On religion and rationalism
By Tolu Ogunlesi

I READ Jide Akeredolu's piece, "Why I am a rationalist,"in The Guardian (Friday, August 1, 2008) with much interest. It is a well written article, and the author makes his point eloquently.

The seven arguments that Mr. Akeredolu advances as reasons why "(he is) grateful to be a rationalist rather than a religious believer" all make near-perfect sense - viewed from a certain perspective. Every one of these reasons is juxtaposed against organised religion, and his verdict is this: It makes far more sense to be a rationalist. Compared to the Christian or Moslem or the 'Traditionalist' the rationalist seems to have little or no baggage to lug through life, argues Mr. Akeredolu.

I must commend him for his wisdom in smartly skirting the boundaries of out-and-out atheism in his piece, knowing that the easiest way to alienate people from your argument in a religion-obsessed country like ours is to raise the 'No God' flag. (The result would have been a clogging of The Guardian's email account with letters quoting that famous line in the Book of Psalms, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God!". It is clear that Mr. Akeredolu's aim is not to get himself enmeshed in the kind of needless controversy that surrounds "Is there a God?" debates; instead he seeks to make a sensible point, and perhaps stimulate healthy discussion.

But it is at this point that I must state my case against Mr. Akeredolu: I think that he commits an error in portraying 'rationalism' (or at least certain aspects of it) and religiosity as strictly mutually-exclusive entities. I am forced to ask myself: is it not possible to acceptably combine religiosity and 'rationalism' (reason; common sense; initiative). Must we always approach life with this "schizophrenic" approach that splits it into mutually exclusive camps of the 'Rationalists' and the 'Religious'? Are those our only two options as human beings?

Reason No. 4 for rationalism, in the Rationalist Gospel According to Jide Akeredolu, is this (in his words): "I love real people. I don't give imaginary gods and friends priority over the relationship I have with real people. Religious people risk letting their relationship with their imaginary friends and beings get in the way of their relationship with real people"

I now ask the question: does the fact that religious people "risk letting their relationship with their imaginary friends and beings get in the way of their relationship with real people" mean that 'religion' in itself does not "make sense"? Do we not know that a lot of the teachings of Jesus Christ (allow me to wisely stick to what - or who - I know) concern matters of love and of human relationships? The "Golden Rule" that Akeredolu lives by, "treat others the way you will like to be treated" - does he know its origins? Is he aware that versions of that "Ethic of Reciprocity" have been found in virtually all major religions in the world? Is he aware that Jesus Christ defined "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" as the 'Second Great Commandment'?

Mr. Akeredolu also said: "I am proactive, and I like to take my destiny in my own hands. I set goals and I go for them. I don't believe in praying for the things I want in life, nor do I think praying for other people does anything to help them." My interpretation of this is that he has come to the conclusion that religious persons (i.e. non-rationalists) are, as someone humorously described, "so heaven-conscious that they are of no earthly good." And then I ask: does being a believer in God automatically preclude diligent goal-setting, hard work, and the use of one's brain? I think not. It is however sad that, the way a lot of Christians act this days, one is tempted to agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Akeredolu.

Churches and Christians are the ones giving Christianity a bad name. Religion, a wise man once claimed, is the opium of the people. Nowhere is this truer than in Nigeria. The early Christians were known for their Christ-like conduct; today's (Nigerian) Christians are known chiefly for the ' supernatural' traffic jams they cause on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway every now and then; for the architectural masterpieces they put up in the middle of near-shanties and potholed roads; and for their sometimes over-simplistic "all-you-can-claim" gospels.

Society as a whole also conspires to give God a bad name, and to reinforce the erroneous rationalist/religious dichotomy. I sometimes wonder why we bother to elect Presidents, Governors and other public office holders when it is self-evident that we have abandoned all matters of governance to the Almighty God, only to end up blaming Him for 'non-performance.' Only a week or so ago, our former President Olusegun Obasanjo advised that "whatever you don't have, then leave everything to God". That would have made sense, had he not been referring specifically to the national darkness that his government failed to dispel, and for which billions of dollars went down the proverbial (Switzerland-bound) drain.

Not too long ago too, the newspapers carried reports of fiery prayer sessions embarked upon by teachers in across the country, seeking divine intervention regarding their pay package crisis. I could only come to the conclusion that a country where public servants (and teachers for that matter) have to pray before they can get their entitlements - after laboring at the task of raising new generations of educated Nigerians - must be a failed country.

My conclusion, from all the above, is simple. Nigeria's 'faith' people should endeavour to strike the proper balance between religion and rational thinking. God gave human beings a brain, as well as a soul/spirit. One must not be made to suffer because of another.

