Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

[Trailblazer]

Because they are provably false. Name any message and I can demonstrate this.

Okay, tell me why the following message is false. Prove that it is false.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

 

[tayla]

The reason there are Messengers is because they help humanity progress as a whole and they bring messages that are designed to address the problems in the world, not just individuals' relationships with God.

I would agree on condition that you limit the meaning of the word "messenger" to those having:

1. philosophical training in the fields of political science, sociology, psychology, economics, and other social sciences
2. scientific training sufficient to discern false views about physical reality
3. genuine concern for the welfare of their fellow humans (and other creatures)
4. the skills necessary to effectively accomplish good things on behalf those they are trying to help

Merely having visions and hallucinations from God is not sufficient to help humanity.

 

[tayla]

But who is to say who has a rational mind? How is that reliable?

Yes, the all-important question. Just as with science, in which ideas and theories need validation by many to confirm their correctness. In like manner, philosophical claims need validation by many. Over the centuries there have been many wacky and untrue claims by philosophers (just as with spiritual leaders).

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said:
If you think that revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge, what would you consider trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge? Where else would God's truth and knowledge come from?

Firstly, from science, which is the only thing that generates provable truth and knowledge. But, of necessity, this is limited to physical phenomena. (Also, science is based on philosophy: on epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics.)

Why does spiritual truth have to be provable?
Do you really think any truth can be proven to everyone?
If not, why not just rely on what we can prove to ourselves is true?

Secondly, from philosophy. There are a few reasons to propose the existence of a spiritual ream having souls and of God:

1. Consciousness. There is no natural law called consciousness. There is no quantum field called consciousness. Therefore, consciousness (and its contents) reside outside the physical realm.
2. The fact of the appearance of design and purpose (teleonomy) and of actual purposeful design (teleology); these strongly imply actual designer(s). Or at a minimum, a universe designed such that purpose occurs in the operation of the natural laws.
3. The fact that everyone, even atheists, consider goodness and beauty as superior to badness and ugliness; this implies a God who is good and beautiful.

I should note: in using the term "God", I do not mean the kind of God of Christianity. I mean a God having attributes and characteristics deducible from philosophy as I have outlined above.

If philosophy can be trusted to form the basis of science, then it should be trusted in its own right.

You have valid points about philosophy, but why is that better than religion? It can no more be proven than religion can, because it is based upon human ideas.

 

[tayla]

What about people who are not rational?
Just because a person think they are rational that does not make them rational.

Everyone has a rational mind. Those untrained or ungifted may use their reason badly. It is helpful for them to seek guidance. But not from revealed religions or revealed spiritual paths which are not trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

We should not be listening to dictators, tyrants, or unscrupulous business people either. Nor sociopaths who only care about themselves.

 

[tayla]

So you think the only reason that a Messenger should be believed if if He proved Himself to people by experiments?

It's the opposite. All spiritual teachers to date claiming to have revealed knowledge from God have all had messages provably false. Seems future spiritual teachers need to prove they are somehow different, that God finally found a worthy messenger who didn't completely mangle the message.

 

[Trailblazer]

Everyone can live mindful of each moment, enjoying the fact of consciousness and its contents. Not everyone can believe a particular religion.

Maybe that is true, but how does being mindful and enjoying consciousness help anyone but that individual?
If everyone is mindful of something different how does that bring people together, or does that matter?

Even if everyone cannot believe in a particular religion, why would that matter?
If the religion is the truth from God, it does not matter how many people believe it.
It could still help people even if they do not believe in it.

 

[Trailblazer]

How does it help all of humanity to preach things provably false?

It doesn't help anyone if the teachings are provably false, but it does help humanity of they are provably true.

 

[tayla]

Why couldn't we prove it to ourselves that the Messenger is telling the truth, by doing the necessary investigation of His claim?

Yes, this is what is needed. You validate the claims of anyone via philosophy, as I have noted. Then, you reject teachings that are false. Sadly, every spiritual teacher has claims that are false.

Note that you don't need the revealed message at all since you are validating it from philosophical considerations. You can derive the content of the true messages from philosophy without the need for any spiritual teachers at all.

And if spiritual teachers need to be validated by each person to guarantee their accuracy, how does it help the world to let loose on it the various spiritual teachers whose messages have errors? Seems spiritual teaching and spiritual teachers should have warnings attached to them just like on packages of cigarettes. Then the world will be safe from error.

 

[tayla]

Not arbitrarily, but why not choose one if you have investigated Him thoroughly and you can confirm to yourself that he is the one?

Yes, I agree with this procedure.

I have investigated them all. None of them are the one.

 

[tayla]

Okay, tell me why the following message is false. Prove that it is false.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

This is a good message. It's a bit wordy which will alienate some.

It assumes some concepts which I would question such as:

1. Great Being -- I don't think of myself this way in relation to my children or dogs. I doubt God thinks of himself/herself this way towards us. I certainly don't want my children to think of me like this.
   
2. A Faith of God -- I prefer to think of the purpose in living. No need to postulate a Faith in God; this sounds so religious.
   
