What is worse philosophy or religion?

Watch
Martian872
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Ethically and Morally speaking which of these two spheres of thought is the most harmful?
0
reply
fandom-queen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
i feel like religion creates more of a divide. I'd say religion.
0
reply
banterboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Well, empirically, obviously religion causes more harm (though i think it's a boring point to make these days).

But more importantly, why the **** is philosophy even in this thread? Philosophers are just academics concerned with the technical problems of their field. It's mostly ignored except when it has to do with some scientific subject (happens an awful lot) so i have no idea why you think it's some sort of global danger.
1
reply
Martian872
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
True they say that most European wars are due to religion, but that's ********, what is really responsible is greed and resource acquisition. If Spain found a massive oil field in its back yard, it would become a target for any nation that needs oil.

In terms of morality religion is merely the justification of actions, for example the crusades were justified by the Popes because it was not a sin to kill a Muslim/Saracen as they were infidels. This neatly avoided God's commandment on killing/murder. Fortunately Salah al din or Saladin was not so libertarian about his own beliefs or I suspect the whole saga would have been extremely bloody.

However the question is not is x intrinsically more y than z, it is neutral in effect and just asking given human nature is J or k or I more x?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAh78K_hqVU



King Baldwin vs Saladin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ySgb8pqXzM


"As-Salaam-Alaikum"
1
reply
Tamuna10
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
They both are actually good and essential to live a good life, harmful is if they are used as weapons or masks for evil purposes... such as current wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
1
reply
Martian872
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
Like anything in the hands of less moral people they can be used to excuse all sorts of horrors. But that is not the question, the question is more basic than that science, religion, philosophy, which sphere of thought is most harmful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgejSCHRi8

Take the Death Ray for example...

"The Doom melon!?"

LMAO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOBhf8f7cXM

"Do you see this?!"

"it's your hat..?"

"What kind of hat?"
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Martian872)
True they say that most European wars are due to religion, but that's ********, what is really responsible is greed and resource acquisition. If Spain found a massive oil field in its back yard, it would become a target for any nation that needs oil.

In terms of morality religion is merely the justification of actions, for example the crusades were justified by the Popes because it was not a sin to kill a Muslim/Saracen as they were infidels. This neatly avoided God's commandment on killing/murder. Fortunately Salah al din or Saladin was not so libertarian about his own beliefs or I suspect the whole saga would have been extremely bloody.

However the question is not is x intrinsically more y than z, it is neutral in effect and just asking given human nature is J or k or I more x?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAh78K_hqVU



King Baldwin vs Saladin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ySgb8pqXzM


"As-Salaam-Alaikum"
Your history is a bit mistaken. Though I do not deny what some may have thought personally, but which pope said killing a muslim was not a sin?

Crusades were defensive based and claimed justifiable because they defended lands and people in and around Jerusalem from an invading force.


(Original post by Martian872)
Like anything in the hands of less moral people they can be used to excuse all sorts of horrors. But that is not the question, the question is more basic than that science, religion, philosophy, which sphere of thought is most harmful?
Considering what is more harmful, I guess we are setting aside the fact that science and philosophy are studies and inherently neutral. Where as religion is one of the three to actually take a stance based on philosophical understanding as well as spiritual intervention. The latter being more forthright yep. Though religion could be argued as a neutral as well.

What standards are portrayed or considered in order to come to what already seems to be a already decided upon conclusion?
0
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Religion is poisonous when mixed with politics. Philosophy can be good or bad.. can't really say because with religion you think of popular ones, with philosophy you wouldn't base it around a few philosophers since we all have our own philosophy.
0
reply
will'o'wisp
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Martian872)
Ethically and Morally speaking which of these two spheres of thought is the most harmful?
huh?

Religion is defo most harmful, and backwards.

Still, it can be adapted.

Anyway i'm pretty sure philosophy just looks at the problem and asks question about stuff.
0
reply
prazzyjazzy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Martian872)
Ethically and Morally speaking which of these two spheres of thought is the most harmful?
Religion. But your question doesn't make sense.
0
reply
Martian872
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by prazzyjazzy)
Religion. But your question doesn't make sense.
In what way, and if it didn't make sense how did you answer it?
0
reply
Martian872
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by da_nolo)
Your history is a bit mistaken. Though I do not deny what some may have thought personally, but which pope said killing a muslim was not a sin?

