Philosophy VS Religion

I have been watching the growing argument with jesus4u and I thought it would be interesting to find out how many of us analytical and logical thinking programmers support religion against philosophy

To clarify

I know many people are not really religious but they do support the philosophys of religion

I myself however tend to observe religion with philosohpical and analytical approach.

The similarities between certian belief systems around the world I find interesting. All of them involve one or multiple gods

In fact even christianity and Jewish beliefs have a striking semblance to ancient greek and roman myths

For example the greeks had many gods each with certain unique attributes

While christians view god as the only god they also worship certain Super Biengs (the Angels) eg Archangel Michael

These beings are similar to greek myth the devil looks after the under world for example

Also in greek myth there was still the one Overall Ruler Being Zeus

who can be drawn to be very similar to god.

...

Any way I am interested to see what you all think

and wether you belive that philosophy and science will eventaully destroy religion and we become a truly secular world

or if perhaps religion may make a resurgance and maybe dictate our future.

bah....

I scoff at religion!!!

:eek: You are game!!! I would duck for cover if I were you. :p

LOL :D I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make a j4u imposter... already u sound more sensible and sane!! :D

I am sensible..

For the bible did not tell me so :rolleyes:

Scoffing at religion......

Well that is one point of view

I often think the same way

The bible for example is a very vague document that attempts to set a doctrine of conduct but falls short of explaining its basic belief system with any clarity


But there is also buddism and the religion of self and mastering the human senses

That is perhaps something that some may wish to comment on as well

I think religion is just a part of philosophy (literal Greek meaning 'love of knowledge', ie the unending quest to understand) - they're not really seperate subjects in that manner. Religion is just a part of philosophy.

I don't think philosophy will ever die, and for this reason I think there will always be some element of religion.

HarryW

Many great philosophers would be highly upset with that comment

I understand that philosphy often entangles with religion

But there is a very real differnce

Philoshpy is not the worship of a god or belief

Philosophy is the quest to find reasons and even new questions

On all things

It does not have to restrict itself to just religion

However for the purpose of this thread I am simple trying to establish who believes what

And maybe even spark a debate on the the true purpose of religion :D

Re Scoffing at religion
I say why the hell not. All of these religious fruitcakes that make out that they are smarter and more enlightened than us non believers really give me the sh*ts. If I came on here and repeated quotes from Santa Claus could I call u all stupid if you didnt understand his meaning and respect his belly?

So, keep the scoffing up. Sooner these loonies are brought back down to earth the better.

And Santa said "Ho, ho, ho" and lo there was ho. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rudvs2
HarryW

Many great philosophers would be highly upset with that comment

I understand that philosphy often entangles with religion

But there is a very real differnce

Philoshpy is not the worship of a god or belief

Philosophy is the quest to find reasons and even new questions

On all things

It does not have to restrict itself to just religion

However for the purpose of this thread I am simple trying to establish who believes what

And maybe even spark a debate on the the true purpose of religion :D

---

I didn't say philosophy was the same thing as religion. I said religion was a part of philosophy.

You cannot get away from religion, everyone has some religious beliefs. If you are an atheist, you believe there is no God. If you are an agnostic, you believe there is not enough evidence to say whether there's a god or not.

I'm certainly not saying that you need to believe in God(s) to be philosophical.

Philosophy is the quest to understand ourselves and our world. Trying to decide whether there is a God is a part of that.

I also have a different view point on where Cristianity or catholisicm sprung from

I belive that this was originally concieved by a small group of eccentrics

When it started to catch on A group of people found that it was a well spring of power and control

The authries and these people then started adding to this belief as a means of controling the population and also a way of collecting wealth

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
I didn't say philosophy was the same thing as religion. I said religion was a part of philosophy.

You cannot get away from religion, everyone has some religious beliefs. If you are an atheist, you believe there is no God. If you are an agnostic, you believe there is not enough evidence to say whether there's a god or not.

I'm certainly not saying that you need to believe in God(s) to be philosophical.

Philosophy is the quest to understand ourselves and our world. Trying to decide whether there is a God is a part of that.

---

I am away from religion, I don't believe in anything at all.

Well you don't even believe in philosophy so you don't count ;)

What is belief in philosophy Harry? I know that I am because I think.

Ahh but do you really think? Or is it alllllll an illlllllllusssssion......?

