Philosophy is detrimental to the analysis of religion

[Kyuuketsuki]

Philosophy was the forerunenr of science and, in my opinion, can still touch on things science can not e.g. the nature of abstracts such as courage, beuty etc.

Actually, as I recently said to Frodo:

Obviously I need to explain this a little more.

I pretty much despise standard "philosophy" and am contemptuous of most philosophical style arguments. Why? Because philosophy, alone, can prove nothing (ZERO, NADA, ZIP), Yes philosophy is a useful tool that feeds into the real world but alone it is nothing.

Philosophy seems to have (as is often the case within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Isaac Asimov (who was one of those dratted scientists as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. The late, great Isaac Asimov, in his wonderful "New Guide To Science" devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe, that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe philosophia meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). So a true philosopher is a seeker after knowledge and these seekers are not, I believe, those that like to blow philosophical sunshine up each other's arses but scientists and other real world investigators who attempt to provide real knowledge that is of real use to the human race. Science qualifications even reflect this ... whilst it is not absolutely necessary a typical scientist will have a doctorate and a doctorate is what? A PhD, a Doctor of Philosophy.

I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. I'm not saying that philosophy has no value but it is clear to me that the true philosophers of this world are scientists like Richard Dawkins.

Kyu