View Full Version : Religious Faith vs. Reason
Among many other arguments in religion and philosophy, I have always found the debate of faith and reason one of the more fascinating, and worth discussion. Though faith and reason do not always contradict each other, one frequently sees strong followers of faith (such as in devout religions) in sometimes heated arguments with those who more prefer reason (such as in a few religions, science, etc.).
Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle would like to think that any truth appears attainable by the use of linear logic and reason; hence one reads works like The Republic, Phaedrus, Nicomachean Ethics, and Metaphysics encountering the purest of all logic. Other thinkers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and William James more aim at the utilization of logic, but claim the superiority of faith, as evidenced in works like The Varieties Of Religious Experiences. Then the uniquity of thinkers like David Hume and Michel de Montaigne claim utmost skepticism.
Faith, to me, seems something entirely more holistic, requiring no empirical proof, and directed extensively by intuition; reason, on the contrary, appears something greatly more linear and analytical (taking step-by-step), often evidenced by empirical proof, directed more by logic than intuition. One will notice that, more often, faith seems vastly more involved in religious practices, supported by texts, such as The Bible, The Koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Torah, The Talmud, Tao Te Ching, The Analects, The Necronomicon, etc., while reason appears more involved in various philosophical works, of course, not calling religion un-philosophical.
Hence, I pose these questions to you. Do you find yourself following faith, reason, both, or one more than the other? What strengths and weaknesses, in your opinion, do you frequently find with faith and/or reason?
Before ending this post, I must urge everyone to continue the respect for others' beliefs, though I would absolutely love to discuss this topic. :)
Reason is a cow
06-22-2006, 08:40 PM
:) Interesting post. Here is what I think. I am not a cynic. I have just gone through experiences, let's call them realizations, that have contibuted to my personal religion and philosophy, and that is self religion. Faith is a biological phenomenon--quite simply it is a brainwash, and I can't say that I don't wish that I were brainwashed by religion, life would be lighter, happier and much more sensible. Don't take "brainwash" in a positive or negaitive light, it is what it is. Faith is the complete succumbiing of your ideas and self for those of another or an organized idea. I have religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims in my family. I am a keen observer--it is brainwashing. Reason, I think, is no better. I also have strict atheists in my fam and reason is it's own faith, closed to certain ideas, and stuffed with others. Both faith and reason are antinodes, but there is a fine line between them--like communism and fascism hehe. I do not focus on any of them. Reason without faith, and faith without reason, are recipes for ignorance and self destruction of any hope to evolve. The delicate balance of both, fueled by intuition and open-mindedness, is, in my view, the better of the two.
Virgil
06-22-2006, 09:16 PM
My quick take on this is as follows. Reason leads me to believe that God exists and is the source of life and of the universe. Faith is what I use to anchor me in the particular relgion I grew up in and believe. Reason can't descriminate between religions, one just has to have faith.
ooh, cool topic!
faith explains all the stuff that reason can't. i beleive that faith used to predominate - ex. the popularity of the catholic church, crusades, the label of "infidel" - but as we grow in "reason", we decrease the same in "faith", as there are less things for faith to be the only explanation for.
sooo . . . personally, i go for reason, because i just can't being myself to beleive something i know an alternate explanation for, or know can never be proven. however, it's faith that makes life interesting . . . otherwise we're a bunch of random numbers and nobody's special and there's no such thing as a soul.
faith cannot be proven, and reason cannot be disproven - there's flaws in each.
Reason is a cow
06-22-2006, 10:14 PM
Reason and faith are both trickeries of the mind that lack core prinicples. :) They are on the same plane in my view.
grace86
06-22-2006, 11:12 PM
Maybe that's why I am so indecisive all the time. I read Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Montaigne!!!!
I believe in both reason and faith. I would almost agree with Virgil on this one, my reason leads me to believe in my God.
I must say I take issue with most of the opinions in this thread. Particularly the idea that faith and reason do not always contradict one another (indeed, faith could be said to be the the opposite of reason), and also two things that "Reason is a cow" said:
Reason, I think, is no better.
Reason without faith, and faith without reason, are recipes for ignorance and self destruction of any hope to evolve.
I fail to see how reason is "no better" than faith, considering faith is by its nature irrational. I am again lost in trying to understand why reason should be diluted with faith, and how failure to do so leads to ignorance and destruction, and what "evolving" has to do with anything.
Also: in reference to the initial post, the Necronomicon doesn't actually exist. You'll forgive me if I'm missing a joke by saying this.
i was engaged in a similar discussion in another forum recently and responded with this...
if it cannot be weighed, if it cannot be measured, if it cannot be quantified, if it cannot be appreciated through the conventions of human science, does it exist? "no. 'empiricism is believeing,'" states the atheist. similar statements of logic punctuate the atheist dialectic to a fault. "if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" absolutely. the reality of sound [transmitted vibrations of any frequency] is not contingent upon human awareness. if the universe is infinite the mystery therein is infinite and no science known or unknown can account for the infinite dimensions beyond the human dimension of awareness. how presumptive to infer human intellect the supreme intellect of the universe when humankind know naught of the universe furthermore of humankind. it is absurd to infer from the interest of logic and science god does not exist because empirical evidence of god does not exists. however, faith in the existence of god is not without foundations in reality.
faith in the existence of god is not established in the school of ignorance suchas superstition, predjudice, illogic, fear, credulity, abstraction and the blind devotion to the ideas of institution.
proverbs 4:7, "wisdom is the prime thing. acquire wisdom; and with all that you acquire, acquire understanding."
knowledge is the key to wisdom and understaning the element by which to fashion knowledge.
hebrews 11:1, "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."
"the evident demonstration," of truth, reason, logic and facts are the bedrock of faith.
"the evident demonstration," according to thomas aquinas, the praeambula fidei the preambles of faith or the revealed truths of god discovered independent of inspired revelation through secular philosophy and science. in consequence, foundations in reality, [circumstantial] evidence and reason.
romans 1:20, "for his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and godship, so that [opposers of truth] are inexcusable"
the universe is of a variety of complexity so great, the mind cannot begin to understand the construction and precision. what is space? what is time? what is gravity?
the laws that govern the physical world are constant. they do not fluctuate they do not fail [in principle conditions at or beyond planck units of spacetime.] e=mc2. yesterday. today. tomorrow.
moreover, the universe is so calibrated for life the mathematical probility the universe and calibration occured via "chance" is 10^10^123. (mathematician roger penrose, 1989; 343) an event that exceeds 10^50 is considered to have a zero probility.
faith in the existence of god is established in truth; the various facets thereof suchas science logic history the branches of knowledge concerning the observation of the natural order of the universe. knowledge to assists in discerning the wisdom of the revelation of the scriptures; the bible. reason and revelation. the preambles of faith established of philosophy and science matured through the articles of faith established of theology and vice versa.
however this paradox endures, the wise are fools and the fools are wise, "men have often noticed that the untutored or simpleminded, in their purity of heart, could penetrate to profounder truths than those encumbered with learning and convention" (walter kaiser) as the wisdom of man is set against the wisdom of god.
1 corinthians 1:19-21 & 25, "19 for it is written: "i will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] i will shove aside." 20 where is the wise man? where the scribe? where the debater of this system of things? did not god make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 for since, in the wisdom of god, the world through its wisdom did not get to know god, god saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing. 25 because a foolish thing of god is wiser than men, and a weak thing of god is stronger than men."
the requisite to attain true faith out of the fund of wisdom is heart no less. humility of heart removed of ego and pride. "real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." (confucius) removed of ideological bias in favor of objectivism.
"the whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." (physicist stephen hawking)
therefore, science not only accommodates but asserts within reason the existence of god because science does not disqualify within reason the existence of god.
sHaRp12
06-23-2006, 03:49 AM
Faith is something humans need. There will always be religions as long as humanity exists.
The lower someones cultural level is the easier it is for them to become religious.
To put it simply we(humans) like the feeling of security. And faith is the easiest way to obtain it.
How pleasant that all of you like this topic, also - one of my favorite philosophical subjects!
While placing an immense amount of meditation in the subject, I sometimes find that some people's logic seems linear, but still ruled entirely by faith; in this instance, I feel that both faith and reason can exist in the same person. Most logic, I have found, seems often directed by syllogisms: "if this and this have truth, then this must have truth." Though, of course, not insulting others' faith, I feel that the reference of many religious texts directs towards a faith-based reason in more religious syllogisms. Indeed, someone who considers himself/herself a specific religion follower may question his/her beliefs, but I think that people who often follow reason more strongly often question religion more frequently.
Though, indeed, in my initial post, I have read almost all of the religious texts listed, and many works of all of the philosophers posted, I still find myself questioning everything with an immense skepticism, mostly directed by reason, but I do have some faith-based beliefs (things I cannot prove but merely believe). Both faith and reason seem entirely inevitable to some degree, I think, and they do not even have to involve religion or philosophy. Something faith-based: I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning; I cannot prove it, but judge it only because it has occurred every morning of my life (faith-based). Additionally, in a simple syllogism, if the sun gives light, and the sun does not rise, then the sky will remain dark (reason-based).
Do all of you find the same, that, to a degree, both faith and reason in any individual seem entirely inevitable?
Gallantry
06-23-2006, 12:53 PM
Faith is something humans need. There will always be religions as long as humanity exists.
The lower someones cultural level is the easier it is for them to become religious.
To put it simply we(humans) like the feeling of security. And faith is the easiest way to obtain it.
I would agree that humans need faith;however, I'm not so sure about the statement concerning cultural levels. Maybe you could clarify what you meant by that because "cultural level" could refer to many different things.
byquist
06-23-2006, 04:51 PM
Comprehensive question, that's for sure.
I generally don't see a big battle line between the two; that they can work in tangent with each other just fine, thank you.
