Are reason and religious believe compatible?

[TransFax]

Is it possible to combine critical reason and religious believe?

Can we for example believe in scientific explanations and religious dogmas at the same time?

Or will our mind inevitably be torn apart in trying to do so?

I'd like to hear your viewpoint.

PS: I myself am to INSANE to give a reasonable or religious answer. !!!

[Atatürk]

Yes it is. Religion doesn't clash with reason, the two are completely separate. Religious clashes with empiricism. However, empirical methods do have the the facility to prove or disprove religion.

[TransFax]

@Atatürk
"The two are completly separate" That's what I propose: Never will religion and reason meet - full stop.


And your statment: "Religious clashes with empiricism. However, empirical methods do have the the facility to prove or disprove religion."

Don't quite get what you want to say - but I guess that is the same for you and others trying to get what I say.

Anyway... empirical science and common religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) both rely on objects as base for their understanding. But... -it dudes! Neither religion nor science will ever give us a decent explanation for things (or perceived objects) being here! It's the initial cause that both proclaim, and which is in itselft ridiculous!

Initial cause - gods or Big Bang - hah, hah, hah, hah!

There is no reason whatsoever to think there might be am initial cause.

Anyone who can argue for such a "initial cause" please step forward.

Or is our world thinkable without an initial cause (be it gods or Big Bang or whathever)?

EDIT: hah, hah, hah - try it dude... go on.

[Tankbuster]

Both the terms "reason" and "religious belief" are far too ambiguously defined (in fact, in this case they are not defined at all) so as to make the question in this form unanswerable.

However, I will say (even though it's quite a controversial statement) that I think that reason-based skepticism and theism are incompatible.

[Atatürk]

Both the terms "reason" and "religious belief" are far too ambiguously defined (in fact, in this case they are not defined at all) so as to make the question in this form unanswerable.

Reason could be defined as abstract mathematics, and religion may be defined as metaphysics.

[The Dude]

Reason could be defined as abstract mathematics, and religion may be defined as metaphysics.

Theism may be defined as metaphysics. Religion can't be defined as anything philosophical because its structure is inherently different from philosophy.

[Tankbuster]

Reason could be defined as abstract mathematics, and religion may be defined as metaphysics.

Neither of those definitions is even close to being accurate.

For starters, at the very least one would have to say that religion is God-based metaphysics; but even that immediately begs the question of what exactly it is we are defining as God here. Simply defining it as "metaphysics" sounds like a particularly sneaky tactic of trying to equate all metaphysical beliefs as automatically and instrinsically religious.

And reason can't simply be reduced to mathematics either. Mathematics is a formal representation of logica and reason in order to model the world, not the other way around.

But even if I agreed to your definitions, my original criticism stands: the terms are too broadly defined. Clearly some forms of religion (defined under your terms) do conflict with some forms of reason (again defined under your terms), and some would perhaps not.

Fail thread is heading for fail.

[SigniferOne]

For starters, at the very least one would have to say that religion is God-based metaphysics; but even that immediately begs the question of what exactly it is we are defining as God here.

The difficulty is far less than you imagine here. Religion is transcendent metaphysics, i.e. the origin and basic 'element' of it exists outside itself. Secular philosophy, meanwhile, generally looks at metaphysics that is self-sufficient, i.e. truth that is already contained within some basic propositions.


I argue that theism and reason can be completely and 100% compatible. Even with evidence-based skepticism. Just not with evidence-based cynicism.

[chriscase]

Since we are arguing definitions, I'd shift the discussion to the societal context. Organized religion is a feature of state-level culture, which also features stratified class structure (including a priesthood) and agriculture. Interestingly, most state-level cultures develop mathematical, architectural, and scientific knowledge in support of the needs of a growing population.

Agriculture tends to create a growth phenomenon whereby cultivation leads to greater adaptation of plants to cultivation and greater yields lead to a larger cultivation workload, which leads to further plant adaptations, etc. In the midst of this population/cultivation expansion, the need for seasonal predictions, cultivation technology, and safe housing for a densely-packed population puts knowledge pressure on the culture. Ironically perhaps, the single class with the leisure and authority to develop the knowledge needed to solve the problems of a state-level culture is the priesthood class. So the fields of knowledge advanced by the expansion of state-level culture - mathematics, engineering, astronomy, etc, - generally originate with the priesthood.

