I don't think religion and spirituality are the same at all. Some forms of government or political philosophies become religion ie. communism, Marxism, Nazism, etc. build a shrine and pray to your leader or see you leader as divine. Some religions do not believe in spirit such as Buddhism, I would hardly say I am a spiritual person but in the strangest sense (for me) I am religious by definition. If we don't stick to some standard accepted definition of what religion, philosophy and spiritually are this is just a free for all.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion, Philosophy, and spirituality
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
LOL! You mean it's not a free for all now? Has there ever been a time when it wasn't a free for all? Not that it really matters. Intellections have worth only at the most superficial level of existence because, while the factors of spiritual growth may be intentional, i.e., religious, the growth itself is unvaryingly unconscious. Our sole contribution to growth is the mobilization of the total personality--faith.
I defined “spirit” as "self-reflection and purposive energy melded together as one." Religion is the conscious decision to cooperate with the inner life. But when the decision to cooperate with the inner life threatens to dominate it, the ego-driven intellect invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it--thereby hoping to gain control of it. Theology, therefore, does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy. The problem isn't religion per se, but religion dominated by theology.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I know what what you're saying and why. But the sad fact is the the ego-driven intellect has been leading the insane fest for thousands of years wearing whatever masks that serves its purpose--including religion.
You're afraid. Ultimately, though, you're afraid of where the evolution of the inner life might lead. Walk into a church or any and you can feel the energy. Go to a ball game or into a stranger's house and you can feel the energy there, too. You can even feel the energy of a person you meet casually (I've met one emanating incredible energy). It it rational? No. Do you deny it? Only if you're afraid of what others might think.
All I can say is I'm not afraid of the truth and I'm not afraid to admit fault or error I just do my best not to perpetuate it (error that is). I was originally speaking about the definitions of religion and philosophy more to the point, what they are by acceptable ( global university) standards. I agree you can do as you wish with philosophy and religion and I encourage my students to come up with their own ideas (especially in Zen philosophy) not from the text book however it does not make them real or acceptable necessarily nor are my personal beliefs religious or philosophical necessarily correct.
Philosophy has a set of rules that have to be followed to come to a conclusion just like a math problem. Religion by definition is an institutional thing and as I said about spiritually well that one is opened to interpretation, that is where as you said "the evolution of the inner life might lead", "Walk into a church or any and you can feel the energy".
If you're asking me do I feel these things, no I do not they are illusionary to me but I understand what you mean. I will say I am moved by acts of human kindness and when I rarely see one it moves me to get choked up and shed a tear knowing all is not lost.
Philosophy has a set of rules that have to be followed to come to a conclusion just like a math problem. Religion by definition is an institutional thing and as I said about spiritually well that one is opened to interpretation, that is where as you said "the evolution of the inner life might lead", "Walk into a church or any and you can feel the energy".
If you're asking me do I feel these things, no I do not they are illusionary to me but I understand what you mean. I will say I am moved by acts of human kindness and when I rarely see one it moves me to get choked up and shed a tear knowing all is not lost.
rojse
RF Addict
Philosophy is not of any use outside of academia, in the real world. The only place that employs philosophers is universities, and the only places philosophy is discussed is in academia, or in discussions about philosophy. I don't see how philosophy has an application in the real world, apart from mental stimulation. I don't see commerical companies advertising positions for abstract philosophers, for example.
Because of this, I would say that text book definitions are the best way to define such an abstract concept as philosophy.
There is some truth to what you are saying but consider this the scientific method is the result of philosophy. Hospitals employ ethicists as do governments and large corporations this is a discipline of philosophy. There are many applications for philosophy for example my university is currently working on a theory concerning time and space in conjunction with the University of Melbourne for practical mathematical application. There is a lot more to philosophy than an old hermit sitting on a hill.
rojse
RF Addict
I don't know of too many hospitals that employ ethicists, and I have some friends that do. If this was the case, I would suspect it would be more motivated towards public relations, or, in a more capitalist-based hospital system, as a reason to charge more in fees.
If this is true, not just for hospitals, but for the other examples you give, what use is a philosopher to them? I ask only out of genuine interest.
Separate to this, for your statement about philosophy and the universe, what will this philosophical statement prove about the universe through argument or logic? What will philosophy bring to the mathematical equation that science could not?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Unless, of course, those rules force you to conclude something you don't want, in which case the rules can be changed. May you can show us where this argument is wrong. There is also the argument Alan Watts gives in his book Behold the Spirit. (The so-called "problem of evil" is often cited as atheism's strongest argument, but is inconsequential in some theologies)
It may be defined as such, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Institutions are merely the outward manifestation. It is better to have a religion without a church than a church without a religion.
The point I was trying to make (rather poorly) is that we have to meet life on its own terms, and that means dealing with a whole range of experiences that are not objectively verifiable. And just as not everyone hears equally well, not everyone is equally aware of their inner life.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Meaning.
Might be adequate for the Abrahamic faiths.
Might be adequate for Ayn Rand. Kind of childish, though.
Pretty good definition of spirituality, methinks.
rojse
RF Addict
Confusion.
For example, the Anthropic Principle, which gives reasons for why the universe is the way it is, has many different answeres - it just is, God, parallel universes, chance, life evolving to fit circumstances, life being an imperative universal function. And that's only a few that I can remember.
Each of these fit the scant facts available, but each of these are contradictory. How does this give meaning?
Sure, it makes for great debates, but how can you conclusively prove these?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
Your quip is childish.
I have come to expect better of you than gratuitous Rand-bashing, so let's leave those comments out, shall we?
Thanks.
eudaimonia,
Mark
rojse
RF Addict
Only by accident, I can assure you.
PureX
Veteran Member
In the end, science can only quantify it's way toward truth. If all your looking for is quantification, then science is your answer. Philosophy, on the other hand, compares various forms of logic through the art of debate, to help clarify truth. So if you're looking for clarity, philosophy is your answer. Art employs intuition, paradox, and perceptual manipulation to better illuminate truth at the individual level.
Each of these methodologies work toward the same goal, but they do so each in their own way. They're all equally important tools, it just depends on who we are, where we are, and what we're looking for, which is the better to us at any given moment.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Some accident. As pointed out by one philosopher: the human beings are natural philosophers. Even the decision not to philosophize is a philosophical decision. You can't get away from you. Science deals with facts; philosophy with meaning; religion with values. All three are a parts of who/what you are.
Or perhaps out of practicality...
Smoke
Done here.
I was unimpressed with Ayn Rand when I read her many years ago, but I've come to doubt my opinion of her based solely on the fact that you've earned my respect and she has apparently earned yours. Still, a little good-natured tweaking of any philosopher is never amiss.