Philosophy, Religion, and Science

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
This is in response to a recent thread I read on philosophy. I once wrote a venn diagram in my existentialism class that my philosophy professor really enjoyed.

It included Science, Religion, and Philosophy.

My statement was that any given time, you can believe in one or two of them, but not all three.

You can believe in just science: "Our purpose in this life is the same as any creature, to reproduce. When it is our time to die, our bodies will compost the earth and give nutrients back to nature that we had used, so that future generations of animals and plants can thrive."

Just religion: "We are here to do God's work. When we die, we go to heaven or hell."

Just philosophy: "Why are we here? Where do we go when we die? Where were we before we were born?"

*****************

You can believe in religion and science: "I believe a higher power has put us here, but that time and evolution are the driving forces of nature." This leaves no room for philosophical questioning on why we are here or where we go when we die.

Religion and philosophy: "I don't know why we're here or where we go after death, but I know our souls go somewhere."

Science and philosophy: "I'm not sure if we have a specific purpose in this life or not. And I'm unsure if there is a higher power that dictates that."

*****************

But you can't solidly believe in all three. You can't ask questions that you already know the answers to. Religion and science offer us answers, depending on what you believe, and philosophy offers us questions. Religion and science are the answers to philosophy. To me, all a philosopher does is ask unanswerable questions in a poetic, artistic way. Which is beautiful, and the world needs beauty.




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Schmidt1989
 


Interesting theory. Not sure I agree, but I do get your point.
Personally I would say that science and religion are the most exclusive, since they often offer opposing answers to the same questions. When the two are consolidated it rarely leaves much room for religion, except for the few areas where science does not yet have an answer. When it is the other way around it often leads to pseudo-science i.e. not science.

But I don't agree with you that philosophy only asks unanswerable questions. It offers much more than poetry and those other things you mention. But one might be tempted to say that there is rarely just one answer to a philosophical question.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Schmidt1989
 


Your approach is interesting to me but I disagree with it. My philosophy is mental or transcendental monism. My religion is Christian mysticism which is fully compatible with my philosophy of mental monism and with the perennial philosophy of Huxley. My religion and my philosophy are informed by the sciences of parapsychology and comparativism (comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism) so all three (religion, philosophy, and science) are harmonious inside me, once the social mechanisms and dominant paradigms that pollute and abuse all three of those realms are put in their proper place.

edit on 7-8-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Why believe any of the concepts?
Why not throw all concepts out and see what is left?
Where do all concepts arise?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Why believe any of the concepts?


Because God likes to play hide-and-seek.


Why not throw all concepts out and see what is left?


See above.


Where do all concepts arise?


From the trickster aspect of God which is in time, and likes to play with the forms of time.



edit on 7-8-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Why believe any of the concepts?
Why not throw all concepts out and see what is left?
Where do all concepts arise?


Religion is the only one of the three which requires belief.
Philosophy is usually hypothetical, and therefore only requires assumptions. It rarely asked for more than a suspension of ones belief - but never for you to permanently alter your belief-system without proven cause.
Science is based on the very principle of not having to believe. Naturally some science is beyond out financial and mental capabilities, so in that sense you will always have to have some faith, and believe in what people tell you. But since science is based on hypothesis, testing and peer-review (the keyword in this conversation being peer-review), you never have to just believe in it. Scientific work is published in journals so that you may review it and come to your own conclusions.

Your question about throwing it out confuses me. I would say that it would be both stupid and impossible.
I think all three concepts arise from humans ability to ask questions. But beyond that the three are very different. They might touch on many of the same subjects, but everything from the process by witch ideas are handled, to the way it is used by people are extremely different. I wouldn't bundle them together like that.





top topics
 
0

log in

join