Not that they are ultimately theoretically compatible. But incompatible thoughts seem to have no difficulty inhabiting the same mind. Just another weirdly awesome thing about the human condition.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Rationalism is the feature of an impoverished religion.

Since we are arguing definitions, I'd shift the discussion to the societal context. Organized religion is a feature of state-level culture, which also features stratified class structure (including a priesthood) and agriculture. Interestingly, most state-level cultures develop mathematical, architectural, and scientific knowledge in support of the needs of a growing population.

Agriculture tends to create a growth phenomenon whereby cultivation leads to greater adaptation of plants to cultivation and greater yields lead to a larger cultivation workload, which leads to further plant adaptations, etc. In the midst of this population/cultivation expansion, the need for seasonal predictions, cultivation technology, and safe housing for a densely-packed population puts knowledge pressure on the culture. Ironically perhaps, the single class with the leisure and authority to develop the knowledge needed to solve the problems of a state-level culture is the priesthood class. So the fields of knowledge advanced by the expansion of state-level culture - mathematics, engineering, astronomy, etc, - generally originate with the priesthood.

And the guy tries yet another fatally flawed economic and Marxist euhemerization of Religion.... Right!

What do you know about the history of religion, nothing?

Did you know that your so-called "predictions" are forbidden by almost every mainstream organized religion, Christianity and Buddhism included? That Astrology in the Middle Ages and up to the Enlightenment was often punishable by death?

Kinda weird, then, among the many arguments that don't make sense, that religions would have been created by a "need to predict" crops. The first thing that Christian asceticism preaches is the renounciation of wealth, so kinda weird it would have had anything to do with 'crops', in a generalized, picaresque and caricatural mode of understanding typical of 19th century people who looked down on "primitives" which is furthered by scientism even today.

[chriscase]

And the guy tries yet another fatally flawed economic and Marxist euhemerization of Religion.... Right!

What do you know about the history of religion, nothing?

Did you know that your so-called "predictions" are forbidden by almost every mainstream organized religion, Christianity and Buddhism included? That Astrology in the Middle Ages and up to the Enlightenment was often punishable by death?

Kinda weird, then, among the many arguments that don't make sense, that religions would have been created by a "need to predict" crops. The first thing that Christian asceticism preaches is the renounciation of wealth, so kinda weird it would have had anything to do with 'crops', in a generalized, picaresque and caricatural mode of understanding typical of 19th century people who looked down on "primitives" which is furthered by scientism even today.

I'm pretty much going on what I learned about state-level cultures in the course of several cultural anthropology classes in college. Your counterexamples (if that's what they really are) from medieval Europe postdate the development of state level culture significantly. In any case, my post is not about the history of religion. It's about the history of culture. We don't neccesarily know what early religions thought about the universe, specifically. But there is enough evidence left behind to make some reasonable suppositions about their social structures and technology.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I'm pretty much going on what I learned about state-level cultures in the course of several cultural anthropology classes in college. Your counterexamples (if that's what they really are) from medieval Europe postdate the development of state level culture significantly. In any case, my post is not about the history of religion. It's about the history of culture. We don't neccesarily know what early religions thought about the universe, specifically. But there is enough evidence left behind to make some reasonable suppositions about their social structures and technology.

I've gotta say that nope, anthropology class is not the best place to learn about "Religion". It is essentially the same old interpretations, over and over again.

As to what this so-called "significant development of state level culture" means, I'll probably leave it to pure vagueness. First, you must be indoctrinated in these anthropology classes about the very existence of a purely arbitrary linear progression, and then you must twist history beyond belief to believe in the qualitative propositions of this line.

Medieval Europe, as a whole, was not very different from what India had been since the Vedic period in their fundamentals. Or the Muslim world. Or Egypt. And the answer is - a feudalistic or semi-feudalistic monarchical regime governed by a strict body of religious authority.