Crusades were defensive based and claimed justifiable because they defended lands and people in and around Jerusalem from an invading force.



Considering what is more harmful, I guess we are setting aside the fact that science and philosophy are studies and inherently neutral. Where as religion is one of the three to actually take a stance based on philosophical understanding as well as spiritual intervention. The latter being more forthright yep. Though religion could be argued as a neutral as well.

What standards are portrayed or considered in order to come to what already seems to be a already decided upon conclusion?
You do know of course that is complete *******s?

You're relating propaganda as if it was history!

Pope Urban II said when asked about the commandment though shalt not kill or do murder which was of great concern to Christian Knights, in order that we may save the Holy land it is not a sin to do murder if those who die are infidels, I am paraphrasing but that is pretty much it. Otherwise how in good conscience could the Holy land have been attacked? Logically if you cannot kill or do murder, how is it possible to save the holy land from Saracen invaders? How is it even possible to defend Byzantium against the "Turks", or indeed any land that was Christian and not Muslim? Not only that there were not just 1 crusade but many, I am pretty sure not all of them were defensive.

Jerusalem was occupied by Jews, Christians and Muslims and the surrounding land was not in any way occupied, nor did it need defending, it did however need to be secured against invaders in case holy sites were desecrated, but if you know anything about Islam that was a needless fear.In fact because enshrined in Islam is a respect for other religions holy sites and their priests or whatnot. The Pope was concerned about the schizm between the two holy cities of Byzantium and Rome, rather than Jerusalem which although of concern was secondary, he had hoped to repair the rift between orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that had grown up after The council of Nicea and the faithful disagreed over the nature of the holy trinity, semantics, but important at the time. Was he Divine, mortal, or both or neither it was hotly contended, this was to prove futile.

Orthodoxy said the Pope should not be the head of the Church, that was Jesus I am of course glossing over a few hundred years of history but essentially it was a power struggle that caused the rift ie who was the Churches leader? Roman Catholicism obviously said the Pope was the head of the true Christian Church. But the Eastern religious people slowly became isolated from Rome and so said there should be no head who does not represent Orthodox concerns begged to differ, so they went their separate ways.This schizm proved as intractible as that of protestant and Catholic, but that as they say is history.


And I am not dressing it up literally that is what he said. In order to justify the war The Pope had to say that infidels (or non Christians) being killed or dying did not count as a breach of the commandment on murder or killing. It's not even contentious it's just logically obvious. Of course it doesn't in anyway explain why Knights would murder or kill in the first place, but then Christianity has ever been a religion that hypocrites follow. NowI am not saying that they defied Jesus or indeed any of Gods words, but you do have to say that their interpretation of his words, is very contentious, and pretty much sophistry.


Of course some of the atrocities that were done by overzealous knights are by the by, but let's just say it was not Christian, and leave it at that. :P


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_II

"
"I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it"

Pope Urban II.

Let me iterate though that these wars were not primarily motivated by religion they were political wars as almost all wars are. Religion just justified the ends if not the means as it is wont to do.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Martian872)
Ethically and Morally speaking which of these two spheres of thought is the most harmful?
Religion, obviously. Philosophers merely pose and put forward answers to questions. They do not seek to force their views on anyone else, nor to influence their behaviour.

Religions, on the other hand, usually actively seek to control or influence the behaviour of their adherents on the basis of superstitious beliefs, to spread the religion (often by force), to indoctrinate children into the religion and, often, to control the behaviour of those who are not adherents of the religion. This is all utterly immoral and unacceptable.
0
reply
Martian872
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Good bloke)
Religion, obviously. Philosophers merely pose and put forward answers to questions. They do not seek to force their views on anyone else, nor to influence their behaviour.

Religions, on the other hand, usually actively seek to control or influence the behaviour of their adherents on the basis of superstitious beliefs, to spread the religion (often by force), to indoctrinate children into the religion and, often, to control the behaviour of those who are not adherents of the religion. This is all utterly immoral and unacceptable.

