To my mind, reality is a process, not a thing, so it changes constantly. The law of life is change. If we search for the "nature" of reality, it is change itself.

Science, at it's best, tries to help us ascertain verifiable facts. Theology, at it's best, tries to help up clarify & live by values. Philosophy, at it's best, tries to mediate between them. Philosophy is the bridge to understanding.

You say "Good theology helps us know how to behave". That may be so, but if so, what does theology offer which moral philosophy does not?

@Fernapple
Imagery, I think - for those of us who respond to imagery, it being our true native language. And I think theology is about more than just morality. It’s about a “practice,” an entire way of carrying ourselves in the world, an attitude if you will. And that attitude was forged by the natural forces of evolution, both physiological and cultural, over millions of years, instead of being purely a product of the rational mind.

There is depth in it that philosophy alone can’t match, though I think philosophy is a vital companion to it, because philosophy is what keeps us from being victims of our biological and cultural heritages instead of masters of them.

@skado I am sorry to say that that would never work for me, clinging to a sentimental attachment to things past instead of moving forward to create new imagery, which is quite possible. Is like keeping the body of you dead mother sitting in her chair in the house forever, because she used to give you advice once. Especially so as much of that advice was evil and antisocial. As you may have guessed by now I am very opposed to "religion lite".

Partially because I think that it creates comfortable pool for fundamentalist elements to swim in, especially by normalizing religion; and also by normalizing the habit of viewing religion as metaphor, which in turn leads to the view that interpretation can respectably taken to any extreme lengths, to justify anything, eventually even throwing out the good bits of moral teachings that it may once have had. Since I know from personal experience that it is often used as justification for even greater evils, some of the worst cases of abuse I witness as a child being committed by those who professed “religion lite”, and in its name.

And secondly because it all too easily becomes the crack in the door which admits and normalizes all forms of woo, and superstition, from the exploitations of things like crystal healing to the truly great evils of anti-vaccination movements.

And thirdly because for many people it simply muddies the water wastes time and creates confussion. IS STRING THEORY RELATED TO THE MUSIC OF THE SPHERES?

P. S. Mother also started to smell after a little time.

@Fernapple
I understand.

@Fernapple
...and I’m definitely not recommending keeping dead things around for sentimental purposes.

Philosophy is an equal opportunity employer--it doesn't discriminate

My thoughts exactly.

It can also depend on how the religious person understands their religion. There are people who are quite serious about their practice while not being literalists.

@skado Right, To my mind, It is not just that a person is a "believer", but what do they really believe in. A person can have a more or less sophisticated & nuanced view of their own religion. Many people don't appear to really understand their own religion. Some religious people are more insightful than others

Yes I agree with you that the three are completely different. The two points however are that. Firstly, they were not always different, and there was once a time when the church attempted to control all three, assuming the position of being the go to place, for all knowledge. And that in the past when both philosophy and primitive sciences such as alchemy were very much under the theist boot, the emergence of science, originally known as natural philosophy, started as a reaction to that.

And secondly, that it is not in the nature of theists to respect the boundaries, and they will often overstep even today, so that it is needful to police those borders carefully, because respect for them only exists on one side.

@Fernapple just because the church attempted to control anything doesn't make it true,they also claimed Galileo was wrong and even made him declare he was wrong, but "e pur si muove" and reality wasn't altered, who cares what theists want to do, that doesn't make them right, science is the boundary, theist will believe crap, it's like giving creedence to their ark museum, all B.S.

@Mofo1953, @Fernapple Perhaps this is where Philosophy meets Propaganda & Indoctrination?

@Mofo1953 What exactly would you suggest defines a "philosophy"?

@gNappyHead from the greek root, the love of wisdom.

@permanwilson Having a Doctorate in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions and being an Atheist whilst studying and before and now as well I kind of 'coined' the term " Theosophy" since studying it all it is my honestly educated opinion that ALL theology is little more than almost pseudo-philosophy at best.

@permanwilson Actual Philosophers for countless centuries have been vilified for their philosophical comments, etc, regarding religions and even to this day it still continues to some extent, though a lot less in intensity, etc, thankfully.
The discipline of Philosophy does NOT seemed to have changed much since the times of the Greats such as Socrates, etc, it IS merely the acceptances of it that have changed though.
E.g. " One mans philosophy can very often become another's religion." -William Anthony, 30/9/2019.

@permanwilson Ah, Philosophy also has its disciplines as well.

Well said!

Thanks for reading and replying.

@Fernapple Respect!

