Religion and Reason/Reason and Religion

[Badlun]

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?

Morality is relative not absolute. For one culture or religion or section of society one thing can be moral but for other it will be totally immoral. For example drinking alcohol is norm and even symbol of status in one society but in other society it is highly immoral and sometimes even punishable.

In this case it is the selective, subjective, personal criteria which determine something to be moral or immoral. How this can be logical?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

@ Badlun

Because we're well aware that you're an agenda driven person; everything from trying to promote Osho for advocating secularism seems to have a central motivation behind it.

When you use words like "Obscurantism" the same way it is used in media or some propaganda rhetoric applied by Cohorts of Western imperialism and hegemony, then it reflects a great deal about your possible motivations of trying to use "soft" subversion.

When you use examples which are themselves rife with errors and are faulty. It means you're very Selectively choosing information; And giving a lopsided picture; Doens't obscurantism mean witholding information from people? Well then this is obscurantism; and this time the word is being used the correct way.

But let us also address that it is ironic you chose this study to support your argument; Because despite the defects in the study itself; if we take the study as accurate this means that INTUITIVE based information is FAULTY and prone to error. Which means that ANYTHING Osho says would be most likely erroneous based on the information we have in this study.

Furthermore if people who tend to be intutive are more religious what does that have to do with rationality and religion. Not every religion teaches the same things and some religions stress intuition more than reason. Christianity is one of those religions which stress intuition more than reason; where as Islam stresses going by evidence a verse of the Qur'an says "bring evidence if you are truthful".

Just saying "religion" is mislead and thus faulty.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Morality is relative not absolute. For one culture or religion or section of society one thing can be moral but for other it will be totally immoral. For example drinking alcohol is norm and even symbol of status in one society but in other society it is highly immoral and sometimes even punishable.

In this case it is the selective, subjective, personal criteria which determine something to be moral or immoral. How this can be logical?

You're talking about PERCEPTIONS OF MORALITY: this is a different construct than whether morality is absolute or relative. Morals could be absolute or they could be relative OR THEY COULD be a Mixture of Both or NEITHER!

But cultural relativity is different than moral relativity. What you're arguing is cultural perceptions of what is moral. Not morality,

[badmash_khel]

You're talking about PERCEPTIONS OF MORALITY: this is a different construct than whether morality is absolute or relative. Morals could be absolute or they could be relative OR THEY COULD be a Mixture of Both or NEITHER!

But cultural relativity is different than moral relativity. What you're arguing is cultural perceptions of what is moral. Not morality,

couldn't have said it better myself. This is one issue poeple confuse all the time.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

You're talking about PERCEPTIONS OF MORALITY: this is a different construct than whether morality is absolute or relative. Morals could be absolute or they could be relative OR THEY COULD be a Mixture of Both or NEITHER!

But cultural relativity is different than moral relativity. What you're arguing is cultural perceptions of what is moral. Not morality,

His understanding of moral philosophy is as shallow as his understanding of Islam.

He cannot differentiate between cultural relativism and moral relativism.

[Badlun]

His understanding of moral philosophy is as shallow as his understanding of Islam.

He cannot differentiate between cultural relativism and moral relativism.

I will discuss the other posts later but please tell me then that drinking alcohol is only a cultural issue and in Afghanistan because of the culture we may not drink but in London as the culture allows drinking so every Muslim in London can drink as it is a culture norm in London and it is not a moral or religious issue for a Muslim?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION], go read a book. Stop embarrassing the secular camp.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Badlun tries too hard to make it seem like his points of views have sophistication or profound insight; but he like his role model Osho both just mindlessly parrot things others have said without understanding the details or nuances behind them And in that he always argues something inaccurately.'


What Badlun doesn't realize that his ignorance of such details leaves him at a disadvantage and ultimately harm his cause.

[Badlun]

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.

Please explain to what logic pertains?
If these are poor intellectual foundations then what alternative you have for having strong intellectual foundations?

I am very clear in my approach. Logic or reason do not work in religion because religion is based on revelation from an unseen God to a an illiterate prophet who is not a logician or philosopher. Logic and reason have their role in philosophy but not in religion. Religion is faith and faith can never be rational. It does not mean faith is something bad because it is irrational or supra rational. But faith is out of the scope of reason.

[Badlun]

@ Badlun

Because we're well aware that you're an agenda driven person; everything from trying to promote Osho for advocating secularism seems to have a central motivation behind it.

When you use words like "Obscurantism" the same way it is used in media or some propaganda rhetoric applied by Cohorts of Western imperialism and hegemony, then it reflects a great deal about your possible motivations of trying to use "soft" subversion.

When you use examples which are themselves rife with errors and are faulty. It means you're very Selectively choosing information; And giving a lopsided picture; Doens't obscurantism mean witholding information from people? Well then this is obscurantism; and this time the word is being used the correct way.

But let us also address that it is ironic you chose this study to support your argument; Because despite the defects in the study itself; if we take the study as accurate this means that INTUITIVE based information is FAULTY and prone to error. Which means that ANYTHING Osho says would be most likely erroneous based on the information we have in this study.

Furthermore if people who tend to be intutive are more religious what does that have to do with rationality and religion. Not every religion teaches the same things and some religions stress intuition more than reason. Christianity is one of those religions which stress intuition more than reason; where as Islam stresses going by evidence a verse of the Qur'an says "bring evidence if you are truthful".

Just saying "religion" is mislead and thus faulty.

I have one agenda and that is to see Pashtuns at par with developmed nations. How can we reach there? Definitely by doing the same way these developed nations have done. In all these developed nations we see few elements common which are democracy, science, technology, rationalism, liberalism, secularism, research, modern education and these are the ingredients of my agenda.

Osho and Sufism are for the personal lives not for the nation or society to build our state.

All religios have few things in common which are faith, modes of worship and ethics. Islam being a religion stresses on these 3 elements. Quran talks of these 3 in its contents except very few injunctions which pertain to politics etc but all those injunctions also have moral underpinnings.

How Christianity is different from Islam. True Christianity is Islam minus Muhamamd. The same monotheism, hell, paradise, hereafter. There are some differences in rituals of worship. Morality is almost the same. Trinity is an innovation but if one goes deeper it is also monotheism.

[Badlun]

I sepaarte Reason and Religion. Here is a great quote in this regard by an ex Mutazilite scholar Ibne Al Rawandi

God has bestowed upon human beings the gift of intellect, by which they can judge right and wrong. If what the prophets announce corresponds to what the intellect decrees, then prophets are superfluous. If it contradicts what the intellect decrees, then one should not listen to them.

Prophets are for religious stuff like beliefs, worship and morality not for intellectual things for which we have Philosophy and Science.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well his argument means he never understood Mutazilah teachings. Because Mutazilah do not deny the role of Prophets, but rather than general moral principles are known by intellect but DETAILS of how to administer and enforce them are done with revelation. For example Penal code, method of prayer and such.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Also ibn Rawandi became an Apostate from Islam, so his arguments should be treated with a grain of salt

Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishaq al-Rawandi (Persian: ابو الحسن احمد بن یحیی بن اسحاق راوندی, Arabic: أبو الحسن أحمد بن يحيى بن إسحاق الراوندي), commonly known as Ibn al-Rawandi (Persian: ابن راوندی; born 827 CE–died 911 CE[1]), was an early skeptic of Islam and a critic of religion in general. In his early days he was a Mutazilite scholar, but after rejecting the Mutazilite doctrine he adhered to Shia Islam for a brief period and later became a freethinker who repudiated Islam and reviled religion.[2]