True but many of the greatest philosophers were religious or at least maintain the facade of neutral on certain issues especially of faith, can we discount them because of this, or would it be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Thomas Aquinas springs to mind. It could be argued that religion in fact was the "founded by faith", and asking questions such as free will in God's omniscience and so on.

To iterate "Philosophy in general has to remain neutral", where as religion can say whatever it likes, this does not make philosophy fundamentally more important at least intrinsically, or indeed better per se, but it does make it more dynamic.
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Martian872)
You do know of course that is complete *******s?
You're relating propaganda as if it was history!
says the person promoting his own propaganda.

Pope Urban II said when asked about the commandment though shalt not kill or do murder which was of great concern to Christian Knights, in order that we may save the Holy land it is not a sin to do murder if those who die are infidels, I am paraphrasing but that is pretty much it.
Paraphrasing what? in order for anyone to know what anyone says in history there must be some documentation of that saying. Oral tradition may work fine for a small period of time between a relatively small group of people but we have surpassed that.

Also, crusades dealt with more than just Holy Land. I would think there be a great generalization to include many portions of Christian lands or once Christian lands.

Otherwise how in good conscience could the Holy land have been attacked?
Here is a video that will help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vae0D4n3O8

Logically if you cannot kill or do murder, how is it possible to save the holy land from Saracen invaders? How is it even possible to defend Byzantium against the "Turks", or indeed any land that was Christian and not Muslim? Not only that there were not just 1 crusade but many, I am pretty sure not all of them were defensive.
1. If you are pretty sure, then you are not sure.
2. There is such a thing as just war. Likewise, violence can lead to good as it may to bad. For example, surgery is a form of violence. For violence is not reserved for aggression and moments of anger. Self defense is found to be just, and this is in part to historical understanding that reflects a Christian moral.

an invading force removes you from your house, killing your kin, and taking your land. Do we not take that land back? Do we not try to stop that invading force from continuing into other lands?


Jerusalem was occupied by Jews, Christians and Muslims and the surrounding land was not in any way occupied, nor did it need defending, it did however need to be secured against invaders in case holy sites were desecrated, but if you know anything about Islam that was a needless fear.
What are you talking about? Islam did not surge from nor begin in Israel. If a militarized presence existed in Jerusalem that was a part of an Islamic state, then that presence would be foreign as much as the roman empire's presence was foreign.

Still can't tell if you are being sarcastic in regards to desecrating holy sites.

"Let them turn their weapons dripping with the blood of their brothers against the enemy of the Christian Faith. Let them-oppressors of orphans and widows, murderers and violators of churches, robbers of the property of others, vultures drawn by the scent of battle—let them hasten, if they love their souls, under their captain Christ to the rescue of Sion." Pope Urban II

http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia...ban-ii-blessed

In fact because enshrined in Islam is a respect for other religions holy sites and their priests or whatnot. The Pope was concerned about the schizm between the two holy cities of Byzantium and Rome, rather than Jerusalem which although of concern was secondary, he had hoped to repair the rift between orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that had grown up after The council of Nicea and the faithful disagreed over the nature of the holy trinity, semantics, but important at the time. Was he Divine, mortal, or both or neither it was hotly contended, this was to prove futile.
Now you yammer on about something unrelated?

I honestly am unsure about the rest of your post. you seem to be in a phase?

]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_II
"I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it"

Pope Urban II.

Let me iterate though that these wars were not primarily motivated by religion they were political wars as almost all wars are. Religion just justified the ends if not the means as it is wont to do.
I don't quite understand.

1. I agree, there may have been more involved with Crusades than just religion. For example, preventing an invading force to continue further into Europe.

2. You provide a link to wiki (which I do not cite) that says, "Christians in the East under siege." which follows what I had stated earlier.

3. The wiki page does not support your earlier statements either. No where do I see that a pope deemed it okay to kill because those they kill are infidels. Your support does not support you.
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Martian872)
Ethically and Morally speaking which of these two spheres of thought is the most harmful?
They're not mutually exclusive, in my opinion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (10)
15.38%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (12)
18.46%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (28)
43.08%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (12)
18.46%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (3)
4.62%

Watched Threads

View All