Philosophy vs. Religion

[Cthulhu]

Are they both trying to achieve the same ends but with different tools?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Peter1469]

I think so.

[Standing Wolf]

Many aspects of philosophy more closely resemble a science - in the study of Logic, for instance. Religion, almost by definition, is not similarly constrained; magical thinking, mythology and doctrines based on nothing more than tradition and wishful thinking are part and parcel of most religious systems. As a consequence, I think philosophy seeks to explain why people act as they do, and perhaps how they should act differently - but it's done with an eye toward the observable universe; most religions also claim to answer those same questions, but are almost entirely "faith based" - meaning that the purest form of worship and obedience is that which arises entirely without empirical evidence. So, yes - same aim, very different tools.

[Chris]

Question is too big for both can be all over the map in reasonableness to wackiness.

Generally, you might say the basis of religion is faith in God. Now I would say along with many a theologian you cannot know God and argue agnostically, therefore, there's no reasonable basis for believing. But that misses the point of faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Generally, you might say the basis of philosophy is reason, but more accurately faith in reason for reason is its own bootstrap. And there's certainly more to life than mere reason. And we all know a great many faithful people who are reasonable.

[rcfieldz]

Philosophy has no miracles.

[Chris]

Philosophy has no miracles.

And no hope.

[Vision]

Many aspects of philosophy more closely resemble a science - in the study of Logic, for instance.

Religion, almost by definition, is not similarly constrained; magical thinking, mythology and doctrines based on nothing more than tradition and wishful thinking are part and parcel of most religious systems.

That would be rather incorrect. Magical or "mythic-level" thinking is a state of human development which exists independent of culture or it's particular ethnocentric definitions.

On a mythic level of thought, abstract concepts such as "atoms", "kosmos" "God-consciousness", etc might be explained to audiences with icongraphic depictions.

Such as a drawing of an "atom", or a drawing of a bearded man meant to represent a culture's popular depiction of God-consciousness. Despite scholars of texts such as the Upanishads, or Newtonian physics understanding that abstract entities such as atoms, God, mathematics, and otherwise cannot be viewed with a naked eye to begin with.

Likewise, your understanding of the word "mythology" seems a bit archaic. As postmodernist scholars have aptly demonstrated, all narratives, are a form of "mythology", or interpretation of facts relayed to a target audience at a certain level...

The only difference is which myths are viewed to be credible enough by the masses to be taken as more or less "true", and which one's aren't...

In practice, most "popular science" narratives believed by the masses - and are the same "mythic-level" thinking as mythic-level religion, such as the stories of the Illiad which were likewise intended for mass audiences, as opposed to scholars - just with more of a "sci-fi" flare rather than a "fantasy" flare, despite many being closer to a Marvin the Martian cartoon than actual science.

The scholar of mythology Joseph Campbell is one who understands how to use the term "mythology" in an academic way.

As a consequence, I think philosophy seeks to explain why people act as they do, and perhaps how they should act differently - but it's done with an eye toward the observable universe

Given that "philosophy" hasn't been given a workable definition, it would be hard to argue this, but philosophy as a whole, deals with both observable and non-observable facets of the Kosmos, if one uses the broadest definition and includes disciplines such as logic, which deals with patterns, as opposed to observable constructs - similar to pure mathematics.

most religions also claim to answer those same questions, but are almost entirely "faith based"

As mentioned above, "faith-based" in the erroneous sense that you're using it refers to mythic-level thinking, and is independent of whatever religion or "status quo" a culture has embraced.

A person who hasn't evolved to the maturity stage above mythic-level thinking believes whatever narrative happens to be the status quo of their culture on "blind" faith.

Much as how a child at around the age of 7 who learns about theories such as gravity, evolution, or otherwise - if asked to explain why the theory is true, would likely merely defer to his parent or teacher - showing the theory was accepted on blind faith - not anything the child in question had actually observed or inferred them-self.

Upon maturing to a higher level, ideally the individual begins to question the theory, and understand its strengths and limitations through inquiry as opposed to "blind faith" in authority figures.

Meaning that the purest form of worship and obedience is that which arises entirely without empirical evidence.

The purest form of anything is that which arises entirely without externalization, much as "pure" music theory arises before any composition thereof, and "pure" mathematics prior to any attempt at calculation.

So that statement shows some misunderstanding about what "empirical" means within actual contextualization.