If you were to ask me which is the most difficult of attainment, I'd have to currently say the birth and maintenance of (perpetual) faith. Of course, faith means different things to different individuals, and hopefully is not a static thing; but some folks probably like it to be static, one-sided, and perhaps even their-sided. So be it; "let it be."
A ballet guy or gal (or an ice skater, or ski jumper, etc.) doing a big leap has the faith the he/she will land effectively. Wherever courage is expressed, it seems that faith and reason merge or blend.
But, obviously, most people when they mention the word are talking about some aspect of what we call religion. For instance, Jesus mentions, "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed ye shall say unto this mountain remove hence to yonder place - and nothing shall be impossible for you" (paraphrase). His sense of faith was linked to the physics of the universe that we experience and tend to too often address solely with human reason, and thus limit. He consistently opposed, superceded or defied human reason, ie. let's say, storms are not supposed to be stopped in their tracks by a person walking on earth; but he did. Of course, some say one is being a dope to view that the events in the Bible actually transpired in reality. But I say, it's more fun to assume that they took place; it opens doors. Also, if you have a slight hint, or sign via one's own experience, of what appears impossible (or read about it, say a sky diver's parachutte not opening and the person surviving the fall), one begins to doubt the educated, self-imposed limitations placed by human rationality upon experience.
My response would be that the ballet dancer who repeatedly lands perfectly after a double or tripple twist leap (whatever its called they do) is proving that faith and reason go side by side. In a way, they are "moving mountains" because, I ask you, don't they do what to most of us looks to be impossible? Likewise, the same goes for a guy like Evil Knievel. Could you jump over a dozen busses? (Just kidding!)
You ask a very tough question. Maybe I'll have something with some scholarship behind it, but give me a few months at least.
Faith - people need in order to make the life bearable. A lie of the worst kind, all too often used to make excuses for all sorts of terrible deeds.
It is not my intension to offend anybody. That's just how I feel.
My upbringing was Catholic and it took some years to get rid of the luggage. I still have conversations with "God" but I see Him/Her as an aspect of my inner life, not as a supernatural being. Difficult to get rid of old habbits but their meaning changes.
By no means is Reason any better. Sure, we need it in science. But many people tend to think that just because the modern science rests on the Reason, it means that everthing can and should be expained in terms of Reason. Many things shouldn't. It would be better if we could more often only BE, not think.
Was that too new age? :p sorry
cuppajoe_9
06-23-2006, 06:19 PM
"no. 'empiricism is believeing,'" states the atheist.No atheist that I've ever met says that.
moreover, the universe is so calibrated for life the mathematical probility the universe and calibration occured via "chance" is 10^10^123. (mathematician roger penrose, 1989; 343) an event that exceeds 10^50 is considered to have a zero probility.Enormous logical fallicy. The universe is not 'calibrated for life', life is calibrated for the universe.
I, personally, have faith only in people.
I, personally, have faith only in people.
Amen to that.
Virgil
06-23-2006, 08:07 PM
I, personally, have faith only in people.
Really? Like Hitler or Stalin or the millions of other tyrants and murderers.
ShoutGrace
06-23-2006, 10:00 PM
The lower someones cultural level is the easier it is for them to become religious.
I also think that this statement needs to be explained.
Faith - people need in order to make the life bearable.
Whether faith makes peoples lives easier doesn't have a bearing on it's nature. I didn't choose to become a theist because my life was unbearable; I had (and do have) a very decent life, actually. My irretractable spiritual convictions do not exist because I needed them to be there.
A lie of the worst kind, all too often used to make excuses for all sorts of terrible deeds.
"All too often"? What was your barometer in making such a judgement?
Secondly, how does one persons corruption and manipulation of a faith change the nature of the faith itself? How can we judge a faith based on the misuse by it of others? Hitler claimed he was a Christian and talked a bit about that particular faith in his work 'Mein Kampf'. His dereliction of the ideals, morals and commandments of the Christian faith is indisputable.
(Yes, Scher, I am aware of Godwin's Law :D )
How people respond to and act in the name of the Bible (or any other text or religious belief system) has zero bearing on the words, beliefs, and ideals contained therein. "An idea is not responsible for those that believe in it." I would change this to, "A glorious and transcendently beautiful and loving idea is not responsible if people butcher and misinterpret it to fit their own needs. Nor is it responsible if humans work against it's premises to the detriment of their own kind." If every human loved every other human as themselves, and each person lived for the good of everyone around him, the world would be a better place, I think.
While placing an immense amount of meditation in the subject, I sometimes find that some people's logic seems linear, but still ruled entirely by faith; in this instance, I feel that both faith and reason can exist in the same person.
I don't believe that I have sacrificed reason to any degree by choosing to have faith in things that I cannot quantify. Perhaps I think this because I have an improper definition of the words floating around in my head. Mono, could you please put forth a definition of both 'reason' and 'faith' for us to go by?
Really? Like Hitler or Stalin or the millions of other tyrants and murderers.
No like millions of those those that fought them, that spoke against them, that risked their lives to save the ones in need.
ShoutGrace, I knew so very well that my statemants would provoke believers of different kinds. But I also know that many people feel like I do but that they often keep quiet because they don't want to provoke the religious people. I don't see why it shouln't be say. If your faith can't take it, well how strong is it?
ShoutGrace, could you please keep the names of people you cite? It's confusing otherwise.
Life being unbearable - I did not mean in a materialistic, but rather in an existential kind of way. It takes a lot of guts to accept the fact that there is no God, that there are no universial laws of moral to follow, that death is the end, that the only thing we have is our selves and other living creatures, but nothing supernatural.
The entire fiction of God and religion in all its different shapes has as it's main purpose to give comfort, to shelter from this abyss of truth.
And it's total bull that the faith - because it is an "idea" - can not be held responsable for evil deeds. I admit, I have used that argument so many times my self until realising that it does not hold. If you can use and misuse an idea pretty much as you please, over and over again, exacly how good is that idea? It does not have to mean that content of a certain faith is bad (the message of Christ can not possible be misused) but that the mechanisms that Faith operates by make it unusually usuable for misuse.
ShoutGrace
06-24-2006, 02:05 AM
I don't see why it shouln't be say. If your faith can't take it, well how strong is it?
It should be said if it is your opinion. I just do not agree that it is necessarily true.
Who said anything about my faith not being able to take it? Can you clarify that statement for me?
But I also know that many people feel like I do but that they often keep quiet because they don't want to provoke the religious people.
I haven't seen too many people from either side of the spectrum operate that way here on the forum. :D Thankfully.
The entire fiction of God and religion in all its different shapes has as it's main purpose to give comfort, to shelter from this abyss of truth.
I disagree with that opinion. I think that God and religion in all their different shapes and forms are manifestations of man's desire to apprehend truth.
I believe that God exists because it is what I know to be true. I don't need to be comforted. I don't need to be sheltered from anything. What I need is to seek out and attempt to understand truth.
It does not have to mean that content of a certain faith is bad (the message of Christ can not possible be misused) but that the mechanisms that Faith operates by make it unusually usuable for misuse.
Can you expound on the phrasing 'the mechanisms that faith operates by'? I don't want to misunderstand you.
cuppajoe_9
06-24-2006, 02:48 AM
Really? Like Hitler or Stalin or the millions of other tyrants and murderers.People like Ghandi or Mandella or Bach or Shakespeare or Lincoln or Rouseau or Dickens or Einstein or Banting or Curie or Plato or Hipocrates, mostly. I have faith that people are generally a decent bunch. I have faith that we can solve our own problems, with or without divine intervention.
It should be said if it is your opinion.
Of course it mine. I wrote it.
I haven't seen too many people from either side of the spectrum operate that way here on the forum.
Well that was my point.
Can you expound on the phrasing 'the mechanisms that faith operates by'? I don't want to misunderstand you.
Sure. When a scientist looks at an empirical material, he tries to make sense of it. He comes up with a hypoteses that he tries against the empirical material. Does it suite it? Does it explain the fenomena we observe? Can it be used to predict behaviour of the fenomena in future? Anyone in the world, with proper training, can test and confirm the results. As times goes by, the theory can be adjusted, if new obeservations become known. But again, they are tested and confirmed.
This procedure uses reason. Observe, theoretize, test, confirm.
When Christianity (just to take an example!) started as an organisation, a bunch of religious leaders came together and tried to decied what to believe. Since then they have adjusted the dogmas of faith a countless number of times, to fit the momentary needs (very often political). A few people are supposed to have the primary right to decide what is the truth and what to believe in. If an individual that belongs to their congregation does not share their beliefs, s/he is -- well that varys. Most often condemned or punished in various ways.
So what ever the needs of the religious leader-this decides what to believe. This makes faith a very good tool in politics. It doesn't really matter what you believe as long as you can make others believe that you have the truth and that they should follow you. In the best case, they will be harmless to other people, in worst deadly. But the beliefs themselves can never be tested, can never be justified. If you don't share them you will not benefit from the good of that particular religion (come to paradise, get 10 virgins for killing those of opposite faith or what ever).
Try not to take this personally since it is not intended so.
Put another way, the reason (tool of science) compares its theries to the emprirical evidence.
The content of faith is in a high degree decided by the particular historical situation when it was formed. (E.g. if the Christian leaders that met at Nicea had lived in a matriarchal instead of a patriarchal society, the Cristian faith would have looked very different. And no I don't believe in Dan Brown.) This makes religious beliefs arbitrary.
I don't believe that I have sacrificed reason to any degree by choosing to have faith in things that I cannot quantify.
Precisely my point! :nod:
Everyone, I believe, carries a compromise of some sort (often in imbalanced, unmeasurable ratios) between faith and reason; one does not necessarily sacrifice one of the other, but someone may either 'know' something through their faith, or 'know' something through reason. Both, indeed, can subsist in the same individual, and some people wander strongly toward one degree (far into faith, or far into reason).
