Questioning Religion

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

In my view it is important to question religion but the question is, what sort of questions are worth asking and why?

My main question is, is it possible to define absolute truth? If yes, is anyone able to do so?

I would raise other questions like; 1) What exactly is religion? For purpose of definitiion. 2) Is it possible to prove any of the definitions we may assume of religion? 3) Is it possible to prove religious claims as we find them in the allegedly divine scriptures? 4) Is it possible to live by such religions? 5) Is it possible to define revelation? 6) Is it sensible to believe in religion either on the basis revelation or philosophy? 7) Why people confuse revelation and philosophy? Etc etc.

Coming to Islam, muslims and nonmuslims; is it possible for any of them to define what exactly Islam is? Can that definition of Islam be proven from the sources of Islam or are sources of islam themselves doubtful?

Finally, what would be important questions in this regard in your opinions?

Regards.

2

Re: Questioning Religion

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
In my view it is important to question religion but the question is, what sort of questions are worth asking and why?

My main question is, is it possible to define absolute truth? If yes, is anyone able to do so?

*Yes. People of every faith and non-faith define their truths all the time, and consider them absolute. *

I would raise other questions like; 1) What exactly is religion? For purpose of definitiion. ** best to read an encyclopedia on that one, it will define all the religions to some degree. **

2) Is it possible to prove any of the definitions we may assume of religion? ** sure, just look into their scriptures **

3) Is it possible to prove religious claims as we find them in the allegedly divine scriptures? Yes

4) Is it possible to live by such religions? Yes

5) Is it possible to define revelation? Yes

6) Is it sensible to believe in religion either on the basis revelation or philosophy? Yes

7) Why people confuse revelation and philosophy? Etc etc. Because they choose to.

Coming to Islam, muslims and nonmuslims; is it possible for any of them to define what exactly Islam is?Yes, read the Qur'an.

Can that definition of Islam be proven from the sources of Islam or are sources of islam themselves doubtful? ** Yes, they can be proven, no they are not doubtful.**

Finally, what would be important questions in this regard in your opinions? ** I have no questions.**

Regards.
[/QUOTE]

3

Re: Re: Questioning Religion

Dear munni,

Thank you for responding but I think, I need to explain more about what I am trying to say.

Eg you quote me as follows;

"My main question is, is it possible to define absolute truth? If yes, is anyone able to do so?"

And respond as follows;

"Yes. People of every faith and non-faith define their truths all the time, and consider them absolute."

Showing that you have no idea as to what absolute truth is.

Absolute truth is something that is perceived through senses and is therefore actually true and not an assumption or imagination in one's own head only.

We know it is true because we all sense it in a similar way. For example, the sun is perceived by all who can sense it. It does not exist in my or your imagination only or others would not be able to perceive it. This is what makes something actually true because it is obvious or evident to all in a similar way. This is why if I measure something eg a stick to be one metre long then the same will be found by anyone who repeats the experiment.

Religion cannot be absolute truth because many of its aspects are mere imaginary eg god, angels, satan, jinns etc etc. They are imaginary in two respects a ) they are mere assumptions and not physical entities which could be perceived by people. b ) even if one claims that one can see any of them they are only in one's own imagination because others fail to perceive them. This is what distinguishes between reality and imagination. If I see something but you do not then the only sensible explanation would be that that something exists only in my head, so I must be imagining things.

regards.

4

your definition of absolute truth as whats specific to our sensory realm is very incorrect. a triangle cannot have four sides is an absolute truth, and remains so regardless of whether its visible, audible, touchable or smellable.

absolute truth is whatever that is always valid regardless of parameters or context. something does not have to be within the realm of sensory perception in order to be regarded as absolute truth.

this irrelevance from context and parameters, allows you to seperate truth from its observer. regardless of (certain) people not-observing it, absolute truth will remain true. for example, a million people not knowing (or caring) about the sides in a triangle does not invalidate the absoluteness of this truth.

therefore, munni is correct when she says that : "People of every faith and non-faith define their truths all the time, and consider them absolute."

5

Dear ravage,

Thanks for response but you are ignoring the context of the issue I am raising. We are not talking about undefined existence of things as you too have misunderstood but our perceptions of reality of things. In other words how sure can we be that what we see is really out there and not mere our imagination.

The point I am making is that if things exist such that we can observe them and form standards about them then they must be out there and not only in our imaginations. If I see a tree only myself, it is possible that I could be imagining it but if you too see the very same tree then it is more likely that it really does exists out side our minds. This is true because it is highly unlikely that our imaginations would otherwise be exactly the same.

Now if anyone tells us that we are imagining the very same thing, one cannot explain how that may be possible unless we are both perceiving exactly the very same thing through our individual senses. This method of reality check is important for proving things to ourselves as well as others unless we have some other better method that works.

During arguments for proving a point to each other, triangle must be observable or provable regardless of its existence per se. Just because a triangle exists is not sufficient that its existence must be believed while it remains beyond observation.

When it comes to believing in existence of things with certainty, they must be observable or provable. This is what religion is all about, for it threatens with serious consequences. How do we know there is only one god or many or none at all? Why should anyone believe any of this at all?

So absolute truth is top category of certainty that we human beings can have by way of perceiving things through our senses and verifying them through each other to eliminate possibility of taking our imaginations as realities.

Regards

6

MMughal,

I wasnt ignore your context, I was speaking according to the context you've defined. You asked what is absolute truth, and then you proceed to limit it to what can only be pervieved through our senses, when i demonstrate that observable truth is only a small fraction of all that is true.

You validate perceptory information, through the concurrence of your perceptions across those who share it.

Why is a shared perception of a tree more valid then a shared perception of God? Isnt there a vast, commonly held perception of there being a creator which a very small minority disagrees with?

Why limit shared imaginations to God, and not trees?

Coming to your argument that truth must be observable or provable, I again disagree. I offer a counter example: Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth. He showed that in all logical systems there would always be propositions that are undecidable.

Therefore :
- truth doesnt have to go through sensory processing in order to be true.
- truth doesnt have to be mathematically proven (* or provable * ) in order to be true.

7

There are two types, one is the real belief system thousands upon thousands year old, and other are a set of 3 sham ones created by Arabs. They didn’t think that fooling everyone twice was good enough, so they had to do it one more time. They think everyone is as dumb as they are.

8

"they think everyone is as dumb as they are"

^^ 73 percent of those who believe in any faith (excluding secularists / agnostics / athiests ) believe in a semitic origin faith.

9

madhi, u sure have lots of dumb posts in this forum. an insult to ur intelligence really.

10

Dear ravage,

Thanks for your response but unfortunately you are missing the point. You are speaking about something completely different from what I am trying to explain.

As I said already, I am here discussing religion and believing so something exists or not is of no consequence to us humans unless it in some way makes itself relevant to us. For example, a tree or as you say god exists are not is of no importance to us unless in some way it becomes importance for us. If that happens then investigation becomes necessary and that is when we must have ways of deciding things for ourselves as best as we practically can.

In this investigation, we first and foremost depend upon our own senses and to correlate our sensory observations we draw from each others individual experience in the very same matter in the very same way. It is at this very point we form standards and agree upon their truth.

This is where differences appear between believing in existence of god and the existence of a tree. We can see the tree but we cannot see the god. We therefore can disagree about existence of god but cannot disagree about existence of a tree. If I ask you to believe in the existence of a tree and you ask me to show it to you and I show it to you. There is no chance of disagreement. Likewise if you ask me to believe in a god and I say show god to me and you cannot show god to me then there is a room for disagreement and that room is as obvious to you as it is to me. This is where I can say that what you are asking me to believe is not true whereas what I am asking you to believe is true.

Of course this is not the only way to agree upon existence of things or happenings but other way is, the way of proof and proving. Many a time in our life we ourselves are not necessarily the witness to things or events so the wisest of the people invented the way of proof and proving the truth as far as it is practically possible. In this case we do not have to be first hand witnesses to the existence of the tree or god or for that matter to any event but that whoever claims to have witnessed something that one wants us to believe must be willing to stand trial so that we could test the truth of one’s claim as far as it is practically possible for us to do so. Once again if we have the proof that the claimant is telling us the truth, there is little chance of disagreement between us. However, if proof is not there then, of course, we will disagree and the room for disagreement would be as obvious to you as it is to me.

Coming to believing in religion, we have people who claim revelation from god as well as those who believe in religion merely on the basis of philosophical assumptions. One are very robust and rigid but the others relaxed and flexible. This is where we run into problems and disagreements. For those who are strict, cannot prove what they claim and those who are relaxed are not bothered what anyone believes. This is why some religious people can get on with others but some cannot. Some compromise and some don’t.

Coming to your approach to things, it would be nice to have your views as to how to settled religious disputes. At the moment as I see it you rather create chaos than try to show the ways to deal with situations, which in my view is unhelpful. Particularly when in this forum some participants may not be even knowledgeable enough and are already very confused. This is the reason I like to explain things thoroughly as far as it is possible for me but that creates a cumbersome reading and as we have seen people here are very good at deleting the posts without notice.

Many here are not bothered to show what they stand for so it is difficult to follow their arguments and conclusions. Discussions make better sense if people who are talking let others know where they are coming from.

Anyway, thanks for your participation. Regards and all the best.

11

MMughal,

You have repeatedly told me that I am either missing the point or the context of your post, and then have proceeded to explain what you meant, whereas upon reading your explaination I feel that I was infact addressing the points you made in their proper context. Either you are not doing a good job explaining things, or I am not very good at understanding them. Either way, I dont think we should persist in debating if there is such difficulty in our understanding one another.

In the above post, you have again postulated that truth between individuals must be validated either through sensory observation, or through mathematical proof. I disagree, and maintain that it need not be supported by either. I also offered mathematical proof that statements may be true without being provably true, in any consistent logical domain.

You and I may share the same perceptions, the same experiences, you and I may have the mental capacity to run through our lives with a mathematically rigorous inference engine, but you and I might never agree on what this world is, who our God is if there is one.

And you and I might never agree that the other is right. You and I might never prove each other wrong.

What then of truth?

You may open as many discussions as you want about the veils women are supposed to wear, the lengths of muslim beards, whether or not Jesus died on the cross, those are valid questions since they remain within the confines of a religious discussion.

but when it comes to absoluteness, the existence and extent of truth, when you call into question the existence of God, you should know that faith lies on a different plane altogether, perception, logic being supports, justifications, triggers but rarely the absolute core basis.

Its cliche now to refer to that 'leap of faith' that occurs when you're somewhere between true and untrue.. in that vast expanse that spans the provability of Ultimate Truth. Where you make that leap is everything that defines you, and your reasons hold relevance only to you.

edit: you asked how disagreements be addressed between people. as far as those who adhere to a faith go, one can reason within their faith, if you wish to settle minor issues, such as whether one should or should not wear shorts.

Certain issues though, those that form the basis of faith rather than outcomes of it, dont have much hope of proof through argumentation, IMO.

12

Religion is absolute if it has same meanings to all the religions and also to non-religious ppl.

Every religion has different interpretation of religion. So religion itself is not absolute.

If every religion has same interpretation of religion, then Mr. Revege, why are you reluctant in switching from your religion so some other religion...????

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
Religion is absolute if it has same meanings to all the religions and also to non-religious ppl. (?)
Every religion has different interpretation of religion (??). So religion itself is not absolute.

If every religion has same interpretation of religion, then Mr. Ravage, why are you reluctant in switching from your religion so some other religion...???? (??????)
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should have worded things differently. Im not sure if I follow completely what you post.

I'll reply when you make what you're saying a little more clearer.

14

Dear friends,

I think, the best way to learn from each other is to raise our own questions and concerns and try and answer them as best as we can and let others make of that what they like. Perhaps discussion would make better sense after seeing how defocused and diverged are our views and if there is any way to converge or find a common denomnator.

The idea is to try and establish our different positions and find reasons for that and see if we can demolish such reasons as are divisive and devastating.

Faith in organised religion is dangerous because organised religion is a political ideology not spiritual that by its very nature is a mechanism for its followers to take over the world, leading to divisions as well as armed struggles under false hopes.

It is for this reason ways are needed to overcome such problems. If people therefore do not follow reason to solve their such problems, war, death and destruction has to be the only outcome. The excuse that belief is a matter of faith does not go well under these circumstances. Beliefs are only matter of faith so long as they are kept private and are not used to control others or to kill the innocent.

This is the main reason that religions must be put in their place and kept therein by their followers or others will come out in force and do it for them. You either keep your own house in order yourself by avoiding getting into trouble with others by invading their space or you are inviting others to do it for you.

Seeing the way the situation is currently developing, no wonder we must wake up to reason in order to avoid confrontations on various fronts. Religion is used by many people as a political tool and the rest who claim to be peaceful are not speaking up or even loud enough. All this does not look good for our future. This is why we must question what we believe and stand for so that we could review our views and adjust our focus in the right direction.

Regards.

15

Re: Questioning Religion

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
Many a time in our life we ourselves are not necessarily the witness to things or events so the wisest of the people invented the way of proof and proving the truth as far as it is practically possible.

[/QUOTE]

Could you define “practically possible”. I think these two words are debatable and relative to your perception of practicality (mathematically, scientifically, self witness etc). Hence there is room for disagreement when you say practically possible and it is as obvious to you as it is to me.

Correct me if I am wrong but your method of ‘proof’ is to ‘witness’ things either by yourself or have someone stand a trial who has ‘witnessed’ the subject in question. Unfortunately, humans haven’t proved everything yet nor they have witnessed it. If someone comes along and wants to prove that a triangle has more than three sides or an atom is not the smallest particle then he/she deserves as much attention as someone who is proving the existence of God or lack of it. What you believe is up to you…you find your peace in a scientific theorem or a philosophy of a book is not questionable by me or you.

If humans knew everything and they could explain the facts of life and beyond to the satisfaction of everyone then there would be no need to ‘believe’. We would know the absolute truth instead.

16

Re: Re: Questioning Religion

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fayz: *

Could you define “practically possible”. I think these two words are debatable and relative to your perception of practicality (mathematically, scientifically, self witness etc). Hence there is room for disagreement when you say practically possible and it is as obvious to you as it is to me.

Correct me if I am wrong but your method of ‘proof’ is to ‘witness’ things either by yourself or have someone stand a trial who has ‘witnessed’ the subject in question. Unfortunately, humans haven’t proved everything yet nor they have witnessed it. If someone comes along and wants to prove that a triangle has more than three sides or an atom is not the smallest particle then he/she deserves as much attention as someone who is proving the existence of God or lack of it. What you believe is up to you…you find your peace in a scientific theorem or a philosophy of a book is not questionable by me or you.

If humans knew everything and they could explain the facts of life and beyond to the satisfaction of everyone then there would be no need to ‘believe’. We would know the absolute truth instead.
[/QUOTE]

Dear fayz,

thank you for your kind response.

Yes, you have understood correctly that I am talking about witnessing things personally or accepting testimonies of such witnesses as prove reliable. However, I am also speaking in context of religious beliefs and testing them.

The purpose of my questions is to find out some way of helping people to compromise so that we stop fighting with each other. So although you are right that we humans do not know everything but that is not the point. To compromise we do not need to know everything but only that which is relevant to our objectivity.

The wars between us are ideological, political, social. cultural, economics etc etc. I divide them into two groups a ) religious and b ) all others. The reason I divide them is because religion based wars are more dangerous than nonreligion based. The reason religion based wars are more dangerous is because relgious people despite standing on nothing or being unreasonable are unwilling to compromise on their make beliefs.

If you and I were fighting over a piece of bread, we could end up compromising but not over our gods and what we asumingly attribute to them. That is so because only god can speak for himself not you and I. If you assume that god has told you that he is one and I assume that he has told me that he has ten children as well, we will have to fight it out unless we stop and think as to what are we really fighting about and why?

This is the reason we must question our religions or beliefs to see whether they are worth killing or dying for. If at the end of the day the whole thing proves to be only a make-belief, shouldn't we be ashamed of ourselves for being taken for a ride? This is why I am trying to work out and show the way forward. I do not want to see people killing each other mercilessly in the name of this god or that god, this religion or that religion, this sect or that sect, this scripture or that scripture.

Therefore if muslims must kill in the name of Allah, I question that and want proof of them. If things were not this bad, I would not bother who believes what. Only because people have gone mad and have lost the ability to reason that I too cannot accept their ignorance or ignorance based excuses. What you believe is your business so long as I am not affected by it but as soon as I feel the heat, I must react. It is no longer then your personal matter thereafter. Since we people are interdependent in so many ways, we cannot isolate ourselves from each other even if we want to. Any individual, family or country that is isolated by community knows this fact very clearly.

Coming to question of god, he ought to have purpose built this universe. If he was to send any message for our guidance, he ought to know hopw the ssytem was set up by him to work. Therefore if he sent us a message in way that makes no sense, that is not our fault. Allah ought to know that nothing can be believed by people unless they witness it themselves or have the testimony that can be proven to them reliable. Leaving religion for people as a matter of faith and condemning people to hell for ever yet claiming to be fair, just and even merciful do not add up. It is for this reason believing in existence of a triangle is not same has believing in a god. If I do not believe in the exitence of the triangle, I have no threat of fearful consequences from the triangle but that is not the case with belief regarding god. This is why proof of god's existence is necessary but not of a triangle.

Furthermore, it is not only the belief in existence of god that is necessary but exactly as demanded by individual scriptures in case of allegedly revealed books. This is why one has to have exactly right beliefs as allegedly told by god himself or one is not safe from his punishment. This being the case people must learn to judge scriptures and religions etc so that they do not end up on the wrong side of god or gods etc.

To know what is true and what is false a common criterion is absolutely necessary. The question is what is that? My answer is, it is the sense of people themselves and things they have learned therefrom. This is why I am making it a starting point, for there is none other try all one can.

Since everything is not witnessed or experienced by ourselves hence I bring in the concept of proof and proving. Now if we cannot witness god ourselves, is it possible to prove that he does exist and that he did send any message for us? How would we know if he really did? What sort of clues would clearly prove to us the message of god and eliminate for us the possibility that someone has tried to make fool of us?

Is the quran really the word of god? Is the bible really the word of god? Etc etc. I did put up some posts but they were deleted by my brave muslim brethren who never get tired claiming islam is the only true faith appointed by god.

The idea was to show that the quran is not the word of god as claimed by muslims so that they stop believing everything the quran says and kill or die for it. Not only that but such people want to take us back to dark ages. The best muslim could do was to grow out of primitive ideas by learning from what they had to move with time, like others have done eg christians. This is not about ignoring quran or telling muslims not to be muslims but about people moving with time.

Just as jews are still jews and christians are still christians after accepting the truth about the holy torah or bible so can muslims be still muslims after accepting the truth about the holy quran. This is our ideological background just like our geographical background or tribal background. We are growing and changing with time from place to place, family to family, society to society, culture to culture. These things always changed and are bound to change because they are part of the world that changes with time.

Regards

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
Dear friends,

The idea is to try and establish our different positions and find reasons for that and see if we can demolish such reasons as are divisive and devastating.

Regards.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe we should try to establish our common grounds. Remind each other of the beliefs and values we share.

Then really listen to one anothers differences and reasons why.

And accept that there might always be differences, but just because there are differences between us doesn't mean that we have to be enemies. We can agree to disagree. And learn alot about each other along the way.

You might like polka-dots. I might like stripes. But maybe we both like chocolate. I might forever argue that stripes are best. You might forever praise polka-dots. And on these we may never agree. But ... when it comes to chocolate.....we always agree.

I may learn to like and respect polka-dots. You might learn to like and respect stripes. But on chocolate...we are always together.

18

PAG,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Dear sis, it is possible to live with differences but not with things that give rise to animosity between human beings without any basis. Of such things we all must grow out.

For example, muslims are instructed to fight nonmuslims till there is no opposition to practice of religion of Allah. Since according to muslims only islam is the true religion from Allah and that Islam is a total way of life that contains instructions even regarding putting on one's shoes so where do we draw the line? If a muslims is not given the time to pray to his god, or a place to pray or to say the call for prayer aloud and or not allowed to kill animals the islamic way, is not allowed to sleep or eat or behave islamic way and so on and on all these like things would mean muslim is at war with the rest of the world because one is not allowed to practice one's religion.

Such like things leave little room for flexibility or compromise and that is why such teachings are actually recipes for trouble between human beings. The only way to get out of this kind of trouble is to help people with such ideas educate themselves to realise the problem so that they could grow out of such impractical beliefs. Unless all sides are willing to compromise peace between them is not possible. In other other words if I must do what my religious instruction book says and you must do what yours says than result is obviously a clash. It is because some instructions in religious scriptures are in direct conflict with the others. So we reach a stage where I get my way or you get your way. So the issue is no longer about you liking the sweets and I the crisps. Rather we are told, to force feed each other what we do not like, by our instructors. This is why we both must learn to think really hard and walk away from such things for sake of peace and harmony between us. It is at this stage that we each must cross examine what we have been brought up with to see where we are being led blindly. It is not people who wish to fight with each other in the name of religion but that is where they are brought by their blind religious beliefs. It is time to confront such religious teachings and beliefs so that we could live in peace with each other.

Regards and all the best.

19

hmm. :ahaa:
Very,berry interesting.
Jews had the one and ONLY GOD, the father.
What should Jesus/christans do ?
:ahaa:
Jesus is the ONE and ONLY SON of GOD !
Well, GOD and his SON are taken !
What should Mohammad/Islam do ?
:ahaa:
How about the LAST prophet ?
hmm.. GOD,his son and prophet are taken.
what can be done ?
:ahaa:
The muslims are the ONLY true followers.

Is it a convenient coincidence ?

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
PAG,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Dear sis, it is possible to live with differences but not with things that give rise to animosity between human beings without any basis. Of such things we all must grow out.
[/QUOTE]

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

I think if people, all people, listen, really listen.

Hear.

One another.

Talk to each other.

Attempt to understand.

The world would be alot different.