I think the blame is shared. Both are accountable.
I'm speaking specifically about Islam, by the way.
Why Arguing Religion is Pointless
- Thread starter jimtaylor
- Start date
I think the blame is shared. Both are accountable.
I'm speaking specifically about Islam, by the way.
OP-- yes I understood the claim that reason can't be used to disprove faith, as faith is more like an a priori assumption than a deduction.
The point, however, is to ask whether faith is just an idea we cooked up or whether it can in fact exist. Obviously we are aware there are such things as delusions -- so how to distinguish these from faith? Both may be prone to assert things without objective proof.
My barometer is that delusion occurs when someone asserts they have faith, but they do not, and instead they have a belief. A belief is based on a mental association, hence tends to be something we would rather reason through to its full conclusion than leave as is.
Where can faith have jursidiction? It can when dealing with a truly (in Jungian terms) irrational factor: something which ultimate confronts us as an a priori, and cannot be reasoned.
This is why faith is considered crucial to God-consciousness.
OTOH, when dealing with anything short of the irrational factor, aka a product of the mind rather than the a priori, one can ask what the structure of the associations made by the mind are.
Some prophets are so clear as to suggest true faith does not arise before true enlightenment/God-consciousness, and that much of what is claimed as faith besides that is superstition -- aka what I would call a conflation between faith and belief.
A general rule of thumb is when faith is used to claim things about material reality, it tends to be belief. Why? Because the mind is able to form associations about material reality, the realm of form, and reason tends to be king in this realm...nothing short of disconnecting the rational mind entirely could reasonably lead to someone's statements about material reality not stemming in part from the associations they've made to it (else how are they able to point to it and communicate with it).
On the other hand, if they're not making a material claim, and make a fundamentally spiritual one, then it is left for grabs more.
The point, however, is to ask whether faith is just an idea we cooked up or whether it can in fact exist. Obviously we are aware there are such things as delusions -- so how to distinguish these from faith? Both may be prone to assert things without objective proof.
My barometer is that delusion occurs when someone asserts they have faith, but they do not, and instead they have a belief. A belief is based on a mental association, hence tends to be something we would rather reason through to its full conclusion than leave as is.
Where can faith have jursidiction? It can when dealing with a truly (in Jungian terms) irrational factor: something which ultimate confronts us as an a priori, and cannot be reasoned.
This is why faith is considered crucial to God-consciousness.
OTOH, when dealing with anything short of the irrational factor, aka a product of the mind rather than the a priori, one can ask what the structure of the associations made by the mind are.
Some prophets are so clear as to suggest true faith does not arise before true enlightenment/God-consciousness, and that much of what is claimed as faith besides that is superstition -- aka what I would call a conflation between faith and belief.
A general rule of thumb is when faith is used to claim things about material reality, it tends to be belief. Why? Because the mind is able to form associations about material reality, the realm of form, and reason tends to be king in this realm...nothing short of disconnecting the rational mind entirely could reasonably lead to someone's statements about material reality not stemming in part from the associations they've made to it (else how are they able to point to it and communicate with it).
On the other hand, if they're not making a material claim, and make a fundamentally spiritual one, then it is left for grabs more.
Last edited:
A university course in logic teaches logic. Need I be a part of that course to be a logician?
Like sprinkles said dogman, religion does not always teach morality.
The main issue however, is when religion is equated to morality. A university course on logic teaches logic - because logic is logic.
Religion is not morality. The two are independent from one another. Morality can be found within religion, but all morality is, is just being decent to your fellow human beings. And, perhaps, we could be more decent to our fellow human beings if religious beliefs didn't cloud our view of other people. That's not to say that everyone engages in this, hardly, and some would argue that religion is merely used as a scapegoat to commit atrocities that would be committed otherwise - but there are those who fervently believe, so fervently believe in their faiths that many have suffered and died for it.
Everyone should have the freedom to believe what they choose to believe, but it should never go so far as to be at the expense of others.
When I think morality, I don't think religion. I think looking past religion and truly, deeply connecting with people.
I also like discussing these things. Religion, faith, the concept of the soul. I think we should discuss it, and that it's worthwhile, because we should wonder, and should be curious. Because no matter how firmly we feel our convictions, there's so much out there that we don't know.