Salvation and redemption from what? Only the religious could contemplate such ideas.

@Austin-Cambridge
From evolutionary mismatch; an idea that scientists contemplate.

@skado Evolution can not have forsight, therefore it could never foresee the emergence of language, and culture from the basics it provided us with, or the effects they would have. That is both our curse because we have no inherent tools to deal with the bad things that they create, and our freedom because we can ourselves create things that evolution never could, if those things do not destroy us.

@skado, @Austin-Cambridge Just posted this for SAKADO to enlarge.
Evolution can not have forsight, therefore it could never foresee the emergence of language, and culture from the basics it provided us with, or the effects they would have. That is both our curse because we have no inherent tools to deal with the bad things that they create, and our freedom because we can ourselves create things that evolution never could, if those things do not destroy us.

@Fernapple
Not sure I understand your comment. I'm not saying evolution has foresight. I'm saying it gave us the tools to create things it didn't create for us. And we have used those tools to create a world we are not evolved to live in. That mismatch creates psychological (as well as physiological) problems for us, so we need, and have also created, a "patch" for that discord. More precisely, many patches; religion, philosophy, science, law, etc. We need those patches to work in concert, not to be at odds with each other, creating yet more conflict. And they can if we will let them.

@skado Yes that is exactly what is meant. Evolution gave us the tools to create things by accident, because we are able to use those tools in ways for which they were not gifted to us. But note the "no" in the second sentence, because except by very extreme accident it did not give any tools to deal with the secondary consequences of those creations, so that we have to invent second generation creations to deal with the consequences of the first.

@Fernapple
You could say then, that the tool it gave us was the ability to invent.

@skado True yes. And we can invent a better way for us and everything else to live, or we can invent a better way to die along with every thing else. We can be in control of our inventions or they can enslave us.

@Fernapple
Exactly. I think there is a possible path but the balance isn’t looking too good for us at the moment.

Good point. But of course theocrats are usually imperialistic and do not respect the boundaries with other diciplines. And historically christianity also picked up much philosophical lore, especially in medieval times, transfused through Rosicrucian style ideaology.

@Fernapple Quite true. The Rosicrucian and Templar’s fusion of whatever they wanted to stitch together seems somewhat unhealthy to me especially when it morphs into The Golden Dawn and the like.

I was always taught don’t mix systems!

@Geoffrey51 Yes, whether it is right to mix systems was of course what the post was about, and myself I am certainly with you on the side of don't. It just struck me as interesting however to think that the we may owe science, originally known as Natural Philosophy, in part to the fact that the birth of science occured when it was forced to split off from traditional philosophy. Mainly because traditional philosophy had become so badly infected with its unnatural mariage to theology, in the late middle ages when the church dominated all thinking. Science after all quite quickly took its own route and never looked back to its roots in the classical world.

@Fernapple Quite agree. Thank God for The Enlightenment if it is possible to make such an oxymoronic statement!

And our " Scientology " on this side of the pond.

@Fernapple i really and TOTALLY agree/ and see the fact that Carl Sagan, among others had to fight to keep on
neutral turf when asked "the STICKY" questions-other life,
creator, ect. . He always remained humble-hard to see that today.

True, but I have always, at least since I joined this site regarded you as a philosopher, and a good one at that.

As you say. " good life is just so
completely subjective, and doesn't mean the same thing to everyone."
Sounds like moral philosophy at least to me.

@Fernapple Dang! Never, EVER, considered myself any kind of philosopher.
Still don't. But, thank you for your kind words.
I appreciate the compliment.

Like I have said before, I really don't see philosophy as much more than a person's opinions about life.
Some of them make some sense, some of the time, but many of them are completely full of shit.
Which is also something I've been told, SO many times. LOL

I can't agree that philosophy is just opinion, it is deep thinking using critical thinking and seeking truth, where theology is repeating old ideas "ad infinitum" in the hope of converting others to be like minded.

@Austin-Cambridge You don't have to agree with me.
You are entitled to your own opinions on any subject.
Cheers.

@KKGator Thanks, listening to the opinions of others and not being dismissive is the path to a broader perspective, whether you agree with them or not, that is my goal.

@Austin-Cambridge I thought that philosophy may be
so irrelevant ( its not current AT ALL).-Seem also susceptible
to manipulation , how can we look for SUPPORT when they
have barely any SUSTAINING POWER.! just a thought...

@BBJong Google Simon Blackburn Ph.D. and have a read up on him, a modern day philosopher and atheist, certainly not irrelevant!