*twilight zone music*

This is Santa preaching that cigars are the way to the heavenly North Pole.
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=615613

An illusion of what? Thinking?
No It is not a fact Harry, because I think information is a tool, mere definitions for practical purposes, information is either usefull or useless, not true or false.

it is exacty the information that you obtain that helps you come to a decision of wether something is true or false

Everyone makes decisions based on the total knowledge they have at the time of making the decision

No, I do not decide whether something is true or false, I decide whether something is usefull or not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by beachbum
This is Santa preaching that cigars are the way to the heavenly North Pole.
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=615613

---

Well, the santa seems to be an Aussie..and everybody knows that you shouldn't be taking an Aussie quite seriously. :p

Emmm
Forgive the lack of subtlety here but this thread is descending into terminal boredom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thinktank
Well, the santa seems to be an Aussie..and everybody knows that you shouldn't be taking an Aussie quite seriously. :p

---

LOL naahh, from the cheesy grins I would say Yanks for sure :p

Sorry about dragging philosophy into this thread
I'm off to get some sleep

Quote:

---

Originally posted by beachbum
And Santa said "Ho, ho, ho" and lo there was ho. :D

---

He must have been a good pimp ;)

The way I see it, everybody would be alot happier if science religion and philosophy would stick to there areas and not bug each other.

Religion-At it's simplest level, worship of a supreme being

Science-System that answers answerable questions

Philosophy-Metaphysical stuff like: What's the true nature of reallity

We wouldn't have all these arguments if those religious nuts would just realise that a scientific law is the truth despite what your holy book says. And philosophy deals with things that religion deals with, philosophy deals with the issue of if there's a god or not and all religion should do is teach morals and worship.

Can you explain why you believe the scientific law is the truth?

The difference between religion and philosophy is this:

Philosophy starts with a question and looks for answers.

Religion starts with an answer and looks for ways to make the questions fit.


Religous people know they have found the answer.

True philosophers know they will never find the answer.

the answer? what are you talking about simon :)

We all have answers, but there's no "the" for that sake ;)

\* Pulls out a gun and shoots Kedaman *\

Pardon keds, :D

Quote:

---

Kedaman responds:
Why should anyone die If you shoot ? I don't think it is not possible If you think. Scientific law can make you believe that when you shoot someone he is bound to die. But I don't believe in science because you won't die If you shoot.

---

Go ahead and shoot me, I will die, because I am hardcoded to respond that way at such information.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
\* Pulls out a gun and shoots Kedaman *\

---

I think you meant:

Quote:

---

/* Pulls out a gun and shoots Kedaman */

---

I take it you haven't written C code in a while? :rolleyes:

Scientific law is the *sort of* the truth, as close as us stupid humans can come to it. It its the result of many tests(yes I know I can't spell worth a darn) over many years of research. For example, it has been proven that water is H20 everywere in the universe. However, if you told the anchient Sumerians this, they would probably stone you to death because they thought that water was the god Enki's semen. This is the same thing happening today with the creationists. If they can support creationism through the scientific method, great. They still havent been able to. If they can great. It would just be more scientific knowlage. Which would be great.

Harry

Quote:

---

I think you meant:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/* Pulls out a gun and shoots Kedaman */
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take it you haven't written C code in a while?

---

Does that mean that Kedaman's not dead? :rolleyes:

Cuallito

Quote:

---

Scientific law is the *sort of* the truth, as close as us stupid humans can come to it.

---

I would say that science is in a different category again. Science looks for explanations as to how things happen. Philosophy looks for explanations as to why things happen. Where as religion knows why something happened, they just want to find those explanations that agree with it.

Simon

>religion knows why something happened

How can religion know things? Is it an identity?

>Philosophy looks for explanations as to why things happen

you make it sound like they are persons.

>Science looks for explanations as to how things happen

Let me explain:

Religion, Philosophy and Science is all information. Information doesn't know things, explain things or look for explanations, Information just defines.

Cuallito

Quote:

---

Scientific law is the *sort of* the truth

---

How do you come to this conclusion? What is the truth of which you speak? How do you validate a statement? How do you know something is true?

Kedaman

OK then (you pedantic pest) I shall rephrase my last comment:

Quote:

---

Scienists look for explanations as to how things happen. Philosophers looks for explanations as to why things happen. Where as the religous know why something happened, they just want to find those explanations that agree with it.

---

Happy now?

Simon
I disagree

Philosophers doesn't have to look for explanations to why things happens as they don't have to think things really happen.