As for the natural sciences and their development, we have to understand that Religion as a whole is a completely inefficient engine of material development. It takes entire lives into ritualism and asceticism, it devoures the resources of the people without making them circulate in the market, it is the very beacon of anti-utilitarianism; it is not even a shining example of mind-control device, contrarily to detractors, since that same role was performed just as well by the State apparatus alone after the Enlightenment, and before in multi-ethnic and multi-religious Empires such as Rome and China, and its own very nature is prone towards the spontaneous generation of heretical unprising, aka perfectly normal people who would follow all commands otherwise were it not that they disagreed with the mainstream body over the Monads of the Logos of Christ.

Frankly, postulating purely economic or purely political motives for the existence of religious belief, is an inherently self-defeating venture.

[chriscase]

I've gotta say that nope, anthropology class is not the best place to learn about "Religion". It is essentially the same old interpretations, over and over again.

As to what this so-called "significant development of state level culture" means, I'll probably leave it to pure vagueness. First, you must be indoctrinated in these anthropology classes about the very existence of a purely arbitrary linear progression, and then you must twist history beyond belief to believe in the qualitative propositions of this line.

Medieval Europe, as a whole, was not very different from what India had been since the Vedic period in their fundamentals. Or the Muslim world. Or Egypt. And the answer is - a feudalistic or semi-feudalistic monarchical regime governed by a strict body of religious authority.

As for the natural sciences and their development, we have to understand that Religion as a whole is a completely inefficient engine of material development. It takes entire lives into ritualism and asceticism, it devoures the resources of the people without making them circulate in the market, it is the very beacon of anti-utilitarianism; it is not even a shining example of mind-control device, contrarily to detractors, since that same role was performed just as well by the State apparatus alone after the Enlightenment, and before in multi-ethnic and multi-religious Empires such as Rome and China, and its own very nature is prone towards the spontaneous generation of heretical unprising, aka perfectly normal people who would follow all commands otherwise were it not that they disagreed with the mainstream body over the Monads of the Logos of Christ.

Frankly, postulating purely economic or purely political motives for the existence of religious belief, is an inherently self-defeating venture.

You seem to be mired in the history of your favorite religions. As for your denigration of the field of anthropology, I think I will keep my own counsel, unless you have some very impressive qualificatons you wish to share.

[SigniferOne]

Rationalism is the feature of an impoverished religion.

Anti-rationalism is the feature of pre-rational mysticism . And/or German Idealist philosophers (Kant onwards). Take your pick.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You seem to be mired in the history of your favorite religions. As for your denigration of the field of anthropology, I think I will keep my own counsel, unless you have some very impressive qualificatons you wish to share.

That is true for most, if not every religion. Priesthood, the class that according to atheists keeps talking to walls, is by its own a refutation of socio-economic utilitarianism. Let alone dogma, let alone asceticism, let alone the sort of practice that makes the daily lifeblood of religion, let alone the idea in Advaita of a "liberation from samsara" and the physical senses, let alone the Abrahamic idea that this life is not worth all the efforts.

The rest is just empty appeal to authority. Even Creationists and Flat-Earthers have PhD's.

Anti-rationalism is the feature of pre-rational mysticism

Siggy, while I appreciate Thomism & similar effort, I think they are inherently misguided. The message is at first always contemplated, not systematized.

And/or German Idealist philosophers (Kant onwards). Take your pick

You're taking only European philosophy into account. And even then, only a diminute part of it - by ignoring Plato, for instance, who is the basis of not only Neoplatonism and Christian Patristics, but also of German Idealism itself.

[chriscase]

That is true for most, if not every religion. Priesthood, the class that according to atheists keeps talking to walls, is by its own a refutation of socio-economic utilitarianism. Let alone dogma, let alone asceticism, let alone the sort of practice that makes the daily lifeblood of religion, let alone the idea in Advaita of a "liberation from samsara" and the physical senses, let alone the Abrahamic idea that this life is not worth all the efforts.

