"Philosophy of Religion," is an Oxymoron

[RCSaunders]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

[DPMartin]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

so is this a philosophy on religion, or just an moronic opinion that has no relevance what so ever?

[RCSaunders]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

so is this a philosophy on religion, or just an moronic opinion that has no relevance what so ever?

Not sure what you asking so I can't answer it. Take a deep breath and try again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

How can you be so shallow and narrow minded?

Philosophy in its most general definition is the love of wisdom within a basis of rationality.

Philosophy of Religion means applying wisdom and rationality to any question about 'religion' either by the non-religious or the religious.
Religious can be non-theistic [Buddhism, etc.] and theistic.

As such when one [taking into account one's state] wants to deliberate on the pros and cons of 'religion' one has to rely on philosophy for the purpose of discussion or choosing the optimal religion to follow.

I had argued Christianity is the most optimal religion for the well-being of the majority and one can apply philosophy to weigh on it instead of relying on blind-faith. For many they are optimally better off [in terms of stabilizing their well-being] by adopting religion than having no religion at all.

[RCSaunders]

I had argued Christianity is the most optimal religion ...

What changed your mind? Or, are you just misusing English again. Before discussing a religion you need to know something about it. When you've read and studied both the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Koine Greek and both in most English translations, read and studied most of the theologians and commentators like those I listed here, come back and we'll talk about Christianity.

[Iwannaplato]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

Philosophy of Religion is rational thought about religious issues and concerns without a presumption of the existence of a deity or reliance on acts of faith. Philosophers examine the nature of religion and religious beliefs.

I don't see any problem or anything oxymoronic.

Something like 'philosophical religion' or 'religious philosophy' could be better argued as oxymoronic for those who think religion is simply irrational. But one can apply philosophical tools to pretty much anything.

[RCSaunders]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

Philosophy of Religion is rational thought about religious issues and concerns without a presumption of the existence of a deity or reliance on acts of faith. Philosophers examine the nature of religion and religious beliefs.

I don't see any problem or anything oxymoronic.

Something like 'philosophical religion' or 'religious philosophy' could be better argued as oxymoronic for those who think religion is simply irrational. But one can apply philosophical tools to pretty much anything.

What are, "philosophical tools?" Just interested in what you mean, not criticizing anything.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not an "oxymoron."

It's a redundancy, perhaps.

[Iwannaplato]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

Philosophy of Religion is rational thought about religious issues and concerns without a presumption of the existence of a deity or reliance on acts of faith. Philosophers examine the nature of religion and religious beliefs.

I don't see any problem or anything oxymoronic.

Something like 'philosophical religion' or 'religious philosophy' could be better argued as oxymoronic for those who think religion is simply irrational. But one can apply philosophical tools to pretty much anything.

What are, "philosophical tools?" Just interested in what you mean, not criticizing anything.

Take something as basic as deduction. We look at the idea of God as a first cause or as transcendental or whatever facet of whichever God we focus on. Then we go through deductions related to what these ideas mean in the religion and see if they could possibly hold or what they would imply using deduction. The problem of evil being seen as a problem is the result of deductive arguments aimed at the omni-in-various-categories deity in relation to rape, plagues, child rape and so on.

Epistemological analyses of religious beliefs are another option. The philosopher can be skeptical or speculative or curious about the ideas.

The speculative end could be more coming from the religions ideas and seeing what these would mean, using philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had argued Christianity is the most optimal religion ...

What changed your mind? Or, are you just misusing English again. Before discussing a religion you need to know something about it. When you've read and studied both the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Koine Greek and both in most English translations, read and studied most of the theologians and commentators like those I listed here, come back and we'll talk about Christianity.

As I had stated,

"Philosophy of Religion" means applying wisdom and rationality to any question about 'religion' either by the non-religious or the religious. Religious can be non-theistic [Buddhism, etc.] and theistic.

What is the point of reading 1000s of books and articles related to those theologians and commentators you mentioned.
For Christianity I have covered the beliefs and activities from Christian fundamentalists [even perverts], middle-of-the road, theologians, philosophers, scientists to Christian mystics which definitely cover a wider range than you have suggested.

