The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
5 added 702 characters in body
source | link

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. And it is oddly compelling in a way that makes it easy to clip some corners and render it "consistent enough" with many other religions to make it worth keeping around.

Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate where one cultural tradition from another isor the other theology applies do not theirinvolve the whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theologya collection of theologies, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of thatsome theology of the religion. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to thea theology that shapes its details. Hindu philosophy The amalgam of all Hindu theology is Hinduism. Christian philosophy The amalgam of all Christian theology is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism. So theologies can be tied together in complex ways and they can overlap or include large parts of one another.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. And it is oddly compelling in a way that makes it easy to clip some corners and render it "consistent enough" with many other religions to make it worth keeping around.

Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate one cultural tradition from another is not their whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. And it is oddly compelling in a way that makes it easy to clip some corners and render it "consistent enough" with many other religions to make it worth keeping around.

Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate where one or the other theology applies do not involve the whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is a collection of theologies, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of some theology of the religion. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to a theology that shapes its details. The amalgam of all Hindu theology is Hinduism. The amalgam of all Christian theology is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism. So theologies can be tied together in complex ways and they can overlap or include large parts of one another.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

4 added 702 characters in body
source | link

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. Everything And it is oddly compelling in a way that makes it easy to clip some corners and render it "consistent enough" with many other religions to make it worth keeping around.

Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate one cultural tradition from another is not their whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate one cultural tradition from another is not their whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. And it is oddly compelling in a way that makes it easy to clip some corners and render it "consistent enough" with many other religions to make it worth keeping around.

Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate one cultural tradition from another is not their whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

3 added 702 characters in body
source | link

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. Those And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints arethat separate one cultural tradition from another is not thetheir whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. Those constraints are not the whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

I would suggest that religion is an application of philosophy to a given faith or history. And science itself is at root the religion that arises from a faith in naturalism.

We do not disown theologies in philosophy, within their own cultural constraints they are valid philosophy. And all of our very early philosophies were very much associated directly to given quasi-religious notions.

We consider Platonism a philosophy, but beefed up just a little into Neo-Platonism, it is a religion. Was some specific addition between these two somehow the straw that broke the camel's back? No, Platonism is already a sort of personal religion. It just arose out of a single man's head, rather than a cultural tradition. Everything that happens does so in some historical tradition, with some basic set of ultimately un-analyzed assumptions. So in essence systematic philosophy is, as a whole, a collection of ad hoc theologies.

The constraints that separate one cultural tradition from another is not their whole religion, just its central principles or the observed 'facts' of its interpreted history. All the rest of any given religion is theology, or involves more basic philosophy like logic, ethical analysis and ontological exploration applied within the frame of that theology. Even the raw experience of the religion in mysticism or personal investment is really an aesthetic engagement attached to the theology. Hindu philosophy is Hinduism. Christian philosophy is Christianity.

The basic facts cannot be analyzed philosophically, and make up the 'core faith' of the religion, which sets it apart from other religions. But even the process of analyzing and isolating that core is a philosophical endeavor. Not all Christians or Hindus take the same axiomatic base to their overall religion, and not all of those with disjoint core notions would exclude others from the 'big tent' of Christianity or Hinduism.

Science is something that we seem to be able to share across most religions. But that is because all religions have to enclose a philosophy consistent with some contact with natural reality. If the religion just consistently disowns reality (like raw Buddhism), it can get along, but variants of it will arise that do not do so, and those who stick to the anti-realist standards will unconsciously adopt one of those variants to get through life, even while considering it ultimately incorrect.

But at root, there is no reason to have faith in our experience of nature. We just do, because we are animals and animals are natural beings. So the philosophical explorations that arise from that root faith are not in essence different that those of a 'real' religion. They are just much more likely to be consistent with some pocket in each other faith.

2 added 8 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link