Philosophy and Religion both

seem kind of silly to me. The idea of practicing someone else's beliefs is not what living is about. Just because someone discovered the divine as say a buddhist does not mean you can just learn it, practice it and believe it. We have ot go out and make our own religion. Discover what life means to us.

 

True, we should not blindly follow authority, but you also have to remember this: To these religions and their followers, it is not just a matter of following. Take the Bruce Lee quote:

"It is like a finger pointing to the moon, DON'T concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of that heavenly glory."

These religious founders simply point to something they believe simply is. As far as HOW to look up to the moon, that's where it may not necessarily need absolute authority, dogma and tradition.

You also have to ask yourself: You may have rejected outward authority, but how about inward authority? You have inward 'do's' and 'don'ts' and prejudices. You have an entire lifetime of psychological conditioning that has also binded you. To be unconditionally free, to really 'make your own decisions' is much more difficult than to just reject organized religion. A start, but now, you must enter your own consciousness and see what authorities linger within.

 

I think you're right we should follow our own beliefs and not blindly follow anothers set religion just because it's there, but I think there's no real harm in learning from the other religions. My spirituality is based on a number of beliefs of my own and a number of those found in other religions. They're all still very personal to me.

 

I agree with you about religion, but how does philosophy fit in there? Philosophy is ideas. That's all. And chances are, if you are going to create a personal philosophy or disposition on life, someone out there, or a few someones out there, have said what you're thinking. For the most part philosophy is a means of constructive thinking, not a way of living or believing. And it's certainly not supposed to be about picking one philosopher and living by his/her words. It's about learning from them and finding your own path.

 

To some extent that is true, but to a greater, less stupid, extent, that is entirely false.

If you're trying to get somewhere, you ask for directions. We're all trying to be happy, and some people like to write about how they got to happy. Maybe knowledge is a different story. When you finish writing your own version of Being and Time or Aristotle's Metaphysics, you let me know, k?

 

im actually in the process right now

 

be sure to send Harvard a copy. I bet they'll get a kick out of that.

 

It is indeed meaningless to blindly follow something someone else said was true, just because they said so. It is impossible to agree with someone else 100%, all the time, and still be thinking for yourself. Unquestioned faith is worthless. But that does not mean we cannot learn from the teachings of others who came before. The study of religion and philosophy, I feel, is one of the most important, most respectable things any human can do. Our society looks down upon original thought and independence as some sort of bad thing, and look where that has taken us. If more people knew how to think for themselves and question what the media tells us to believe, would we have elected those people running our country right now?

and what about logic? that is a philosophical discipline. And science? Most, if not all scientific facts started out as philosophical ponderings. Philosophy is everywhere, in everything we can possibly think about. The lack of philosophy would be a total lack of human thought or consciousness. The study of the thoughts of who some consider to be the most intelligent people throughout history is what philosophy is. How is that silly? What is silly is the notion that anyone can have an original idea. Someone thought it before you did, and maybe thought it out at greater length than you ever will in your lifetime. Why not learn from them, while still trying to find your own path?

 

Yes, I agree.

Existentialism to me has nothing to do with the rejection of religion.

If you put existentialism and religion together you have a wonderful combination. On one side taking responsibility for your life and realising the full potential of your existence and on the other obtaining a wealth of wisdom from shamans, prophets and centuries of thought and practice.

I am not religious, I just think there is something to be learned from it. Cutting yourself off from the ideas of others just because they hold some rigid ideas or superstitions is cutting yourself off from most of humanity.

 

This is true. But... There's a different question I think Your suposed to asking. Which is. How should Ones own religion be communicated. Because thats what religion and philosphy are. Communications of life ideas/ideals. What we are doing right now is on a a smaller and more personal version of that. But still the same idea.

 

Don't you think we all do this anyway? You can be taught a religion, but you are going to form your beliefs anyway. All Catholics do not believe the same thing. All communists do not believe the same thing. A religion or philosophy is simply an attempt to generalize the beliefs of a group of people, a rather arbitrary group if you ask me. Because the beliefs within one group can vary so much, because each individual will actually create their own, that they should not even be categorized together at all. Which brings a different point. Isn't categorization just a human attempt to understand something that we can't?

 

^^^^^

I think religion is much more than categorising. Its MAKING STUFF UP to replace what might seem to be unattainable truths.

 

How is religion 'making things up' more than any other form of knowledge is making things up? We don't know anything about anything. Why focus on the problems with only religion?

 

I agree. I think, though, that the problem is that we get to obsessed in the directions that we never get to our destination.

My problem, probably most people's problem, is that we listen to others too much. We hear them speak, read their words. But I want to find my own words, you know?

 

I never said any of that. But you make religion out to be something very similar to our every day beliefs when it is clearly a matter of faith over reason, which in other words is a system of convenient fabrication over consideration of the facts.

 

I'm just curious how you can say that religion is "clearly a matter of faith over reason." Not all religious people take their religion to be true regardless of facts. That is a hasty generalization. There are religious people who have seriously considered the weaknesses of faith and have still reasoned that there is evidence for faith to be relied upon. There isn't any "fact" that proves that faith is false, is there?

 

The simple fact that the word "faith" exists and is used by a religious person backs up my points completely. It is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Again, I never said any of the things you are talking about. Secondly, if there is enough evidence for faith to be relied upon, then it is no longer faith, but fact.

The simple fact that proves "faith" false, is simply that faith is the belief in something for which there is little evidence. If there was evidence, then it would not be faith but reason.

Okay..so let those very simple truths swim around in your brain. Next, to your original post. What the hell does communism have to do with catholicism? Communism is a political belief pertaining to what may "work" for humans as a way of living in the future". Catholicism is derived largely from outlandish and exaggerated fables about the existence of the universe? Now while I don't advocate that communism would work, it is a political philosophy based on how a group of men perceive human nature. Perhaps communism in the sense of the word can be called "an attempt to generalize the beliefs of a group of people, a rather arbitrary group". Catholicism on the other hand is based on a man made myth which completely distorts the nature of existence as you might see it simply by looking at it. It is not an attempt to generalise beliefs but rather a crude and lazy attempt to define (or dictate) the source of creation itself. Now many catholics have questioned this outdated story and have expressed new beliefs accordingly. Whilst they belong to some sort of religious group, they are in such occurences, not acting religiously, but with reason.

I never used the word "religious people" nor did I ever attempt to categorise them. I used the word religion. Nor did I say that religion was a bad thing. I think it can be in excessive levels. All i am saying, is that you cannot give religion credit for simply being an attempt to generalise beliefs. It is no such thing. It is MAKING STUFF UP and nothing more. Thats why its called religion.

 

seriously...

 

religion is a set of beliefs. some religions are faith based and others as well may be based on experience and knowledge.

 

What makes experience or knowledge more reliable ways of knowing than faith?