Religious doesn't know why things happens, they believe that something happened. It is called faith. The belief in a truth.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I disagree

---

/* Reloads gun */

Quote:

---

Philosophers doesn't have to look for explanations to why things happens as they don't have to think things really happen.
Religious doesn't know why things happens, they believe that something happened. It is called faith. The belief in a truth.

---

Religous people Know the truth (even if they are wrong).
Philosophy deals with the nature of truth itself. Obviously it is valid to question everything about truth (including whether truth itself is a meaningful notion).

Hmm, I might have to dismiss what you just said as biased opinion :)

Quote:

---

/* Reloads gun */

---

Do you really think you won't miss this time?

>Religous people Know the truth (even if they are wrong).

Doesn't that sound like a contradiction to you?

>Philosophy deals with the nature of truth itself.

Not at all. Philosophers deals without caring about a truth.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Hmm, I might have to dismiss what you just said as biased opinion

---

Yes, please do ;)

Quote:

---

>Religous people Know the truth (even if they are wrong).

Doesn't that sound like a contradiction to you?

---

Well it sounds like a contradiction but when taken within the correct context, it isn't! :p

What I am talking about here is the way religous people see reality. Everything around them is illuminated by this wonderful glowing light which they recognise as the truth. It might not be the truth but it doesn't matter because to them, it is.

We look at them and think they hold a belief. They don't see it as a belief (because it is implicit in the world "belief" that it is just a particular view point) but see it as something they know with as much certainty as they know themselves.

Quote:

---

Not at all. Philosophers deals ... without caring about a truth.

---

It seems to me that the above sentance is missing something out. Something that goes where I have added the ellispses and is required to make that sentance, make sense. What do philosophers deal with? The study of truth and the nature of truth is the study of the meta rules of reality itself. What else, if not that, do philosophers deal with?

I never said that philosophers cared about any particular truth, indeed, they must avoid becomming too attached to any truth to avoid blinding themselves to the possibility of other, perhaps conflicting truths.

Simon

Quote:

---

What I am talking about here is the way religous people see reality. Everything around them is illuminated by this wonderful glowing light which they recognise as the truth. It might not be the truth but it doesn't matter because to them, it is.

---

You are being biased I think :) To be religious you have only one criteria to fullfill, to believe in something.

Quote:

---

We look at them and think they hold a belief. They don't see it as a belief (because it is implicit in the world "belief" that it is just a particular view point) but see it as something they know with as much certainty as they know themselves.

---

You just defined belief to me. To believe in something is to say that something is true.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that the above sentance is missing something out. Something that goes where I have added the ellispses and is required to make that sentance, make sense. What do philosophers deal with? The study of truth and the nature of truth is the study of the meta rules of reality itself. What else, if not that, do philosophers deal with?

---

Philosophers are thinkers. To think is to be a philosopher.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

To be religious you have only one criteria to fullfill, to believe in something.

---

I believe it is getting dark outside. Does that make me religous? I don't think so. Why is it getting dark? I believe that it is because the world has rotated such that my position on the surface (where I am located) is now facing away from the sun. I do not know it to be the truth because I would consider another explanation if one were offered (and it made more sense).

I would be religous if I knew why it was getting dark. Any other counter explanation would have to be flawed (I wouldn't even need to think about it) because I already know the truth. The error lies elsewhere. Either in the logic of those who are proposing the alternative explanation or in the evidence they are basing their logic on.

Do you not make a distinction between religous belief and proto belief? A religous belief is the truth because I KNOW IT TO BE SO. A proto belief is the truth because it offers the best explanation currently available. When a better explanation comes along, I will adopt that. The best explanation is the one that is most useful to me.

Quote:

---

Philosophers are thinkers. To think is to be a philosopher.

---

I am thinking about what I am going to have for dinner tonight. Does that make me a philosopher?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
I believe it is getting dark outside. Does that make me religous? I don't think so. Why is it getting dark? I believe that it is because the world has rotated such that my position on the surface (where I am located) is now facing away from the sun. I do not know it to be the truth because I would consider another explanation if one were offered (and it made more sense).

---

Then you doubt your belief, you consider it might not be the correct explanation, but you consider there to be a correct explanation, which is the actual belief of your, which in turn makes you religious.

Quote:

---

I would be religous if I knew why it was getting dark. Any other counter explanation would have to be flawed (I wouldn't even need to think about it) because I already know the truth.