Perhaps I think this because I have an improper definition of the words floating around in my head. Mono, could you please put forth a definition of both 'reason' and 'faith' for us to go by?
Yikes, good question! I fear that I cannot quite think of the best definitions for faith and reason, but rely more on Dictionary.com/ (I feel so nerdy and official sometimes :D):
Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
For 'reason,' I will only quote the definitions applicable to the thread, as the word can get quite ambiguous:
Reason
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
7. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
These definitions, though some sound rather vague, sum the best meanings for faith and reason, but I would like to emphasize my point that faith, to me, seems entirely holistic, not led by logic, and increasingly intuitive, while reason seems far more linear (taking step-by-step logic), and more analytical. For example: if one created a common religion, it appears written, agreed upon, but validated by a set of common beliefs not always ruled by logic; neither of this flows, however, for example, like some of the works by Plato or Aristotle (some of the hallmark writers of reason).
The content of faith is in a high degree decided by the particular historical situation when it was formed. (E.g. if the Christian leaders that met at Nicea had lived in a matriarchal instead of a patriarchal society, the Cristian faith would have looked very different. And no I don't believe in Dan Brown.) This makes religious beliefs arbitrary.
As a personal footnote, from what it sounds, Sabo, I would like to make a book recommendation. From some of your posts, I think a book called The Alphabet Vs. The Goddess by Leonard Shlain would really interest you. :nod:
cuppajoe_9
06-24-2006, 01:42 PM
I don't believe in Dan Brown.Just a conspiracy of book publishers, then?
Joke, it was a joke.
ShoutGrace
06-24-2006, 07:27 PM
“Of course it mine. I wrote it.”
I wasn’t casting doubt on whether you wrote it. I was reinforcing the fact that they were opinions; and that as such, you should feel free to present them for discussion. I really don’t have any question that you would have written that.
“Well that was my point.”
Huh. That’s kind of odd. From your previous post I concluded you were saying that often, atheists / agnostics don’t speak their mind for fear of provoking religious people. I only think that because of the following:
“ShoutGrace, I knew so very well that my statemants would provoke believers of different kinds. But I also know that many people feel like I do but that they often keep quiet because they don't want to provoke the religious people.”
To which I responded:
“I haven't seen too many people from either side of the spectrum operate that way here on the forum. :D Thankfully.”
To which you responded:
“Well that was my point.”
Perhaps my initial response was unclear? Perhaps I am missing something? Feel free to correct and enlighten me.
*EDIT*
I do believe that my response was somewhat cryptic. My intention is to relate the fact that members here on the forum (no matter what their beliefs or convictions are) are not afraid to voice their opinions; they do not 'keep quiet'. In addition, this very quality is one of the best parts about the forum and something I'm sure we are all thankful for.
*EDIT*
one does not necessarily sacrifice one of the other, but someone may either 'know' something through their faith, or 'know' something through reason. Both, indeed, can subsist in the same individual, and some people wander strongly toward one degree (far into faith, or far into reason).”
I am wholly in agreement. I know many things through faith that I could never empirically prove, or physically quantify or observe. I'm guessing that whether or not that contradicts 'reason' depends on which definition of 'reason' you like.
REASON
The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
I have plenty of those (as we all do and should).
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence.
I again have plenty of those. Those are everywhere, I think (for theism and atheism). I guess that we would also have to decide what is 'logical' or not. Is a 'religious experience' logical? People have these 'personal encounters' with God which can't be quantified and could likely be classified as temporary insanity or over indulgence of psychotropic substances; but it is a significant fact/cause for belief for them.
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
That is most certainly not incompatible with faith. Perhaps the line here again lies in what the specific definitions of 'rational' and 'analytic' are; and also, which of those definitions you are considering.
Good judgment; sound sense.
I again truly do not think theists are deviating from these ideas.
while reason seems far more linear (taking step-by-step logic), and more analytical.
But mono, do not people with faith take these steps also? I haven't done anything illogical, in my opinion. In perfect honesty and humility, I have attempted to analyze the things going on around and inside me and have come to certain conclusions and convictions (some of which entail the belief in things that I cannot be certain of). What is the key idea that I am missing?
Just a conspiracy of book publishers, then?
:nod: A very successful conspiracy to make a lot of money, it seems! :nod:
Virgil
06-24-2006, 08:34 PM
No like millions of those those that fought them, that spoke against them, that risked their lives to save the ones in need.
There were millions of decent Germans who were led astray by the Nazis and who otherwise would have led moral lives. Man is a fickle creature, subject to relativism as it convenietly suits him.
People like Ghandi or Mandella or Bach or Shakespeare or Lincoln or Rouseau or Dickens or Einstein or Banting or Curie or Plato or Hipocrates, mostly. I have faith that people are generally a decent bunch. I have faith that we can solve our own problems, with or without divine intervention.
A much better answer than Sabo. You will find that almost all of those you mentioned had a religous foundation. The importance of religion is not for devine intervention; it's to establish morality as rooted in the Devine.
cuppajoe_9
06-24-2006, 11:55 PM
A much better answer than Sabo. You will find that almost all of those you mentioned had a religous foundation. The importance of religion is not for devine intervention; it's to establish morality as rooted in the Devine.Changing the subject a bit, but ok. Morality doesn't have to be rooted in the divine. The reason that most people do not go around raping and murdering is not that they're afraid of God.
I wasn’t casting doubt on whether you wrote it. I was reinforcing the fact that they were opinions;
I know what you mean. My point is that it is unnecessary to always differentiate between opinions and facts. Edit: since the difference it is selfevident
they do not 'keep quiet'.
I don't see the problem. I did (obviously!) NOT mean "Well that was MY point"="That it how I and only I feel".
I meant "Well that was MY POINT"="that was what I was trying to say"
And no, I still don't agree. People on the forum should be rather representative of the kind of people I meet daily. And I know that many of my atheist friends try not to offend my religious friends, which in my eyes is misdirected consideration. It is as if everything can be discussed, but not the impossibility of faith (impossible seen from the atheist point of view, best to say before the believers protest again).
Edit: The religious belifs are so often very personal and very often foundation of values and opinions, so by questioning the logical possibility of faith (in the religious sense of the word), you question a very existential dimension in an indivuduals life.
And about compatibility of faith and reason:
Sure, if you define faith very broadly and use it as when I say "I believe in people", it is compatible. But the religious faith is not and can not be compatible with reason. The fiction that the two are compatible has been constructed by the believers which had to recognize the supremacy of reason in science. In order to save what can be saved, the new "faith" was constructed: there is no contradiction. If you read my previous post, it should be clear why the compatibility is impossible.
It is interesting how no one of you believers can object the content of my previous post. That must be why you result to semantics.
A much better answer than Sabo.
And guess why it was so easy for Virgil to make it all about religion again...
EVERYONE had the potential of doing these things.
One of the implicit messages of the religious belief in Christian, Muslim and many other versions of faith, is that "I have the truth, I will be reworded by God, you don't, you won't". Sure I (I=the religious believer) can tolerate that you have different opinions, but that's it. Tolerance and respect simply hide the fact that I pity you, unless I hate you (you=the unbeliever or the wrong-believer).
The imperfections of human nature belong to a different line of reasoning and deserves more text that I have time to write right now. Sure the humans are "fickle creatures". But, as cuppajoe_9, points out, why should the moral be anchored in the supernatural?
I would like to make a book recommendation. From some of your posts, I think a book called The Alphabet Vs. The Goddess by Leonard Shlain would really interest you. :nod:
Hm so if I have read it but not been saved to the Truth, I must be condemned to eternal darkness. Tough life. :D
while reason seems far more linear (taking step-by-step logic), and more analytical.But mono, do not people with faith take these steps also? I haven't done anything illogical, in my opinion. In perfect honesty and humility, I have attempted to analyze the things going on around and inside me and have come to certain conclusions and convictions (some of which entail the belief in things that I cannot be certain of). What is the key idea that I am missing?
Indeed, just as people who praise reason may take steps toward faith even in every day life (it does not have to seem related to religion or philosophy), so can people who praise faith utilize reason and logic. Sometimes I even feel that some individual's logic consists of a step-by-step patterns of faith in a linear syllogism. Of course, I do not debate that faith and reason often go hand-in-hand; primarily, I believe, the utilization of either sways one's beliefs, noticing that most individuals with strong faith tend to prefer one or more religions, while some individuals preferring reason also follow specific religions, but can typically also choose other various spiritual philosophical beliefs (the list seems endless). :)
I would like to make a book recommendation. From some of your posts, I think a book called The Alphabet Vs. The Goddess by Leonard Shlain would really interest you.Hm so if I have read it but not been saved to the Truth, I must be condemned to eternal darkness. Tough life.
I have no idea of what you mean by this comment, as I only made a suggestion; we call this 'The Literature Network' for a reason, pertaining to literature. I do not claim anything as the objective Truth (with your capitalized 'T,' as you placed it), and, for more information, if I claimed myself any religion, I would call it skepticism; hence, no, to answer your question, I will not 'condemn you to eternal darkness.' I simply made a suggestion for your interest, a favor; assumptions get you no where. If you would like to read more about Shlain's work, if you do not mind me doing another favor for you, I began a thread here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12932).
I simply made a suggestion for your interest, a favor; assumptions get you no where.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you. Considering the opinions I expressed and considering the argumentation that Shlain follows in the mentioned book, I thought you ment my reasoning was too rigid, too "left half-brain-like", and that I don't leave room for the creative (feminin as Shlain would say) side in humans.
I've read his book and I do find it very interesting.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you. Considering the opinions I expressed and considering the argumentation that Shlain follows in the mentioned book, I thought you ment my reasoning was too rigid, too "left half-brain-like", and that I don't leave room for the creative (feminin as Shlain would say) side in humans.
