connected, page-24

The problem is between real philosophy, "love of wisdom", regarding existence, etc and philosophy that begins and ends with words.

So philosophy can be just as fundamental as religion. But I take your point, there is little likelihood that a fundamentalist could ever engage in a real search for truth and meaning.

Religion should be a form of philosophy in the truest sense. Instead we have a myriad of fundamental forms of religion that are anti-love of wisdom, anti-science. They suppress the search for and the expression of wisdom in philosophical settings.

Most religions desire their followers to conform. Even the very notion of being called a follower in general, or a follower of Christ 2000 years after the event, or a follower of a religious belief, etc, is the exact opposite of the free and unfettered search for truth and wisdom, which should be the motto of any true religion. A real religion would require its members to individually question all truths.

Religion does not need to be in conflict with science and philosophical principles. When it is you can be 100% certain that such a religion is of little use to anybody, other than providing a club to promote superstition and for companionship.

So I agree with you, but it doesn't have to be that way. Science, philosophy and religion should be very comfortable in each others company.