Religion Vs. Philisophy

Where do you draw the line between religion and philosophy? A lot of people seem to draw it on one side or the other of Buddhism, which seems to be situated in a transitional position. How much dogma and deity does a philosophy have to have in order to qualify as a religion? How much formal structure? Is there a gray area where they overlap? Do Eastern and Western schools of thought differ on these definitions?

 

i draw no such imaginary line. religions are philosophical cults.

(gods or a god, might also be real, but that is a separate question, entirely unrelated to either).

 

That's a line, sort of. Not every philosophy is a cult. Right?

 

Buddhism doesn't seem to fit either one. If it doesn't require faith in a supernatural deity, and it isn't science-based, what's left for it to be?

A lot of occult points of view also fall into this gray area.

 

a philosophy!



poem there in fun.....

 

hopefully. yet anything that is taken at face value without parcing and analyzing, is a cult. no one is always right nor always wrong. you could call that a philosophy, but it also stands up as an observation.

 

In every New Age store, you will find books that attempt to turn various religions into philosophies. In most cases, it isn't hard. You just tell people to take from them whatever seems worthwhile and useful, and then you point out some examples. This is more easily done with the inclusive religions, which are mostly Eastern. Exclusive religions are the ones that say, "If you don't believe everything we tell you and reject all other religions, you'll suffer lasting consequences."

 

It's a complicated picture. On one hand there's pure philosophy which is a systematic rational enquiry into truth, at the other pole religion of a non philosophical nature - although in fairness, it all has a bit of philosophy inherent in it.
There have also been religious philosophers, whose aim in western culture has usually been to try to put their existing religion onto a philosophical footing, the archetype for them might be Thomas Aquinas who in the middle ages sought to explain Christianity in terms of Aristotle and Plato.
There's also the philosophy of religion, which is different again, and is the application of philosophical method to the study of religion.

Buddhism I think is both a philosophy or set of linked philosophies, and a religion with many different forms.

 

What do you guys think of efforts to turn every religion into a philosophy, by extracting only the philosophical elements and ignoring the rest? Legitimate? Fair game?

When making use only of the truths one can verify through their own experience, an individual is applying a fundamental Buddhist concept to all religions, as if they are somehow a branch of Buddhism. I know several people who use this approach.

 

It depends on what's being extracted. Some things like meditation techniques, hatha yoga, tai chi etc can be useful no matter if you believe in the religion from which they originated. If a person thinks they might be helpful I can't see any problem.


I'm not sure about philosophy derived from religions - I don't see that much that can be derived without having to understand the religious context. Did you have something specific in mind?

 

There are many books sold in America on the general subject of incorporating the old Eastern approach into Western life. These authors seem to use more material from mainstream Buddhism than any other source, followed by Taoism, but they borrow from almost everybody. You will also find this approach in the Unitarian Universalist Church.

I don't use a lot of ideas that can be directly traced back to Hinduism, but I'm one of many non-Hindus with an openness to Eastern thought who like to participate in their traditional festivals and celebrations.

 

I know the kind of books you mean. Some are probably OK. If they're helping people widen their horizons and consider different ways of looking at things, that's good. On the other hand, that kind of thing can lack depth. It can perhaps get a bit wishy washy.

In general I think if you find something useful or that has meaning for you in any system then it's OK. Provided it's not doing any harm.

Maybe some people get introduced to things they then pursue further.

 

I think a lot of Americans are looking for an alternative to Christianity, which they have rejected, and they don't agree with some atheists who don't think any religious person has ever had a good idea about anything or useful insights into any subject. Assuming that a religious text isn't supernaturally inspired is not the same thing as saying that nothing in it is useful or wise.

If these people go to a Buddhist temple, they're going to find out that Buddhists are not supposed to consume alcohol, and the last thing on earth they're looking for is yet another bureaucratic organization that has a list of things for them to stop doing. These are the people who often like to say, "I'm spiritual, not religious." Their numbers are growing.

I've heard people say that the Bible must be divinely inspired because Proverbs and other passages are still valid in their assessments of human nature. Another point of view is that these sections were written by people who were highly intelligent and gifted in their ability to understand human nature and write about it, mixed with their superstitions.

 

Everybody has to have a starting point, and everything about Eastern thinking initially seems backwards and wrong to those who have been immersed in Western thought for a lifetime, and indoctrinated to believe that all alternatives are evil. On the other hand, if you're looking for a philosophy and not a religion, you may not need to go very deep into all the history and tradition.

 

There are philosophers and there are philosophers. Some people are genuinely in deep rumination about their true place in the world, and they take the truths they see to heart. It is of their very nature to be this way, and they cannot help it. Others could really care less about the strict truth, though they know all the ins and outs of who said what and when. I would say most philosophers fall into the latter category, and they are what I would call religious about their philosophies. They appeal to authority. Which is what I think religion does, but philosophy as a generalized thing, does not.

Everybody's got a personal philosophy, though they may not even recognize it. One's personal philosophy might be to learn from others. Or one's personal philosophy might be to try and find things out on one's own. It becomes a religion when you say your personal philosophy is the smart way to be, and look down with scorn, contempt, or even pity on those who don't share your point of view.

It seems to me to be an attempt to legitimatize religion. Because otherwise you can really take philosophy from anywhere. I could find philosophy in a romance novel, probably. I like to look for truths in unlikely places, not places where people always say the truth is. Because everyone's got some truth to share. And I think if we overlook the truths of the so-called "little people", we miss that bigger truth that everyone and everything is valuable. I don't think anyone truly knows when they're going to find "the truth." It could as likely be in Redbook magazine as the Holy Bible.

But also I would say that most religions may have begun only as philosophies. Hopefully the founders of these "religions" weren't secretly wolves in sheep's clothing gnashing their teeth at the idea that anyone would dare disagree with their point of view. That's religion to me. So I can see finding philosophy in "religion," though I wouldn't technically call the teachings that religious people so often claim to follow "religious" in the first place. Their nature as personal philosophies, mere suggestions, may be overshadowed by the number of people who refuse to accept them as mere suggestions, but treat them as though they were written in blood.