Religion and Reason/Reason and Religion

[Badlun]

I found it very strange that members like RTR who claim to be a rational guy is at the same time a religious extremist, fundamentalist, Islamist, obscurantist, pro Sharia in this modern era. My position is separating the scope and role of religion and philosophy in our lives. I am not a disbeliever or atheist but at the same time I consider Islam as a religion to be based on revelation and not reason. As I can be a father and son at the same time, similarly I can use reason in my other aspects of life but not in religion.

Philosophy is the search of ultimate truth with rational methods(reason) while religion is a system of faith, worship and ethics most of the time based on revelation with a connection between a prophet and a super natural entity(entities) usually called God. Both have their tools(reason and revelation) and both have their scope. Revelation cannot work in philosophy and reason cannot work in religion.

In religions like Buddhism the role of revelation is played by inspiration, enlightenment, intuition, meditation and contemplation.

On individual level a religious person can use reason and a philosopher can be inspired by something based on revelation. But as a discipline both have their own paths to reach reality. Science is another way to reach reality by senses and experiment. I will discuss science and religion somewhere else.

There are plenty of irreligious atheists who reason poorly. At the same time, it seems rare for religion to promote reason or value logic while at the same time it's common for religion to praise high emotions and faith, two things which often inhibit good reasoning. (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...bel_reason.htm)

Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:
Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.

Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.



Psychologists William Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, predicted that people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers. Their study confirmed the hypothesis and the findings illuminate the mysterious cognitive process by which we reach decisions about our beliefs.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason

Let us have a discussion here on the premise that Islam as a religion has nothing to do with reason and vice versa.

[Friend]

Your so called reason and logic could not refute a single verse of the holy Quran for the last 1400 years though your reason and logic changes and takes u-turns on daily basis.
Quran is far superior than your so called logic and reason.

[Badlun]

Your so called reason and logic could not refute a single verse of the holy Quran for the last 1400 years though your reason and logic changes and takes u-turns on daily basis.
Quran is far superior than your so called logic and reason.

Yes I 100% agree with you. Qur'an is a miracle. It is a great book of religion, literature, poetry, music but not a book of Philosophy or logic or science. Reason has nothing to do with Qur'an and vice versa. This is what I want to prove in this topic that heart has a reason which reason cannot understand.

Only on moral injunctions one can apply some reason but even in religious ethics like banning alcohol sometimes emotions are more effective than reason. In secular morality reason is more applicable.

Qur'an for religious people is far superior to reason in religious sense. Religion is based on beliefs, faith, love, emotions and not reason. This is why people like Mutazelites are self contradictory. Reason cannot be applied in religion. Both have different ways and scopes.

[Badlun]

[MENTION=4934]RevolutionThroughReason[/MENTION]

I would love to have your feedback on the issue that reason has no role in religion because religion is based on revelation which comes from metaphysical supernatural non human entity 'God' while reason is human and based on logic, intellect and rationality. Religion is faith in unseen and faith in unseen can never be rational.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I found it very strange that members like RTR who claim to be a rational guy is at the same time a religious extremist, fundamentalist, Islamist, obscurantist, pro Sharia in this modern era.

do you even know what obscurantist means?

[khushal]

Yes I 100% agree with you. Qur'an is a miracle. It is a great book of religion, literature, poetry, music but not a book of Philosophy or logic or science. Reason has nothing to do with Qur'an and vice versa. This is what I want to prove in this topic that heart has a reason which reason cannot understand.

Only on moral injunctions one can apply some reason but even in religious ethics like banning alcohol sometimes emotions are more effective than reason. In secular morality reason is more applicable.

Qur'an for religious people is far superior to reason in religious sense. Religion is based on beliefs, faith, love, emotions and not reason. This is why people like Mutazelites are self contradictory. Reason cannot be applied in religion. Both have different ways and scopes.

But you have no logic or reason, you are a manipulator and a denier of reason and logic which means you probably answered $10.