Misadventure
butt fros and asian purrs
I agree free. In what (I think) she means, that you missed her point entirely. I took it more along the lines of what [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] said. I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to open true discussion on this. I think it's very important to debate, and not pointless at all.
[MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION]
People don't really discuss religion though. They discuss Christianity and Islam. Maybe Buddhism if you're lucky. You can call those religions but they are not religion in the same way that water is not the ocean.
People don't really discuss religion though. They discuss Christianity and Islam. Maybe Buddhism if you're lucky. You can call those religions but they are not religion in the same way that water is not the ocean.
Misadventure
butt fros and asian purrs
Or at least be on the same page. Some times I find myself on another book entirely from what is going on.
Misadventure
butt fros and asian purrs
So maybe the question isn't if it's pointless or not, but whether or not we are open-minded enough to talk about it like adults. How open-minded are y'all?
Last edited:
Regardless of my own convictions, I am not static and will always remain a curious being till my last breath. I strive for greater understanding in all things. I'd like to believe I'm extremely open-minded about all things and have yet to prove myself wrong.
Yes, that is enough, lol.
Misadventure
butt fros and asian purrs
Regardless of my own convictions, I am not static and will always remain a curious being till my last breath. I strive for greater understanding in all things. I'd like to believe I'm extremely open-minded about all things and have yet to prove myself wrong.
Oh I think you two are the least of my worries. Anyone who knows either of you knows damn well how freaky-deaky y'all can get, LOL!
The word 'logic' is defined and typically used in two distinct, yet related senses.
One is as synonymous with reason or reasoning. This makes the sentence, "I'm a logical person." completely equivalent with "I'm a reasonable person."
The other is as a field of study regarding reasoning. It give the suffix -ology to several of the other fields of study. It is essentially self-referential, but it further externalizes the concept of reasoning beyond the merely subjective usage of the word.
The distinction is important regarding 'what' is being said with 'how' it is being said. Similar to how this statement in German, 'Schnee ist weiß,' can be meaningful to someone who understands German and meaningless to someone who doesn't understand German, but can understand a translation if provided: 'Snow is white.'
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously
It might be nonsensical to describe one language as being more 'logical' than any other language and likewise in this sense is not quite accurate to attribute it as a characteristic of any individual, but rather as a proscribed role within the field, ie a logician.
There's no defining antonym for logic in this larger sense. There is only an antonym form in the first sense which is simply "unreasonable" or "fallacious".
One is as synonymous with reason or reasoning. This makes the sentence, "I'm a logical person." completely equivalent with "I'm a reasonable person."
The other is as a field of study regarding reasoning. It give the suffix -ology to several of the other fields of study. It is essentially self-referential, but it further externalizes the concept of reasoning beyond the merely subjective usage of the word.
The distinction is important regarding 'what' is being said with 'how' it is being said. Similar to how this statement in German, 'Schnee ist weiß,' can be meaningful to someone who understands German and meaningless to someone who doesn't understand German, but can understand a translation if provided: 'Snow is white.'
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously
It might be nonsensical to describe one language as being more 'logical' than any other language and likewise in this sense is not quite accurate to attribute it as a characteristic of any individual, but rather as a proscribed role within the field, ie a logician.
There's no defining antonym for logic in this larger sense. There is only an antonym form in the first sense which is simply "unreasonable" or "fallacious".
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]
Language has also evolved certain unwritten rules for whatever reason that you're just "supposed to know" which are different from logic.
For example, "or" is usually taken to be exclusive in English - meaning "either but not both". There seems to be no particular reason for that, it's just like that. However in logic, or is not exclusive, logically "or" can mean "either or both".
Language has also evolved certain unwritten rules for whatever reason that you're just "supposed to know" which are different from logic.
For example, "or" is usually taken to be exclusive in English - meaning "either but not both". There seems to be no particular reason for that, it's just like that. However in logic, or is not exclusive, logically "or" can mean "either or both".
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
Definitely. Why not the sentence, "The child lost their red, big balloon." rather than "The child lost their big, red balloon."? There is seemingly no adjective ordering rule to cause big to consistently be placed before red in that example.
Definitely. Why not the sentence, "The child lost their red, big balloon." rather than "The child lost their big, red balloon."? There is seemingly no adjective ordering rule to cause big to consistently be placed before red in that example.