🚀 go-pugleaf

[sarge@thirdi.UUCP ]
>I guess the question is whether there *is*  any  legitimate  cri-
>terion  for  distinguishing  between  religion and philosophy. If
>not, then linguistic analysis is  a  form  of  religion  and  Jim
>Jones'  cult was a form of philosophical society. To me it always
>seemed that the use of reason and logic  distinguished  the  two,
>but  I'm  willing  to  bow to someone else's notion if there is a
>better criterion for separating them.

I seem to remember that Jim Jones's cult was actually quite secu-
lar:  a  political movement and a utopian commune posing as reli-
gion to get some breaks; they did not believe in any  deity.  As-
suming  that's  so  - and if not, substituting some other group -
let's apply the criterion of reason and logic. Suppose it  fails.
Does  the movement's unreasonableness qualify it as a religion?
Is any blind faith, however secular, religious? And  is  theology
(often  logical  and rational in its methods) just a branch of
philosophy?

So where's the boundary between religion and philosophy? I  don't
know; both try to make sense of the universe and the human condi-
tion. Religion tends to be more personal and more emotional;  but
it  is  a  difference of degree and of style. Most important dis-
tinctions cut across both religion and philosophy:  e.g.,  dogma-
tism vs. independent inquiry; mysticism vs. rationalism; optimism
vs. pessimism; theism as against deism,  pantheism,  atheism  and
agnosticism.

A comprehensive, emotionally satisfying philosophical  worldview,
imbuing  a  community of followers - such as Marxism, Objectivism
or Buddhism - has the properties of a religion, and, in the  case
of  Buddhism,  has acquired the name, too. Lucretius expounds his
materialism with a truly religious rapture, and  speaks  of  Epi-
curus  as  one does of a prophet and a savior. True, Epicureanism
never grew into an organized religion, but Stoicism,  Cynicism
and Platonism, in a way, did - they were incorporated into Chris-
tianity.

			Jan Wasile, A f