Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 January 30

= January 30 =

Why is religion grouped academically with philosophy?
For instance, here on Wikipedia, religion and philosophy do a duet as a category, and in general academia, it is my unqualified experience, philosophy is reigned over by religionists. However, it is easy to point out that philosophy is about making up the whys and ways of going about our world, while religion tends to be about earthly agency of the supernatural. Buddha said something like, I am nothing to do with god, don't pray to me, don't make me into a religion. So, well, I don't know. So, you tell me if you can please,, ~  R . T . G  00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most modern anthropologists would say that religion is not so much about the supernatural as it is a cultural system to create a organized relationship between humanity and existence. From some religionists' perspectives, they are not concerned with the supernatural at all (perhaps the preternatural, but not something ultimately outside the laws of nature).  Some religionists may take rejecting any "earthly agency of the supernatural" as a starting point, with what miracles they do accept being clearly distinguished exceptions that they don't want some medium or cult leader comparing their parlor tricks to (see Francis Bacon, and, when viewed as a product of his time instead of through a modern lens, Reginald Scot).
 * Religion could be viewed as applied combination of metaphysics and ethics, in the same way that art could be considered applied aesthetics. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Insofar as Religion is an attempt for humans to find meaning and purpose in their lives, it clearly fits in with philosophy. While some religions do have a belief in some for of supernaturalism as a prerequisite, not all religions do.  Some examples of mainstream religions that do not require any belief in the supernatural include some forms or sects of Buddhism and the Christian offshoot known as Unitarian Universalism.  -- Jayron 32 04:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is an attempt to find so much as a programming effort, if indeed that. Part of the belief in humoralism was that little demons were poking you invisibly and stuff, that such super nature was around all the time.  Poor Francis Bacon.  I suppose the current iteration is the throwback to that day somehow.  Look at that, "..hitteth the nayle on the head with a witnesse", 1593, brilliant.  ~  R . T . G  18:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked up that quote and found The Discoverie of Witchcraft; it was neither by nor about Bacon, nor does our article mention him. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No it a Gabriel Harvey quote applauding The Discoverie of Witchcraft, authored by Reginald Scott, also mentioned by User:Ian Thompson above. Very funny.  The only free reference I found at a glance trying to date it  says the earliest reference in the modern sense is 1559, but Harvey was earlier again.  ~  R . T . G  19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can think of monotheisms as originally the philosophies of the emperors, if you wish. As far as we have written accounts of it, the benefit of that particular kind of view was turned back to the people after the Jews made it public they would not become either Babylonians nor Egyptians. And they also claimed they already knew about all of it, all by themselves, and since all the time - before. --Askedonty (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Religions make claims about ontology, epistemology, deontology and other fields of philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I make claims about these things myself and to be quite honest, I try to respect religion even if I suggest it is not the word of God, for good reason, but I believe that cognitive thought is the base of philosophy, and religion a consequential topic within or without it, dependant to periodic fashion and politic, a rhetorical fashion, which is not the rhetorical fashion of the modern day. Though writing that I am reminded that Hawking said we might yet see the face of God, it's still quite some decades ago.    I always imagine that if an outsider to royal circles were not forthcoming to the belief that the emperor was god altogether, they'd be in trouble.  It must have went without saying, an unspeakable.  If you hadn't met them, emperors, how would you say they were not chosen.  But why would the emperor openly employ philosophers, if he were the be all and end all of that profession?  He would not risk discrediting himself.  Philosophy in subjugation, is for man to understand while the divine can only be wondered, dictation only right?  But in the past world beyond true empires.  The church was often or always the academic authority, consequentially the authority on philosophy too.  But in academic history and actual science, above or below control, philosophy truly transcends the church situation.  Philosophy is about understanding.  Religion can employ understanding, but understanding cannot employ religion.  Religion has character.  Understand observes character.  It's difficult to digest mentally because religion + force can defeat philosophy and the ideas of power pervade the society of the day, obscuring that which is not directly useful to an idea or structure of power, but philosophy is applied objectivity whereas religion is often a different thing on each page.  Actually I'd like to be able to simplify the meaning of religion as I would philosophy, rather than the purpose which is one thing or another.  The meaning of religion, the fact religion is part of humanity, on the part of belief in the divine instruction rather than supposition about the origin of the book, is simply that you can avoid sitting around for three hours working out the true meaning of philosophy for want of a true bloody philosopher, and that took me all of three minutes.  Its use and content ignored.  That's the difference in philosophy.  It's real consideration.  Religion, though I value religion and would not burn it away, is not that.  I wonder what else it could be categorised with, in a fair and true sense not just to give it a push aside.  ~  R . T . G  19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. In fact the encyclopedia is not as much thematic as a classic multi-volumes encyclopedia for example could be, but the link which you gave in example in your OP question is not that much representative however. The context of that link seems to be rather fact than choice, in other words both fields are obviously subjects to the same families of fringe theories, the same sub-species of wiki-alcoholism, the same flavours of wiki-enthousiasms. To your last question I would answer there must be unfortunately none. The origin of religion as found in burial and death, that is, the need to organize and make arrangements around this event, and the logical development of protocols for preparing the concerned people to the protocols. This needing justifications for the choices that had to be made, which justifications were to be carried by myth. Meanwhile if "some humans" had been thinking about the origin of the world otherwise, this means, looking at the skies in clear night, without bothering about death, they would have been making mathematics: infinity, philosophy: determinism... nothing which could be subtracted from consideration regarding death. Now in the encyclopedia, I think it's Baruch Spinoza a good start for enquiring about the bonds restraining philosophy from a more complete independence perhaps. --Askedonty (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually it is misleading to consider simple belief in a supernature to be evidence of religion. It could be said that the ability to suspect of things we cannot see, may be the first evidence of scientific thought, and the ability to understand that, is philosophy.  Religion might decide one or the other to be more likely to have been written into the book as truth, at the time it was written...  That is in the extreme, with disregard for objectivity, however, religion can evaluate the need for objectivity.  Philosophy cannot.  It's quite a leap when you get down to it.  And it's never just as simple as that but there is some of the fundamentals.  These kind of more basic concepts are all down since the Ancient Greeks, similar to the basics in complex mathematics we use today.  We aren't putting mathematics in the art category and yet so many of the fore runners were artists.  That's what I am trying to philosophise here I think,  ~  R . T . G  00:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, to the sound f alarm bells in the distance, I expect that religion should be categorised with leadership and instruction. Oh, but we distrust this leadership and instruction or refuse it?  Fair enough, but leadership and instruction nonetheless.  I should expect that an objective, let's say religionist for a non-denomination, would actually agree.  Could worship, in the sense of being on your knees and focusing your mental attention, could that be considered a following of leadership and instruction?  I would suppose that ultimately, if you were not led to such water, you would not know how to drink.  Would that not also be agreed upon by a worshipper of an organised religion, that the follower would be led..?  Any thoughts on that, recategorising religion toward leadership and or instruction, or is it the fear that we should avoid admitting what it is in case those who would follow it from there, would get their chance of the end of our lead.  Or am I wrong altogether.  Is following not about leadership?  I'm just making this up it's not off any book or anything.  I'm looking for an applied objectivity.  ~  R . T . G  21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Look up shaman and berdache, User:RTG. If you go back to the ice age, magic, wisdom, and lore were all the same thing.   If you google babylonian geometry, you'll find that they made astronomical observations.  And you can look at Thales for the first pure "scientist". μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh I know there is more to the world than empires of Europeans and their neighbours. However I would argue the traditional bardache is given to mysticism rather than religion.  The religion there as far as I know is in the spirits, and the sweat tent.  Where you'd be more likely to find religion was the south of America where they again had gods and gathered as they would have it before or beneath them to plead and be instructed.  It's leadership certainly, wether you believe in the religion transcending nature or wherever you think it came from, it is in its relationship to the human about leading and following.  Some would tell you it is a guide for those who believe and standard perception says, think about the believer, but I say no, what about the guide, that's a form of leadership.  The guide is the instrument of the religion in that case and the believer is merely following the lead.  I am certain I will find this authored somewhere.  The Greeks would have learned like that.  It's agnosticism.  We do not know any gods but it is our nature to try and understand them for good reason.  Religion is leadership.  And following, and I am going to try and find that published and hunt down any areas of categorisation on-wiki.  If someone can see that I am totally missing something, pun accepted, stop me now.  However, "religion is a form of leadership" does not give me any google hits so it will not be a straight forward find but nonetheless, that is the truth of it.  It's not philosophy, it simply employs philosophy the same as any other leadership situation.  We need to be one with this past we have while continuing to succeed.  The world is flat in its nature, and this earth is center of all we can perceive.  Everything tends to make sense, even when we find a better way, we just improve it.  We do not need to lose our way in the process.  Indeed we must find our way instead without getting lost,  ~  R . T . G  10:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lot in it, but the idea that "the adept is merely following the lead" is not always accurate. Before that a sacrifice is ultimately the issue of the ceremony, the adept is merely experimenting, and his reaction mood is not indifferent to the celebrant's own enthusiasm. There is a challenge on truth. Then come also the link between the notions of divine kingship (also sacred king) and kingship scapegoating, like  described in here. It has been recently theorized that kingship scapegoating was a practice in the Celtic cultures (crude pictures!) as well. --Askedonty (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but when ceremony is based on the individual mood, and sacrifice of another, that's evidence of murder isn't it. You are trying to maintain the idea that mysticism and superstition are religion, but religion is about a code.  Philosophy examines such codes, but it examines everything and the codes of philosophy are in how to go about the examination rather than how to follow a code.  You could say the idea preceding religion is a kind of philosophy, but you could say what isn't?  