Does the study of religion and philosophy contradict each other?

[FightingFat]

deborahaz:

actually, i think everybody questions the existence of God at some point in their lives. priests included. some only for a nanosecond, and others, perhaps, for months or years.

If there were no questions, it wouldn’t be faith!

 

[anon52328184]

you are so right!!!

 

[Psychotheosophy]

It seems to me that studying the connection between philosophy and theology is a philosophy itself.

Here’s one.

A logical contradiction implies nonexistence. For example, an apple that is not an apple is nothing at all (or, A + (-A) = 0).

Therefore,

If true philosophy seeks to be logical,
And that which is logical seeks existence,
And, as St. Thomas argues, existence is God himself,
Then, true philosophy indirectly seeks God.

So, a philosopher indirectly seeks God, his natural end, as much as he rejects logical contradiction and accepts God as the principle of his logic. (i.e. faith and reason are inseparable).

As Pope John Paul the Great said, “faith without reason is superstition.” However, reason without faith is rationalism. Superstition and rationalism allow us to create our own truth and accept error.

 

[Yaholo]

It seems to me that studying the connection between philosophy and theology is a philosophy itself.

Here’s one.

A logical contradiction implies nonexistence. For example, an apple that is not an apple is nothing at all (or, A + (-A) = 0).

Therefore,

If true philosophy seeks to be logical,
And that which is logical seeks existence,
And, as St. Thomas argues, existence is God himself,
Then, true philosophy indirectly seeks God.

So, a philosopher indirectly seeks God, his natural end, as much as he rejects logical contradiction and accepts God as the principle of his logic. (i.e. faith and reason are inseparable).

As Pope John Paul the Great said, “faith without reason is superstition.” However, reason without faith is rationalism. Superstition and rationalism allow us to create our own truth and accept error.

Awesome! I am going to put this on my blog.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Thanks, but if I made an error somewhere, please let me know.

 

[WindyHair]

does (western) philosophy contradict religion? not necessarily.

does philosophy contradict christianity? yes.

if you are serious about understanding religion, you should study philosophy, history, science and anthropology.

if world is a scary place and you’re afraid of what you might find, i suggest you stay inside your safe cocoon.

if you want your mind to spread its wings, study all the great philosophers.

 

[Joe_5859]

does philosophy contradict christianity? yes.

To the OP: keep in mind that this is coming from someone whose profile lists their occupation as “Vampire hunter”.

Philosophy does not contradict Christianity, although if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

[WindyHair]

To the OP: keep in mind that this is coming from someone whose profile lists their occupation as “Vampire hunter”.

Philosophy does not contradict Christianity, although if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it.

the contradiction has to do with truth.

christianity will teach you truths.
philosophy will teach you untruths.

 

[Joe_5859]

the contradiction has to do with truth.

christianity will teach you truths.
philosophy will teach you untruths.

If that is true (which I don’t think it is, but let’s just say it is), then what exactly is the contradiction? In learning what is not true, you can learn much about what is true. There’s a branch of both logic and theology called apophasis: that is, learning about what something is by first learning about what it is not. It’s like a “process of elimination” approach to reasoning.

Or do you mean that everything one learns in philosophy is not true?

 

[WindyHair]

If that is true (which I don’t think it is, but let’s just say it is), then what exactly is the contradiction? In learning what is not true, you can learn much about what is true. There’s a branch of both logic and theology called apophasis: that is, learning about what something is by first learning about what it is not. It’s like a “process of elimination” approach to reasoning.

Or do you mean that everything one learns in philosophy is not true?

process of elimination only works if you
already know which container it belongs to.

if it’s not a square and not a triangle, is it a moose?
if it’s not blue or red, is it a smelly fart?

so what is truth? if it’s not false then it must be true right?
that is your logic? howabout can something be kinda true?
70% true? can something be false and true at the same time?

example:
if the bible says 9+4=13 is absolutely true,
philosophy will say that is false, 9+4=1 can also be true,
or false.

the bible says then 1+1=2 is absolutely true, no denying it.
it is true for everyone.
philosopy will say 1+1=2, but next year 1+1 can equal 3,
and 4 the year after that.

