Philosophy, Religion, and Science

Philosophy is not Religion, Religion is not Science, and Science is not Philosophy.
 

This is the short version, and now the long version.
 

Many students confuse these enterprises of human thought and imagination and see them as similar.  I suppose in some ways they are similar in that each one of them provides tools as to how one can understand the world. 
 

The contrasts appear weightier, however.
 

Philosophy

Philosophy presents the task of scrutinizing by asking questions and in that sense is skeptical in its essence.  By “skeptical” I do not mean asking for the sake of doing so or even doubting before one is certain.  
 

Instead, the skeptical approach, taken from Sextus Empiricus, is one of seeking, scrutinizing, and suspending judgement.  Rational and phenomenological means are often the tools here.  Questioning is the essential act of the philosopher.
 

Verification and falsifiability may not play much of a part since the questions may be those that do not as yet offer a proof or have standards of disproof.
 

As others have noted, however, when there is an answer to a philosophical question, it then becomes a field of Science.
 

Religion

Does Religion employ such a view?  This may be a part of the religious view, one may scrutinize any belief, but much of the religious approach is about relating to the supernatural world.  The re-ligio of the Latin term, the “re-tying” oneself to an otherworldly reality, however construed, is essential.  
 

This may involve a number of actions whether prayer, ritual, or spontaneous acts of devotion.  The devotional act is the work of the religious person.
 

In this case, one may employ intuitive means and some rational attitude to understand it.  There may even be an empirical view of sorts to it but that is restricted to anecdotal evidence.
 

Theologians, usually in Western religions, may offer various proofs of their belief but these lack empirical testing and either are tautologies or are non-falsifiable.  The ontological proof, for instance, builds upon a tautology.  
 

Science

Science is closer to the philosophical view but takes in a more empirical approach.  The “scientific method” does engage rational means of preparation but, ultimately, it must pass the empirical test.  
 

The scientific experiment is likely the essence of this approach.  If the experiment fails repeatedly, then that is a disproof of whatever hypothesis was the catalyst for it.  
 

Where one encounters the problem of non-falsifiability is in theoretical discussion of a scientific field.  There is some overlap though with rational discussion through mathematical means.  For instance, in the history of modern physics a mathematical model preceded the experimental finding of the phenomenon.
 

Two instances that come to mind are the examples of relativity and anti-matter.  In both instances a physicist, whether Einstein or Dirac, followed where the math was leading and discovered that, mathematically, relativity or anti-matter were a part of the world. 
 

Concluding Comparison

The work of Philosophy is to question values, and a skeptical view is its approach.  Religion has the task of affirming the value of a relation to a supernatural world, and devotion is its venue.  Science presents the instruments to test values, and experimentation is its main tool.
 

In this light, it is intriguing that people try to put all of these endeavors in the same arena, as if a philosopher, a priest, and a scientist go about similar tasks when they are not even aiming at the same goal. 
 

A philosopher, a priest, and a scientist walk into a bar.  The philosopher asked, “Why are we here?”  The scientist stated, “Because we are thirsty.”  The priest replied, “Praise the Lord!”