Philosophy is better than Religion for wisdom and morality.
Debate Rounds (3)
Doubt leads to improved reasoning, self-correcting and open-minded to the ever-changing environment of human history.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Religion is the love of hate. Religion is a two-faced preacher who leads a hypocritical double life.
Philosophy is adaptable. Religion is out of time.
Anything religion can do, philosophy does with more peace, insight and more stability. Jesus' parables had a metaphysical nature. Sure, the parables were a moral lesson, but morality in a religious context is imprisoned to that cell of stubbornness.
Without Plato's theory of forms, Jesus' parables have no hope of being deciphered. Metaphors are encrypted logic. Philosophers are sophisticated hackers penetrating God's mind whereas religion is a virus gone viral.
First off I would like to recognize many of Pro's many objective terms such as "hate", "love" , and "wisdom" as, even according to Socrates, terms such as have no one accepted truth value, even if there is technically an absolute truth value that is being ignored (ex. a painting or music that most people enjoy but some people still refuse to appreciate). Religion is defined as "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods" according to the Merriam Webster dictionary. While there are certainly religious groups that believe in violence (ISIS members[not necessarily all Muslims] or Aztec human sacrifice), not all, and in fact most religious groups believe that "good" not only for their deity, but also simply to protect order in a set government.
May I also note that calling religion things like "aggressive" and "stubborn" are once again objective terms. Things such as Birth control (pro choice vs pro life) and Gun control have a similar goal of protecting order and preserving domestic peace, but have completely opposite means of doing so.
Another minor point that I'd like to add is how you claim that Religion is hypocritical. Keep in mind that this is a debate on religion vs theology and not things such as Darwinian evolution or other scientific theories. Let me quote Socrates again, stating that "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.". This is a philosophical statement claiming what at meets the eye an oxymoron. However, in reality, this sentence has a much larger truth value than what it seems to be, and does not contradict itself. In the same sense, many biblical writers had used symbolism that seems to be contradicting itself at first, but in reality does not.
I would also like to put out that the majority of pro's points are solely against Christianity, and not against religion as a whole. While quoting certain religious areas are certainly good for adding sources, this debate almost seems completely towards Christianity, and should have possibly been labeled "Philosophy vs Christianity".
It may also be in pro's interests to blame religion for many of the world's issues right now. However, this is untrue. Aristotle stated that "half of the human soul is divided to have the same natural passion and desire as animals in the wild". Animals have the built in desire to survive and become superior. As a result, people use religion as a means to justify their human nature. Even if you take away all religion, people will still find reasons to justify violence, as it is just a part of human nature. Trotsky and Stalin, two communists in the Russian revolution, both denounced religion, yet they still led to violence simply due to their differing philosophies and ideas of how the country was to be run.
Since pro seems to have a decent understanding of Christianity, so I will start there. Jesus of Nazareth stated to "give caesar what is caesar's, and to give to God what is God's. This means that while Christians are to follow the ways of order and government established in that area and actually makes it not only not outdated but actually a very good preserver of peace. Buddhists believe in the "Four Noble truths" which state that suffering is inevitable and we should learn to be grateful for what we have. How then, can religion be blamed for violent issues if religion preaches of being content of one's self and preserving order?
Many religions date back to even before the first big philosophers such as plato, and were completely separated from them.
Also, The Theory of forms could still exist even without discovery, such as rain had still fallen before humans could interpret it as evaporation. It does not mean that it is not there, only that we do not know what it is or of its existence. Many native american stories that were clearly interpreted by its followers come way before Plato's theory of forms. This means that even if they had not been taught, Jesus's parables would still hold a higher impact on one's reality, even if they didn't realize it. If anything, i believe that this theory does not prove philosophy's dominance, but instead it's possible coexistence.
Finally I would just like to once again say thank you, and that I look forward to having a really good debate with you.
Now, I would like to expound on my views of a superior source of human wisdom, philosophy as opposed to religion. Religion is the assumption that God communicates with man. Philosophy is the bread crumbs that God leaves man to consume. The Word of God is symbolic, which is metaphysical as well. Religion needs philosophy for the deciphering of this. Philosophy doesn't need religion, though.
