Can philosophy exist without religious undertones?

the best resource i've ever found for concisely but not simply explaining philosophical ideas is this book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0789430746/?tag=absowrit-20

yes, philosophy can exist without religion. a religion may have several philosophies attached or people from several different religions might all share a common philosophy. the excuses people use to empower themselves are more about human nature (theirs, and those that follow them) than philosophy. so bringing politics into the mix further stirs the water because you can have religious politics, philosophical politics, or something that i'll just call practical politics which is about efficiency and organization (which could be argued to be a philosophy, i guess).

thinking critically about the nature of reality doesn't have to mix with faith, but it's such a headtrip that it leads to a mix very readily.

Sure philosophy can exist without a religious context, or even the assumption or belief in a deity of any sort.

What is philosophy? What purpose does it serve?

Philosophy can apply to many different subjects and no, one's religion doesn't have to permeate it. Sometimes it has, and many different beliefs and convictions have created different philosophies. There is no "universal" philosophy and through the centuries, different time periods and different persons have produced a variety of approaches to issues and questions. But like Maryn brought up, what makes something good? What makes something right, and something else wrong? Where do morals come from? There has to be a basis--a source or reason for this moral ground somewhere, and this, I feel, is what humans have been trying to answer for ... ever.

Think about the meaning of the terms 'PhD' and 'MPhil' - it means a Doctor of Philosophy or a Master of Philosophy and you can get Doctorates in any subject. What it means is that you are academically aware of the philosophy of that subject - the methods used to study it, the thought processes that underlie it. Essentially, rather than being someone who reads about the subject and 'learns' it, you become someone who thinks about the subject and applies your own ideas to it.

The Philosophy of science, for example, is rooted in the methodologies laid out by Isaac Newton (generally considered to be the first 'proper' scientist in that he applied a rigid methology to his work, though I think this may be debatable) and such concepts outlined by philosophers such as Karl Popper (whose 'there is no such thing as a white raven' question neatly outlines the modern process of hypothesis testing).

Then you have philosophers like Immanuelle Kant whose theories were later incorporated into the relatively modern discipline of psychology.

Philosophy, like science, is a method humanity uses to attempt to understand the universe around them. In the early days of humanity and civilisation, many of the ideas formulated by philosophy were mired in belief and religion (what is that big shiny ball in the sky? Must be some form of god...) and theology branched off from it. As time went on, philosophy moved more and more away from religion but there was still a connection. Descartes, for example, came up with the idea that the mind was in two parts - a part which resided within the body and a part that floated above the body which you could equate to a soul.

I personally consider anyone who thinks seriously about the world around them, however they do it, to be some form of philosopher because, as stated above, it translates into 'Love of Wisdom'. Whether your personal philosophy does or does not involve religion is irrelevant to the fundamentals of the process of trying to understand the universe.

Melisande said:

I am just curious to know, from people far more educated than I, if they believe that philosophy and religion (or political worship for that matter) goes hand in hand, or if philosophy would have entered the world without those aspects.

Click to expand...

As an atheist, I often feel it is worth indicating that religion does have a valid and useful place in discourse and experience. Perhaps moreso in the past than now, but still it is worth noting. We know, for example, that historically, religious interests motivated to some degree the origins of all the sciences. Philosophy as a separate activity (separate from say speculating on what the fundamental substances and operations of the cosmos were) is a little later, or even more remotely derived from the original religious constructions of reality.
It's possible to find some religious resonances in many active currents of contemporary philosophy (eg. chez Wittgenstein or Derrida or Heidegger ).

I would add that there is a lot of religious and philosophical resonance in places that are not generally considered philosophical as in Levi-Strauss or History of Science or Freud.

Philosophy? According to a class I'm taking under Kinesiology, this is what my professor summed up:

Philosophy is a set of beliefs and also a set of values by which you live and work (ethical issues, moral standpoint). It does not always have to be defined by religion though some close-minded people tend to believe that philosophy are based in religion and only religion.

While atheists may not believe there is a supreme being, agnostics believe in a higher power, pagans believe in multiple gods, etc., there's no clear-cut ground from which philosophy is firmly rooted. The term philosophy that I gave according to my professor is generally broad to define different philosophies.