 

[Joe_5859]

process of elimination only works if you
already know which container it belongs to.

if it’s not a square and not a triangle, is it a moose?
if it’s not blue or red, is it a smelly fart?

so what is truth? if it’s not false then it must be true right?
that is your logic? howabout can something be kinda true?
70% true? can something be false and true at the same time?

example:
if the bible says 9+4=13 is absolutely true,
philosophy will say that is false, 9+4=1 can also be true,
or false.

the bible says then 1+1=2 is absolutely true, no denying it.
it is true for everyone.
philosopy will say 1+1=2, but next year 1+1 can equal 3,
and 4 the year after that.

I’m sorry, but you’ve totally lost me.

 

[WindyHair]

then take a philosophy class.

your understanding is only as good as your vision,
and your vision is only as good as your horizons.

 

[Joe_5859]

then take a philosophy class.

your understanding is only as good as your vision,
and your vision is only as good as your horizons.

If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would see that I have taken half a dozen philosophy classes. I simply don’t follow the point you are trying to make. Are you trying to be intentionally vague?

 

[WindyHair]

If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would see that I have taken half a dozen philosophy classes. I simply don’t follow the point you are trying to make. Are you trying to be intentionally vague?

if you didn’t understand what i was saying,
your teacher didn’t teach u anything about philosophy.

taking “christian philosophy”? sorry but that is not philosophy.
i would ask for my money back.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

process of elimination only works if you
already know which container it belongs to.

if it’s not a square and not a triangle, is it a moose?
if it’s not blue or red, is it a smelly fart?

so what is truth? if it’s not false then it must be true right?
that is your logic? howabout can something be kinda true?
70% true? can something be false and true at the same time?

example:
if the bible says 9+4=13 is absolutely true,
philosophy will say that is false, 9+4=1 can also be true,
or false.

the bible says then 1+1=2 is absolutely true, no denying it.
it is true for everyone.
philosopy will say 1+1=2, but next year 1+1 can equal 3,
and 4 the year after that.

It sounds like Taoism ?

Regardless,
That which is both “true and false” is called a lie.
It is attractive because of that which is true,
and is rejected because of that which is false.

When you say that it is true that a “process of elimination” exists,
Doesn’t your philosophy accept that it exists and does not exist simultaneously?

This may give a person a sense of freedom to define and redefine reality,
because one can choose either.
(e.g. redefine the laws of math)

However, the more changes you make in your beliefs,
make it sound like you’re unable to make a decision.
If you not able to make a decision,
you seem helpless.

This makes your philosophy seem to breed helplessness,
and people may not be attracted to it.

Can you clarify?

 

[anon52328184]

wow, thanks for the warning joe. i didn’t even see his profile.

i would suggest windy hair that you are the one who has wasted their money in philosophy classes.

if you consider yourself a vampire hunter and your interests are skeleton wings, your philosophy classes have led you down the wrong path.

i suggest finding a church, reading the Bible, and going towards the Light and not the Darkness.

i firmly believe in the scripture i have in my signature.

i trust Joe. his posts have been honest and his heart is in the right place.

and i also trust in what the Bible says.

 

[KingAlfred]

i always thought it was odd that so many students studying for the priesthood study philosophy. most people that study philosophy end up questioning the existence of God.

Catholicism was imbedded in much of Greek classical philosophy via Scholasticism, by its worker-intellectuals, ‘The Schoolmen’. The definitive work in that regard is Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas. It’s not all philosophy, but generally Neo-Platonism.

 

[Joe_5859]

wow, thanks for the warning joe. i didn’t even see his profile.

i would suggest windy hair that you are the one who has wasted their money in philosophy classes.

if you consider yourself a vampire hunter and your interests are skeleton wings, your philosophy classes have led you down the wrong path.

i suggest finding a church, reading the Bible, and going towards the Light and not the Darkness.

i firmly believe in the scripture i have in my signature.

i trust Joe. his posts have been honest and his heart is in the right place.

and i also trust in what the Bible says.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Deborah! I’m not sure what WindyHair’s purpose on this thread is. He’s probably just trying to make waves. It’s probably best to just ignore him.

 

[anon52328184]

hopefully, he won’t return! i don’t think what he has to offer is pertinent
to my question.

the philosophy he is promoting doesn’t seem appealing to me.

 

[anon52328184]

Catholicism was imbedded in much of Greek classical philosophy via Scholasticism, by its worker-intellectuals, ‘The Schoolmen’. The definitive work in that regard is Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas. It’s not all philosophy, but generally Neo-Platonism.

thanks king alfred, i think i have heard of that work Summa Theologica.
i will have to look up Scholasticism.