What is the Difference Between Religion and Spiritual Philosophy?

[ages]

@BestGuessYet

@ages

Will you provide some examples please?

Tribal thinking, religious wars, political extremism.

Did your ‘it’ word refer to ‘Certainty of knowledge’?

If yes, then what example of ‘Certainty of knowledge’, created and/or caused ‘tribal thinking’, ‘religious wars’, and ‘political extremism’?

@BestGuessYet

People justifying their awful behavior because they are soldiers of the One True God.

What do you ‘try to’ ‘justify’ your awful behavior on, exactly?

Or, like every other adult here who believes that they also ‘do not do any awful behavior’, and as every one of them has also “justified” to “themselves” that they are doing what is ‘necessary’ and for the good or betterment, is ‘this’ what you do in ‘your belief’ that you do not do any ‘awful behavior’ too?

[Scorpion]

Religion and philosophy make each other respectable according to a scientist. Asinus asinum fricat.

[Wayfarer]

@Hanover

The material world is not universally seen as a place to escape from or beneath the spiritual world. Embodiment can have value spirituality alone does not.

In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one’s way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its…justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras […] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. … We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who is life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man.— Schopenhauer’s Compass, Urs App

[Thrifclyfe]

Per the title: A religion is an organized system of beliefs and practices designed to facilitate closeness to the divine, usually within a structured community, whereas a spiritual philosophy is a system of thought that tries to understand the nature of the human spirit.

[Amity]

@JACK

I began my own philosophical journey from the basis of trying to understand religious thinking, especially in the form of Catholicism.

Yes, I wonder if most people start a kind of philosophical questioning from listening to or reading the stories told in childhood, even if they don’t recognise it as such. Or even as ‘spiritual’.

Some logical types would probably scoff at being described so. Not in their vocabulary. Especially, when it comes to consciousness.

@JACK

In questioning the distinction between religion and spirituality I am wondering about underlying aspects, especially mind, consciousness and spirit.

You ask about the difference between religion and spiritual philosophy. Inner and outer realities. Truths in knowledge and understanding.

Your questions and responses are fascinating. I find myself nodding in agreement and then scowling a little at some. All are thought-provoking.

A few of my morning thoughts, sans definitions:

Religion is about establishing the Word, the Truth and Life as told in the Books of the Bible (or such like).

The Absolute Power of a God (the Creator) to reveal in an omniscient way what is part of every questioning and questionable human culture and society. To regulate correct behaviour, internally and externally.
Perhaps to conceal as well as reveal.

As far as my understanding goes, Spiritual Philosophy offers diverse ways of living. It doesn’t depend on a religious institution but an open-minded variety of the non-religious.

That is not to say that a person’s original religious beliefs do not have an influence. Philosophy clearly explores all of this.

I think the ways of exploration matter. Back to words.

Philosophy and Literature use words and concepts to show aspects of humanity and beyond. Different kinds of ‘reality’.

The power lies in and with people to reveal small, everyday truths in awe-inspiring and enchanting ways. Perhaps also to conceal…in a creative mystery.

So, both Religion and Spiritual Philosophy use language to share ideas of world perception and understanding. The difference lies in power and control.

Words show our connection or disconnection in belonging or not. Our tangled relationship of how we are in the world.

Words can stay with us, some change, some disappear. Perhaps other connections will keep them alive.

I think of images and sounds in a bright constellation of stories and stars.

Our Creativity.

And, sorry, but I’ve been influenced by the power of @Baden’s EKM!
An Enzymatic Knowledge Machine - General Philosophy - The Philosophy Forum

[Hanover]

I just cited a counterexample though, so if Schopenhauer has asserted all religions believe the earthly is a lower prison from which we await our release into heaven, he’s just wrong.

[BestGuessYet]

@ages

The actual Truth is God reveals Itself, to ‘you’, if, and when, ‘you’ have been and are ‘prepared’ for Its revelation and coming.

May I ask where you found this actual Truth?

So far as I understand, there are three main ways: 1) you figured it out from evidence and reasoning, 2) a prophet told you, 3) you received revelation directly from God.