---

That is another belief.

Quote:

---

Do you not make a distinction between religous belief and proto belief? A religous belief is the truth because I KNOW IT TO BE SO. A proto belief is the truth because it offers the best explanation currently available. When a better explanation comes along, I will adopt that. The best explanation is the one that is most useful to me.

---

No, I think you are being unreasonable. To know something, to believe and to believe is all the same thing, you consider something to be true. This is all derived from the axiom truth.
I am amazed that you mentioned usefullness of an explanation here, since that's what i consider reasonable.
The error lies elsewhere. Either in the logic of those who are proposing the alternative explanation or in the evidence they are basing their logic on.

Do you not make a distinction between religous belief and proto belief? A religous belief is the truth because I KNOW IT TO BE SO. A proto belief is the truth because it offers the best explanation currently available. When a better explanation comes along, I will adopt that. The best explanation is the one that is most useful to me.

I am thinking about what I am going to have for dinner tonight. Does that make me a philosopher? [/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman

I don't believe in anything at all.

---

Do you really believe that Ked? Or do you just think that you don't believe in anything at all (which I think is much more likely)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kzin


Do you really believe that Ked? Or do you just think that you don't believe in anything at all (which I think is much more likely)

---

I'm confused, do i believe that i don't believe in anything at all?

If I refuse to accept the axiom truth, i declare myself as a non believer.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Then you doubt your belief, you consider it might not be the correct explanation, but you consider there to be a correct explanation, which is the actual belief of your, which in turn makes you religious.

---

Why do you make the leap of logic to assume that I believe there to be a correct explanation? I never said that. I said I will hold my current belief unitl a better one comes along. That belief will in turn be replaced by another and so on. There is no correct explanation.

Quote:

---

No, I think you are being unreasonable. To know something, to believe and to believe is all the same thing, you consider something to be true. This is all derived from the axiom truth.

---

I think that you still haven't truly escaped your old way of thinking. You still see the world (even if you don't admit it to yourself) to exist objectively, and independant of yourself. Why can you not see the distinction between beliefs in truths that allow the possibility of other, conflicting truths and those that don't? It is you that insists there can only be one, consistant truth that precludes all others, not I.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman

I'm confused, do i believe that i don't believe in anything at all?

If I refuse to accept the axiom truth, i declare myself as a non believer.

---

No - you only believe that you've declared yourself a non believer in "anything at all". Big difference you know (or you think that you know - or maybe you think that you don't know)

Oh - and its only an unproven hypothesis - no worse - an unfounded belief - that you can choose to refuse to accept the axiom 'truth'.


(Kurt Gödel would be proud of this moment Ked ;))

Kzin you are ultimately perverse ;)

Quote:

---

No - you only believe that you've declared yourself a non believer in "anything at all". Big difference you know (or you think that you know - or maybe you think that you don't know)

---

I define myself as myself, not someone else. I think therefore I am. My thoughts are not someone else's they are mine. This is not a statement, this is not a truth, this is a definitions I use for practical purposes. If you have other definitions of what belief stands for, then please explain.

Quote:

---

Oh - and its only an unproven hypothesis - no worse - an unfounded belief - that you can choose to refuse to accept the axiom 'truth'.

---

"its", doesn't mean a **** to me you know, if you use it as a definition refering to truth.


Simon

Quote:

---

Why do you make the leap of logic to assume that I believe there to be a correct explanation? I never said that.

---

You have said you believed in an objective reality, have you changed your mind?

Quote:

---

I said I will hold my current belief unitl a better one comes along. That belief will in turn be replaced by another and so on. There is no correct explanation.

---

This suggests that you have.

Quote:

---

I think that you still haven't truly escaped your old way of thinking. You still see the world (even if you don't admit it to yourself) to exist objectively, and independant of yourself. Why can you not see the distinction between beliefs in truths that allow the possibility of other, conflicting truths and those that don't? It is you that insists there can only be one, consistant truth that precludes all others, not I.

---

What do you mean by see? I practically define my world as me and information. I "see" an objective universe which is represented by this information.

Conflicting truths just don't apply logically, it doesn't mean that they cannot be axiomatic.

As I said, I do not insist truth.

Kedaman

I've finally concluded that I cannot grasp what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

I practically define my world as me and information. I "see" an objective universe which is represented by this information.

---

You ARE the eternal solopsist. You have said to me many times before that the information is just part of you. Something you have created. Therefore there is nothing left in your universe other than you.