We have a philosophy though each of us have different, if not recurring parts, of a philosophy that we adopt. That can come from growing up in a particular culture, a group of influencing friends, etc:

· Guides decisions one must make
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Basic everyday problems
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Program development
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Ethical issues
· Articulates values and worth

Take for example, educational philosophies from educational leaders:

· Idealism – Mind is Center
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Teacher plays major role in educational process
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Focus on character development, sportsmanship
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Emphasis on value

· Realism – Scientific Method
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Follow orderly progression, periodic assessment to ensure that learning is taking place
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Total development of person is important
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]PE very structured and systematic, assessment important

· Pragmatism – Experiences are Center
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Truth based on experiences
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Reality differs from person to person
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Social responsibility important
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]PE would offer variety of activities, problem solving activities

· Naturalism – Life is governed by laws of nature
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Consider individual level of growth and development
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Individualized learning, self-directed, competition against oneself
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Programs focus on developmentally appropriate activities

· Existentialism – Individual experiences
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Individuals must accept responsibility for themselves and the choices they make
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]PE should provide choice for individual, promote reflection and individual responsibility for learning
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]PE should develop self-awareness and self-responsibility

· Eclectic – combination of beliefs

While this may not be related to your topic of philosophy, I felt it had some relevancy. While you should disregard the words 'teacher', 'PE', and focus on thinking of any of the philosophies as not being educational but a part of some person's background, their set of beliefs and the way life guides them.

For instance, I have a philosophy that is naturally eclectic since I'm different. I don't hold to one particular but merge a few: realism, pragmatism, and parts of existentialism. Not only those but also other things.

One part of who I am is my conviction of choosing a choice to take advantage of people when I'm angry because I know I get pushed over, ran over by mischievous, sly, evil bosses or youths who *hisssss* "don't know any better!" While the thought of committing "Rampage" (yes, an actual movie) to get back at those who hurt me so badly, my philosophy concerns the moral standpoint: since they hurt me, I must exact revenge! It only stands to reason that it gives me more to lose, no sweet reward in revenge. The best thing I can do is leave them alone and perhaps someone with authority would arrange them into a more fitting place: a more cruel boss picking on, yelling, screaming, and possibly shoving the evil boss, and/or getting fired and myself getting a promotion over him; or the youths hurting others and possibly getting ganged up by others (eye for an eye), getting arrested by the police or worst the FBI (though I respect the FBI very much, I just know that if the FBI's involved, the stakes are much higher).

Therefore, a part of who I am is that I leave those who have committed wrongdoing toward me to their own devices. Their own devices will get them so caught up they cannot get themselves out of the trap they made. Even if they did, a bigger trap awaits them.

P.S. These philosophies that I put down were class notes I took yesterday. So don't think that philosophy is usually based on religion. It's about who we are, what our beliefs are, and what are our ethics that drives us when making choices.

Agnostics don't necessarily believe in a higher power. The true definition is someone who has an open mind to the possibility that there may be something currently undefined and unmeasurable in the universe which current science cannot explain. Since it is an evidence based form of faith, I tend to consider it as the only path for a true scientist because a scientist cannot know something does or does not exist until they have definitive proof.

areteus said:

Agnostics don't necessarily believe in a higher power. The true definition is someone who has an open mind to the possibility that there may be something currently undefined and unmeasurable in the universe which current science cannot explain. Since it is an evidence based form of faith, I tend to consider it as the only path for a true scientist because a scientist cannot know something does or does not exist until they have definitive proof.

Click to expand...

Understandable, Areteus. I have a sister who's agnostic. She's been this way since she questioned the Bible and no answer was provided by an Episcopalian priest. He was so stunned by her remarkable intelligence that he had to boot my sister, me, and my brother out of the church entirely for being "subversive".

She said that she necessarily believes that there could be a higher power but is very wary of "organized" religion in which a deity, or a number of deities, exist for mortal man/woman to serve. She, in the scientific sense, wants proof; not acts of faith.

task number 1 - define philosophy. I define philosophy broadly, as the pursuit of truth. The greek word for philosopher translates to lover of wisdom, and people who we consider wise, I think it can be argued, are those who (either through experience or intelligence or both) are more firmly in touch with what is true than most.

task 2 - define religion. Must religion have a god? (ie, taoism, if I'm not mistaken, does not have a God.) etc. If you define religion broadly, as a system which seeks to understand the world and our place in it, and which relies on certain leaps of faith in such cases where neither pure reason nor experience are sufficient/available, then yes, I'd have to say there is considerable overlap between philosophy and religion. And we might make the argument that an individual's philosophy is in effect a religion of sorts.