What is critical is to apply the "Philosophy of Religion" [which you are ignorant of and has no inclination to] to understand the essence of and principles underlying all religions, including Christianity.
This will include all relevant factors, i.e. evolutionary, environmental, historical, psychological, neurosciences, etc. to rationalize what is most optimal for a specific period of time.

What one need to master Christianity is merely to understand the Gospels [central to Jesus Christ as the core of Christianity] thoroughly.

Note the term 'optimal' is critical which meant it is not to be universal but what is best given the current situations.

Given our current human state of evolution at the current phase in time, Christianity is the most optimal religion for the majority of 8 billion people.
Christianity has its cons but its pros relative to the current phase of evolution outweighs its cons. As such it is only optimal for the current phase of evolution within, say, the next 50 years or so but will not be optimal thereafter when its cons outweighs its pros.

The present majority of ~8 billion are very religious inclined and if every Muslim were to convert to Christianity, I am definitely there would be greater peace and less religious related violence. Can you dispute this?

I believe the next phase of religiosity would be for the majority to turn to rational Buddhism and other non-theistic religions and thereafter to wean off ALL religions in accordance to a significant change to a more steadier psychological state of the majority.

[RCSaunders]

I had argued Christianity is the most optimal religion ...

What changed your mind? Or, are you just misusing English again. Before discussing a religion you need to know something about it. When you've read and studied both the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Koine Greek and both in most English translations, read and studied most of the theologians and commentators like those I listed here, come back and we'll talk about Christianity.

As I had stated,

"Philosophy of Religion" means applying wisdom and rationality to any question about 'religion' either by the non-religious or the religious. Religious can be non-theistic [Buddhism, etc.] and theistic.

What is the point of reading 1000s of books and articles related to those theologians and commentators you mentioned.
For Christianity I have covered the beliefs and activities from Christian fundamentalists [even perverts], middle-of-the road, theologians, philosophers, scientists to Christian mystics which definitely cover a wider range than you have suggested.

What is critical is to apply the "Philosophy of Religion" [which you are ignorant of and has no inclination to] to understand the essence of and principles underlying all religions, including Christianity.
This will include all relevant factors, i.e. evolutionary, environmental, historical, psychological, neurosciences, etc. to rationalize what is most optimal for a specific period of time.

What one need to master Christianity is merely to understand the Gospels [central to Jesus Christ as the core of Christianity] thoroughly.

Note the term 'optimal' is critical which meant it is not to be universal but what is best given the current situations.

Given our current human state of evolution at the current phase in time, Christianity is the most optimal religion for the majority of 8 billion people.
Christianity has its cons but its pros relative to the current phase of evolution outweighs its cons. As such it is only optimal for the current phase of evolution within, say, the next 50 years or so but will not be optimal thereafter when its cons outweighs its pros.

The present majority of ~8 billion are very religious inclined and if every Muslim were to convert to Christianity, I am definitely there would be greater peace and less religious related violence. Can you dispute this?

I believe the next phase of religiosity would be for the majority to turn to rational Buddhism and other non-theistic religions and thereafter to wean off ALL religions in accordance to a significant change to a more steadier psychological state of the majority.

Well I do have to admit, your posts are entertaining. They are better than a Professor Irwin Cory Routine. Beginning with, "As I had stated ...," (Cory began his routines with, "Furthermore ..." and his made more sense.

Thanks for the entertainment. It's typical neophyte nonsense, but fun, nevertheless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What changed your mind? Or, are you just misusing English again. Before discussing a religion you need to know something about it. When you've read and studied both the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Koine Greek and both in most English translations, read and studied most of the theologians and commentators like those I listed here, come back and we'll talk about Christianity.

As I had stated,

"Philosophy of Religion" means applying wisdom and rationality to any question about 'religion' either by the non-religious or the religious. Religious can be non-theistic [Buddhism, etc.] and theistic.

What is the point of reading 1000s of books and articles related to those theologians and commentators you mentioned.
For Christianity I have covered the beliefs and activities from Christian fundamentalists [even perverts], middle-of-the road, theologians, philosophers, scientists to Christian mystics which definitely cover a wider range than you have suggested.

What is critical is to apply the "Philosophy of Religion" [which you are ignorant of and has no inclination to] to understand the essence of and principles underlying all religions, including Christianity.
This will include all relevant factors, i.e. evolutionary, environmental, historical, psychological, neurosciences, etc. to rationalize what is most optimal for a specific period of time.