No worries; I meant no judgments or cruelty to you - only a suggestion, as you spoke of the underlying patriarchy in many religions. Very nice that you enjoyed his works, however. :)
Well, well, back to discussion!
I put some thought into this thread this morning, wondering of some of the strengths and weaknesses in both faith and reason, even though they both, to me, often exist hand-in-hand, but in different immeasurable ratios.
As I have stated in the thread, I think of faith as far more holistic than analytical, and often only supported by religious texts and others who share such beliefs. In a very odd way, I must admit faith's strength and weakness, in my opinion, in the utilization of imagination. For example, provided that no one can comprehend the infinity of any existing Supreme Being, it requires imagination to understand a part of Him/Her/It; the strength lies in the partial comprehension (according to one's self, religion, etc.), but the weakness, I feel, relies partially on the lack of branching away from one's thought, in utilization of imagination, for often, I think, faith involves a lot of determination, confidence in one's belief, etc. This, truly, however, depends more on the individual than the beliefs, religion, and such things.
With reason, in its drastically more logical, linear manner, the strength in stability and empiricism seems very evident; hence, one's utilization of logic, in terms of something empirical, measurable, and following the scientific (or Socratic) method can often prove something external to the mind. Additionally, what appears proven by reason or logic (often through science) can easily seem convincing for others to understand, as opposed to the multiple interpretations of beliefs through faith; for example: the existence of microscopic cells and organelles that make up every living thing. The weakness of reason, on the contrary, however, relies greatly on its empiricism; for something to exist as proven through reason or logic, it must consist of measurable, empirical, specific material, explaining partially why religion and science sometimes do not seem compatible.
Does anyone else have thoughts on the subject of strengths and weaknesses in faith and reason?
Suzieq47
06-26-2006, 04:55 PM
You all might find Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind: the Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason an interesting read for some historical context for this issue.
Just lurking . . . and enjoying the thread.
Suzie
What does Freeman say? The title is rather clear, but how goes the argumentation?
Suzieq47
06-26-2006, 05:50 PM
Freeman's argument (not "argumentation") is simply to set out the historical context of the rise of Christianity, the historical context of the pre-Christian (pre-Abraham, really) "western" world, i.e., the Greeks and the Romans and the poytheistic cultures that swirled around Plato, Aristotle, and their ilk and progeny, and to show how the rise of Christianity, by necessity a faith-based religion, actually required a rejection of the Reason driven philosophies of the earlier cultures. More complex than that, of course. It's really all in the title. Worth skimming, or at least stopping by one of those Barnes & Nobles with an in-store Starbucks, picking up the book and a coffee or tea, and sitting at a table and reading at least the introduction and mulling it over. Really interesting book. At least gives some perspective in discussions like the one in this thread, that's all.
Suzie ;)
Suzieq47
06-26-2006, 05:58 PM
Also, Sabo - I vaguely recalled seeing a video clip of Charles Freeman talking about his book, The Closing of the Western Mind. So I noodled around a little and here it is: http://www.meettheauthor.com/bookbites/396.html . Check it out.
Suzie
No worries
Nice we figured that out. If I had seen the dreamy photo of you in your profile to start with, I would have put a lighter irony filter while reading the message. :)
(I'm also slapping my fingers at this moment for making the discussion all about religious faith. )
OK now I've read Anthony Gottliebs review in NY Times, 02/15/2004, and I have a pretty good picture of what Freeman says, or at least of why Gottlieb doesn't like Freeman. Doesn't really sound that revolutionary to me but still interesting. Some of the anecdotes Gottlieb cites make me curious about the rest of the book.
During that time Suzieq47 was recommending something else.--- Now I've seen that too. Thanks. Funny guy.
Mono, do you think of faith and imagination as closely related, and reason as opposed to the two? I see why one would think that reason kills the imagination, but it doesn't have to. Behind every mathematical proof (pure reason) there is a huge portion of imagination. To takes Suzie/Freeman's examples, the Greeks didn't lack imagination; cf to Dark Ages.
It might be surprising to hear the following, coming from Sabo, but while I still was a religious believer it bugged my very much why so much of energy in so many religions was spent on making the matters of faith compatible with reason, since they 1) obviously they couldn't be, 2) since the power of faith should make them unimportant. Example: a religious person says: "I've seen Jesus." A surgeon says: "See here we are stimulating your brain, and you are seeing Jesus. Thus Jesus doesn't exist." That's no prove Jesus don't exist! It possible proves that a certain part of the brain is responsible for religious experiences, but that's all. If God does exist, s/he could still have chosen to make it that way. (see from the point of faith)
Best to stop before we return to the old discussion.
A question of language: does my use of "argumentation" change the intended meaning above (as opposed to "argument")? I see argumentation as a chain of arguments-am I wrong? :confused:
You all might find Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind: the Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason an interesting read for some historical context for this issue.
A few people have recommended this book, particularly because this debate, faith vs. reason, seems to appear a lot in applicable conversations. Maybe soon, since a few people have now promoted, I should look into it. Thanks, Suzieq. ;)
Nice we figured that out. If I had seen the dreamy photo of you in your profile to start with, I would have put a lighter irony filter while reading the message.
Thanks, Sabo. You can actually find several pictures of forum members in this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12486) (all 70-something pages).
Mono, do you think of faith and imagination as closely related, and reason as opposed to the two? I see why one would think that reason kills the imagination, but it doesn't have to. Behind every mathematical proof (pure reason) there is a huge portion of imagination. To takes Suzie/Freeman's examples, the Greeks didn't lack imagination; cf to Dark Ages.
Personally, I would consider faith and imagination commonly related, but, as also faith and reason can, and often do, exist peacefully inside one person. I like your examples, and have also considered the study of astronomy as an example; though scientific, most astronomy consists of theories, requiring immense imagination with limited empiricism. In this case, indeed, imagination seems very required in a common abode of reason and logic - science.
Throughout most of Greek history, much seemed in dichotomy - some individuals followed polytheism, while others committed more to a monotheistic philosophy. Of course, the Greek culture did not lack in imagination (observe Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, Sappho, Aristophanes, and co.), but much of Greece (and ancient Italy, in correspondence) appeared greatly split between far different philosophies.
To me, every theory associated with science and philosophy begins with imagination until proven otherwise - much like how the scientific (and Socratic) method proceeds. Though I have no intention of discriminating faith, it requires no empiricism besides the holistic belief and spoken word; I find fully faithful people not easily swayed, but definitely determined and strong in such beliefs.
It might be surprising to hear the following, coming from Sabo, but while I still was a religious believer it bugged my very much why so much of energy in so many religions was spent on making the matters of faith compatible with reason, since they 1) obviously they couldn't be, 2) since the power of faith should make them unimportant.
This attributes, in my opinion, to the great inevitable subjective perception of objectivity, assuming, of course, the objective exists (a whole different debate). I think it safe and undiscriminating to state that most people who strongly follow their faith seem very positive and firm in their beliefs; I admire that they can feel so confident in their beliefs, yet do not always agree. Reason, mostly in the form of science, may debate against the universe allegedly getting built in a matter of somehow a measured number of days, for example, but it would require more evidence than Galileo could provide, if possible, to sway the often diligent beliefs of larger attended religions.
On the other hand, reason tends to involve an incessant, never-ending skepticism, often reminding me much of myself, constantly questioning, 'why this, why that?' I do not proclaim, however, that termed 'faithful' people have no reason or logic, but the answer to a question of 'why this, why that' often involves something like 'because [insert religious text] said [insert an answer or quote].'
constantly questioning, 'why this, why that?'
:nod: I recognize that in myself. That's one of the things that led me away from religion. The curiosity of human mind is difficult to reconcile with extreme religious faith. If you try, you'll have to move boundaries of faith every time a new discovery that contradicts the faith is made. Or you simply give it all up, and follow the formula mono described "because x said y."
every theory associated with science and philosophy begins with imagination until proven otherwise
Exactly! Behind most of theories and inventions there is a moment of inspiration/imagination/creativity not that different from the ones a Romantic poet would claim. (Not supernatural, just a work of the scientist's own brain, best to add.)
Astronomy. Yes you are right. There are a lot of areas called scientific that to me are not completely scientific. They do follow a scientific method of work, and I wouldn't want to be without them, but the element of subjectivity is considerable. Take for example social sciences or humanities. But yes, that's a question of subjectivity vs objectivity more than of reason vs faith.
I am trying very hard to see positive sides of faith, but it doesn't really work. I can't see anything that couldn't just as well be explained as a work of some other mechanism. Does it take faith to be able to do it?
That's one of the things that led me away from religion. The curiosity of human mind is difficult to reconcile with extreme religious faith. If you try, you'll have to move boundaries of faith every time a new discovery that contradicts the faith is made. Or you simply give it all up, and follow the formula mono described "because x said y."
Indeed, and I only mean this as a generalization; people who strongly follow either faith or reason have proved me wrong, seeming slightly more well-rounded in their thought. As you said, Sabo, I truly wonder if one can 'move boundaries' of faith - though Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun had nothing to contradict in religon, he still underwent execution; then when a recent Pope pardoned and apologized for it (hundreds of years later), Galileo's proven theory still had nothing against religion. Perhaps Galileo's thought in utilization of complete logic and reason seemed to disturb the faith-based thought of his time.
Does anyone else wonder what kind of age we exist in - more of a faith-based society or reason-logic-based society? The world incessantly remains and peaks in its scientific and philosophical uses of reason, but also has peaked in its abundance of popular religions (maybe partially related to some of the present conflicts in the world that require no mention).
Astronomy. Yes you are right. There are a lot of areas called scientific that to me are not completely scientific. They do follow a scientific method of work, and I wouldn't want to be without them, but the element of subjectivity is considerable. Take for example social sciences or humanities. But yes, that's a question of subjectivity vs objectivity more than of reason vs faith.
