What's Wrong With Reason? (Jesus, reject, Earth, Deists, Buddhism)

[DrM]

Have you noticed the "fighting" in the "Holy Land" and the Middle East yet?

Did you hear about the mothers who killed their babies while under the influence of "revealed" religion?

How about the laws that allow otherwise normal people to withhold medical care for their minor children, laws which were written and passed by a society that is sadly under the influence of revealed religion and its unGodly rejection of God-given reason?

The best solution to the above examples of problems is a big dose of reality and reason. It's impossible to have a healthy and happy society without reason. If we held reason in its proper and rightly deserved exalted position, all of the problems mentioned above, plus many more, would be gone. For example, if people weren't suckered into actually believing that God gave land to the Jews and that the Jews are "above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6), I don't believe the US would be so subservient to Israel. Subservient to the point of being targets of terrorism due to putting Israel's interests above those of our own country.

To deviate from reason in one situation only sets a precedent to deviate from reason in other situations. For example, we abandon reason when we accept the Bible lie about the Jews being better than everyone else. This opens the door to believing the tragically humorous story of Jesus walking on water. This, in turn, lets the floodgates of superstition and rejection of reason swing open to actually believing that our sick or injured innocent children, who depend on us as their parents and guardians, can be healed based on Biblical myth. This results in the unnecessary deaths of children every year. None of this would be happening if we embraced God's gift to us of reason!

Deism provides an acceptance of God's gift of reason and applying it to religion and philosophy. This huge part of society and of individuals' lives is off limits to reason. This is not right. We, as Deists, need to smash through this unnatural barrier and bring reason to everyone - especially to those suffering under the superstition of revealed religion. If simple reason held its rightful place in society and in the lives of individuals, we would not be targets of Islamic terrorists because we would not give a blank check to Israel and turn the other way while they use US weapons to slaughter their neighbors. Due to this, well over 1,000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. The mothers who killed their own children would not have the Biblical example of killing your child for God, as the Bible claims in the insane and blasphemous story of Abraham. Reason would not permit us to tolerate laws that allow superstition to kill our children by placing more credence on ancient lies and myth than on God-given reason and science.

If we want to help the world and its people progress out of the dark ages of the Bible and its trinity of revealed deadly progress retarding religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we can only do it through reason and Deism. And we have to do it ourselves. Nobody is going to do it for us.

[niranjan]

Here is the yogic perspective on intolerance, fanaticism, terrorism in religion and the importance of reason in religion....

The real cause of Islamic terrorism-- the yogic perspective

[gmelrod]

Originally Posted by DrM

Deism provides an acceptance of God's gift of reason and applying it to religion and philosophy. This huge part of society and of individuals' lives is off limits to reason. This is not right. We, as Deists, need to smash through this unnatural barrier and bring reason to everyone - especially to those suffering under the superstition of revealed religion.

Darn it why do people always link philosohy and religion! The very idea of reason came from philosophers. While some greeks were cowering and making sacrifices to Zues a few brave men stood up and said "hold on why don't you figure our how things happen by looking at them." Philosophy has been full of reason. It was Kant who showed the limits of reason. Spinoza built the first system of ethics derived only from reason. And certainly there have been non-rational philosophers. But there have been rational believers.

Religion does not equal philosophy. And there is a name for the philosophy of religion. Theology. Stop saying that my chosen profession is devoid of reason. It is an insult and blatenly false.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by gmelrod

Darn it why do people always link philosohy and religion! The very idea of reason came from philosophers. While some greeks were cowering and making sacrifices to Zues a few brave men stood up and said "hold on why don't you figure our how things happen by looking at them." Philosophy has been full of reason. It was Kant who showed the limits of reason. Spinoza built the first system of ethics derived only from reason. And certainly there have been non-rational philosophers. But there have been rational believers.

Religion does not equal philosophy. And there is a name for the philosophy of religion. Theology. Stop saying that my chosen profession is devoid of reason. It is an insult and blatenly false.

So when the Indian prophets Buddha and Vivekananda emphasized reason and logic , does that become philosophy and not religion!!!!!!! That is very idiotic.

[gmelrod]

Originally Posted by niranjan

So when the Indian prophets Buddha and Vivekananda emphasized reason and logic , does that become philosophy and not religion!!!!!!! That is very idiotic.

