Religion falls under the remit of philosophy quite naturally, although efforts at proselytization are not welcome here. Short answer: no.

"Religion", as Uncle Karl said, "is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

It is too central to the experience of most of the people (on earth) to be neglected. Most people are born into their religious form, but many navigate their way to it or out of it, and their efforts are worthy of philosophical speculation.

But then, my view of philosophy isn't 'academic'; I prefer a wideness to the definition of philosophy, and "why people behave the way they do" is central to it.

Philosophy of religion is a perfectly respectable subject. Units on it are included in almost every philosophy curriculum. Your ‘dead-end god thing’ is an idiosyncratic expression of your own hang-ups about the topic; Aquinas, who is a major religious philosopher of Western culture, was meticulously rational in his arguments, even whilst acknowledging the indispensable role of revealed truth.

Is Religion Philosophy? — Marcus de Brun

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

Philosophy for me is mental discipline for me to question life with.
Religion for me it to blindly believe without proof something that one cannot point to.

I am completely new to this forum; but they intersect in many ways and delving into the nature of either can end up in the other. Theology though on the other hand is a science which presupposes the dogma as a precondition for its field of study (though this could be argued about) and isn't philosophy. It is also a bit vague of a topic as »Religion« is a very complex concept, far from agreed upon as to the extent of its nature. Thus I'd say that as an inquiry religion is very much a question for/of philosophy, and worth thinking about.

Plus, as a subject for modern philosophy, the past 20-25 years has seen an increasing interest in religious texts and figures, not the least in political philosophy.

Philosophy of religion is a perfectly respectable subject. Units on it are included in almost every philosophy curriculum — Wayfarer

I totally agree. There is a cross over in the same way that Western and Eastern Medicine co-mingle.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum Simon!
It's a pleasure to meet you.

Religion for me it to blindly believe without proof something that one cannot point to. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think this idea is something very specific to modernity, mainly because of the emphasis of Luther and Calvin on ‘salvation by faith alone’ which translates into unquestioning acceptance of dogma. But religious philosophy can also be meticulously rationalist, as i mentioned before.

But if you study the subject of religion impartially [and cross-culturally] there are many types of evidence for religious ideas, and a coherent philosophy and worldview that supports them. Consider for example studies like James’ Varieties of Religous Experience, and many anthropological studies of religion.

Besides, we’re living in a ‘post-secular’ culture nowadays. Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.

Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms. — Wayfarer

I agree with the idea that across almost all cultures, there is a "God" to explain the unexplainable. But if we look at "religions" the world over, we likely would have more than 100 different "God's" all of which are "right", to those who believe.

If the relationship exists between a person and their "God", it is the most intimate relationship alive, one that should be respected, even if we do not believe.

Who are we to question?

You don't know and I don't know either. And in that shared unknown, is where you will find some of us that question the existence of "God".

Thank you very much for the welcome!

To the topic at hand:

Concerning what Wayfarer raises about »post-secular« and the »Enlightenment« it's interesting pondering about Kants position in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason where he equates Christianity as the advent where a pure morality is made possible; but only by removing the dogma out of the equation you will find its kernel. Thus he moves Christianity into the heart of Aufklärung. I believe this is one illuming example of the closeness of philosophy and religion. The whole way we stand in a judeo-christian-latinate-greek trajectory.

My Rank Amateur opinion is, how the topic is addressed and argued has more to do with if it is philosophy or not, than the subject.

It depends on what one means by religion. It's certainly true that some religion takes the view, "because God said so," in addressing moral issues. However, this is not universally true, and many religious people are quite philosophical in outlook, and do not simply take a top-down approach to religion, which is almost always the case among new-atheists. This is the position that if one can show a belief in God is unjustified, then all religious beliefs can be tossed aside. Instead, if we take a bottom-up view, we can often see that religious beliefs can often be justified through reason, and often are. For example, in Judaism there is a story about a man pretending to be disabled and defrauding people who gave him money thinking he was disabled. The immediate response among the city was to ban begging. However, this idea was rejected when a rabbi offered the following argument: It was not a disabled person who defrauded you, but a person who is not handicapped. So why should the handicap suffer for his actions?

Philosophy of religion is philosophy. It touches on metaphysics an epistemology, so certainly it's worth discussing.

Besides, we’re living in a ‘post-secular’ culture nowadays. Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms. — Wayfarer

What realities would that be?

No, religion is not philosophy, although there are some similarities. Religious views expressed as though by an evangelist should most certainly be deleted and persistent offenders banned, as per the guidelines.