But to comment on the study, it is actually flawed. you cant base a persons belief system on one question. The question does require basic math knowledge, if you ask any person in 6th grade or someone that has not gone beyond 6th grade, the vast majority would get it wrong but that does not mean they are religious. It just means they lack the knowledge to solve the problem.
also most Canadians are not religious not because they got the question wrong but because Christianity itself is flawed, it does not take a genius to reject man made pagan belief of virgin sacrifice to save humanity.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I found it very strange that members like RTR who claim to be a rational guy is at the same time a religious extremist, fundamentalist, Islamist, obscurantist, pro Sharia in this modern era. My position is separating the scope and role of religion and philosophy in our lives. I am not a disbeliever or atheist but at the same time I consider Islam as a religion to be based on revelation and not reason. As I can be a father and son at the same time, similarly I can use reason in my other aspects of life but not in religion.

Philosophy is the search of ultimate truth with rational methods(reason) while religion is a system of faith, worship and ethics most of the time based on revelation with a connection between a prophet and a super natural entity(entities) usually called God. Both have their tools(reason and revelation) and both have their scope. Revelation cannot work in philosophy and reason cannot work in religion.

In religions like Buddhism the role of revelation is played by inspiration, enlightenment, intuition, meditation and contemplation.

On individual level a religious person can use reason and a philosopher can be inspired by something based on revelation. But as a discipline both have their own paths to reach reality. Science is another way to reach reality by senses and experiment. I will discuss science and religion somewhere else.

There are plenty of irreligious atheists who reason poorly. At the same time, it seems rare for religion to promote reason or value logic while at the same time it's common for religion to praise high emotions and faith, two things which often inhibit good reasoning. (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...bel_reason.htm)

Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:
Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.

Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.



Psychologists William Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, predicted that people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers. Their study confirmed the hypothesis and the findings illuminate the mysterious cognitive process by which we reach decisions about our beliefs.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason

Let us have a discussion here on the premise that Islam as a religion has nothing to do with reason and vice versa.

[Badlun]

do you even know what obscurantist means?

You know very well that I know what obscurantist means. If you are not the one who withholds knowledge from the general public or you do not have deliberate vagueness or abstruseness and you are not an enemy of the Enlightenment and if you do not want to darken individual understanding and our picture of the world, our idea of existence by your negative theories of environmental and social disorders by spread of secularism and development in Muslim countries then forget about obscurantism but share your ideas how reason is valid in religion.

You may also know that in religion, obscurantism is associated with religious fundamentalism and inability to adapt to changing human realities. When you oppose secularism and development then automatically you are an obscurantist. However in this thread I will request you for your ideas on the inter relationship of reason and religion and other points I raised above.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Come on; you just looked up the word after I asked you; I can tell because you're copying a few sentences from the dictionary verbatim. You can't fool me; you had no idea what the word meant until I asked you and you went to the internet and looked it up. Now all you're trying to do is pull things out of the air and make false accusations and try to fit your portrayal into the definition. You're just rattling off the Typical Media Narrative and conflating things together totally ignorantly I might add. bnI oppose secularism but I never opposed development; Secularism and Development are not Synonymous. As proven by the case that Most of Africa is secularist but under developed. Not to mention that places in Africa that are developed like South Africa have gross disparity between White Invaders and Native Blacks.

This demonstrates that you're quite an uneducated person who relies on Lies; Illogical Arguments, Propaganda and ignorance to promote your agenda. And this proven by this previous post of yours.

[Badlun]

So far I did not see your response on the original theme of the thread reason versus religion.

If I use the word obscurantism then I must know its meaning which is not a very difficult to guess from the word obscure what it will mean. I gave you its definition and for that if I consult a dictionary then there is no harm in that. You like evidence so I have to give a formal definition at least where it can be given

But be honest why you indulge in off the topic discussion and do not come to the point..reason vs religion. Instead of personal remarks we may engage ourselves in intelelctual discussions and may share and learn instead of trying humiliating others and hair splitting as here the issue is reason and religion but our discussion is on a tertiary issue obscurantism.

[Badlun]

But you have no logic or reason, you are a manipulator and a denier of reason and logic which means you probably answered $10.

But to comment on the study, it is actually flawed. you cant base a persons belief system on one question. The question does require basic math knowledge, if you ask any person in 6th grade or someone that has not gone beyond 6th grade, the vast majority would get it wrong but that does not mean they are religious. It just means they lack the knowledge to solve the problem.
also most Canadians are not religious not because they got the question wrong but because Christianity itself is flawed, it does not take a genius to reject man made pagan belief of virgin sacrifice to save humanity.

