Religion is reasoning

[Rick O'Shez]

As above, big bang v steady state was not a question of science v religion, but science v atheism,

Rubbish. It was a result of developments in astronomy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Good point about the big bang. Whether or not an intelligent force put it into motion, it's still utterly incredible, and it deserves to be thought of in a spiritual way.

So when I look at the Andromeda galaxy through my telescope and think it's awesome, is that a "spiritual" experience?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

1. Religion (as a whole) should not be written off as nonsense that is completely separate from critical reasoning.

No, but there is no reason why it should be immune from critical thinking.

 

[Laika]

Wow great post! Science usually conflicts with those aspects of religion that deal with science. I think it's always safe to side with science when it comes to that. I never accept anything in religious thought (by the way I only really concern myself with Hindu and Buddhist thought) that directly conflicts with science.

What confuses me is when many atheists take this weird extra step and they stop assigning divine value to these aspects of the universe we know about. Good point about the big bang. Whether or not an intelligent force put it into motion, it's still utterly incredible, and it deserves to be thought of in a spiritual way.

Thanks. I think a lot of Atheists struggle with the concept of the divine because it is very emotional. From what I understand, the New Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitches and co. take a very rational and scientific approach which can subtract the way in which religion can inspire people and express deeply held desires for an intuitive- as opposed to a purely rational- understanding of our place in the universe. But if man created god, the experience of the divine is not necessarily exclusive to religion as it can be gained by understanding our humanity as well.

I think Nietzsche is probably the only atheist who understood the magnitude of the changes the "death of god" would have. the question he posed about what kind of moral system would replace religion remains unanswered. This is true even of Communism, which didn't really have a 'morality' to speak of. Atheists are more than capable of making moral judgements, but we haven't really grappled with the bigger existential questions in a way that makes atheism a "comfortable" position to take. reason isn't always enough.

 

[Shad]

As above, big bang v steady state was not a question of science v religion, but science v atheism,

science eventually moved on by overcoming atheist beliefs with evidence, the atheist dogma of 'no creation hence no creator' did not change, it simply moved into scientifically darker recesses - Big Crunch, Multiverses, M Theory etc, these atheism of the gaps arguments are not progression, but retreat

Georges Lemaitre resented the Pope's claims that the BB proved a creator. His said the theory was neutral. You are making the same mistake the Pope and atheists which opposed the theory on religious grounds did. Taking a theory into a religious discourse.

 

[Quintessence]

Well the philosophical ideals and mythological stories don't re-write themselves over time, do they?
But this is going to depend on the religion for the statement to be relevant.

Of course they don't re-write themselves. People do it. Christianity today is quite different than it was a thousand years ago. Or even a hundred. You'll find the same in any other religious demographic. Every religious demographic has traditionalists that resist change and progressives that produce change. Further, we've had many hundreds of new religious movements throughout history. So I'm just really confused at the claim that religion doesn't change, when it quite clearly does.

What really sets the sciences apart from religion is that sciences are limited to a certain methodology, while religions are not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Georges Lemaitre resented the Pope's claims that the BB proved a creator. His said the theory was neutral. You are making the same mistake the Pope and atheists which opposed the theory on religious grounds did. Taking a theory into a religious discourse.

I'm making quite the opposite point

It was the atheists like Hoyle who took the theory into religious discourse, explicitly rejecting and mocking the primeval atom theory as 'big bang' because of what they complained of as overtly theistic implications- which flew in the face of their own beliefs

Lemaitre took the more scientific approach, pointing out that the implications have nothing to do with the theories validity--

There is a good reason why Lemaitre was able to separate his science from his faith- because unlike the atheists, he acknowledged that he had such a thing. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

 

[Shad]

I'm making quite the opposite point

It was the atheists like Hoyle who took the theory into religious discourse, explicitly rejecting and mocking the primeval atom theory as 'big bang' because of what they complained of as overtly theistic implications- which flew in the face of their own beliefs

Lemaitre took the more scientific approach, pointing out that the implications have nothing to do with the theories validity--

There is a good reason why Lemaitre was able to separate his science from his faith- because unlike the atheists, he acknowledged that he had such a thing. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

Yes but I am pointing out that you are taking these events into a religious discourse. You are using the opposition of atheists, a religious discourse, as a point against atheists which becomes another religious discourse. You are making the same mistake but using an event surrounding a theory to make a religious point. There are still theists, YEC, creationism exegesis, etc, which reject the BB so you are only harping on certain religious views while ignoring that both sides have had issues with the theory. A fair position would be that views of religion, pro/con, can and will entrench a certain people. Their presupposition win out over any evaluation.

 

[JRMcC]

So when I look at the Andromeda galaxy through my telescope and think it's awesome, is that a "spiritual" experience?

I don't think I can answer that man. For me thinking something is awesome doesn't necessarily mean I'm thinking of it spiritually. My spiritual thinking really is beyond words. uhhh maybe this would be a good topic for another post sometime!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes but I am pointing out that you are taking these events into a religious discourse. You are using the opposition of atheists, a religious discourse, as a point against atheists which becomes another religious discourse. You are making the same mistake but using an event surrounding a theory to make a religious point. There are still theists, YEC, creationism exegesis, etc, which reject the BB so you are only harping on certain religious views while ignoring that both sides have had issues with the theory. A fair position would be that views of religion, pro/con, can and will entrench a certain people. Their presupposition win out over any evaluation.

It was the atheists point, not mine- I wasn't inferring anything religious about the BB, as neither did Lemaitre- the atheists did, because a belief that does not even recognize itself is the most fundamentally entrenched presupposition, winning out over any evaluation. Hoyle rejected the objective scientific evidence till his dying day.