Or even out of the more ridiculous of sciences, try applying common logic or reason to such so-called 'sciences' as political science or computer science! :lol:
This seems a whole different argument, that I love teasing others about - we created both political science and computer science - not biology, chemistry, physics, etc.!
I am trying very hard to see positive sides of faith, but it doesn't really work. I can't see anything that couldn't just as well be explained as a work of some other mechanism. Does it take faith to be able to do it?
There seems nothing wrong with primarily following reason, nor would there seem anything wrong with primarily following faith - different beliefs for different people; I, personally, enjoy the diversity.
You ended with a very, very interesting question: does it require faith to necessarily feel to follow, or approve of, faith? I think I will have to place a lot of thought into this one before answering with confidence, but I would initially say no. One could reciprocate the question and ask: does it require reason/logic to follow, or approve of, reason? No, not necessarily. One may rationalize why faith or reason sounds superior through his/her eyes, but such beliefs, I think, do not stem from themselves.
Though it sounds rather typical, I think of whether one mainly follows faith or reason (or an immeasurable ratio of the two) depends a lot on raising - from birth to present. Of course, we could apply the nature vs. nurture argument here, but I feel that the manner of cognition and processes of thinking originate more from 'nurture' than 'nature;' perhaps nature, in this case, only provides the potential for such cognition and processes of thinking.
Hence, I believe, both faith and reason stem more from experiences; most of us can recall moments in life, regardless, when we 'rationalized our way through something,' 'turned from God,' 'found God,' etc., and maybe these experiences most influence our evolving thought of faith and reason. Neither faith nor reason, I think, however, stems from itself, but more like plants the seed for more growth.
Did I make sense? I just re-read my post and hardly understood myself. :rolleyes:
Sure you make sense! :) But yes this does deserve more thought.
miss tenderness
06-30-2006, 05:11 PM
good topic to discuss, thanks Mono
Reason is an important factor to judge things and ideas that you may encounter in your life. If your reason tell you that a thing is not possible, then it must be impossible. If someone does not use his reason excessively in any matter and facts of his life, how can he live? However, reason does not necessarily go against faith. Many of the facts that we believe in are decided by our logic and reason. Thus, reason and faith are interchangeable. Reason determines my faith and strengthens its firmness. Reason is just the thing I need and also everybody else to know what he should have faith in.
good topic to discuss, thanks Mono
Reason is an important factor to judge things and ideas that you may encounter in your life. If your reason tell you that a thing is not possible, then it must be impossible. If someone does not use his reason excessively in any matter and facts of his life, how can he live? However, reason does not necessarily go against faith. Many of the facts that we believe in are decided by our logic and reason. Thus, reason and faith are interchangeable. Reason determines my faith and strengthens its firmness. Reason is just the thing I need and also everybody else to know what he should have faith in.
Indeed, I agree. Faith and reason need not always seem opposites; though they can contradict each other, they can also support each other.
I think a great part of how people figure that faith and reason always contradict each other relies on where faith and reason seem commonly found; one often sees faith bound closely to religion and some philosophy, and reason tied near to science and most philosophy. In cases entirely unrelated to religion, philosophy, and science, however, one incessantly utilizes both faith and reason in everyday life. I gave examples in a previous post, such as simply stating 'the sun will rise tomorrow morning' - no one can can provide empirical proof that this will happen tomorrow morning, but only rely on experience that the sun has risen every morning; even more simply, one utilizes logic and reason when stating the confirming syllogism, 'if the sun gives light, and the sun does not rise tomorrow morning, everything will appear dark.'
The primary rationales behind why faith and reason seem two types of thinking not worth mixing seems the assumptions of how the two conflict. One can commonly see this in debates regarding evolution and creationism, the existence of a Supreme Being (or Beings), or ethics.
Lilac Cotton
07-04-2006, 12:19 AM
Get me a divining rod!
Mustard seed of faith in you? Do you think Stephen Hawking had at least that much in him when he suggested the particle of infinite density?
All theories start with that same mustard seed and yes, one could call "faith" in the Creator a theory and perhaps one should before one reaches what is called "certitude" which is a grade higher than the other two, negotiable faith and non negotiable (which is where most of the posters here appear to me to be ON BOTH COUNTS, for faith and reason).
Superstring theorists and Many World's theorists....do they also have a grain of hope for their theories? I'd wager that both are interconnected and both satisfy a "part" of the problem.
The creationary "event" i.e. Hawking would call that, the Event Horizon (although he would suggest several such events all the way back to the initial one and add to it, The Potential Histories of particles (Schroe's Cat mentality))....that event is and always shall be, unwitnessed and merely "deduced" or "induced". So, it will always be a theory as much as faith in a Creator will be until of course you get to the Paul Harvey-like, End of the Story. And there must be an end to warnings it seems...all good parents who practice Tough Love know that!
The way I see it, faith requires logic (and the Quran demands the reader to go 'find out' for themselves about the truth of matters and does not limit them to studying only that doctrine) and logic (reason, if you will) is as common sense dictates, an outgrowth of all that "exists" and if you are like me, hence "was created".
Back in the old days though, faith wasn't what it is now because, well, there wasn't good science. So there had to be miracles which have now been concluded. I mean come on now, since we can clone sheep (and maybe humans in secret labs) who is going to believe that Lazarus actually was made to rise "on the command" of Isa (pbuh, Jesus to you folks). And even then, it was not via 'command' but according to the Quran "with the permission of".
Ayat. The Quran is full of them all the way down to the idea of fingerprinting criminals (your hands and feet will testify against you...a common theme in our belief system) and the idea that it is the male sperm cell that dictates gender. Ayat literally translates to something like "proofs" and isn't that just the same thing scientists use to prove something to be 'close' to the truth in the most complex of cases (like the Big Bang or Super String). Some things can be proven without a doubt....like the Periodic Table which existed 'in its form' prior to it being 'drawn that way' hahaha like Jessica Rabbit.
Mustard seed of faith in you? Do you think Stephen Hawking had at least that much in him when he suggested the particle of infinite density?
Yes, actually, I believe I have faith in myself (just as much of a 'mustard seed' as anyone), and I believe Stephen Hawking does, too. As in one of my previous posts, I believe that every theory, especially those in science and theoretical practices, begins with an idea or inspiration devoid of all reason and logic. Sure, directly proceeding from that idea or inspiration, an individual may swiftly begin with various syllogisms, trying to declare certain things right or wrong, but at the precise moment when a spontaneous thought occurs in one's brain, I believe this involves a holistic sense of faith; I cannot describe it otherwise.
All theories start with that same mustard seed and yes, one could call "faith" in the Creator a theory and perhaps one should before one reaches what is called "certitude" which is a grade higher than the other two, negotiable faith and non negotiable (which is where most of the posters here appear to me to be ON BOTH COUNTS, for faith and reason).
I entirely agree, Lilac Cotton, that one can own both theory and certitude through faith or logic, only by different means, and, as Michel de Montaigne claims, 'there exist multiple means to the same end.' Many things, I cannot know for sure; I cannot entirely prove that an Infinite Supreme Being exists, but can rely on faith, and that seems enough certainty for my mind to settle, it only seems, and I intend no offense, easier to negotiate with others of different beliefs (particularly atheists, agnostics, and skeptics for obvious reasons).
As opposed to faith, one can also gain certainty, or certitude, through reason and logic. I have used this very elementary syllogism a few times in this thread, but one could declare it true that if the sun gives light, and the sun does not rise tomorrow morning, then the morning will appear dark. This envelopes reason very simply, but also includes an utmost certainty.
The way I see it, faith requires logic (and the Quran demands the reader to go 'find out' for themselves about the truth of matters and does not limit them to studying only that doctrine) and logic (reason, if you will) is as common sense dictates, an outgrowth of all that "exists" and if you are like me, hence "was created".
Precisely, and I cannot agree more! Faith requires reason/logic, and, in reciprocal, reason/logic requires faith (as I stated above in this post). A religion does not necessarily have to consist entirely of faith, I think; for example, one could question why 'this' or why 'that,' and possibly proclaim because [a religious text] states 'this' and 'that.' Reason and logic inside faith, such as this, does not necessarily seem inferior to scientific reason and logic, I only find it safe to say that a scientist would likely not research his/her proofs, theories, and such in a religious text (except in scientology, perhaps :D).
Lilac Cotton
07-05-2006, 01:25 AM
....save for the last bit there.
Are you sure about science not being researched in the texts?
Did you know about the curious number 19?
Who wrote fingerprints upon the hands
Where even identical twins are not alike?
And who wrote the Periodic Table the way it is written?
Who spelled out your genetic code and gave you
19 amino acids plus one additional that literally
‘turns on’ the rest for you, activates the death gene too?
Is it the same entity that also wrote this:
There are nineteen over it?
Now you tell me who told the moon to catch up
With the accurate sun every nineteen years.
And tell me also why they started the Upanishads
Just nineteen years before the advent of their knowledge,
Not twenty years before and not ten thousand, even
Though the earth was older still. You tell me that okay?
Tell me that when the Quran said the moon would split
Some 1,960 odd verses from the end of it that
Armstrong would call it, “A huge step for mankind.”
He wasn’t joking and neither was the author of that book.
Tell me that when the Quran speaks of the diploid bee
Colonies that it was an accident to remind us of exactly what?
Ah, that is in sixteen. Nineteen is just the key my friends.
It cannot predict the outcomes of allof this but only give
A person safety when the Judgement Day arrives.
Can’t save you either. That is up to intention in the eye
Of the beholder and that beholder needs not to be a simpleton.
How many bones you got eh?
Divide that by nineteen.
How many times a day do we pray as muslims?
2-4-4-3-4 every single day.
Divide that by nineteen would you?
I’ve forgotten my calculator.
Who do they most want to die right now?
Shi’i.
You know why?
Some of us memorized the text.
No longer can the texts be hidden
Unless you kill all the chanters.
