Is religion irrational?

[saqib_ali]

It’s a usual observation that in West, a good number of people with intellectual credibility are inclined towards atheism. Why would a scientist like Stephen Hawking or a writer like Oscar Wilde show disregard for religion. Though in many cases it’s a reaction to personal bad experiences but the greater reason provided is the seeming irrationality that people claim to have discovered in the basic concepts of major religions.
When religion becomes irrational
One of the basic problems that atheists find unanswered properly in religions is “what exactly God is?”, “what’s His origin?”, “how is He self sustaining?”,”what’s the secret of His own creation?”The incomprehension of the “self” of God is what that has led many completely reject the notion of a supreme being.
But! The reason for this inability to comprehend comes from our nature. We humans understand by drawing analogies. The definition of ‘definition’ is to describe something new using previous knowledge. When someone defines current to a student as rate of flow of charges, he is likely to elucidate it as water flowing in a pipe. There are two types of definitions.
1. Definition by Extension: it means describing something by enumerating the members of that class. For example if we define reptiles as a class of living organisms including lizard, crocodile, snake etc, then this is definition by extension. But in the case of God, theology cannot present a physical example of god so god cannot be defined by extension.
2. Definition by Intension: it means describing all the distinguishing characteristics of a thing. But major religions, especially Abrahamic religions are of the view that the Supreme Being carry’s uncountable qualities. Among these Islam has a doctrine that all good qualities belong to Him while the complete comprehension of His characteristics is impossible.
This is where the atheists go mad!(and wrong in fact)
This is where people miss the point. When you define something completely, you restrict it.

“A list of all the contents of the bag tells as well what the bag does not contain”,” an indication of origin of something means there definitely is a time before which it did not exist”.

Secondly, rationalism is of the nature that every answer in fact generates another question. What is a zebra? , A member of a class of animals. What is an animal? , A member of a class of living organisms? What is a living organism? It goes on until you reach the most basic of questions which is answerable. The moment you can answer it, it no longer remains the most basic question. Every field of science has a ‘last why?’
Atoms were considered to be the most basic particles of matter when these were supposed to be unsplittable, but the discovery of even smaller particles took away the title of being the elementary particles.

”A question that can be answered can never be the most basic question, similarly a self whose sustenance is another known source, can never be the Ultimate Power”.

Therefore someone who can be completely described, whose all characteristics can be known, whose source of sustenance is something rationally is too unfitting to be GOD. Someone with a graspable method of creation is bound to have a time, an origin of creation which means before that it did not exist, which eradicates the possibility of absolute existence. This leads to the incomprehension of complete characteristics to be a necessary qualification for someone claiming to be a God.
This is something that matches Islam’s doctrine which declaring that even if all the trees turn into pens and all seas turn into ink, even then these will fall short to describe His characteristics. Of these qualities, He described as much as He willed in the Quran.
Ending note:
God is one of those things which logic and reason have failed to explain. Just like the question of eternal life that goes on and on (even if one does not belief in life after death the question of eternal existence remains there). It seems that rationality is too short a tool for encompassing God. So it is amusing when someone as smart as Alan Turing or Earnest Hemmingway rejects God measuring Him on the scales of rationalism. The right equipment for it is something they’ve never experienced…..’Faith’
Iqbal rightly described it as
Guzar ja Aqal se agey ke yeh nor
(Renounce the path of reason; it is a light)
Chiraag e raah he manzil nahi he
(That brightens thy way; it is not thy Final goal)

[thedoc]

Saqib_ali, thankyou, In my reading on Zen years ago I discovered that at the most basic level there was a definite similarity in the beliefs of Zen and Christianity. The details were different, many times just with different name, but at the core the beliefs appeared to be the same.

[jackles]

No not having a religion is irrational.religious beliefs show values are held beond the self.so in my book selfishness is irrational.

[Kayla]

This is something that matches Islam’s doctrine which declaring that even if all the trees turn into pens and all seas turn into ink, even then these will fall short to describe His characteristics. Of these qualities, He described as much as He willed in the Quran.

this is not exactly what this verse seems to say:

18:109 - if the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid (this is from Yusuf ali translation)


what it seems to be saying is that the word of god is inexhaustible

which does not seem to fit well with the claim that the quran is gods last word and there is nothing else to say

[Immanuel Can]

This is a difference between Christianity and Islam, in their view of God, I think.

If Islam says, "give up reason" in order to know God, both Judaism and Christianity insist that God holds up very well to reason, and in fact personally invites it. Two examples:

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool...."

And in Acts 17: 17, "So he [Paul] was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him..."

None of the ancient prophets, sages or disciples was rebuked for desiring to reason with or about God, though many did, and even though, as you say, the concept "God" has to be, by definition, rather too large for human reasons to encompass. Even specifically *philosophical* reasoning from opposed views (as in the Epicureans and Stoics) was not regarded either fearfully or as irreverent in the Jewish and Christian traditions, but was rather invited: for reason is an ally of the knowledge of God.

But if what you're saying is right, then perhaps Islam sees things otherwise. However, that would hardly explain the existence of places like Al-Andalus and philosophers like Averroes, who apparently made important contributions to Aristotelian thought. They did not seem fearful or irreverent when they were "reasoning" there, though perhaps this view has changed since.

