Religion v Reason

[dogs4thewin]

Can a person have both?

 

[Soyeong]

Can a person have both?

Of course. It wouldn't be possible to have religion without reason. It wouldn't even be possible to have coherent thought without reason.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I posted this as a reply to that other thread we were in before I noticed that you started a topic, so I'll repost it here to avoid a de-rail of the other one:

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to take a personal jab at any religious folks (as many on here know, I'm one of the atheists that will often times stand up for the Christian crowd and end up debating against some of my fellow atheists).

With that being said, I do feel that there are certain barriers on specific topics that sometimes make it difficult for reason and religion to go together on certain topics. ...and that's not meant to sound insulting (sorry if it comes across that way), but that's just the nature of religion in general. Religion is a heavily faith based institution that often involves large amounts of dogma, and in many cases requires the acceptance of certain things without tangible evidence. And again, that's not meant as an insult, that's just how it is.

This doesn't apply to all topics obviously, there are certain ones where a person's religious view on something can coincide with reason. For example, Christians religious law dictates that you shouldn't murder or steal, that happens to coincide with what I (as a non-religious person) view as the reasonable position on those two items.

However, when discussing certain societal matters and scientific topics, religion can absolutely be a barrier.

When discussing peoples' views with them on topics like this, I often ask them to put their stance up against the "if there were no religion" test (at the risk of sounding like a hippy John Lennon song lol).

"If there were no holy books or religious institutions, would you still come up with the same conclusion on this topic?"

If two people sat down, with no pre-existing influence of any kind, and had a reasonable conversation about a topic, would that reasonable conversation result in a conclusion that matched what's in a religious book? Sometimes yes, Sometimes no.

 

[expos4ever]

Can a person have both?

It depends on what you mean by "religion".

Can a person believe in the existence of a "higher power" and related ideas concerning meaning, morals, politics, etc? Of course.

To put things very crudely, as long as one's "religious" views do not egregiously violate the principles of rationality (and there will likely be different views on what these are) and are otherwise consistent with the 'data of the world', then there is no conflict.

But, of course, many religious ideas / habits do indeed clash with reason. Examples:

1. 10,000 year-old earth;

2. Uncritical acceptance of authority sources;

3. Distrust of the scientific method;

4. Claiming that there is a "demon under every doily" - the notion that the world is overrun with unseen sinister forces (to me, this is a sign of mental illness that is often passed off as a legitimate "religious" view);

5. General dismissal of the principles of sound argumentation (often expressed by such slogans as "you are using fallen human reasoning and you need to simply accept what I am telling you);

6. Refusal to accept uncertainty.

 

[expos4ever]

Religion is a heavily faith based institution that often involves large amounts of dogma, and in many cases requires the acceptance of certain things without tangible evidence.

Important point and I have something I want to say about this but do not have the time now.

 

[Albion]

Can a person have both?

A person had better have both!

Incidentally, my home forum (Anglicans) on CF is the "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" forum. The same points of emphasis have historically been associated with Methodists, too, so a fairly large chunk of Christendom not only thinks a person can have both, but publicly says that it's important that they do.

 

[Soyeong]

It depends on what you mean by "religion".

Can a person believe in the existence of a "higher power" and related ideas concerning meaning, morals, politics, etc? Of course.

To put things very crudely, as long as one's "religious" views do not egregiously violate the principles of rationality (and there will likely be different views on what these are) and are otherwise consistent with the 'data of the world', then there is no conflict.

But, of course, many religious ideas / habits do indeed clash with reason. Examples:

1. 10,000 year-old earth;

2. Uncritical acceptance of authority sources;

3. Distrust of the scientific method;

4. Claiming that there is a "demon under every doily" - the notion that the world is overrun with unseen sinister forces (to me, this is a sign of mental illness that is often passed off as a legitimate "religious" view);

5. General dismissal of the principles of sound argumentation (often expressed by such slogans as "you are using fallen human reasoning and you need to simply accept what I am telling you);

6. Refusal to accept uncertainty.

No one could get to the point where they could hold any of the positions you listed without using reason. For instance, you might not agree with the reason why someone who thinks that the earth is 10,000 years old, but there is a reason why they hold that belief, otherwise they wouldn't have formed that belief in the first place.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A person had better have both!

Incidentally, my home forum (Anglicans) on CF is the "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" forum. The same points of emphasis have historically been associated with Methodists, too, so a fairly large chunk of Christendom not only thinks a person can have both, but publicly says that it's important that they do.

This actually started after someone in another thread sort of implied that one could not have both and so to avoid derailing that thread I started a new one.

 

[Albion]

This actually started after someone in another thread sort of implied that one could not have both and so to avoid derailing that thread I started a new one.

I'm sure that there are people who feel that way, so let's see which way it goes here on your thread.

 

[expos4ever]

No one could get to the point where they could hold any of the positions you listed without using reason. For instance, you might not agree with the reason why someone who thinks that the earth is 10,000 years old, but there is a reason why they hold that belief, otherwise they wouldn't have formed that belief in the first place.

Of course I agree with you, if you use "reason" in the sense of "thinking" generally. What I mean by "reason" is good thinking. Yes, one "thinks" to conclude the earth is 10,000 years old. But that thinking is, I suggest, demonstrably defective.

 

[mark46]

A person had better have both!

Incidentally, my home forum (Anglicans) on CF is the "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" forum. The same points of emphasis have historically been associated with Methodists, too, so a fairly large chunk of Christendom not only thinks a person can have both, but publicly says that it's important that they do.

