunatics."

    Not necessarily. Some have evidence to back them up. But it really doesn't matter because some people can never be convinced of anything, no matter what. Some don't even consider looking at evidence, now THAT is ignorance. (there are both ignorant evolutionists and creationists) There is always a group of ignorant people in a certain belief system.
  8. Feb 6, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    "As for creationists and the like, they are ignorant and unreasonable lunatics."

    Not necessarily. Some have evidence to back them up.

    Perhaps you might lay some of this evidence out for us?
  9. Feb 6, 2004 #8
    I think what he meant to say (or at least should have said) was that they have created evidence to back them up.

  10. Feb 6, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I agree that it's likely to be made up or unconvincing. I just wanted him to state what it was, since he used the notion that there was some in his post. He struck me as saying that both sides have evidence.
  11. Feb 6, 2004 #10

    May I suggest that if you want to discuss creationism vs. evolutionism that you do so by beginning another thread? I am convinced that there is good evidence for creation, although I am not as well versed in it as some other people. However, I would be tempted to ask a lot of questions, and this thread would quickly get off topic.
  12. Feb 6, 2004 #11
    I agree that superstition (i.e. belief in something that has no real logical basis) should not be allowed to usurp one's good sense. However, a religion should no longer be considered mere superstition if it is consistent and makes sense considering all the evidence available to us.

    In other words, what if you had a religion that was based on actual truth? By this I mean that believing God exists is not unreasonable if in fact He does exist. A religion grounded in truth is reasonable.
  13. Feb 6, 2004 #12
    I think people should be allowed to choose whatever they want to believe in without having to go to school and get only one-sidedness on everything, there is a lot of comfort in religions and analogical truth, this is why I say philsophers are the more sinister of barbarians because they see a bit more and can convince others of it and want everyone to see a little more but in reality I think most people are quite happy right where they are even when they are sad, but then I'm fairly weird. I mean I choose reason over imagination, and who knows I may burn in hell for it but at least I'll be able to have proof then... so my God says I get nothing for free and have to work for every scrap, my God tells me I'm pretty lazy and smoke too much and if I continue I'll be dust soon, ya I've had enough listening to other people's God, I want to make up my own God now.
  14. Feb 6, 2004 #13
    regardless of our church affliation, don't we all make our own personal god.

    isn't that as it should be?

  15. Feb 8, 2004 #14
    How have you come to the conclusion that all religions are imagined? Do you put them in one broad category and reject their ultimate truth based on a sole reason, or have you examined each one individually and rejected them because of their logical inconsistencies, lies, etc.

    What's to say that your philosophy isn't a sort of 'religion' in itself?
  16. Feb 8, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    religion is supported by faith
    philosophy is supported by logic...?
  17. Feb 9, 2004 #16
    Fair enough, I'm starting my own cult here, and I don't like it and it suggests that I'm wrong about too many things. Basically anything I say shouldn't impress anyone because when a magician reveals tricks it is also quite simple and unimpressive, except for the fact that they came up with a good one.
    Where does fancy bread "lie", in the heart or in the head?

    Religion and philosphy are essentially different versions of the same thing, one is based on a fundamental assertion that fantasy can come outside of this organ and the other that it most most likely all comes from within this organ, although I haven't worked my way up the ladder of understanding based on the other assertions I am still aware that we are all searching for the same thing and we all get it in our own ways but I find that going with the more logical and probable fundamentals, based on scientific method and reason leads to perhaps a slightly better version of getting it, but then the funny thing is I would think that regardless of what fundaments I took for granted and I would... but who knows I really haven't had the time to dabble in all of them to the extent some people have, I will try to learn more from those people.
  18. Feb 9, 2004 #17
    Faith without reason may be the base for many religions, but a proper understanding of the world involves faith derived from reason, not opposed to it. If I believe a certain candle will allow me to get to heaven, that certainly is faith without reason. If, however, the candle made predictions about the future, or was extremely knowledgable, or healed my sore throat, then maybe there's something to it. What I'm saying is that a belief system is not invalid simply because it's got the title 'religion.' There are ways that a religion may be tested and/or verified, whether logically, experimentally, archeologically, or historically.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?