My original post was responding to the comment that religion should be kept out of science, so I was giving an example- a pretty major one, where atheism should have been kept out of science- yet it has been the driving presupposition behind academic cosmogony all along

 

[JRMcC]

No, but there is no reason why it should be immune from critical thinking.

Agreed. It should be subject to criticism just like other forms of reasoning like science and philosophy. I do think logic has a place in religious and spiritual thought.

 

[JRMcC]

What really sets the sciences apart from religion is that sciences are limited to a certain methodology, while religions are not.

Yes! Science deals with what is physical, and that includes things like subatomic particles that can't be sensed without the aid of technology. The problem with limiting oneself to the physical when trying to understand the universe is that so much of what we experience as conscious beings is not "real" in the scientific sense.

 

[Cephus]

1. Religion (as a whole) should not be written off as nonsense that is completely separate from critical reasoning.
2. There is nothing wrong with picking certain ideas from religion/s and ignoring others.

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with #1. Religions start with assumptions and then build on those assumptions. They will not go back and question the core assumptions of the religion. This is counter to critical reasoning. Critical thinking requires no sacred cows. Everything must be up for independent evaluation and re-evaluation at all times, by anyone. Critical thinking does not respect faith. So long as religion operates the way that it does, it can never be reasonable.

 

[Cephus]

Agreed. It should be subject to criticism just like other forms of reasoning like science and philosophy. I do think logic has a place in religious and spiritual thought.

But the vast majority of people who take their religions seriously do not practice it, that's the problem. There should be a place for reasoning in absolutely everything, there ought to be no form of human endeavor which is cut off from logic and critical evaluation. Tell that to most religious people though, they'll freak.

 

[George-ananda]

Am I right? Is religion reasoning?

I think you are right. Religion is a reasoned way to live better in this life and beyond. It is wisdom from masters we respect as having deeper insight into reality than us; like Krishna and Arjuna in your Bahgavad Gita example.

 

[Nakosis]

Religion in some cases is a threat which requires belief.

In the sense of Islamic-Judaic-Christian beliefs. Philosophy is fine. This idea of an all powerful deity who will punish you if you misbehave kind of puts a damper on its usefulness as a philosophy. Understanding ends up being not as important as obedience.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'm of the opinion that almost all religious and spiritual thought is reasoning at it's core, sometimes philosophical and sometimes practical.
For example, I do not think of the Bhagavad Gita as a book of knowledge with hard facts in it. Rather I see it as a book on spiritual philosophy derived from reason, and it's put into the format of a dialogue between the knowing philosopher (Krishna) and the one who wants to know and is moving the conversation forward with questions. Plenty of ancient Greek and more recent western philosophy is set up this way.
So for me this means:
1. Religion (as a whole) should not be written off as nonsense that is completely separate from critical reasoning.
2. There is nothing wrong with picking certain ideas from religion/s and ignoring others.

I'm particularly interested to hear what some atheists think about this. The ones I've said this to in person haven't liked it too much. Lawrence Krauss thinks we should throw out all religious thought because some of it (well, maybe a lot of it depending on which religion) is wrong.

Am I right? Is religion reasoning?

No you are wrong. At its core religion is superstition.

That said there is great reasoning that goes into religious thought, by a very small minority of adherents. The same could be said of atheisms, or any political system.

I do agree with your point 1. to a limited extend. Those aspects of religion that are not predicated by the supernatural do not necessitate writing off.

I agree with your point 2. there is nothing wrong with picking certain ideas from religion(s) and ignoring others. But there is something wrong with accepting all ideas from any religion.

 

[JRMcC]

No you are wrong. At its core religion is superstition.

Hmmm I think you'd be able make a good case for that if you were just dealing with the Abrahamic religions. But even some of the silly rules found in the Bible or Quran are based on reasoning. The codes of conduct they lay out are certainly based on what people at the time thought was reasonable. I don'y think a belief in some sort of deity or whatever you'd like to call it is necessarily superstition, but ones you start getting into too many specifics it kinda crosses the line over into superstition.

 

[JRMcC]

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with #1. Religions start with assumptions and then build on those assumptions. They will not go back and question the core assumptions of the religion. This is counter to critical reasoning. Critical thinking requires no sacred cows. Everything must be up for independent evaluation and re-evaluation at all times, by anyone. Critical thinking does not respect faith. So long as religion operates the way that it does, it can never be reasonable.

You make a strong counter-argument my friend. It's true that they don't question the core assumption of the religion, but most of the time that core assumption is based on reasoning. It is flawed reasoning to base reasoning upon an assumption that isn't questioned in the system, but it's still reasoning.

But remember that these presuppositions in religion don't come from nowhere! Somewhere along the road early humans must have thought it was reasonable to be religious.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Hmmm I think you'd be able make a good case for that if you were just dealing with the Abrahamic religions. But even some of the silly rules found in the Bible or Quran are based on reasoning. The codes of conduct they lay out are certainly based on what people at the time thought was reasonable. I don'y think a belief in some sort of deity or whatever you'd like to call it is necessarily superstition, but ones you start getting into too many specifics it kinda crosses the line over into superstition.

There is a difference between 'some sillly rules...based on reasoning" and 'all religious thought is reasoning at its core"

I think you'd best be able to make a good case, if you are going to say that a belief in any deity, even a very vague one, is based on reason.

There are many many very well reasoned thoughts in religion(s); but those with aspects of divinity and supernatural are not among them.