If a religious person says that one should not lie under oath, because lies under oath undermine justice in a court of law, a position held by many religious people, as it stems from the Ten Commandments, is that a non-philosophical position? How could that be the case, since it is a position backed up by a reason, and that's what philosophy is about --- coming up with reasons to support one's position. I'm an atheist myself, so would prefer it personally if people could stop being religious, but, in trying to be honest here about religion, much of it is philosophically based.

Who are we to question? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Fellow human beings who share this world.

Who is above questioning? Religious authorities??? :lol:

Philosophy is God.

If a religious person says that one should not lie under oath, because lies under oath undermine justice in a court of law, a position held by many religious people, as it stems from the Ten Commandments, is that a non-philosophical position? — LD Saunders

Well, what you've just described is not actually a religious position, despite it being held by many religious people. It's also held by many nonreligious people, though it takes a different form. What would make it characteristically religious would be to take the oath by swearing to God with your hand on the Bible, instead of by making an affirmation under penalty of perjury, which is the nonreligious alternative.

How could that be the case, since it is a position backed up by a reason, and that's what philosophy is about --- coming up with reasons to support one's position. — LD Saunders

Because two different categories can have things in common, yet remain different categories. Eggs and bacon both typically form part of a traditional full English breakfast, but that doesn't mean that they're the same.

religion is not philosophy, — S

agree. Religion is religion, and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy of religion is philosophy - arguments over theism, meaning, basis of morality etc supported by reason, and not by faith are philosophy . Questions of comparative faith based beliefs, or principals and teaching of each are theology - and should be outside the board IMO.

Religious views expressed as though by an evangelist should most certainly be deleted and persistent offenders banned, as per the guidelines. — S

Can we add equally evangelical views of atheism ?

"All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."

Bertrand Russell

Can we add equally evangelical views of atheism? — Rank Amateur

There's no need to. The guidelines on evangelism aren't specific to religion, and I recall that there was at least one member of the old forum who was banned for evangelical atheism, possibly more.

perfect

Religions make metaphysical claims and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, therefore religion is philosophy?

Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? — Janus

- the most basic of religious claims - that God is. Has been philosophically argued for about 1,000 years.

*

Religions make metaphysical claims and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, therefore religion is philosophy? — praxis

People make omelettes and omelettes are made from eggs, therefore people are eggs?

Yes, religion makes metaphysical claims, but that doesn't define it. Surely it has to be more than that to count as a religion?

All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic.

One can indeed have a 'Philosophy of Magic', this would entail a formal philosophical dialogue or treatise upon the effective means of producing and differentiating good magic and 'bad' magic, the ethics of Magic, when it should be used how it should be used and whom it should be used to entertain etc.

This would be a reasonable account of a 'Philosophy of Magic', and it would necessarily take as its basic premise the notion that the Magic itself is not real magic, (there is no such thing as magic) but is an art or an entertainment. From this real and pragmatic basis there can and does extend a valid 'Philosophy of Magic', much in the same sense that there can and is, a certain formal 'Philosophy of Plumbing', or Farming etc

'Magical Philosophy' (religion) on the other hand is an entirely different affair, although it likes to dress in the attire of Philosophy, it is NOT Philosophy it is a belief system that fundamentally allows for and insists upon the contravention of reason logic and science. It represents the contamination of Philosophy and the subjugation of reason.

It cannot lay a claim upon Philosophy because it forms its ideals upon the notion that the Magic is REAL, that logic, science and deductive reasoning can be dispensed with at the whim of the Magical Philosopher, and sense-data or reality can be explained by his own brand of Magic.

Magical Philosophy may give comfort to the weak minded and those who fear reality, but neither does this grand utility lend it any Philosophical credibility.

Why does the Philosopher still tremble and cower at the empty prognostications of the charlatan?

Philosophy has no need of God, yet God cannot exist without Philosophy. Even the God-thing is the vassal and the subject of its own Philosophy. Let the God-thing kneel and give praise to its Master.
Let Him kneel and kiss the ring of Zod. Should He refuse, then likewise, let Him be dammed to hell, just like all the non-believers and the un-baptised are dammed in accordance with the dictates of the magicians.

https://youtu.be/jUORL-bvwA0

M

People make omelettes and omelettes are made from egg, therefore people are eggs? — S

Johnny makes omelets and omelet making is a form of cooking, therefore Johnny is a crook.

I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth. — Wayfarer

That a scripture or oral teaching is "revealed truth" is obviously a dogma, a matter of faith; something that cannot be philosophically argued for.

other than it is not a matter of fact that "God" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "God is" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "God is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not.