Or would you describe it a different way?

[BestGuessYet]

@ages

Or, like every other adult here who believes that they also ‘do not do any awful behavior’, and as every one of them has also “justified” to “themselves” that they are doing what is ‘necessary’ and for the good or betterment, is ‘this’ what you do in ‘your belief’ that you do not do any ‘awful behavior’ too?

I am afraid I’m having some difficulty feeling confident that I understand your language. For example, is there a difference in meaning between your single quote marks and the double ones?

[ages]

@BestGuessYet

@ages

The actual Truth is God reveals Itself, to ‘you’, if, and when, ‘you’ have been and are ‘prepared’ for Its revelation and coming.

May I ask where you found this actual Truth?

From Experience.

@BestGuessYet

So far as I understand, there are three main ways: 1) you figured it out from evidence and reasoning, 2) a prophet told you, 3) you received revelation directly from God.

Or would you describe it a different way?

I would describe it a different way.

By being totally Honest, about all of our wrongdoings, truly Open about seeking out how to change for the better, and by seriously Wanting to change for the better, and more so for children’s sake rather than one’s own sake, then that is HOW ‘we’ find and know the actual irrefutable Truth of the meaningful things, in Life.

[ages]

@BestGuessYet

@ages

Or, like every other adult here who believes that they also ‘do not do any awful behavior’, and as every one of them has also “justified” to “themselves” that they are doing what is ‘necessary’ and for the good or betterment, is ‘this’ what you do in ‘your belief’ that you do not do any ‘awful behavior’ too?

I am afraid I’m having some difficulty feeling confident that I understand your language.

Okay, and fair enough.

@BestGuessYet

For example, is there a difference in meaning between your single quote marks and the double ones?

Yes.
Single quotes are where the words or terms need to be discussed first, before ‘the other’ will Truly understand what is being meant, exactly.
Double quotation marks are for words or terms that do not or could not actually exist.

And, thank you very, very much for the open-ended clarifying questions.

Which is a sign of real openness, which is what True intelligence really is.

Also, thank you for NOT claiming those ‘quote marks’ are so-called scare quotes, which some people tell me that they are. And, even after I have informed them that I had not intended them to be so-called scare quotes in any way at all.

[BestGuessYet]

@ages

From Experience.

Well, that would mean that ‘actual Truths’ vary from person to person, wouldn’t it, depending on that person’s experience?

@ages

By being totally Honest, about all of our wrongdoings, truly Open about seeking out how to change for the better, and by seriously Wanting to change for the better, and more so for children’s sake rather than one’s own sake, then that is HOW ‘we’ find and know the actual irrefutable Truth of the meaningful things, in Life.

It seems reasonable.

[BestGuessYet]

@ages

Also, thank you for NOT claiming those ‘quote marks’ are so-called scare quotes, which some people tell me that they are. And, even after I have informed them that I had not intended them to be so-called scare quotes in any way at all.

You’re welcome. I will admit that I read them as scare quotes at first, but then I thought I felt some kind of pattern.

Anyway, I’m afraid I am a lazy person. The main reason I don’t read other thinkers is that it’s such a chore to learn their language, and I prefer to read for joy than for work, whenever possible.

I’m saying that you may have a fine language, but I may not have the time to learn it in depth.

[180Proof]

@Hanover

if Schopenhauer has asserted all religions believe the earthly is a lower prison from which we await our release into heaven, he’s just wrong.

Why do you believe this?

[Hanover]

My quote above to @Wayfarer. The rabbi who wept on his deathbed because he could no longer perform mitzvot. The earthly world isn’t lower. It fulfills a divine purpose in ways the heavens don’t.

[Wayfarer]

But that passage ‘in the afterlife you cannot gain anything anymore’ might reflect the fact that there is nothing further to be gained. That gain and loss are only the concerns of worldly beings.

[ages]

@BestGuessYet

@ages

From Experience.

Well, that would mean that ‘actual Truths’ vary from person to person, wouldn’t it, depending on that person’s experience?