I would be more interested in the practical function of the priesthood than what it thinks it's doing. Even in the Middle Ages, were not the monasteries the repositories of knowledge? Or is that another myth promoted by your supposed conspiracy of Marxist academics?

The rest is just empty appeal to authority. Even Creationists and Flat-Earthers have PhD's.

Yea, but if a creationist has a Ph.D. in biology, the only place he's going to be able to do academic work in his field is some remote corner of academe that tolerates crackpots. And he's unlikely to be teaching Creationism at a major university. At least, I hope not.

[SigniferOne]

Siggy, while I appreciate Thomism & similar effort, I think they are inherently misguided. The message is at first always contemplated, not systematized.

I don't disagree, it can be first contemplated, and then systematized (i.e. understood).

You're taking only European philosophy into account. And even then, only a diminute part of it - by ignoring Plato, for instance, who is the basis of not only Neoplatonism and Christian Patristics, but also of German Idealism itself.

Oh that's entirely false, Plato and all the great Greek schools other than the Cynics were arch-rationalists, and this included the Academy as well. AND, I might add, Plotinus. Have you read the Enneads? It is all rationalism writ large. Similarly, then so were the Christian Fathers, e.g. Augustine, all rationalism writ large, which is why Western theology, Thomas, Calvin, is also rationalism writ large.

German Idealists were the first to scoff at reason and sought truth in ineffable emotions and intuitions, all that was pre-rational, non-rational, basically anti-rational.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I would be more interested in the practical function of the priesthood than what it thinks it's doing. Even in the Middle Ages, were not the monasteries the repositories of knowledge? Or is that another myth promoted by your supposed conspiracy of Marxist academics?

No.

The point is that all of this was at best secondary and incidental. Anyone else could have done it better and more efficiently, even more so because the religious field is notorious for preserving only what it thinks is good (so writers like Porphyry are ignored in favour of Aristotle) and of not being "impartial", as the interpolations in Josephus show.

Yea, but if a creationist has a Ph.D. in biology, the only place he's going to be able to do academic work in his field is some remove corner of academe that tolerates crackpots. And he's unlikely to be teaching Creationism at a major university. At least, I hope not.

Again, academic authority is not a sacrossanct indicator of knowledge. Many talented billionaires, like Rockfeller and Bill Gates, were college dropouts.

[chriscase]

No.

The point is that all of this was at best secondary and incidental. Anyone else could have done it better and more efficiently, even more so because the religious field is notorious for preserving only what it thinks is good (so writers like Porphyry are ignored in favour of Aristotle) and of not being "impartial", as the interpolations in Josephus show.

Again, academic authority is not a sacrossanct indicator of knowledge. Many talented billionaires, like Rockfeller and Bill Gates, were college dropouts.

So what you are saying here is that the entire academic field of study known as cultural anthropology - a discipline which is taught at virtually every accredited institution of higher education - is just so much fabrication? And we are supposed to accept this on the basis of what? Your readings in the history of religion? I don't think so.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Oh that's entirely false, Plato and all the great Greek schools other than the Cynics were arch-rationalists, and this included Plato as well. AND, I might add, Plotinus. Have you read the Enneads? It is all rationalism writ large. And similarly Christian Patristics, e.g. Augustine, are all rationalism writ large, which is why Western theology, Thomas, Calvin, is also rationalism writ large. German Idealists were the first to scoff at reason and sought truth in ineffable emotions and intuitions, all that was pre-rational, non-rational, basically anti-rational.

Again, nope. Plato was a hyper-idealist - so was his philosophical offspring. There is a very clear lineage between him, and Medieval philosophers like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, all the way to Kant and Hegel.

And have you per chance read Christian patristics? All of that showing an intricate Neoplatonic substratum, and all of that explicitly non-rationalistic. The first attempt to introduce a systematic and rational outlook of the Christian doctrine only came with Scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas.

This again, only takes Western philosophy into account. Neoplatonism has been recognized as virtually identical with the metaphysical lucubrations of earlier Buddhism, which is again "not rationalistic".