But then, I don't suppose you can believe that: for if you did, what are you doing reasoning here? If reason about God is irreverent or pointless, why even assert that in the form of a rational proposition? Wouldn't that be irreverent or pointless?

[Kayla]

As I understand it, the significance of reason has been a matter of internal debate within the religions themselves - i do not know if there is a major overall difference

the quran verse i quote does not need to be understood as opposing reason - only stating that there is a infinity of things that can be potentially known

[Immanuel Can]

As I understand it, the significance of reason has been a matter of internal debate within the religions themselves - i do not know if there is a major overall difference

I do.

There is. Some like reason, some hate, fear or avoid it for other reasons.

Even within particular traditions, there tends to be some one one end who are more on the empirical/rational leaning side, and some that are on the mystical/experiential side. The former tend to embrace reason, and the latter to eschew it as irreverent or ineffective.

That's one reason it's so hard to generalize about what the attitude of "religion" is to reason. "Religion" is simply an artificial construct imposed by outsiders. They're not all of a piece. And even within traditions, there isn't uniformity on some questions.

the quran verse i quote does not need to be understood as opposing reason - only stating that there is a infinity of things that can be potentially known

Maybe. But if that's all it is we don't need the Quran to tell us. We already know that space is bigger than we can know, and that the world itself is much more complicated and full of more things than any individual human can know in a lifetime. But then, so what? If that's all it means, then it's just stating the obvious.

[saqib_ali]

@Kayla

وَلَوْ أَنَّمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مِن شَجَرَةٍ أَقْلَامٌ وَالْبَحْرُ يَمُدُّهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ سَبْعَةُ أَبْحُرٍ مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

27. If all the trees on the earth were pens, and all the sea (were ink), with seven more seas added thereto, the words of God (Hic decrees, the acts of all His Names and Attributes manifested as His commandments, and the events and creatures He creates) would not be exhausted in the writing. Surely God is the All-Glorious with irresistible might (Whom none can frustrate, and Whom nothing can tire), the All-Wise.

by 'Word' it as well includes the attributes of God.

@all the rest
secondly u must read the poetic verse at the end by Iqbal, it states that reason can guide you about which path to choose, which religion to accept (on the basis of comparative correctness) but once you choose one from there on, religion is your guide to understand what's right and wrong?

and as far as inter religion dialogue is concerned, Islam has the biggest body of comparative religion debates, IRF, you people might have heard of DR. Zakir Naik

[Kayla]

scripture is not a set of rules you can follow without asking questions - and it cannot provide its own context

so you cannot use solely religion for moral guidance - that simply does not make any sense

[saqib_ali]

@Kayla
yes,please question the rules of a religion, do question the practices, do evaluate the assertion a scripture makes about the universe scientifically, mentioning the third time every religion i guess has number of foundations ready for debate about their practices, about islam the best i know is IRF, i suggest you search for Dr. Zakir Naik for the things you find wrong about Islam, and gauge which religion is comparatively more correct.

but the point is, no matter which religion you choose, the question of Who Created God? how he was Created? is something that you will not find answered, or either not 'rationally' answered(because that is not possible at all) this is where you have to be content with the concept given by religion.

[saqib_ali]

@Kayla

this is not a debate on comparative religions but if you are interested this might be interesting

http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... GQ&cad=rja

[Immanuel Can]

but the point is, no matter which religion you choose, the question of Who Created God? how he was Created? is something that you will not find answered, or either not 'rationally' answered(because that is not possible at all) this is where you have to be content with the concept given by religion.

I think you're missing Kayla's point, Said...she doesn't want to "content" herself with any concept of God at all. She is probably saying she's quite "content" without one.

In any event, "religion" as you call it, does not speak with a united voice on the question of who this God is.

The real question is, is any propositional content relevant to the knowledge of God. You seem to think "No," and I would suggest "Yes."

I imagine Kayla would probably see the whole debate as unnecessary...but she can speak for herself on that.

[saqib_ali]

@Immanuel Can
what exactly is "your" objection? secondly does your religion, Christianity or Judaism, give an answer to the questions posed about God about 'His' own creation that can?

for kayla, she mentioned that scriptures are questionable about the laws they provide or any assertions they make about universe, but when you pose questions you are also obliged to listen the answer.

that is what the video was about, debate about evaluating the scientific assertions made by Quran.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not per se "objecting," Said, since I don't "object" to it if you want to say that your own belief system does not use reasoning. And that's what I'm understanding from you at the moment. Am I misreading you?

I'm just suggesting that for those who do like "reason" (like philosophers), belief in God does not entail having to reject or denigrate reason. I'm pointing out that both The Torah and Second Testament celebrate the human capacity to reason as conducive to knowledge of the truth, and ultimately to the knowledge of God.

secondly does your religion, Christianity or Judaism, give an answer to the questions posed about God about 'His' own creation that can?

I'm sorry, Said...I cannot understand the syntax of this sentence. What was it you were trying to ask? "Can" what?

for kayla, she mentioned that scriptures are questionable about the laws they provide or any assertions they make about universe, but when you pose questions you are also obliged to listen the answer.

Of course she should "listen." But "listen" doesn't mean "believe," of course. She may choose to question further, or not to believe the "answer" she hears. She can use reason to decide where she wants to go with that.

But hey, why should I speak for her? She can handle herself just fine.

[saqib_ali]

"who created God?"
"how was he created?"
do you have an answer for that in your religious scripture?