Not at all. What it actually means is that ‘actual Truths’ are found in what ‘we’ ALL could agree with and accept, which would all depend upon our Past Experiences, individually and collectively.
See, it is ‘our’ common or shared Past Experiences where the actual Truth of things comes from and is found, or revealed.

There are what I call ‘truths’, which are personal, or varied from person to person, then there are ‘Truths’, which are what everyone ‘could’ agree with and accept. I say, ‘could’, because some people like to disagree for just the sack of disagreeing.

And example would be, the ‘truth’ to some people is ‘we’ need money to live, whereas the ‘actual Truth’ is ‘we’ do not. Which is what ALL people could agree with and accept. The fact that ‘we’, human beings, have lived for tens, or hundreds of thousands, or for millions of years (depending on one’s own personal ‘truth’ about how long human beings have been living for), without money. A human being also will not “die” without money like they would without food, water, or air for example.
So, to differiante between 'truths, which are just agreed with and accepted by some personal only or varied from person to person perspectives, from the ‘actual Truth’, which everyone could agree with and accept, is by just ‘knowing’, for sure, that ‘this view’ is something absolutely everyone could agree with and accept.

[ages]

@BestGuessYet

@ages

Also, thank you for NOT claiming those ‘quote marks’ are so-called scare quotes, which some people tell me that they are. And, even after I have informed them that I had not intended them to be so-called scare quotes in any way at all.

You’re welcome. I will admit that I read them as scare quotes at first, but then I thought I felt some kind of pattern.

Great observation and recognition. It is very rare talent indeed, in the days when this is being written. Also, and by the way, i have never even heard of the term scare quotes before being a philosophy forum.

@BestGuessYet

Anyway, I’m afraid I am a lazy person. The main reason I don’t read other thinkers is that it’s such a chore to learn their language, and I prefer to read for joy than for work, whenever possible.

I’m saying that you may have a fine language, but I may not have the time to learn it in depth.

Totally understandable and not an issue at all. In the days when this is being written, there are not many adults left who have the ‘time’ the interest, and the curiosity as well to listen to, hear out, recognise, and understand so-called “others”. Also, because they were not listened to, heard, recognised, and understood for who ‘they’ are, when ‘they’ were children, ‘they’ also never learnt how to Truly “listen to” and ‘hear’ “others” in depth and fully either.

So, again, totally understandable. I have yet to find an adult with the time, and the interest, and the curiosity, and I am still only in the process of learning how to communicate and be fully understood anyway.

When, and if, I ever do, then I will be able to write in ‘a way’ or in ‘a language’ that can and will be fully understood by human beings.

[BestGuessYet]

@ages

There are what I call ‘truths’, which are personal, or varied from person to person, then there are ‘Truths’, which are what everyone ‘could’ agree with and accept. I say, ‘could’, because some people like to disagree for just the sack of disagreeing.

Well, I myself enjoy disagreement. I can only grow my worldview by testing it.

As for people agreeing, I think all we have is language, and language is necessarily ambiguous. So it’s hard for me to imagine everyone agreeing on a particular proposition, much less a universe of propositions.

[Hanover]

@Wayfarer

But that passage ‘in the afterlife you cannot gain anything anymore’ might reflect the fact that there is nothing further to be gained. That gain and loss are only the concerns of worldly beings.

Assuming that true, how does that affect my response to @180Proof where I was pointing out that heaven is not universally seen a freeing from a wordly prison?

You would experience a closeness to god not experienced in the earthly world under this theology (The Afterlife | Aish), but that doesn’t amount to the characterization that all religion speaks of heaven as a release from the wordly prison.

[Wayfarer]

@Hanover

that doesn’t amount to the characterization that all religion speaks of heaven as a release from the wordly prison.

Sure. But then, I’m not necessarily persuaded by every belief that has been entertained by one or another religion. Schopenhauer expresses something I do believe, and it’s also characteristic of what he says is ‘Christianity properly understood’: the world as a ‘vale of tears’ from which one is to be saved by faith. Which is not too far remote from the linked article on ‘the afterlife’! (Personally, I’m terrified of ‘the second video’.)