Looking both ways before you cross the road is the philosophy of watching out in case you might get hurt, but I don't see health and safety categorised with philosophy or religion and yet it is as much part of both those categories as religion might be with philosophy.  Further to your update on your post, the more religious the monarchy has been does not have any direct correlation.  Most monarchies I have read about seem to prefer the idea of divine right.  It has no bearing on why religion should be categorised with philosophy for any reason other than, liked the look of it.  I try to go with the thing I like to look at too but I apply philosophy to that to evaluate my choice or else it wouldn't have any real reason to it and therefore would often be wrong, just as categorising religion and philosophy together is.  If you understand what philosophy is, try looking through religious philosophy and tell me not how religious the religions are or that kings are religious or even that stone age people believed in the afterlife, but tell me why religion and philosophy are the same category of knowledge.  If you can't, tell me they perhaps are not...  ~  R . T . G  14:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Sacrifice remains fundamental even if - superficially - symbolic in most liturgies still today. So that's were I would agree they are educative. --Askedonty (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It says in the link you give some methods of killing are symbolic of atonement to the goddess. What on earth has that got to do, in all fairness, with the categorisation of philosophy?  You linked a whole book called religion and power.  You don't know what philosophy is and are therefore the example of what goes awry rather than the answer.  You could categorise examples with answers, but only if they lead to each other specifically.  Otherwise it's just random, stuff.  Let's not randomise our stuff, thanks.  ~  R . T . G  15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that you at first say the origin of religion is obviously death. Well if someone came back from death and said, here's something I brought back with me, I call it religion.  Nobody has to die to either imagine a religion, or to receive one from god or gods...  Where is the philosophy in that?  It's right here observing it from another place, not within it getting drilled, mystical or otherwise.  ~  R . T . G  15:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as you know what it takes to imagine a religion, you know that it's about leadership. All right, I've agreed to that. Only that you can't count unconditionally on the docile followers. See the Irish goddess. It's obvious philosophy was never suspected of requiring the human sacrifice ( neither other sacrifices, or have I been badly informed ? ), so, what's your plea ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Belief and supposition on things beyond the physical, powers beyond nature and such are in the category of mysticism. Supposition, by the way, is possibly in the category of philosophy when arrived at with reason.  But religion is the step after supposition.  Religion is the situation where the answers are known such that you know what to do or are being told, and therefore follow that in a religious manner.  It's all too well known today from scepticism that even belief is not required for religion.  But it is not difficult to show that many significant topics of philosophy are down to choice, so to be truly philosophical, not all questions are finalised with an answer.  Philosophy is often like the difference between fact and theory in science.  Philosophy is a true science, the science of understanding, fully as broad as that, the understanding of everything and anything.  Religion does not necessarily require understanding, and the worry can be that such a claim is insulting, but in fact religion does not require that you fail to understand, it just means that you don't have to so in fact it is a quality of religion that you are not required to understand.  You go to a religious leader and say, I don't understand, and they say, that's okay, the book says do this or that and nevermind worrying about understanding.  Such a situation does not require philosophy at all.  Now we can easily know that if a religious leader does not employ any philosophy whatsoever, you might go to them and say I can't get over losing my bike, and they might say, that's okay, Zacchaius hid from a tax collector in a tree.  You'd be standing around wondering what you went to this person for.  But that is not all that religion is about, and employing philosophy goes for so many things, such as crossing the road, health and safety.  Health and safety, though you might not have thought of it, is much more prevalent in the society of today and much more important to the modern day-to-day value.  Health and safety is truly philosophical.  Every part of it, for every person.  Religion is philosophical for some, and philosophical for some of the time.  Law is arguably more philosophical than religion.  Education is truly philosophical.  Engineering is not philosophical and neither is technology, even though their use often is.  Philosophy is applied to religion, but for instance, if politics is not a category of or with philosophy, religion certainly isn't wether it is dually popular or not.  Sport is not a category of school for instance yet it is applied to all schools.  Surely I'm making sense here without breaking anything.  ~  R . T . G  18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Who decides the level of an educational program whithin the European Qualifications Framework?
If I understand it correctly, it is not only for recognized university programs, but for all types of education. So, how do they decide if a 10-day course offered by a private academy is the equivalent to level 5 or 6? --Scicurious (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this program is administered by the "Employment, Social Affairs, and Inclusion" department of the European Commission. here is their contact page.  -- Jayron 32 04:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The private academy would first have to decide whether to go for some form of accreditation for the course. They would do that within their own member state and then the various national levels map onto the European ones. The accreditation process would be likely to cost money and might not be worth it. A possibility in some countries would be to work with a larger body to obtain the accreditation, e.g. in the UK the course could lead towards a BTEC qualification, City & Guilds or an NVQ. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)