But the taxicab number nineteen will always be
A taxicab number.
It will also be the lowest limit at which
They can measure the nineteen mansions
Of quantum gravity….squashing forever
Their hopes of ‘explaining it all’ for you
In the Grand Unification Theory.
Imagine my surprise!
And still, a circle is only 360 degrees.
19 squared. What is that?
One solitary figure in the midst of a perfect cycle.
Now, you want to tell me that again?
They, as in ‘they’, don’t study our texts?
Sure. And it was a 14th century muslim
Who told them about the fingerprints because
We are told in the Quran that our hands and feet
Will testify against us. And sure enough, they do!
Thing is, if you believe in 'pure' evolution sans creation, then there must be a reason for all evolutionary events that happen to our bodies. What exactly is the evolutionary necessity of fingerprints? Traction? No...we have opposable thumbs and don't need traction and such small amounts that might be there. Apes have them too, fingerprints. And some folks have started believing (real folks, scientific endeavor folks) that men did not come from Apes but vice versa. Now that would be some crazy aspect to find out eh!
It is only recently (around 1998 I believe) that the astrophysicists realized they had committed a HUGE error in their calculations. You see, they used to think that the universe was 'slowing down' in its expansion. Not even close...it is way speeding up and it is way close to absolute zero in temperature...about five degrees give or take some. How can that be?
As entropy states...that is a very big contradiction and it was a complete surprise to them too!
Quran and hadith tell us, that as the 'hour' approaches...time will appear to go faster. And yes, they know that now too...the earth literally gets a faster spin year by year. And the polar shift? Well...we know that is going to happen if not now then in a few thousand or ten thousand. Then of course, the sun WILL rise in the West. As the Quran states it will...only...no one will notice that the earth has totally stood on its head. That is, if you live to tell the tale.
Ah. It's crazy isn't it?
No mono, they up there in 'theyville' know all about what our books say. All about it.
MarieAntoinette
07-06-2006, 02:20 AM
It seem faith is still questioned by reason as it continues its circle back to faith.
Stanislaw
07-06-2006, 03:16 AM
To answer the original question: If I were to follow reason, I would cease to exist, reason seems to me a way of disproving the universe and is a very dangerous thing to play with, faith is much safer, and very assuredly tells me that I am infact still in existance.
Are you sure about science not being researched in the texts?
No, I do not feel sure, but appreciate your concern, explaining why I said scientists would likely not research in religious texts. If I felt sure of the fact, I would have stated that scientists do not research in religious texts, but I appreciate your concern and research (especially on '19' - very interesting). :)
And who wrote the Periodic Table the way it is written?
The collaboration of many scientists, physicists, chemists, and alchemists in their many, many discoveries through history.
Who spelled out your genetic code and gave you
19 amino acids plus one additional that literally
‘turns on’ the rest for you, activates the death gene too?
Just out of curiosity, which amino acid? I would guess glutamine, the most abundant amino acid, but cannot feel entirely sure.
How many bones you got eh?
Divide that by nineteen.
How many times a day do we pray as muslims?
2-4-4-3-4 every single day.
Divide that by nineteen would you?
I’ve forgotten my calculator.
Though I do not want to drift too far from the intended purpose of the thread, I did not understand this one entirely. Could you explain more?
And still, a circle is only 360 degrees.
19 squared. What is that?
One solitary figure in the midst of a perfect cycle.
I have never noticed this, and find it interesting, though 19² = 361.
-----
It seem faith is still questioned by reason as it continues its circle back to faith.
I had to read your message a few times over again to fully comprehend it, and I entirely agree of the reciprocating factors of faith and reason - not only how they frequently conflict, but also support, fulfill, and exchange.
-----
To answer the original question: If I were to follow reason, I would cease to exist, reason seems to me a way of disproving the universe and is a very dangerous thing to play with, faith is much safer, and very assuredly tells me that I am infact still in existance.
Nice to see you joined the thread, Stanislaw. ;)
I respect your belief and opinion, but feel that neither faith nor reason can entirely prove or disprove existence or the universe. St. Anselm attempted, through both faith and reason, to ontologically prove the existence of a Supreme Being, but his work seems to have gotten critiqued over and over again by various followers and non-followers. Also utilizing both faith and reason, René Descartes, in his Meditations (everyone knows the cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am), ontologically proving his own existence, but has also undergone much criticism.
Why I find this significant, however, relies on the fact that both St. Anselm and René Descartes utilized reason in their arguments, but entirely directed by their faith. Through different thinkers' logic and reason, they can find both St. Anselm and Descartes entirely correct or entirely wrong (or somewhere between), but this also seems directed by faith. If everyone followed the same objective logic or faith, everyone would agree on everything (imagine that!); of course, perception of objectivity seems impossible, in my opinion, but, to me, it shows that neither holistic faith, nor even the most step-by-step, linear logic can prove or disprove anything, especially existence (ontology) and the like.
Shield&Sword
07-06-2006, 08:32 PM
I think Lilac cotton mean by saying "who decided the periodic table" who created it in that way, not who draw the piece of paper, scientists for periodic paper are like a person who describe piramides, the thing that i cant understand it: why we admire people who built piramides not the person who describe them, while we admire alot people who draw elements not the one who built these elements. We feel so proud when we talk about periodic table and give applouse to people who draw it, if describing something is great then what about the thing it self and the one who built it, it could (must is the right word) be a reason to arrive to a conclusion. Perhaps this is a little bit off topic, scuse me alot.
Stanislaw
07-09-2006, 05:42 PM
Nice to see you joined the thread, Stanislaw. ;)
I respect your belief and opinion, but feel that neither faith nor reason can entirely prove or disprove existence or the universe. St. Anselm attempted, through both faith and reason, to ontologically prove the existence of a Supreme Being, but his work seems to have gotten critiqued over and over again by various followers and non-followers. Also utilizing both faith and reason, René Descartes, in his Meditations (everyone knows the cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am), ontologically proving his own existence, but has also undergone much criticism.
Why I find this significant, however, relies on the fact that both St. Anselm and René Descartes utilized reason in their arguments, but entirely directed by their faith. Through different thinkers' logic and reason, they can find both St. Anselm and Descartes entirely correct or entirely wrong (or somewhere between), but this also seems directed by faith. If everyone followed the same objective logic or faith, everyone would agree on everything (imagine that!); of course, perception of objectivity seems impossible, in my opinion, but, to me, it shows that neither holistic faith, nor even the most step-by-step, linear logic can prove or disprove anything, especially existence (ontology) and the like.
Indeed, what you speek is true, Logic is important, and more so coupled with faith. For logic alone has you doubting everything, and faith alone has you acknowledging everything. :D
Lilac Cotton
07-10-2006, 03:09 PM
:) I can't do your research for you :) and anyway, that is the fun of it I think...to discover the hidden potentials of what is, "the miracle" in Islam...i.e. that book. Just a book. No flying elephants or winged creatures from the abyss. That stuff happened a long, long time ago and we simply cannot prove it (pre 'recording' devices it seems) and some of it, it is said, is still to happen at the 'end point'. So here we are, about in the middle with a very big question on each and every one's mind. I doubt there are many people in the world right now NOT questioning their beliefs and very deeply.
Unfortunately, it is one of the positive effects Osama had on us all :( and no offense because I certainly don't support his actions. I don't understand them outside of a political context. And that is not allowed here :)
You see, the periodic table was basically a 'good' guess. The guy that discovered the patterns literally predicted exactly where various elements would be found. And of course, the man made ones have their places as well...none of them occupies a space of the other (of course, that is the definition of an 'element' yeah?).
And yeah, to some, my ideas might be a bit 'nuts' but I assure you, I am not.
Worked many years as a pediatric intensive care nurse...very good at it actually :) I've got kids and (bad) I cuss like a sailor but am trying really hard to give up one of my most intractable bad habits. No, I ain't nuts. I love science and reason and without that, I'd never have accepted Islam. I doubt it is possible for well educated people to just take Islam 'as is' like many people in the third world do who are simply 'born into it'. There is this basic underlying tenet of Islam actually, that all humans (and living things) are born into Islam (submission to universal laws) and the only reason they don't stay that way is because their parents teach them otherwise. Hard pill to swallow I know, if you really love your parents and what they taught you.
But what did they teach you? Did it involve a bias against the "Mohameddans"? I mean you can't have read much 18th and 19th century literature without having come across at least one reference to those crazy "infidels". Haha...funny thing, they stole our word and labeled us with it to boot! Imagine the craziness of it all.
Thing is, most folks believe in a single creator (even those who hold the Trinity to best represent their belief system) and the only thing standing between them and us is a prophet who didn't issue from people they are comfortable with :( Yes, the Arabs. The New Testament never wastes an opportunity to dump on them...i.e. the Ismaili clans who came from Hagar and Ibrahim. Builty right into the text it seems. :)
And yeah, to some, my ideas might be a bit 'nuts' but I assure you, I am not.
Worked many years as a pediatric intensive care nurse...very good at it actually :) I've got kids and (bad) I cuss like a sailor but am trying really hard to give up one of my most intractable bad habits. No, I ain't nuts. I love science and reason and without that, I'd never have accepted Islam. I doubt it is possible for well educated people to just take Islam 'as is' like many people in the third world do who are simply 'born into it'. There is this basic underlying tenet of Islam actually, that all humans (and living things) are born into Islam (submission to universal laws) and the only reason they don't stay that way is because their parents teach them otherwise. Hard pill to swallow I know, if you really love your parents and what they taught you.
Anyone who can balance the many ways and byways of faith and reason (sometimes found in the cases of balancing religion and science), I find very admirable. Ironically, I, too, work as an RN, and also work in an intensive care unit (ICU), but for adults (not peds). Minds like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who also worked as a politician and lawyer besides writing, and John Keats, who employed himself as a doctor and surgeon additional to writing poetry, I cannot give more respect.