3. A Religion of God -- implies a body of additional information which may not be true. It's not good to clump all the teachings together because in doing so, the bad teachings corrupt the good teachings.
4. It implies there is to be a universal one institutional religion that governs the whole world to guarantee the human interests it mentions. It leaves out consideration of animals.
5. It implies we are to be guided by a rule, a path, that forms a model for our thinking of how we are to live. Usually rules have unintended side effects.
6. It assumes the need for an organized religion in the first place. Presumably there are leaders. Who guarantees these are teaching and guiding correctly? Sounds like a set up for totalitarianism when the leaders proclaim themselves rulers over the government as well.
7. It assumes a utopian ideal society. Usually these don't work out so well.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would agree on condition that you limit the meaning of the word "messenger" to those having:

1. philosophical training in the fields of political science, sociology, psychology, economics, and other social sciences
2. scientific training sufficient to discern false views about physical reality
3. genuine concern for the welfare of their fellow humans (and other creatures)
4. the skills necessary to effectively accomplish good things on behalf those they are trying to help

Merely having visions and hallucinations from God is not sufficient to help humanity.

But what if the Messenger actually got messages from God?
If the Messenger got His knowledge from God, He would have 2, 3, and 4 without having to get training.
No human can have all knowledge unless He gets it from God, because God is All-Knowing.
Humans who had the proper education and training could handle #1. That is what college is for.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57
​

I am not saying that everyone can believe in a Messenger of God, but everyone cannot believe in the hypothetical messenger who met your criteria 1-4 either.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, the all-important question. Just as with science, in which ideas and theories need validation by many to confirm their correctness. In like manner, philosophical claims need validation by many. Over the centuries there have been many wacky and untrue claims by philosophers (just as with spiritual leaders).

Why would validation by many prove their correctness?
This is the fallacy Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe man could fly in the air, but most people were wrong, as we found out later after airplanes were invented.

 

[Trailblazer]

Everyone has a rational mind. Those untrained or ungifted may use their reason badly. It is helpful for them to seek guidance. But not from revealed religions or revealed spiritual paths which are not trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

I still do not know why they are not trustworthy, simply because they cannot be proven to be from God?

We should not be listening to dictators, tyrants, or unscrupulous business people either. Nor sociopaths who only care about themselves.

I do not see how these are comparable to Messengers of God who bear good fruits.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not know if it is in the Kitab-i-Iqan but it is in Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it. O peoples of the world! Cast away, in My name that transcendeth all other names, the things ye possess, and immerse yourselves in this Ocean in whose depths lay hidden the pearls of wisdom and of utterance, an ocean that surgeth in My name, the All-Merciful. Thus instructeth you He with Whom is the Mother Book.

The Best-Beloved is come. In His right hand is the sealed Wine of His name. Happy is the man that turneth unto Him, and drinketh his fill, and exclaimeth: “Praise be to Thee, O Revealer of the signs of God!” By the righteousness of the Almighty! Every hidden thing hath been manifested through the power of truth. All the favors of God have been sent down, as a token of His grace. The waters of everlasting life have, in their fullness, been proffered unto men. Every single cup hath been borne round by the hand of the Well-Beloved. Draw near, and tarry not, though it be for one short moment.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 33-34

"I do not know if it is in the Kitab-i-Iqan but it is in Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh."

Kitab-i-Iqan is a core book of Bahaullah, I don't understand as to why one doesn't know it, please?
Gleaning is a book, as one knows,is said to have been compiled from Bahaullah's writings as told by Shoghi Effendi and he did not remember sometimes or most of the time from which original writing of Bahaullah he did choose it from. It is called cherry picking, hiding something and publicizing what suits one. Right, please?
Does on mean, therefore, that Bahaullah never claimed in Kitab-i-Iqan that he received any word of revelation from G-d, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

It's the opposite. All spiritual teachers to date claiming to have revealed knowledge from God have all had messages provably false.

Can you give me some examples?

Seems future spiritual teachers need to prove they are somehow different, that God finally found a worthy messenger who didn't completely mangle the message.

How do you know that God has not done so unless you have looked at the message?

 

[tayla]

Why does spiritual truth have to be provable?

Only science is provable.

Spiritual truth can't be proven. The best you can do is demonstrate they are reasonable via philosophy.

 

[tayla]

Do you really think any truth can be proven to everyone?

Of course not. There are many who believe the earth is flat.

 

[tayla]

Do you really think any truth can be proven to everyone?
If not, why not just rely on what we can prove to ourselves is true?

Ultimately, we all do this. In accepting truth claims from others, we determine for ourselves that we should believe them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, this is what is needed. You validate the claims of anyone via philosophy, as I have noted. Then, you reject teachings that are false. Sadly, every spiritual teacher has claims that are false.

Why is philosophy the standard setter?
How do we know that philosophy is truth?
How do you know every spiritual teacher has claims that are false?
Who determines what is false?
Who sets the criteria for true or false?
How is that measured?

Note that you don't need the revealed message at all since you are validating it from philosophical considerations. You can derive the content of the true messages from philosophy without the need for any spiritual teachers at all.

Why is philosophy superior to religion?
If there is a God, clearly messages from God are superior to any philosophy of man because God is All-Knowing and no man is All-Knowing.

And if spiritual teachers need to be validated by each person to guarantee their accuracy, how does it help the world to let loose on it the various spiritual teachers whose messages have errors? Seems spiritual teaching and spiritual teachers should have warnings attached to them just like on packages of cigarettes. Then the world will be safe from error.

The same exact thing could be said for philosophers. They should have the same set of criteria to meet as spiritual teachers who claim to be from God.