No though there is a philosophy in Buddhism. I was only saything that you cannot criticise philosophy as a whole of being devoid of reason. You can't do that to religion either as you show. I was standing up in defence of my area and did not intend to make any claim on reason present in religion. Philosophy is not the only place to find reason but it is the location of the most systematic study (in the Western sense).

And I took a class "Religion and Philosophies of India" They were far more rational then the West has been. There is a diffrent set of priorities. I never made the claim that if there was reason then it was philosophy. Though everywhere there is reason a philosophy is present. The two are not mutualy exclusive.

[Scarlett Wampus]

DrM I agree that religion should be open to reason and rationality. We direly need that just as we need a more reasonable and rational society in general. I'm sympathetic to Deism because of that but I think something is often missing in the Deist approach and that it's off to a bad start to, in theory, a) reject the irrational while b) believing specific things about the nature of God. The ability to reason isn't our only important faculty and some vital elements of our mind will always remain beyond the scope of our rational grasp. Discerning what these are and what role they should play in a healthy life is impossible without first establishing reason though. That's where Deism interests me.

Incidentally I like to use the terms pre-rational and trans-rational to distinguish between two types of irrational thought. The pre-rational is that which comes before reason and includes archaic remnants of our ancestral past that we have not sufficiently grown to understand and integrate through the light of reason. Badly integrated it comes in the form of neurotic obsessions and compulsions or inappropriate regression and attachment to more primitive modes of thought. Much if not most of what counts for religion is pre-rational. The trans-rational is that which comes after reason and includes a dynamic and direct capacity for action and awareness that reason alone cannot provide or comprehend. It transcends cultural boundaries such that two people speaking different languages, widely differing in their history & lifestyles can recognise it within the other when its present in both.

One helpful way to discern between the pre-rational and the trans-rational, which often get mistaken for each other, is that its not possible to speak about those things which pertain to the latter nor are they threatened by reason. We can merely speak in terms of what effect it has on us and what tends to bring it about and this of course is personal and subjective. If someone can say, "God does/is/wishes/thinks such-and-such a thing" then that's an interpretation (or more usually a pre-rational compulsion) and not the trans-rational itself. For this reason no religion nor any philosophy could ever embody the trans-rational. They can understand and teach this though. Does Deism?

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

I think something is often missing in the Deist approach and that it's off to a bad start to, in theory, a) reject the irrational while b) believing specific things about the nature of God.

I know you addressed your question to DrM, but unfortunately, he has not been active for several months. I hope you won't mind my comments.

I think most modern Deists (at least the ones I talk with) speculate very little on the nature of God. They reason a first cause exists, and that it is probably powerful to have the universe is its effect, but most consciously avoid anthropomorphic projections on the nature of the first cause - other than to reject the unreasonable characterizations presented by revealed religions and second-hand revelation.

Incidentally I like to use the terms pre-rational and trans-rational to distinguish between two types of irrational thought.

I like this distinction.

If someone can say, "God does/is/wishes/thinks such-and-such a thing" then that's an interpretation (or more usually a pre-rational compulsion) and not the trans-rational itself.

Fortunately, I find very few Deists making such claims these days. Even the notion that God wishes or thinks at all are debatable, much less what those might be.

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

Fortunately, I find very few Deists making such claims these days. Even the notion that God wishes or thinks at all are debatable, much less what those might be.

I thought that was one of the key points of Deism- the belief that such things can't be assumed about God.

Also, Deism doesn't come with a belief system other than to use reason to discern what good is and to see it through to the best of one's ability. The definition of good therefore can vary from person to person, but the point is that moral action is based on contemplation with reference only to expirience, logic and (yes, corny) what your heart tells you. Therefore Deism can overlap with more open-minded members of other religions because it really is more of a philosophy than anything.

As for Mr.M's original spiel; that doesn't even begin to address that problem. As a Deist, there is little you have within you to relate to people who believe in those kinds of religions. That is key, because if you can't relate to them you can't convince them of anything. What they need is people within their ranks to slowly adapt the religion to logic. Also- they need their own land. They need space; I don't care if it's a huge wall or a generous country willing to throw wide their doors and let them in. They'll stay at a standstill forever if they stay there.