If you accept one, why not others?

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand. If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason. With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

 

[ametist]

I agree. It can happen on philosophical level in most cases though. Which is good enough. To coexist in spiritual level with all of them is real problem because it is a deeper root.

 

[gzusfrk]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand. If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason. With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

Its not quite like that. First you have to receive it for what it really is, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, this will allow the Word to work in you. James 1:21 says to receive the Word implanted for IT is able to save your soul. The Word comes alive in your heart. At this point some might ask so where is the faith, if you get as far as this you will see the faith which comes by hearing the Word of God.

 

[Quintessence]

With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim.

This strongly suggests that "faith" is probably never the sole component involved in the reasons why people believe what they do. In fact, not that long ago I made a thread asking the monotheists why they were monotheists instead of something else. For many respondents, it's a reasoned position (further, many of them were also pluralists, meaning they wouldn't put down someone else's concepts or interactions with the sacred just because it doesn't match their own conception of it).

So in short - and I sort of hate using this term but I'm going to anyway because it's probably appropriate here - the notion that people accept something solely on faith is probably a strawperson.

 

[McBell]

Its not quite like that. First you have to receive it for what it really is, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, this will allow the Word to work in you. James 1:21 says to receive the Word implanted for IT is able to save your soul. The Word comes alive in your heart. At this point some might ask so where is the faith, if you get as far as this you will see the faith which comes by hearing the Word of God.

Except that whatever you conclude it "really" is is based solely on faith....

 

[McBell]

This strongly suggests that "faith" is probably never the sole component involved in the reasons why people believe what they do. In fact, not that long ago I made a thread asking the monotheists why they were monotheists instead of something else. For many respondents, it's a reasoned position (further, many of them were also pluralists, meaning they wouldn't put down someone else's concepts or interactions with the sacred just because it doesn't match their own conception of it).

So in short - and I sort of hate using this term but I'm going to anyway because it's probably appropriate here - the notion that people accept something solely on faith is probably a strawperson.

"reasoned position" is really nothing more than claiming to have reasons for your position.

It does not necessarily mean that reason was used to get to said position.

 

[Quintessence]

"reasoned position" is really nothing more than claiming to have reasons for your position.

It does not necessarily mean that reason was used to get to said position.

If we're going to go that route, than we also ought to recognize that "reason" is really nothing more than some human agreeing or deciding that something makes sense.

But I was perfectly serious. People who responded in that thread I made put *gasp* actual thought behind what they believed. Shocking, I know.

 

[McBell]

If we're going to go that route, than we also ought to recognize that "reason" is really nothing more than some human agreeing or deciding that something makes sense.

But I was perfectly serious. People who responded in that thread I made put *gasp* actual thought behind what they believed. Shocking, I know.

If you want to play games with the word reason like creationists play with theory, then by all means carry on.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Its not quite like that. First you have to receive it for what it really is, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, this will allow the Word to work in you. James 1:21 says to receive the Word implanted for IT is able to save your soul. The Word comes alive in your heart. At this point some might ask so where is the faith, if you get as far as this you will see the faith which comes by hearing the Word of God.

Like Mestemia said...it's still faith. You're describing a religious experience, which all other religions offer as well. So there's still nothing independently objective to verify your claims.

 

[Quintessence]

Would the OP be so kind as to put forth an operational definition of "reason" please? Because I'm getting the sense that by "reason" you really mean "empirically quantifiable and verifiable in accord with the scientific method." Or perhaps some other highly technical and philosophical accounting of the term that will make it so that only an extremely small portion of individuals fit your criteria of using "reason."

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What can be inferred from experience and observation, information that can be gathered, tested, and repeated to derive facts.

 

[McBell]

What can be inferred from experience and observation, information that can be gathered, tested, and repeated to derive facts.

What?
You do not mean "that which i claim supports my faith"?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What?
You do not mean "that which i claim supports my faith"?