If I were to draw a distinction between the two, I'd say that religion accepts or even embraces leaps of faith, whereas philosophy does it's best to avoid leaps of faith whenever possible. So there is perhaps an important difference in the methodology/psychology of philosophy versus the methodology/psychology of religion. Institutionalized religion departs even further from philosophy, because you have a religious elite dictating to people what they ought to believe without requiring them to go through an impartial process of rational inquiry.

Huscurian said:

Understandable, Areteus. I have a sister who's agnostic. She's been this way since she questioned the Bible and no answer was provided by an Episcopalian priest. He was so stunned by her remarkable intelligence that he had to boot my sister, me, and my brother out of the church entirely for being "subversive".

She said that she necessarily believes that there could be a higher power but is very wary of "organized" religion in which a deity, or a number of deities, exist for mortal man/woman to serve. She, in the scientific sense, wants proof; not acts of faith.

Click to expand...

Dangerous subversives... I had a friend who is similar. She is a Christian and identifies as such (even goes to church, which many of my friends who claim to be Christian don't do...) but she has got a reputation in her church for being irritatingly intelligent. Not been thrown out, though. I think churches here are more tolerant of that sort of thing.

Personally, this sort of behaviour doesn't help organised religions because you don't avoid the issue by casting out the person who pointed it out to you. Especially as true, fundamental protestantism is supposed to be about using your intelligence to find your own, personal interpretation of the scriptures instead of being told what to think (as the Catholics used to do and was one of the main reasons the schism happened - the difference between a priest who is a direct connection to god and a minister who advises you on how best to interpret god's will).

An interpretation of religion requiring an act of faith is a good one, distinguishing it from philosophy which is more evidence based (or, rather, logical thought based as you can't really have evidence in philosophy in the same was as in science). Taoism is a wierd outlier on both scales, however. Is it really a religion if it has no deity? That is almost a taoist question in and of itself.

Maxx said:

As an atheist, I often feel it is worth indicating that religion does have a valid and useful place in discourse and experience.

Click to expand...

As a buddhist who holds many religions in very high regard and whose three best friends are atheists, I sincerely wish that even more atheists were like you.

Come to think of it, I wish that more religious people had the same level of respect for the secular swing of things that you have as an atheist, for religion.

Melisande said:

I am just curious to know, from people far more educated than I, if they believe that philosophy and religion (or political worship for that matter) goes hand in hand, or if philosophy would have entered the world without those aspects.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that philosophy would never have entered the world without religion or the human impulse that is the driving force behind religion.

There is at least one school of philosophy I can think of that exists without religious under/overtones. Dialectical Materialism, the philosophy developed by Marx and Engels.

As well as being the driving force (according to my very limited understanding) behind Communism and possibly Socialism, it can be a useful conceptual tool for the interpretation of history.

As with any religious or political ideology or philosophy though, you sometimes find barking fanatics who think it's the be-all and end-all.

areteus said:

Dangerous subversives... I had a friend who is similar. She is a Christian and identifies as such (even goes to church, which many of my friends who claim to be Christian don't do...) but she has got a reputation in her church for being irritatingly intelligent. Not been thrown out, though. I think churches here are more tolerant of that sort of thing.

Personally, this sort of behaviour doesn't help organised religions because you don't avoid the issue by casting out the person who pointed it out to you. Especially as true, fundamental protestantism is supposed to be about using your intelligence to find your own, personal interpretation of the scriptures instead of being told what to think (as the Catholics used to do and was one of the main reasons the schism happened - the difference between a priest who is a direct connection to god and a minister who advises you on how best to interpret god's will).

Click to expand...

Sometimes, it all adds up to the "Us versus THEM" attitude.

areteus said:

An interpretation of religion requiring an act of faith is a good one, distinguishing it from philosophy which is more evidence based (or, rather, logical thought based as you can't really have evidence in philosophy in the same was as in science). Taoism is a wierd outlier on both scales, however. Is it really a religion if it has no deity? That is almost a taoist question in and of itself.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Rufus Coppertop said:

As a buddhist who holds many religions in very high regard and whose three best friends are atheists, I sincerely wish that even more atheists were like you.

