Does faith compromise a person's ability to reason?

[outhouse]

Nor is it fitting for all religions. Nor all relgious people

doesnt have to, i have shown an example of how faith blinds reason. So it does just that, faith blinds reason.

Why the hell should I?

you cant, dont get your skirt all blowed up lol

I don't feel like getting harassed

im not doing that. Im proving a point you cannot refute.

I provide evidence

you provide nothing

 

[outhouse]

I understand where your coming from and I dont have a problem with you or your religion.

that is not what the OP asked though.

 

[Vendetta]

Showing what a couple of literalist Christians or Muslims think is not definitive proof. Nor is it overwhelming evidence. Nor is it fitting for all religions. Nor all relgious people.


Why the hell should I? I don't feel like getting harassed for simply thinking differently and being called an unreasonable or irrational fool, or having my views misconstrued and having someone insult me over things I don't actually believe in. I'm not interested in proof or dis-proof. This isn't a ******* contest, we're not trying to see whose dick is bigger. Well, I'm not at least. I'm trying to teach people something very simple: you can't paint everyone with a broad brush, or use the literalists as basis for everyone.

As I already pointed out: there's more than just Christians and Muslims. So what has happened? Christianity has been used to prove you're right. Guess what? You're not. It just looks foolish to turn every believer into a Christian.

All this focus on anything Abrahamic being used to disprove religion in general is not only foolish, it's boring.

I've seen it on here enough: a lot of people's understanding of the non-Abrahamic paths are often pretty damn weak.

Odion is my hero

 

[Breathe]

doesnt have to, i have shown an example of how faith blinds reason. So it does just that, faith blinds reason.

All faiths?
From just a few examples?
For all people?

Come on, get real.

im not doing that. Im proving a point you cannot refute.

I never said you were. Unless you have a guilty conscience then why would you suggest that?

I understand where your coming from and I dont have a problem with you or your religion.

I know you don't.

For one, you don't know me. I'm words on a screen with a pretty avatar.
Secondly

2.a.) I don't have "one" religion. That's why I'm a Dharmic Syncretist.
2.b.) I doubt many on RF even have anything but a basic or superficial understanding of what my religions teach anyway. Something that seems nasty, but from my experience is true.

See, notice the difference? The OP and many supporters have said "all". I've given a more specific idea: quite a few on RF don't understand Dharmic religions. Doesn't mean nobody does. Some non-believers know my paths better than I. I know some believers know my paths better.

that is not what the OP asked though.

The OP says "Does faith compromise a person's ability to reason?"

And so many are saying "Yes".
But that's a damn broad brush.


By no means am I saying "Literalists use reason"
But I'm saying "Not everyone who has faith is an ignoramous"

Which is what the OP effectively says.

If it said do some, can some, can some people's interpretations of, and so on, you wouldn't hear a damn peep out of me, because I know people can use their religion in stupid ways and take everything as literal. I don't dispute that, nor do I defend it. Such views are abhorrent.

But so are views that paint anyone of faith as ignorant.




So can we please stop with the tarring of the same brush? I came to RELIGIOUS Education Forums, not Abrahamic Education Forums.

 

[James.williamson.3]

I beleive you are confusing faith with blind religion.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

Einstein separated the two Why can't you

 

[outhouse]

But so are views that paint anyone of faith as ignorant.

in this thread i have already stated that not all faithfull are blinded.

some are,, therefore """does""" applys


I persoanlly think you should take it up with the OP because you dont like the word he used

"""does""""

 

[outhouse]

I came to RELIGIOUS Education Forums, not Abrahamic Education Forums.

sorry but they are the biggest offenders of what the OP was asking. after all, this is a debate forum.

I stay in the debate area, so that my personal views do not step on anyones toes.

 

[Breathe]

in this thread i have already stated that not all faithfull are blinded.

I'm aware of that. The op itself is a black and white issue. I'm not so foolish as to think things are shades of grey.

I persoanlly think you should take it up with the OP because you dont like the word he used

On both accounts: you brought this up with me, not vice-versa.

sorry but they are the biggest offenders of what the OP was asking. after all, this is a debate forum.

Just because they are the worst offenders, doesn't mean they are all religions. Hell, Hinduism is the third largest religion, Buddhism and Taoism are the third and forth (or fourth and third) respectively.