Darn you, I've already frubaled you once today.

 

[Quintessence]

What can be inferred from experience and observation, information that can be gathered, tested, and repeated to derive facts.

So, scientific method. Right? I just want to make sure here, because by definition, you've already excluded any possibility of virtually all theological and philosophical endeavors as well as day-to-day human behavior from being "rational."

In that case, there really isn't anything at all to discuss here. You've left no room for contrary positions. Congrats? Religion isn't science?

 

[Sees]

To me that is a pretty poor way to define reason, especially the latter bit - not reflecting common use, most dictionary definitions, historical use, etc....

How do we use reason to choose a cell phone, what to pack for a trip, plan of attack in combat, whether to propose to a pretty/handsome person?

Additions to "judgmental, critical, analytical thought" is basically making stuffs up. Might confuse the children.

 

[dawny0826]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand.

I would agree. Though, this doesn't negate that faith and reason often do go hand in hand.

If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason.

I was raised Christian but rejected much of what I was being taught because it didn't make sense to me in my youth. I questioned that which didn't seem logical and reasonable, yet, there were other pieces of Christianity from an early age that did make sense to me and were easy for me to accept on faith.

I'm on a journey that is quite spiritual. In order to grow spiritually, I'm learning on a continuum which requires logic and reason as well as faith.

With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them?

I find both faith and reason to be important and though I may not agree with or understand aspects of other faiths, I do not discount the validity to be found in other faiths, nor do I reject common threads.

It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

I agree that fighting against other people in this context is moot. I can respect another for their pursuits within Vaishnavism. I am more than willing to learn from another.

I can't speak as to what it's like to accept a religion on nothing more than faith, as I have no experience with this.

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

Fully contingent upon the context of conversation, I think. In some cases, "because God told me so" may be the most appropriate answer, even if not the most favorable.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand. If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason. With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

For me, it was more the case of consolidating and refining my own faith/beliefs.

My guru once told me that if I place each of my two feet in two separate boats, I'm going to end up in the drink.

I try to be as tolerant as I can, but there are always going to be certain aspects of my faith I can't compromise on...especially when it comes to Vaishnavism vs Shaivism.

I have 'been there and done that' in regards to worshiping Lord Krishna, but Siva just filled the 'void' inside, where Krishna just couldn't do it...it is a personal thing.

Sometimes, I ask for spiritual advice, and Vaishnavas will just say 'worship Krishna' or 'chant Maha Mantra'...

This may help them, but it's not going to help me...worshiping Kali/Durga helps me when ever I get 'stuck', but I had to find that out for myself.

It's pretty easy to take the leap from Shaivism to Shaktism (being there's no difference between Siva and Sakti) but not from Lord Siva to Sri Krishna - it's a whole different school/concept/matter entirely.

I also realise that I am reaching a point in my sadhana where I need to be more 'incorporative' and 'inclusive', but then I have to deal with those in my own faith, in my own school, abusing me for 'selling out'.

So, I have been hanging around the Esotericism DIR for answers to this.

 

[Parsimony]

Some contributing reasons might be:

-People want their own religion to be true, so they accept evidence in support of it and ignore evidence against it.
-Many people don't know nearly as much about other religions as they do about the one they were raised in.
-Religions often have evil supernatural figures which can be used to explain away any supernatural evidence in religions other than their own (i.e. a Christian might say "there was a miracle performed by a Hindu? Must have been the Devil giving him/her that power").

 

[idav]

I think any position based on faith should also take that position with an open mind. Faith also means doubt is a likely possibility and that should be thought of as normal. One issue with scripture are some verses that seem to encourage blind faith which I think is a big issue.

 

[gzusfrk]

Like Mestemia said...it's still faith. You're describing a religious experience, which all other religions offer as well. So there's still nothing independently objective to verify your claims.

how about.. faith being necessary is independently objective. From what I know of vaishnavism which is not much, faith is not a necessity.