Why are religion and philosophy so oftenmixed up? Or let's say seen as one and the same thing., whereas carpenting and metalworking are not.?

Why are religion and philosophy so oftenmixed up?

~~ It is YOU who are 'mixed up'!

Philosophy is "original critical thought"!

Religion is the congregation of those infected with the same strain of belief!

A 'belief' is an infection of the imagination, the ego! A psychological condition, symptomatic, of ossified thoughts, frozen in the belief that it is Truth, and never needs to be critically examined again!

Philosophical, living, thought, is the opposite of the zombie thought of 'belief'!

Only 'mixed' up by people who don't know any better, who are 'confused'!

I think because religion involves philosophy. For a religion to believe something, it generally has to start with the basic questions of "what do we believe? Why do we believe that? How does that affect our lives? Et cetera. Carpentry and metallurgy really isn't a good metaphor for philosophy and religion, I'm sorry. Religion, to be credible in any degree, involves philosophy.

A good example is Taoism. It is so philosophically emphatic that the line between religion and philosophy is nearly nonexistent.

Oh really? You never heard of the guy who called the plumber to fix his lights? He thought he might be in the mood for a switch because his career before then was sinking.

All the ancient philosophers and mathematicians were cult leaders with religious followings. All of education and science was carried on by priests in the Middle Ages. Most people think philosophy equals the HISTORY of philosophy and so they can't really separate the cosmogony from the cosmology. In fact I challenge you to do so with any of the ancients.

you can't have religion without philosophy, in the same sense that you can't have a functioning car without first someone doing some kind of metal work. Philosophy is part of religion.

A clarification: "big bang" etc. theories = cosmogony; discourse about the universe = cosmology. Overlap of the two properly relates to both First Cause and Energy. Focus on what can be tested = physical science, and involves controlled verification of physical energy (aka science). While First Cause is logically unprovable (per infinite regress, universal negative, etc.), hence properly a topic of cosmogony, Energy is also undefined; hence, philosophy properly moderates scientism--inordinate and illogical dogmatic discourse re axioms concerning and theories of physical control--with the metrics of cosmogony as applied re Energy. The moderation of physical science/scientism is per two (general) modes, that of religious/spiritual/philosophic awareness of Energy qua Soul (and of First Cause as Oneness), and that of reductive analytic discussion re non-physically-measurable or "transcendental" categories re physical, or of Kantian, understanding. The fallacy of overgeneralization fails to differentiate among these three approaches (physical science, realized religious/spiritual/philosophic awareness (e.g. Husserl, Whitehead, Bergson, Godel, et al. in the modern Western philosophic canon), and reductive analysis), and said overgeneralization fallacy results in either too-narrow or too-broad claims of veracity in any of the three general areas of preferred approach (unto generating the three general distortions of: dogmatic scientism; undue claims of religious; and overly narrow "analytic metaphysics").

Carpentry! (Woodworking versus metalworking) No such thing as carpenting

1

it is because both are often discussed in the same manner using similar reading and words for instance the question How do you know you exist ? may lead to the obvious question Why do I exist both questions are often approached from the same angle