Though neither faith nor logic needs to have a direct connection to the creation of art, art spawns directly from the imagination, which can receive influence from faith and/or reason.
As for the statement you made above that no one quite follows a religion word-by-word, I cannot agree more. Of course, call me a purist, but even individuals who follow the same religion (dominately faith or reason based) will differ in various interpretations of the same beliefs, the same religious text, etc. To place the subject bluntly, an individual, to me, who follows a religious text word-by-word, despite any possibly faulted translation, seems incapable of independent thought. This argument of mine may lead into different subtypes of faith - a faith that follows devoutly, and a faith that follows and judges simultaneously.
But what did they teach you? Did it involve a bias against the "Mohameddans"? I mean you can't have read much 18th and 19th century literature without having come across at least one reference to those crazy "infidels". Haha...funny thing, they stole our word and labeled us with it to boot! Imagine the craziness of it all.
No, no, no one ever raised me, or anyone I know, to have a bias against anyone, including followers of Mohammed. I apologize if I had come across that way, and already feel remorseful if I did, for my philosophy more revolves around reverence for others, their beliefs, their thoughts, and diversity, even if I agree or disagree with them. :)
Lilac Cotton
07-11-2006, 03:53 PM
...simply stating a fact. Whether or not you 'feel' you've been presented a bias or not...well. Come on now! Everyone has been presented a bias regarding Islam including muslims themselves. :) There are even muslims (born that way not necessarily submitting to all the tenets as is the requirement of what is called a 'good' muslim) ...there are even muslims who despise their own faith system.
But you didn't say anything unkind. Not at all.
Islam is the only one of the three major monotheistic systems not based on a specific person in terms of what it is called. It was meant to be for everyone but thing is, perhaps there are those 'at the top' who didn't like the idea of it all. A clear dictate from the Creator specifying not only the flaws in the other two systems which have been either hidden or manipulated for centuries but also delineating the problem/betrayal within Islam itself.
To really understand the "reason" aspect of Islam, the best place to learn is in a book called the Nahjul Balagha...available online. In English it literally means the Peak of Eloquence and it unravels a significant amount of what is mysterious about what is written in the Quran. It is a collection of writings of the first actual born muslim (i.e. after the re-advent of pure monotheism noting that it was the religion of Abraham, Moses and Adam/Eve, Noah, etc.)....his name was Emir Ali Mu'mineen (pbuh). Reading that book will truly help people to engage in a more meaningful way to what the Quran states without having to go to other historical texts which are actually quite numerous. You only know about Quran but in fact the Quran is more like a 'guide' to the actual historical battle for the re-establishment of pure monotheism on this planet. Yea, this planet. :)
I highly recommend it.
Literal religions though are much misunderstood. That is, taking a book like the Quran "word for word" is, as all linguistic tools are, a function of what is written and what is read and that process. The Quran itself tells the reader exactly that. I consider it part of the process of acknowledging free will and the ability to accept a tremendous amount of information bit by bit using investigative imagination. Problem with that is, if you have a 'bias' (say you are homosexual or in an adulterous affair) you will literally be 'blinded' to the big picture. The big picture is, Listen and Obey and if you cannot do that then Live and Learn. Both however require the fundamental belief in a single Creator and without that, the whole Quran will no doubt be the most irritating thing a person could ever endeavor to read.
Shield&Sword
07-11-2006, 04:43 PM
Here i paste a link to a site talk about science in Holy Quran and Hadeeths of prophet Muhammed pbuh. Its interesting because it contain western scientists witness about holy Quran and hadeeths, geology, embryology (it describe the microscopical evolution of embryo, so interesting this one, even scientists said that we can change terms used now by terms found in Holy Quran), sea scientist.... This site is relaited to this thread, i think you will find it so interesting. Its a site made by scientists, and there is a council made i think every 3 years where scientists (muslims and non muslims) present thier discoverys and how they agree with Holy Quran and Hadeeths of prophet peace be upon him. Here we see reason and faith (the first one lead to the second).
The problem is that this site is in arabic :( wont be useful for all, i wish you read arabic mono because i am sure you will find it so interesting.
http://www.nooran.org/
Here this one in english but it contain less articles: http://www.55a.net/firas/english/
I like more the human science and medical articles (its my subject in univ.).
Lilac Cotton
07-12-2006, 12:39 AM
Just a warning about the 19 phenomenon...it isn't what Islam is about. It is merely one of the proofs of its integrity as a book. I think there is a hidden danger in just about any road one takes into Islam in that it can become what they have their 'faith' in as opposed to Allah. Like a prophet is a 'sign' or perhaps a truth written in the text is a sign, the 19 phenomenon is a sign and only a sign. You cannot predict lottery numbers with it! You see, there are people who believe that the Bible contains a hidden code. Well, news is, all written texts contain 'codes' and meanings to each individual. All of them.
A real code though is a numerical fact. You see, Arabic (as ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and to some extent Greek) is not only a phonetic alphabet but it is also a numerical one...they are called Gematric Alphabets. For instance, way back before the Phoenicians redesigned the way we write in English characters, a person might buy some eggs at the local egg vendor and pay "ten 'Ws' ".....or fifteen Q. Each letter in Arabic has a number it represents. This wasn't investigated until the early seventies. The guy who investigated is, of course, dead. Murdered actually. They say by Al Qaeda but the news stories regarding his murder ina Tucson mosque get harder to find all the time. His fatwa was issued at the same time as Salman Rushdie's was....interesting eh? Salman still walking the planet and all :)
English isn't a gematric alphabet and there isn't a hidden code in the Bible. Let's face it guys, Jesus (pbuh) didn't speak English and he didn't speak Latin either. For sure. What he did speak may have been written in a code but we have no way of knowing that anymore because whatever book he brought (we call it the Injeel) it is long, long gone or buried still ina cave (or maybe even, it is that Judas gospel the National Geographic society has its hot little hands all over). Moses too...his tablets are long missing. All of them could also have held this same code that the universe was 'signed' in...but we cannot know at this point in time.
If you are interested in knowing more about the nineteen phenomenon though..you can go to submission.org and read all about it from 'the horse's mouth'. I'd encourage people though to do their own investigations into the prime number 19 on their own as well. Don't just take my word for it or the word of the people who followed the guy who discovered the numerical miracle using computer technology. He did get a bit 'unusual' toward the end of his life and felt he was a 'messenger'. Well, as muslims all agree...there are no more prophets after Mohamed (SAW). Are there messengers however?
Don't know really. Don't know if 'messenger' has the same connotation as 'prophet' and am totally not willing to venture a guess :) He was though...he ventured a guess on his own behalf. That isn't really why they killed him though...they killed him because his research demonstrated that two verses were indeed added to the Quran.
Shield&Sword
07-12-2006, 05:19 AM
First thing every massenger is a prophet but not every prophet is a massenger, prophets are people inspired from God but massengers are prophets who was sent to people to spread the inspiration they got thats why God said in Holy Quran that there is no prophet after Muhammed pbuh, mean there is no massengers also (circle of prophecy include massengers).
I dont know what is this site you pasted because all i see it attack hadeeths and full of lies. Beside this man with numerical thing, i think if every one want to play with verses and explain as he like then there is no need of the holy Quran,even a drunk man can explain that alcohol is allowed because the word alcohol in Holy Quran mean another thing, and so on untle we make Holy Quran go as we want not as should not as God want. The sites i pasted show how Holy Quran shoul be explained and how we take verses as they appear not to explain as we wish, thats why Holy Quran is a miracle because science it contain is written in a clear way, there is no need to play with verses, same as hadeeths of prophet. Will give you an example: prophet Muhammed pbuh said that if a moscha (in arabic this word mean types of insects) fail in your plate then put it all in plate and then throw the moscha away because in a wing there is the desease and in other there is the cure. Now adays scientists discovered that the insect which they thought its the last place where antibiotics can found, contain really antibiotics and can be source of new antibiotics. There is no need to play with verses and force them to go according us, we must go according them. Surah 2 verse 7 " He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not of well-established meaning. Seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its true meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.".
The research that you said it indeed showed that there are 2 verses added to Holy Quran because of mathmatical research is a funny thing, i can now make a research and approve that Holy Quran half of it is added. when people talk about adding, they say it was added before, if you ask them to bring one verse like the Holy Quran they cant, for 1400 years no one could invent one verse, arabs at time of Muhammed were proud of thier language but when they hear the Holy Quran they stand with open mouth and say this is magic, for years the enemys of Holy Quran tried but no result, the Holy Quran is still with it's verses, and with a verse that no other writer can write which is the invitation God to people to find error in Holy Quran, every thing in science terms is subjected under the term "falsification", Muhammed 1427 years ago didnt care about this term and invited people to find an error in Holy Quran, but untle now no one. (and wont be)
Literal religions though are much misunderstood. That is, taking a book like the Quran "word for word" is, as all linguistic tools are, a function of what is written and what is read and that process. The Quran itself tells the reader exactly that. I consider it part of the process of acknowledging free will and the ability to accept a tremendous amount of information bit by bit using investigative imagination. Problem with that is, if you have a 'bias' (say you are homosexual or in an adulterous affair) you will literally be 'blinded' to the big picture. The big picture is, Listen and Obey and if you cannot do that then Live and Learn. Both however require the fundamental belief in a single Creator and without that, the whole Quran will no doubt be the most irritating thing a person could ever endeavor to read.
Wow, I have never noticed, but this would make a very interesting topic to discuss in faith and reason: what creates bias within and outside of religions?
Does the immense utilization of logic in individuals who endorse in atheism, agnosticism, and science (perhaps a bias of my own) sway them often into questioning, and, in essence, carrying a negative bias to all religions? And, indeed, do the developed biases seem more within themselves, or what seems expected of them among other atheists, agnostics, and scientists?