Agreed.

Methodists add a fourth to Anglican's 3, experience.

For Roman Catholics, =many have argued that Reason has too central a place.

 

[Albion]

Sure, "Reason" means more than simply thinking about it before coming to a decision. But on the other hand, "Reason" doesn't necessarily mean what it did during the "Age of Reason" when it was advocated as a systematic way to figure out the truth of all things.

 

[Soyeong]

With that being said, I do feel that there are certain barriers on specific topics that sometimes make it difficult for reason and religion to go together on certain topics. ...and that's not meant to sound insulting (sorry if it comes across that way), but that's just the nature of religion in general. Religion is a heavily faith based institution that often involves large amounts of dogma, and in many cases requires the acceptance of certain things without tangible evidence. And again, that's not meant as an insult, that's just how it is.

It is not possible for someone have faith or accept dogma without reason.

This doesn't apply to all topics obviously, there are certain ones where a person's religious view on something can coincide with reason. For example, Christians religious law dictates that you shouldn't murder or steal, that happens to coincide with what I (as a non-religious person) view as the reasonable position on those two items.

Generally when people say that something is unreasonable they are meaning that to them it appears to be a bad use of reason, not that it was arrived at without the use of reason. In order for that to happen, a belief would have to spontaneously pop into someone's head without a cause and be maintained without a cause. Usually the person that you think is being unreasonable nevertheless thinks that they are being reasonable, so it has to do more with a subjective judgement call than with whether or not reason was being used.

However, when discussing certain societal matters and scientific topics, religion can absolutely be a barrier.

When discussing peoples' views with them on topics like this, I often ask them to put their stance up against the "if there were no religion" test (at the risk of sounding like a hippy John Lennon song lol).

"If there were no holy books or religious institutions, would you still come up with the same conclusion on this topic?"

If two people sat down, with no pre-existing influence of any kind, and had a reasonable conversation about a topic, would that reasonable conversation result in a conclusion that matched what's in a religious book? Sometimes yes, Sometimes no.

How do you think that religious books were written in the first place?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have yet to see a reasoned argument that starts from verified premises and concludes that religious beliefs are supported. At best, people believe in religious claims that haven't been shown to be untrue. However, those beliefs are based on faith which seems like a very unreasonable way to arrive at a belief. The real difficulties come when religious beliefs are used as an argument for causing harm to others. Unreasonable but benign beliefs are one thing, but harmful beliefs are another.

On the extreme side of the spectrum, there are religious beliefs like Geocentrism and Creationism which are falsified by mountains of scientific evidence and yet those beliefs are still held. I think most would agree that in these cases, religion has been embraced to the detriment of reason.

 

[Albion]

Agreed.

Methodist add a fourth to Anglican's 3, experience.

Yes indeed, but I didn't want to complicate my paragraph.

 

[mark46]

It is not possible for someone have faith or accept dogma without reason.

I certainly disagree with this. For centuries, many have accepted dogma without any intervening reason. Many (if not most) people who believe in God, will tell that reason never entered into their belief in God. Sure, those who are more mature in their faith cannot understand their faith without reason. For many, understanding is not important.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, "Reason" means more than simply thinking about it before coming to a decision. But on the other hand, "Reason" doesn't necessarily mean what it did during the "Age of Reason" when it was advocated as a systematic way to figure out the truth of all things.

In the history of science there were once two schools: the Rationalists and the Empiricists. The Rationalist school thought that the great mysteries could be solved by simply thinking them out. It was based on "common sense", which we later discovered is not a trustworthy sense. The Rationalists thought that we could intuitively find the right answers. The Empiricists, on the other hand, suggested that our intuitions could be wrong, and that we should verify our ideas by comparing them to what we could detect through our senses in an objective sense.

Most people today would consider the Empiricists to be the ones using Reason, but that wasn't always the case through history.

 

[mark46]

In the history of science there were once two schools: the Rationalists and the Empiricists. The Rationalist school thought that the great mysteries could be solved by simply thinking them out. It was based on "common sense", which we later discovered is not a trustworthy sense. The Rationalists thought that we could intuitively find the right answers. The Empiricists, on the other hand, suggested that our intuitions could be wrong, and that we should verify our ideas by comparing them to what we could detect through our senses in an objective sense.

Most people today would consider the Empiricists to be the ones using Reason, but that wasn't always the case through history.

It is interesting that you want to imply that this division has ended.

Empiricists claim that all our knowledge and Truth comes though our senses.

Folks of almost all philosophies and religions do not expect the limitations of empiricism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is not possible for someone have faith or accept dogma without reason.
Generally when people say that something is unreasonable they are meaning that to them it appears to be a bad use of reason, not that it was arrived at without the use of reason. In order for that to happen, a belief would have to spontaneously pop into someone's head without a cause and be maintained without a cause. Usually the person that you think is being unreasonable nevertheless thinks that they are being reasonable, so it has to do more with a subjective judgement call than with whether or not reason was being used.

How do you think that religious books were written in the first place?

You're ignoring the pervasive concept of indoctrination. It's no coincidence that 88% of people remain in the same religion as the one their parents raised them in.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is interesting that you want to imply that this division has ended.

In the physical sciences, it has ended. Hypotheses require empirical support before they are accepted as being supported.

Empiricists claim that all our knowledge and Truth comes though our senses.

Folks of almost all philosophies and religions do not expect the limitations of empiricism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

What good is an epistemology without limitaitons? What good is an epistemology where anything can be considered true?