A cost-benefit point I would like to mention is that philosophy costs nothing other than the courage to speak your mind and the willingness to be wrong, which is more than can be said for religion. Religion cannot afford to be wrong, because its foundation is the questionable existence of a Supreme Being. Religion is gambling with resources it cannot refund. Philosophy and religion intertwine because of a metaphysical assertion that empiricism is not a complete reality. But philosophy has provided more insight into the possibilities of a transcending reality than religion. Religion doesn't stop at axioms, it arrogantly asserts that God exists and condemns the "heretics."
As for incorporating more religions than Christianity, I do so hesitantly because self-criticism is more objective than attacking other faiths. I could do that all day, but I prefer to clean house before jumping the gun. Then again, being unfair to my own faith is still biased. So, with delicacy I shall scrutinize a similar faith, Mormonism. Joseph Smith's history is not a well-kept secret. Killed by a mob, the dubious leader accused of false prophecy has a remaining legacy that exploits the nature of religion for vice. Racism, misogyny, polygamy and more are careless flaws that were perpetuated by Smith's project. Either a lord, lunatic or a liar as optioned by C.S. Lewis, Smith has almost accomplished all three, one in his followers and the two by everyone else. This irresponsible attempt at replicating Jesus' holiness may or may not have inspired copycats afterward. Jesus definitely inspired Smith, mostly in a negative way. Unacceptable.
Catholicism: crusades, pedophilia, Holocaust. Those three failures of the Catholic Church should have eradicated it from humanity's tolerance. But as long as people need comfort, as if comfort was the answer to life.
Philosophical extremists don't exist. They don't take the burden of proof that seriously.
First I would like to re-present my idea of human nature. According to philosophy, most religion, and even science, humans have a built in superiority complex to them. It is a part of who we are. It is incorrect to blame religion for violence and aggression because that is not one following the religion, but instead making religion justify wrongful actions. Most of the time those people are even breaking the beliefs of that religion.
In the end, this whole debate comes down to what is philosophy and what is religion. According to you, both philosophy and religion are of the creation of man. Man will always have its different beliefs between each person, as man will never be united under one single philosophy or religion. There were always be quarrels between man and its beliefs, because that is simply the nature of man.
From a religious perspective, Religion is the nature of God, which is perfect. Let's use the example you gave; The Catholic Church. According to the belief, it is the nature of God, but run by man. And because man is involved, it will have mistakes, simply because of the nature of man. All the examples given by pro are even people breaking the laws of the religion itself, and wrongfully using religion as a way to seem justified.
A Philosophy is simply a way of thinking and trying to find the very foundation of a field of knowledge. Every act of violence ever committed on earth was committed because someone had a way of thinking, and they believed that they were justified. Not all of these were justified by religion, but all of them had their own way of thinking.
As for Abolishing the Catholic Church, it is simply just not possible without violence, if at all. The church has been around for over 2,000 years, and probably will continue to for a very long time. Like a person with a cold, you can't simply kill a person for having a cold. The Church, like all other organizations with humans involved, has mistakes, but that doesn't make any one superior. It just means that they are all run by man. While there are hundreds if not thousands of religions, no two people think exactly the same, and because of such, every single person on earth will have his or her own philosophy on the world, and there will always be a conflict.
Philosophy has the ability to practice what it preaches with less complications than religion. Philosophical denominations or schools of thought, whatever the equivalent may be, do not have as much personal division or conflict as religion does. The afterlife is not the priority of philosophy, so the "urgency" is not inherent in philosophical discourse. This immature sense of urgency derives from the expectations of the endtimes. These "endtimes" have been propagandized for millennia. It drives evil men to abuse faith for misguided altruism.
Philosophy is more mellow, as hippie Jesus counterculture has demonstrated. Compartmentalizing the philosophical aspects within religion would serve humanity better as it would show that philosophy has more potency for freedom, as free will is a more philosophical territory than religion. Religion focuses on divinely ordained destinies and eternal fates. Without that philosophical relief, religion would be overbearing, intrusive without remorse.
Jesus himself wanted to separate from the religious chains and almost did with his innovative philosophy.
Main reasons philosophy is better than religion:
1. More Self-sufficiency
2. Less Scandalous Hypocrisy
3. More Peace of Mind
4. Freedom from Dogma
5. Directly Commissioned for Wisdom
6. Path to God that Jesus implicitly proved.
jxc2000 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.