Original comment is here.
Philosophy does use logic but it is also the
OK, let's try a matrix of disciplines:
When looking at the tools side, Religion is opposite both Science and Philosophy, but Philosophy and Science are identical. However, when looking at the application side, Philosophy is similar to Religion, in that they are both mostly non-physical studies, yet Science is opposite them, being a mostly physical study. Each discipline *could* be used in any of the two its connected to (and maybe the fourth) but would not be most suited for that area. (I am still trying to figure out what is best for the Physical/Faith quadrant.)
So, which Philosophy is closer to, is a matter of the application. Since the application here is origins of fact, rather than belief, Philosophy is closer to Science in this case.
Before Socrates, they were not distinguishable from each other.
Yes they were. Philosophy uses logic, Religion uses belief. They were *extremely* distinguishable. Socrates himself was killed on the claim that he didn't worship well, ostensibly because he used logic instead of faith. The early scientists used both philosophy and empirical evidence, because they are both logical. If anything, the religious used Philosophy because most people were strongly religious, and therefore the non-physical was more important than the physical, resulting in Phylosophy being more popular than Science.
Perhaps we are getting caught up with our phraseology a bit
I was only considering the "common school" when using the word science. I was also trying to narrow down the definition of what science is designed to do. To science, it is a "fact" if it is observable and reproducible. Since UFO sightings are unproducable, it fails the test of fact for the "common school" of science.
So, if the whole world saw a UFO, it wouldn't be a Scientific "fact"?
When Einstein predicted the viewability of some star during an eclipse, and it was seen *once* it wasn't Science?
And on what basis would anyone try to reproduce anything, if the first time it was seen it wasn't a reproduction, thus invalidating its observation?
*Anything* observed is notable in Science. Whether people go further into it within the discipline of Science, depends on whether or not it was reproducible. Basically, the first step in Science is observation, then second is reproducibility. Though hypothesizing and predicting can sometimes replace the first two steps.
I assume you believe that there are rules that govern the universe, regardless of origin. Therefore, is it impossible for men to use science as a tool to "guess" some of the rules?
They can guess, but it is a guess. The guess is then tested via the Scientific method. And until it is tested, it is a guess. Science never discovers rules. The rules are guessed and tested.
For someone who has no clue about particle physics, understanding how muons and bosons are formed is a process of discovering the rules.
Once the first person guesses and validates it via the Scientific method, the *person* discovers the rules from presentation by another person.
To me, religion is something used by men to understand a God and follow what they term to be His will.
Religion has nothing to do with G-d. (Though almost all *current* religions do.) A religion is a belief structure. Whether in G-d, in Science, or anything. If the belief is the tool that one uses to discovers truth, and when in conflict, overrules truths presented by other rules, the person is using the discipline of Religion. (Though that fourth quadrant may change that a little.)
It is something used by men to facilitate their relationship with God.
It is something used by men to provide truths via Faith. What the Faith is in, is irrelevant.
The code of conduct given to man by God (commandments, covenants, ordinances, etc.) may be incorporated into a religion, but in the end, it is a direct relationship between God and us as individuals.
An oracle so described could certainly exist, however it is usually not the case.
Now *that* is a religious statement.
religion is just a tool.
Religion is a discipline. Faith is a tool.
Religion itself is not necessarily imperfect, only when it is used by man because man is imperfect. In other words, the use of religion by man can produce imperfect results.
That's your belief again. My belief, is that Religion not used by man is imperfect, since the entire world was created *for* man. And, in all cases where my religion was tried, I believe it produced superb results.
So how would you use religion to calculate the volume of a cube? I am interested.
Um, what's a cube? <G>
Please explain. I am interested in what you mean by "religion has givens".
Creationist religions have a given that the world was "created" by a being. In that religion, therefore, it is a fact that the world was created by a being.
That some things are "good" and others "bad" is a given in various religions.
That the Earth is a sphere is a given in some religions.
Legends and stories of old are givens in many religions.
There are plenty of givens. And they are all truths or facts as far as the religion is concerned. So much so, that belief that it is a fact can be an integral part of the religion.
Possible new chart: