Can Religious Thought and Intellectual Honesty Coexist?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A number us at A2K have been embroiled in a fascinating thread, originally authored by Frank Apisa.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56936

Over time, the thread has meandered quite a bit away from what Frank originally intended. I have started this thread to continue the recent discussions, which hopefully will attract some additional members to share their views, and offer fresh ideas.

Although there is a continuum, from the devoutly religious, the mildly religious, the agnostic, and the atheist, there appears to be one major difference, and it is a matter of degree, of the way the religious and the non-religious view the world, and his place within it.

To those who adhere to no religion, his "sense of place" is derived from learning about the world, accepting what he finds reasonable, and discarding the rest. It is an ongoing, lifetime process, and reasonable people understand that there are no final answers.

We as humans are constantly evolving, and something that is unknown now, may very well be quite commonly understood tomorrow. If one simply things of what humanity knew of the world just 100 years ago, and what we know today, it is apparent that we are a work-in-progress, ever expanding our knowledge of the world.

IMO, the rational, reasonable person uses his intellect to judge what is true and what is false. That is not to say that he is omnicient; that he does not make mistakes and errors of judgement. What I am saying is that the rational man uses his mind as his guide to understanding his humanity, and his place in the world.

On the other hand, we have the religious amongst us. He looks at the world differently. It is a frightening world, full of a fierce God, who insists on complete obedience, where he is born automatically tainted with sin. He has his holy books, the Bible, the Koran, etc.

When reason cannot offer an explanation, the religious person turns to those books, even though many of the things written there contradict everything that is reasonable and rational. His rationale....................."faith". When there is no answer, he believes that there are things that simply will never be revealed to him, so instead of saying "I don't know", he will say, "I believe because the (insert name of holy book) tells me so.

The interesting thing is that I have found this phenomenon of blind faith in people who are otherwise quite reasonable. But when matters of faith come into play, reason is completely suspended.

Now my question. Can a person who lives his life with faith (which entails suspending his intellect in the service of his God) be intellectually honest? Can religious thought and intellectual honesty co-exist in one human being?

This is a serious question, and requires a lot of thought and reflection. Many people have differing ideas on this. My expectation is that each person sharing their views will be treated with respect. Thank you!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,514 • Replies: 152

No top replies

Well...I am interested in what everyone has to say on this subject...but my first reaction has to do with the words "belief/believe" and "faith."

As I have said on various occasions...when used in a relgious context...the word "belief" pretty much means a personal guess about what actually IS. A religious "belief" is a guess about the Ultimate REALTIY of existence....what it is; if it "came to be"; the circumstances of it "coming to be"; the non-physical rules under which it operates.

All of these things are...by any reasonable evaluation...guesses.

"Faith" is simply insisting that any or all of those guesses ARE CORRECT NO MATTER WHAT.

Faith...despite the theistic insistence that it is a virture...is anything but a virtue. It is bull-headedness at its most bull-headed.

Looking forward to hearing what others have to say on the subject.

Thanks for starting the thread, Phoenix.

0 Replies

Phoenix,

The respect I already held for you has just been elevated to a new level. I am very impressed with the way in which you posted this. Well thought out, respectful, and inviting. I commend you, my friend. And I do mean, my friend. I have found our previous discussions leading to this thread to be quite engaging and thought provoking.

I am having a kind of Angel crisis right now and I want to devote my full attention to this thread when I post, you deserve that of me, so please look for me a bit later tonight or even in the wee hours of the a.m.!

Frank, I am looking forward to discussing this with you as well. I find many, many of your questions thought provoking and engaging as well! And a very good start I must say!

See you all later!

Momma Angel Very Happy

0 Replies

Phoenix wrote:

Quote:

On the other hand, we have the religious amongst us. He looks at the world differently. It is a frightening world, full of a fierce God, who insists on complete obedience, where he is born automatically tainted with sin. He has his holy books, the Bible, the Koran, etc.

Forgive me if I am reading this thread incorrectly, but it already starts with a us and them mentality. Those not being religious are portayed as the sensible ones while the religious of the world are portayed as frightened sheep.

I thought the thread was for people to provide information on their thoughts one way or the other. Already, the religious folks are being put on the defensive and must account for their believes.

As I said, I may be reading this wrong. I will have to give it more thought.

0 Replies

Book mark.

0 Replies

Truth is beauty, beauty truth
That is all ye can know
And all that ye need to know.

0 Replies

please bunny post the whole poem again

0 Replies

All religious thoughts are not devoid of intellectual honesty. Nor the intellectual honesty have to exclude a belief (or an assumption) as long as it identifies it as so. But the extreme ends of this spectrum are always the worst in my opinion. Just faith and no reason makes for a total lunatic. At the same time, only reason, but no faith can also be a different form of witch-hunt.

It is the dogmatic thought (religious or non-religious) that doesn't have freedom to explore or wonder. It can rarely be intellectually honest, because all the conclusions are already drawn.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Forgive me if I am reading this thread incorrectly, but it already starts with a us and them mentality. Those not being religious are portayed as the sensible ones while the religious of the world are portayed as frightened sheep.

I share this initial reaction, Intrepid, but I don't this the bias displayed in the phrasing of the initial post undermines the question being asked.

To my mind, Phoenix' apparent assumption that religious belief entails the suspension of intellect in the service of his God, is the contentious point. Clearly deliberate suspension of intellect is intellectually dishonest, if it occurs.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but perhaps we could start by focusing on the Bible, and then splitting the question into two parts: (a) does it require a suspension of intellect to believe that the Bible is factually (historically, scientifically) accurate? (b) does it require a suspension of intellect to believe that the moral commandments of the Bible are 'good'?

(BTW, most impressed by the new civility, great to see forgiveness without intellectual compromise, and politeness without pussy-footing. They could use you guys in Iraq...).

0 Replies

Intrepid- I can understand why you feel that way, but I don't completely agree. I did say that religious thought runs a continuum from complete acceptance no matter what, to complete non-acceptance. I attempted to be as even handed as I was able, and I found it difficult. I did the best that I could.

djbt wrote:

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but perhaps we could start by focusing on the Bible, and then splitting the question into two parts: (a) does it require a suspension of intellect to believe that the Bible is factually (historically, scientifically) accurate? (b) does it require a suspension of intellect to believe that the moral commandments of the Bible are 'good'?

That sounds like a good place to start.

0 Replies

Fair enough.....

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but perhaps we could start by focusing on the Bible, and then splitting the question into two parts: (a) does it require a suspension of intellect to believe that the Bible is factually (historically, scientifically) accurate?

As to the history aspect...not really....although it probably requires some suspension of intellect to suppose that any purported "history" is factually accurate.

In any case...as far as the Bible purports to be a history of the early Hebrew people...I certainly do not think one has to totally suspend the intellect to suppose that many of the essentials are correct...but with lots of very fanciful stuff included. This "fanciful stuff" includes items like the supposed Egyptian captivity...the many geneologies...the age myths...and of course, the Eden myth.

But I think that suggesting one must "suspend intellect" in order to suppose some of the things the Bible requires to be supposed...

...is hyperbole.

As regards the "scientific" aspect...one does not have to suspend any intellect to suppose the Bibles science is on a par with what any community back several thousands of years thought to be scientific REALITY.

Anyone who puts too much stock in the scientific aspects of the Bible is probably not suspending intellect as much as going off the deep end.

Quote:

(b) does it require a suspension of intellect to believe that the moral commandments of the Bible are 'good'?

I'm not sure what it requires to suppose that the moral commandments of the Bible are "good"...but in my estimation, a healthy dose of deep denial would not hurt.

Fact is, some of the "moral commandments" of the Bible are savage and barbaric.

Of course, this is all just my supposition and opinion I am sharing.

0 Replies

FrankApisa wrote:

I'm not sure what it requires to suppose that the moral commandments of the Bible are "good"...but in my estimation, a healthy dose of deep denial would not hurt.

Fact is, some of the "moral commandments" of the Bible are savage and barbaric.

I don't think that you can make a blanket statement about this issue. I believe that the Bible has many moral commandments, some as relevant today as it was in ancient times, some that might have been relevant in the ancient times, but has no meaning for people now, and some, that IMO (the more barbaric ones) that would not have been acceptable in any civilized society, but were condoned in primitive ones.

For those who want to know my "take" on the Bible, for purposes of understanding why I think about it as I do, here it is:

I believe that the Bible is a monumental work, created by primitive peoples attempting to develop a system of philosophy and ethics. It is a combination of history, myth, and religion. I think that it is the most important work to come out of the ancient world.

0 Replies

I'm a little uncomfortable with the term "suspension of intellect" and will interpret that to mean "cannot be proven or explained by human reasoning". Under this presumption, I think I can support Frank's position on history and science, although I'm not sure why he muddies the water by taking certain biblical stories and categorizing them as "myth". Does evidence exist to prove all the stories in the Bible? No, but this in no way indicates the unproven stories are myths. Sure, they may be myths....on the other hand, the evidence that proves them out may simply not yet have been found.

Not sure the second question can be answered. There are simply too many commandments to answer with just a yes or no. Frank is right in that many of the commandments seem savage and barbaric to a 21st century mind. On the other hand many are profound and without question good. Does this point to a schizo God or at least a schizo Bible? For answers to that question, suggest you read the thread that started all this.

While I was writing this, I see Phoenix just responded as well and seems to concur with my assessment on the second question.

0 Replies

Phoenix wrote:

Now my question. Can a person who lives his life with faith (which entails suspending his intellect in the service of his God) be intellectually honest? Can religious thought and intellectual honesty co-exist in one human being?

Why do you see intellectual honesty and faith to be mutually exclusive? I believe faith picks up where human reason fails. Therefore they are complementary, not contradictory. Religious people draw conclusions to unproven questions from their scriptures, agnostics simply live with the question...not sure how or where atheists draw their conclusions.

0 Replies

Hi Everyone,

Just stopped by for a minute. I can't stay so I can't post much. Just wanted to read and keep up for when I have time to post later.

I am so pleased at the way this conversation is going! I can't believe how I can actually see where Phoenix is coming from!

Frank, kudos! Man, you are some "word put together-er!" Love it!

Momma Angel

0 Replies

Interpreting the bible by believers and unbelievers has already been touched on. Most of us know how believers interpret the bible. What interests me more are the beliefs of both christians and others that are poles apart - on practical issues.

A good example is the recent statement by Pat Roberts that he believes in the assassination of leaders that disagree with our policies, and he says there's nothing wrong with assassinating the leader of Venezuela.

Pat Robertson has a very large following of christians. Maybe some that are not christians.

His influence is large, and many listen to his 'teachings.'

I find this kind of issue to be the core of what is wrong with religion.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

I'm a little uncomfortable with the term "suspension of intellect" and will interpret that to mean "cannot be proven or explained by human reasoning". Under this presumption, I think I can support Frank's position on history and science, although I'm not sure why he muddies the water by taking certain biblical stories and categorizing them as "myth". Does evidence exist to prove all the stories in the Bible? No, but this in no way indicates the unproven stories are myths. Sure, they may be myths....on the other hand, the evidence that proves them out may simply not yet have been found.

Which of Frank's myth examples do you have a problem with? The genealogies tied with the Eden story taken literally lead to the 6 day creation and 6000 year old earth. Taking the creation story literally is one of the areas that IMO requires a suspension of intellect. The efforts by some theists to have that view taught in our public school systems is one of the issues causing division in the US.

In the topic that spawned this topic, sunlover made an interesting post that did not get even one response. I think it meshes well with this topic and is worth re-posting here.

sunlover wrote:

According to the minister of the church I attend, thousands of ministers across America have signed an open letter concerning religion and science, taking the following position:

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.

Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.

To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our creator.

To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

0 Replies

mesquite, The people who support ID are saying that there is a controversy about ID that needs to be addressed in our schools so that children can discuss it, because evolution doesn't answer the question of where everything came from, and science doesn't have the answer.

That's all they're asking for. yuk yuk yuk...they think we're all stupid.

0 Replies

Can Religious Thought and Intellectual Honesty Coexist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know