Hinduism has about 950 million adherents.
Buddhism about 400 million people.
Chinese folk religions (Shenism and Taoism) have (supposedly) about 600 million followers (but that seems kind of large).
Sikhism has about 30 million.


All of them, excluding Taoism, are Dharmic paths. So what if Islam and Christianity are the largest religions of the West?

How does that mean that the other paths can be ignored, when these paths are still pretty large in themselves?

I stay in the debate area, so that my personal views do not step on anyones toes.

Don't worry, they don't offend me or anything like that. I know things can get pretty heated in the religious debates section, and I know meanings can be lost on forums. For example, some people might think I'm angry right now, but I'm in a pretty good mood.

 

[Riverwolf]

im glad its just your opinion.

your intellegent, you dont see people blinded by faith??

did faith not halt Newtons work at one point????

have you ever seen a YEC???? YEC is direct evidence of faith blinding ones ability to reason.

I find your statement above wrong

Clarification: are there examples of faith hindering reason? Yes, absolutely.

But does the presence of faith automatically and necessarily hinder reason, to the point that anyone who has even the slightest faith in anything will never be able to reason? Absolutely not. That kind of thinking is logically fallacious: the same kind of thinking that causes violence to be blamed on video games.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Riverwolf]

Odion and Outhouse, I think there's a bit of misunderstanding going on, and I don't think I helped with my admittedly poor choice of words.

Saying "does it" can mean "does it necessarily", that is, will it every time, or "are there times when it has?" I think Outhouse is using the latter meaning, while Odion is using the former. Am I correct in this assumption?

 

[asketikos]

I think depends on what kind of faith, and that persons interests. Extremists in all belief systems destroy reason and hurt people. But faith can help people reason, I think.

I think people of faith are a bit more open-minded when it comes to certain things, whereas atheists may be very dismissive of spirituality.

 

[Breathe]

I believe that is the case RW.

 

[Genuine Realist]

I think intellectual maturity means in practice a sense of what are matters of faith, what reason, and not confusing the two.

 

[outhouse]

Clarification: are there examples of faith hindering reason? Yes, absolutely.

But does the presence of faith automatically and necessarily hinder reason, to the point that anyone who has even the slightest faith in anything will never be able to reason? Absolutely not. That kind of thinking is logically fallacious: the same kind of thinking that causes violence to be blamed on video games.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Im with you %100 in this thread.

its all good :drool:

 

[outhouse]

Odion and Outhouse, I think there's a bit of misunderstanding going on, and I don't think I helped with my admittedly poor choice of words.

Saying "does it" can mean "does it necessarily", that is, will it every time, or "are there times when it has?" I think Outhouse is using the latter meaning, while Odion is using the former. Am I correct in this assumption?

your pretty much correct.

I dont have a problem with faith per say, i see the negitive and positive.

I felt OP was asking about the negitive side and stated such

Odion is a bud its all good

 

[Breathe]

your pretty much correct.

I dont have a problem with faith per say, i see the negitive and positive.

Agreed.

Odion is a bud its all good

Aaw, thanks!

 

[stupified]

Ability to reason? No. Desire to? Yes.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Because salavation, physical and non physical is through Jesus through his sacrifice on the cross.

I asked what you meant, not what it was. Again, I ask what was Jesus sacrificing?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

i think we all have the desire to reason, otherwise we'd be vegetables or insane.
it's a question of how honest are we willing to be to ourselves, maybe?

I find that only a few of the people I come across take the time to reason (which says nothing of their ability to). I'm sure my Christian aquaintances are any different in this area or many other areas for that matter. Sometimes the only differences I see between a practicing Christian and a practicing non-religionist is that the Christian goes to church more often.

 

[Dan4reason]

I think depends on what kind of faith, and that persons interests. Extremists in all belief systems destroy reason and hurt people. But faith can help people reason, I think.

I think people of faith are a bit more open-minded when it comes to certain things, whereas atheists may be very dismissive of spirituality.

I think that people of faith are more open-minded in some things like you but they are being too open minded about them. Claims about invisible spirits, miracles, and the like should be met with skepticism until some sort of evidence is provided.

Often religiosity means over-skepticism of good science like evolution and the big bang and even science in general. Faith is an epistomological imbalance.