Come to think of it, I wish that more religious people had the same level of respect for the secular swing of things that you have as an atheist, for religion.

Click to expand...

I'm an Atheist because I believe in everything except an all-loving God who wants to beat me up after I'm dead so that I will behave while I'm alive.

Maxx said:

I'm an Atheist because I believe in everything except an all-loving God who wants to beat me up after I'm dead so that I will behave while I'm alive.

Click to expand...

I never believed in a god like that when I was monotheistic.

Maxx said:

I'm an Atheist because I believe in everything except an all-loving God who wants to beat me up after I'm dead so that I will behave while I'm alive.

Click to expand...

It is important to distinguish belief in God/s in general, from belief in a specific God/s which other human beings claim to know the will of.

To take the deist stance, and argue that God set the universe in motion, does not in any way force you to accept someone else's conception of a vengeful God.

Mr. Anonymous said:

It is important to distinguish belief in God/s in general, from belief in a specific God/s which other human beings claim to know the will of.

To take the deist stance, and argue that God set the universe in motion, does not in any way force you to accept someone else's conception of a vengeful God.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't give these nuances much thought: if One God is so full of Love that he wants to beat me up after I'm dead so that I will be nice while I'm alive -- I say, forget that stuff, who wants waste time sorting out an infinite pack of infinitely powerful psychotics? -- Not me. So I'm an atheist and I try to think well of all the Gods I don't believe in, since (let's face it), the chance they are going to beat me up after I'm dead is less than zero, even if they do Love me.

As I see it, philosophy and religion are trying to answer the same two questions: "What is the purpose of life?" and "How should we live?"

But it's impossible to answer those questions without also considering basic questions about the universe like "Where did we come from?" "Where do we go when we die?" and "Who/What is the arbiter of morality?" These questions are of course the province of religion, so I believe it's impossible to completely divorce your philosophy from your religious worldview (and I include atheistic worldviews in that because they still try to answer those questions).

Maxx, follow me for a bit. This is the sort of argument you're making. While you are of course entitled to your beliefs, it's not really very logical.

- I don't believe in candies, because I believe in everything except a candy bar that has the magical power to turn people from cranky old guys into relaxed teens (as seen on a snicker's commercial.)

- There's a distinction we ought to make, between not believing in what one commercial tells you about a specific candy, and not believing in candies in general.

- Well, I don't give these nuances much thought: if One candy is so good at quenching hunger that I have to keep eating the damn thing to stop from turning into some cranky old dude -- I say, forget that stuff, who wants waste time sorting out an infinite pack of infinitely undesirable possibilities relating to what happens when we go for a bit without eating them -- Not me. So I don't believe in candies and I try to think well of all the candies I don't believe in, since (let's face it), the chance that I'm going to turn into some cranky old dude if I don't eat them is less than zero, even if they are really good at quenching hunger.

Mr. Anonymous said:

Maxx, follow me for a bit. This is the sort of argument you're making. While you are of course entitled to your beliefs, it's not really very logical.

- I don't believe in candies, because I believe in everything except a candy bar that has the magical power to turn people from cranky old guys into a relaxed teens (as seen on a snicker's commercial.)

- There's a distinction we ought to make, between not believing in what one commercial tells you about a specific candy, and not believing in candies in general.

- Well, I don't give these nuances much thought: if One candy is so good at quenching hunger that I have to keep eating the damn thing to stop from turning into some cranky old dude -- I say, forget that stuff, who wants waste time sorting out an infinite pack of infinitely undesirable possibilities relating to what happens when we go for a bit without eating them -- Not me. So I don't believe in candies and I try to think well of all the candies I don't believe in, since (let's face it), the chance that I'm going to turn into some cranky old dude if I don't eat them is less than zero, even if they are really good at quenching hunger.

Click to expand...

Except that one can actually observe candy, which is more than I can say for that touchingly wonderful Being who loves me and wants to beat me up after I'm dead just so that I'll behave while I'm alive.

Similarly: suppose everyone burned their ears off because it would keep them from getting beaten up after they were dead. Suppose I did not burn my ears off.