What one need to master Christianity is merely to understand the Gospels [central to Jesus Christ as the core of Christianity] thoroughly.

Note the term 'optimal' is critical which meant it is not to be universal but what is best given the current situations.

Given our current human state of evolution at the current phase in time, Christianity is the most optimal religion for the majority of 8 billion people.
Christianity has its cons but its pros relative to the current phase of evolution outweighs its cons. As such it is only optimal for the current phase of evolution within, say, the next 50 years or so but will not be optimal thereafter when its cons outweighs its pros.

The present majority of ~8 billion are very religious inclined and if every Muslim were to convert to Christianity, I am definitely there would be greater peace and less religious related violence. Can you dispute this?

I believe the next phase of religiosity would be for the majority to turn to rational Buddhism and other non-theistic religions and thereafter to wean off ALL religions in accordance to a significant change to a more steadier psychological state of the majority.

Well I do have to admit, your posts are entertaining. They are better than a Professor Irwin Cory Routine. Beginning with, "As I had stated ...," (Cory began his routines with, "Furthermore ..." and his made more sense.

Thanks for the entertainment. It's typical neophyte nonsense, but fun, nevertheless.

As usual you are blabbering because you don't have the competency to provide any counter arguments nor justification to my points.

You are the one who has started your premises with nonsense.

To counter my point all you have to do is to prove that 'philosophy-proper' as theorized and practiced since it first emerged has nothing to do with wisdom and rationality.

[attofishpi]

Philosophy in its most general definition is the love of wisdom within a basis of rationality.

To counter my point all you have to do is to prove that 'philosophy-proper' as theorized and practiced since it first emerged has nothing to do with wisdom and rationality.

It depends on what defines "wisdom".
To me, Atheist philosophy could be coined as "love of rationality", certainly that can be considered wise. However, by not taking that binary stance that the man that came in the name of, and died for (love) as insisted by Him, is not truly a love of wisdom at all. An atheist philosopher is rather stunted. Therefore the only true philosopher is a Christian, happy Easter.

[bahman]

If it's religion, it's not philosophy. (It's superstition)
It it's philosophy, it's not religion. (It's reason)

Both are mostly nonsense, however.

Philosophy of religion concerns topics that are relevant in religion, such as God, etc. Therefore it is relevant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy in its most general definition is the love of wisdom within a basis of rationality.

To counter my point all you have to do is to prove that 'philosophy-proper' as theorized and practiced since it first emerged has nothing to do with wisdom and rationality.

It depends on what defines "wisdom".
To me, Atheist philosophy could be coined as "love of rationality", certainly that can be considered wise. However, by not taking that binary stance that the man that came in the name of, and died for (love) as insisted by Him, is not truly a love of wisdom at all. An atheist philosopher is rather stunted. Therefore the only true philosopher is a Christian, happy Easter.

Nope a non-theistic view of wisdom is not all about of 'rationality'.
You need to take note of this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

1. Wisdom, sapience, or sagacity is the ability to contemplate and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight.[1]
Wisdom is associated with attributes such as unbiased judgment, compassion, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence and non-attachment,[2] and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.

2. The Oxford English Dictionary defines wisdom as
"Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgment in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly;" also "Knowledge (esp. of a high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition."[8]

3. Charles Haddon Spurgeon defined wisdom as "the right use of knowledge".[9]
Robert I. Sutton and Andrew Hargadon defined the "attitude of wisdom" as "acting with knowledge while doubting what one knows".

4.In social and psychological sciences, several distinct approaches to wisdom exist,[3] with major advances made in the last two decades with respect to operationalization[2] and measurement[7] of wisdom as a psychological construct.

5. Wisdom is the capacity to have foreknowledge of something, to know the consequences (both positive and negative) of all the available course of actions, and to yield or take the options with the most advantage either for present or future implication.

I agree with all the above points especially the last para which is about "optimality" for the overall good within particular constraint situations which reality is always is.

With theism the degree of what-is-wisdom is shallow and confined to what God dictates in God's holy texts or what God is supposed to command, which is not based on unbiased judgment, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence and non-attachment, etc. There is no room for optimality in the case of a theistic belief.