I am a denier of logic in religion but not in Philosophy. In religion what matters is faith not logic while in philosophy there is no faith but reason and logic.

The question was an example not to base everything related to religion or reason on that one question.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I am a denier of logic in religion but not in Philosophy. In religion what matters is faith not logic while in philosophy there is no faith but reason and logic.

The question was an example not to base everything related to religion or reason on that one question.

In other words, you cannot arrive at morality via logic so you choose to be illogical when it comes to morality.


Guys, Badlun believes morality is illogical. You know what that means, right?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

So far I did not see your response on the original theme of the thread reason versus religion.

If I use the word obscurantism then I must know its meaning which is not a very difficult to guess from the word obscure what it will mean. I gave you its definition and for that if I consult a dictionary then there is no harm in that. You like evidence so I have to give a formal definition at least where it can be given

But be honest why you indulge in off the topic discussion and do not come to the point..reason vs religion. Instead of personal remarks we may engage ourselves in intelelctual discussions and may share and learn instead of trying humiliating others and hair splitting as here the issue is reason and religion but our discussion is on a tertiary issue obscurantism.

No it doesn't mean you know what it means it means you're just copying and repeating rhetoric you have read elsewhere that is used as an Assault of Jargon to play on theatrics for the reader. If you don't know how to make a basic; Just because it may come from the word Obscure doesn't mean it means the same thing as obscure. If you were giving its formal definition You would have POSTED A LINK to the source you were quoting from instead of PRETENDING these were your own words .

The reason why highlighting your use of Obscurantism is crucial is because if you're INTELLECTUALLY dishonest enough to Misrepresent things with using Words incorrectly; which you have done. Then what does that say about the potential for you to Misrepresent other information> We see that the term Obscurtanism applies here most. Your understanding of Logic here is not what logic pertains to; but Self serving you're only relegating Logic to when it serves your agenda and what it doesn't. When you promote Secularism and Osho propaganda; you deny the Importance of Logic; because then that leads to hard questions you're incapable of answering or dealing with when existential incoherence of your claims arises. But when others challenge you; you asks for logic.

That's why this discourse is faulty from the get go; You're not intellectually honest and the premise of your discourse already assumes what it claims to demonstrate as correct. These are poor intellectual foundations.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I
Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:
Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.

Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.

This is actually a very flawed example. I'm a believer in God and I have a logical approach to answering this question. In this wuestion there are two stipulations; firstly the bat is 100 more than the ball and secondly their total cost is 110. This deals with a Logical Process known as Correlation does not mean Causation. Just because the Bat is 100 more than the ball doesn't mean the Cost of the bat 100 and the ball is 10.

It's saying that the Bat costs 100 MORE than ball and and TOGETHER they add up to 110. if the Ball was 10l; then the Bat would be 90 MORE. It's easy if you think Algebraically; X + (X +100) = 110 where X is the cost of the Ball, then 2x +100 = 110 ---> 2 x= 10 ---> x= 5 This has nothing to do with intuitive thinking vs. rational thinking though and here is why. The Question asks "If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball....". Here it saying "and the bat costs $100" to make it seem like the Price of the bat is $100.

Instead of asking "If a baseball and bat cost a total of $110, but the price of the bat is $100's greater than the price of the ball". Would have been a less misleading question. So what this demonstrates is not intuition vs. problem solving but how the use of Language can mislead people

Another Flaw of this study IS THAT MOST of the ATHEISTS also scored poorly on this question. So the study does show that most of the ones who got this right were Atheists/Skeptics but It is making a hasty generalization that it has anything to do with the fact they are Atheists/Skeptics.


There are other issues like sample space problem but these are the major ones; So this study is not even meritable to argue this case.

[Badlun]

Why there is dishonesty in this forum that people catch the weakest or insignificant area of an argument and dilate upon that for personal vendetta and do not dilate upon the crux of the matter with the true spirit to learn and share .

For example in this thread the whole focus is on the example of base ball and its price and meaning of words but not on the theme that is there any role of reason in religion or religion has some connection with reason or these two are parallel concepts important in its own realm and domain but not bridged with each other.

Some threads like this one may be spared for true educational and research purposes not for scoring points and letting the other down by hook or crook.

Kindly let me know where reason is applicable in religion or otherwise?