That's about as close as you can get to a pure solopsist.

No way Simon :)

A pure solipsist believe in a truth, and he believes that the world is a projection of his mind.

I define for practical purposes, jumping over the truth part. I might as well think that you exist, because it's more convenient to do this conversation but this is all for the sake of information. Since I have defined you as contents of the information I recieve, you are practical value for me.

Well, you were a bit too implicit with that smiley. I'm just curious where you got lost :)

I don't know where I get lost. Everytime I think I am close to understanding your theories, you tell me I have misunderstood. What you say just does not make sense to me.

Quote:

---

I practically define my world as me and information. I "see" an objective universe which is represented by this information.

---

This just completely loses me. How can you "see" an objective universe? Surely, you can only see an objective universe, subjectively.

Are you saying that you perceive information that represents an objective universe or are you saying that you perceive an objective universe that is the source of the information?

Quote:

---

I don't know where I get lost. Everytime I think I am close to understanding your theories, you tell me I have misunderstood. What you say just does not make sense to me.

---

While our discussion seems to use clear English, it is ambigous in many ways, we do implications all the time and a lot of information gets filtered out this way. The solution would be explicit definitions. If you look up any word in a dictionary you recieve several definitions, if you use the word you are suggesting an ambiguety, If your sentence doesn't give the correct impression of it's usage, then there's bound to be misunderstandings. For instance "see" i interpreted as "interpret", which is a transformation of information(in your world), or in my world which is completely functional, evaluation. However we use the same abstraction layer so we "see" things the same way.

Imagine a camera, the projected image being your conscious mind, in the figure below A. This is what you "see", what has been interpreted. B is the ocular of the camera, the abstraction layer towards our unconscious(me) our reality(you). C is outside you, or considering the blackbox analogy, inside. Your model of the system C is a reality, while mine is a set of unconscious information.

Code:

---

-|---------A--|-
  \          /
  \        /
    \      /
    \    /
      \  /
 ______\/_______B
      /\
      /  \
    /    \
    /      \
  /        \
  /          \
 /            \
************C***

---

You assume that the transformation of yours gives you a subjective perspective, of C with an error factor caused at the transformation at B, but you have no verifification of what happens at B which in turn makes it impossible to verify C. You find it though convenient to assume C exist and that you get a slightly different view of it.

I assume that C is information, which can by layer B evaluate to A, A is so to speak a different datatype than C. This datatype I can call my interpretation, what i see, the vision of an objective universe. C however is of datatype information and is not made of the complexity of A.

I hope this analogy would help somewhat, at least if you understand polymorphism :)

Kedaman

Whilst it now seems clear to me taht you have a fairly good understanding of my notion of the relationship between reality and consiousness, I am still struggling to understand yours.

Quote:

---

Your model of the system C is a reality, while mine is a set of unconscious information.

---

This, to me, points to the solopsist view in that your image (A) of reality is merely a projection of information from your subconsious (c).

Quote:

---

This, to me, points to the solopsist view in that your image (A) of reality is merely a projection of information from your subconsious (c).

---

That is correct under the assumption that there are no other A and B's. However I do not make this assumption. I am openminded to the fact that you have a consciousness as well :)

So you're saying that it is possible that many people may be living in isolated, self contained universes.

Is there any possibility of interaction between these universes?

YES :D

But don't call it solipsism, because it's definitely not!!

Kedaman

OK, I won't call you a solopsist but so far, it doesn't seem all that different.

If you acknowlege the possibility of other individual universes, and that they might interact (presumably by exchanging information), how do you distinguish between information that comes from your subconsious and information that comes from someone else?

Simon

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman

OK, I won't call you a solopsist but so far, it doesn't seem all that different.

If you acknowlege the possibility of other individual universes, and that they might interact (presumably by exchanging information), how do you distinguish between information that comes from your subconsious and information that comes from someone else?

---

More like a pool of common information, while to suggest some sort of representation of dimensions, information that is more or less close to and private to individuals, rahter than cells of universes interconnected in a LAN with low bandwidth. But that's all relics of thinking of an objective universe.

I think it is more close to an ideal objective universe, you can derive your vision from mine, without affecting any results.

Again relics from objective-universe-thinking: I think lots of my closest information is private, while thought of your ideas comes from you. As it seems logical and practical, I can adopt this further in the theorem hierarchy.