On the contrary, do inviduals who more strongly utilize faith (such as in any very devout religion - monotheistic or polytheistic) automatically develop a bias against who can read their religious texts, who can comprehend them (homosexuals, sinners, etc.) as stated by the religious text? Additionally, too, do the formed biases appear more within themselves, or what seems taught and followed by the religion, and other followers of the religion?
Hmmm, my brain really seems to brew on this subject. Thanks for the idea, Lilac. ;)
The problem is that this site is in arabic :( wont be useful for all, i wish you read arabic mono because i am sure you will find it so interesting.
http://www.nooran.org/
Actually, Sheild&Sword, the site you posted has an on-site translator that translates into English. Thank you for the link - very informative, interesting, and worth reading. :)
Shield&Sword
07-12-2006, 04:40 PM
Yes but it contain alot less subjects and even if exist it doesnt contain alot of info, and videos are in arabic section, any way better than nothing :)
Lilac Cotton
07-12-2006, 05:25 PM
...an aside to S & S...the two verses in question have ALWAYS been in question. Khalifa didn't create the news on that one. All he did was demonstrate that if those two are added, the whole thing falls out of general whack. No doubt you are a Sunni :) and that is your bias. Khalifa was of no particular sect that I know of and that was his bias. He was an engineer....from Egypt and hence, very likely a Sunni like yourself and perhaps overcame his bias like the guy who helped write the Muraja'at whose name was Shakh Salim Al Bishri al Maliki, head of the Sunni scholars in Egypt in the years of the early 19th century. Fascinating read that one!
Bias is literally 'built' into the Quran. It isn't me saying that a person 'guilty' of something will not like being told not to do the thing (sic reading about their crimes)they 'enjoy' doing, the Quran admits it openly as a kind of 'warning'. If they don't 'enjoy' doing it (any given sin) then it will likely be something that might help them to change. For a person completely 'at home' with the Quran though...there are still bits and bobs that might irritate. I feel that anything that is irritating to me is probably an area that I need to work on. My biggie is probably Charity or as we call it, Zakat. I just don't give enough. We are supposed to give 20% including what is given to close family members like parents.
Ah anyway, I gotta go for now....watch the news. They've just shot up the Lebanese Air Force landing strip. It is gonna be a very long night.
Shield&Sword
07-12-2006, 10:30 PM
When the 2 verses have always been in question, there were no verses been in question. Yes i am sunni the group that transfaired Holy Quran from Prophet pbuh and defended Holy Quran through generations untle now adays remember? in other words people who follow prophet pbuh, its not a bias its more the "right base" but i am not talking about sects, i am talking about how people now try in all ways to falsificate Holy Quran using pathetic ways. You know that if you make a table using excel and write in it the number of Surah and number of verses of every surah and make a graph (points) you will get a shape of word Allah in arabic, and if you change the "asse" (i dont know in english) you will get the shape of word Muhammed, now if i get shape of word Allah but the last letter got a point out of range that change the form of the last letter doesnt mean that there are verses added to Holy Quran of canceled from last surah, it will be stupid to think in that way. To applicate maths to see if verses are true is stupid way. Did you know that using maths scientists discovered that name Hitler is written in Turah, does that mean all turah is true or false, when i discuss with a jew abotu accuracy of turah i dont say to him turah is false because it contain the word Hitle without "r" so that mean that there are verses canceled because the name must be Hitler, it will be stupid and redicolous, i discuss with them about contraddictions and about meaning of verses and about added canceled verses that can exist in manuscriptures. God said in Holy Quran surah 4 verse 82 "Do they not consider the Qur-an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."
Surah 15 verse 9 " We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."
I think that the 2 verses were in question only for this khalifa and people who use pc to falsificate book they couldnt do it in normal way.
Now with a mathmatical system i can refute other verses and that one use his pathetic way to falsificate more and so on...
By the way if you agree i offer you the book called السياط اللاذعات في كشف كذب وتدليس صاحب المراجعات , الحجج الدامغات لنقض كتاب المراجعات this is another book, and finally this one (وقفات مع كتاب المراجعات (عثمان الخميس. If you want links i can offer you. About the main writer Abd alhosain almoosay, even his name is not acceptible and there is alot to talk about this man, any way i dont want to chainge subject.
I forgot to say that Zakat are 2.5%, the 20% you are paying is called Khoms, and Khoms are not given to your parents or any other parents but they are given to Ahl albayt now (i dont know who take them now, the missing one in serdaab?), and you know khoms are ordered in war, when Muslims take the stuff of enemy, 20% go to Ahl Albait (its in Holy Quran 8:41), only in state of war and money of enemy, not money of Muslims.
By the way Lilac i ask you one clue that Albishry got another bias as you said, if you mean Almoraja't is a clue, Almoosawy didnt show any original scripture written by hands of Albishry at least to proove his claims (the masseges that he claim he got them from Albishry, they are nearlly 50), after Albishry died the lies started and they claimed he changed his mathhab, but no one clue. Even they asked the son of Albishry about these dibates, he answered that he never heared that they accured between his father and any one else. This book was published nearlly 30 years after death of Albishry, in all this book Albishry talked only in 42 pages while Almoosawy talked in 636 pages, is this possible? beside we see that Albishry didnt discuss in this book he only say to Almoosawy you are right and talk good about him, so strange from a man with this knowledge, i ask you to read books i gave you to find the LIES written in this book, i am sure you wont find it fascinating.
If you want to see how Albishry will talk if he talked to Almoosawy you should listen to Almustaqilla dibates, they are in video in this link 24kfiles.com, i liked more the dibate about Ga3far Assadeq may Allah be please with him, also between Othman and Almoosawy. (by the way you wont find these famous dibates in sites that follow Abd Alhosain Almoosawy mathhab, interesting why..).
Bias is literally 'built' into the Quran. It isn't me saying that a person 'guilty' of something will not like being told not to do the thing (sic reading about their crimes)they 'enjoy' doing, the Quran admits it openly as a kind of 'warning'. If they don't 'enjoy' doing it (any given sin) then it will likely be something that might help them to change. For a person completely 'at home' with the Quran though...there are still bits and bobs that might irritate. I feel that anything that is irritating to me is probably an area that I need to work on. My biggie is probably Charity or as we call it, Zakat. I just don't give enough. We are supposed to give 20% including what is given to close family members like parents.
Would you claim, then, that The Quran, for the most part, gives you the admitted biases? In so many ways possible, I feel that no one, or no thing, can make someone feel or think a certain way, meaning that a person or religious text does not necessarily 'compel' you to believe in 'this' that 'that,' but you consider it as true; no doubt, you do admirably believe in The Quran, as you have demonstrated.
In any religion, however, I can see, as you said, how certain aspects may seem 'irritating,' or not entirely agreeable; merely because one embraces a religion, does not mean, at least to me, that one must embrace the whole religion, its practices, and beliefs.
What I wonder, however, regards more the utilization of faith and reason in connection to such regarded biases. Though not always true, most people can observe several atheists and agnostics enthusiastically following the studies of natural sciences (in the use of reason and logic) - does this necessarily contribute to their bias often found against all theistic and gnostic religions? In the use of faith, commonly, yet not always, seen in most religions, do followers' faiths necessarily contribute to their often found bias against some findings and theories in science, or in the use of logic?
Personally, I would say 'yes' to both questions. Even as you said that 'bias is literally built into the Quran,' I think it safe to say something similar of most faith-based religious texts. All consist of teachings in various forms, mostly or entirely led by faith, which often contradict or debate the teachings of science, atheism, and agnosticism.
On a reciprocating factor, in constant use of reason and logic, scientists, most athesits, and a majority of agnostics (and I write in general principles here), this, too, I think contributes greatly to a mirror-like bias against most religions, their teachings, and their texts.
Of course, all human bias, to a degree, seems inevitable - not only in religion and spirituality (or lack thereof), but also in everyday perception and cognition. Of course, I write entirely in generalizations, not wanting to offend anyone, but I surely believe the differences in use of faith and reason most certainly contribute to the different biases and perceptions of each other's beliefs, practices, etc.
Ah anyway, I gotta go for now....watch the news. They've just shot up the Lebanese Air Force landing strip. It is gonna be a very long night.
Indeed, I read about that in the news. :eek: I hope all seems well, and peace re-establishes soon; of course, however, I do not want to get too involved with politics.
Kelly_Sprout
07-13-2006, 06:44 PM
I think.
I feel.
They are mutually exclusive and often create completely opposite messages in my mind. Yet, they co-exist. Still, it is rare to for me to be capable of thinking during times of strong feelings or of feeling when absorbed in thinking.
I reason.
I believe.
Like thinking and feeling, these two are mutually exclusive, often produce completely opposite conclusions, yet co-exist. Like thinking and feeling, I find it is rare for me to be able to reason with or explain my beliefs or reconcile my beliefs with what is clearly reasonable at all times.
It is just one of those mysteries of the function and capabilities of the mind, I guess.
Very good, and very interesting application to faith vs. logic. Though without delving too far into politics, one sees many, many uses of both faith and reason in historic and contemporary warfare (and I shall not go into specifics). Faith-based warfare, for example, tend to often involve religion-oriented wars, which has never made a great amount of sense to me, but few can deny the truth that it occurred/occurs. In retrospect, reason-based and logic-based warfare, in my opinion, gets highly more into politics and ethics - politics, especially, in terms of the desire for ruling, and ethics mostly in terms of 'determing and enforcing what seems right,' so to speak (such as the abolition of slavery).
Of course, warfare has struck a sensitive note with many people in past and recent times, I feel that a debate between faith and reason can seem applied to nearly every concept, decision-making, and requirement for human action feasible; politics and so-called 'political science' (an absurd term, if I may say) appear as an easy target for the faith and reason debate (perhaps tertiary to religion and science), and, indeed, saturated with requirements for human decision, cognition, and action.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.