Philosophy, religion and science?

Question

What do philosophy, religion, and science have in common? What distinguishes them from each other? Is philosophy incompatible with religion?

Answer 1

Philosophy acknowledges the unknown and tempts the philosopher to come to a theory about the unknown. There is no specific destination, or absolute right. It uses religions and sciences to help explain.

Religion acknowledges the unknown too. There is a absolute way right (God) and religion attempts to lead us to God. It uses philosophy and science to help get there. It creates social solutions to society.

Science is a measurement of existing and unknown matters. There is not absolute in science. Even Einsteins theories are challenged and disproved from time to time. It is an ongoing measurement to find ways to make society better by providing measurements that will help memeber in the society.

Answer 2

Philosophy, religion and science have this in common: They are instruments of higher learning and education and intelligence. Philosophy boils down to how one thinks and behaves in life (ie, live and let live), religion is the exercise of believing in something larger than mere human beings (ie. a Creator), and science is the study of all life forms and everything seen and unseen on earth.
I do not believe that philosophy is incompatible with religion.
I have done some studying of philosophy and I am a Christian. May God bless you.

Answer 3

Religion and science are both branches of philosophy. Science considers the physical world and has (at this point) reached the conclusion that a supernatural circumstance for creation is not required nor is it required to explain the functioning of the universe. Utilizing the principles developed by the process of reasoning, science has developed a set of governing rules.

Religion begins with a priori assumption of the existence of a supernatural being and that the universe was created by it and continues to function because of it. Using the process of inspiration and revelation, religion has developed a set of governing rules.

Answer 4

Religion requires belief in supernatural phenomena, while science explicitly prohibits it. Philosophy incorporates the question of what we can know, and how; since it is impossible in principle to have true knowledge of supernatural phenomena, philosophy includes science and excludes religion.

Answer 5

Philosophy is incredibly (traditionally) the commencing place of technology, look at each and all of the philosophers of the classical situations, they stated, and then formulated a concept on how this works, and supported this with their arguments. technology those days has greater how you could ascertain the reason for something, so it incredibly is greater precise. yet each and all of the sciences (Biology, Physics, Chemistry) started with human beings philosophizing approximately organic phenomenons.

Answer 6

I like sophist's remark that science and religion are both branches of philosophy (which is, after all, literally " the love of knowledge").
As he says, each of these branches has as its goal the acquiring of knowledge in separate 'spheres' of reality, and each uses tools appropriate to its particular 'sphere'.

I agree with sophist's statement that science has concluded that the sphere of religion is not required to understand its own sphere (although I don't personally like using the word 'supernatural' to describe this sphere, since I think this sphere does extend into 'nature' as sophist also seems to agree by his reference to 'revelation' and 'inspiration; which are, after all, phenomena of nature!) Still, sophist's is an honest statement that reflects the actual situation. In fact, I would say it is something of a tautology. That is, the 'sphere' of reality that science studies (the 'physical' sphere') is BY DEFINITION that part of reality where religion's sphere (the sphere of 'spirit') has no effect. The remarkable success of science has revealed how amazingly extensive is science's 'sphere' (from the smallest subatomic particle to astronomical objects like galaxies). By its very construction, however, the scientific method leaves out some part of reality (the sphere of spirit) and, logically speaking, science therefore has no way of saying how extensive is the part it has left out. My strong suspicion is that it will ultimately be generally recognized, even by scientists themselves, that the part science leaves out (the sphere of spirit) is at least as extensive as the 'physical sphere', and most likely, vastly more so .
The situation may be expressed, perhaps, by saying that these two spheres are in some sense 'orthogonal' (like the axes of a Cartesian coordinate system). But saying that phenomena along one 'axis' are independent of the other 'axis' is NOT equivalent to saying that the other axis simply doesn't exist.
To pursue this analogy a bit further: I think the actual situation may be somewhat analogous to projectile motion in physics, where the motions of the projectile along two orthogonal axes are independent of one another, and yet are linked by the 'time' which is common to them both. As is well known, one may eliminate the time entirely, the result is an equation describing the trajectory of the projectile through space that makes no mention of time. Likewise, I feel that natural phenomena occur independently along the two orthogonal axes of 'physical' and 'spirit' yet are linked by 'consciousness' which is common to them both. And also likewise, the common link (ie consciousness) may be eliminated to produce a certain description of the phenomena of nature that makes no mention of it. This is precisely what science does by application of the scientific method.

Answer 7

Voltage, resistance, and amperage. It takes all 3 to light my bulb.

Answer 8

magic and religion in-common