And of course, we should stop disturbing God for unnecessary things! If Sierra Leone or Rwanda is without power supply, we can blame their wars for the devastation of infrastructure. And for those wars we might even get away with blaming all manner of devils and evil spirits (on the assumption that the evils of war seem to be beyond ordinary human ability). But when Nigeria - one of the world's largest producers of crude oil, blessed with infinite supplies of natural gas, and coal, and rivers, and an absence of civil war - has to spend its days and nights without power supply, no one in their right minds should look for any devils to blame. Instead we should pick mirrors up and look into them to find the culprits. And instead of wasting time casting named and unnamed electricity-sucking devils to hellfire, we should be looking for pot-bellied Thieves, elected and appointed, to cast into the farthest reaches of Gusau and Abeokuta Prisons.

There is a Hell out there (from where the rich man in the Bible must have begged for a drop of water to cool his tongue) but there is a more pressing Hell right here in our midst - in the giant craters on our roads, and the overwhelming darkness of our streets at night; in the giant balls of fire that accompany the explosion of petrol tankers or vandalized pipelines, and in the rubble from our ever-collapsing buildings. And there is of course hell in the gnashing of teeth that follows every one of these avoidable tragedies.

Hell is other people, observed a character in No Exit, a play by Jean-Paul Sartre. You won't doubt that observation the next time you are stuck in a nine-hour traffic jam caused by one of the many religious organisations that dot the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. Hell is overworked pilots flying 'tokunboh' planes onto cow-strewn, potholed runways in radar-less airports. Hell is poorly-paid doctors and nurses making their way with kerosene lanterns in the surgical theatres of teaching hospitals. Hell is the dead fishes and shriveled crops and oil-laden streams and smoke-choked air of the Niger delta's villages.

God will not come down to fill potholes or build power stations. He will not miraculously conjure money to pay teachers' salaries, certainly not when he has given us more 'black gold' than most nations of the earth. And he will not decree the much-awaited "Made-in-Nigeria" car into existence.

The challenge for us therefore is this: while we - who express a belief in God - hold on to our faiths, let us also keep our brains. Let us, while serving God, make use of our brains to create solutions to the many problems that ail our nation. And let us not fall into the trap of assuming that to be religious is to be without 'reason' or genuine love, or that in order to settle for 'reason' we must of necessity repudiate our faith in an Almighty God.


Ogunlesi lives in Lagos

Source: http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article04//indexn2_html?pdate=130808&ptitle=On%20religion%20and%20rationalism

See the earlier article here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-156661.0.html

Interesting article, the question though is that does religion encourage common sense thinking or rationalism. The basic tenets of most religions emphasize faith, which is belief in things not seen, belief in things that may not make common sense. Can you see the problem here? Also does the writer imply that without religion it is impossible for mankind to have basic morals and show love and care for each other? Aren't this goals possible without the fear of being cast into hell for not having this characteristics?

Grappling with a thousand daemons at Ibadan
By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

IBADAN has a strong pedigree in live theatre in Nigeria. It was no surprise therefore to visit Ibadan recently to watch the preview of a play whose live performance across four cities in Nigeria would have aficionados screaming for more. Chams plc is at the vanguard of the upcoming presentation of adaptations of D.O. Fagunwa's classic novel, Ogboju Ode Ninu Igbo Irunmole. Our own Nobel playwright Wole Soyinka translated that epic in the 70s into English with the arresting title of The Forest of a Thousand Daemons.

Prof Femi Osofisan, himself an outstanding playwright and trainer of performing artistes, has the commission to carry out a theatrical adaptation of Fagunwa's novel for an English audience. Chams also commissioned Prof Akinwunmi Isola, author, dramatist, down-to-earth academic, and Nollywood star, to do a similar thing for a Yoruba audience.

The journey to Ibadan was at the instance of Temitope Lakisokun, the charming CEO of Insider Concepts Ltd, and the firm that handles communications for Chams. I love their I AM CHAMS campaign, but that is a story for another day! She knew that one could hardly ever say no to an offer of the live theatre. Chams' CEO, the personable Demola Aladekomo, Prof Akinwunmi Ishola whom I informed that I acted in his play Madam Tinubu as a first year student of the then University of Ife, Prof Biodun Jeyifo, Femi Fatoba were among those who watched the preview of Osofisan's play.

As the major consultant to the project, Osofisan informed us that he and Akinwunmi Ishola undertook to do two completely different adaptations. The two authors decided they would not talk to one another until they finished their work. You could liken the result to a matrix, doing two plays or two productions, as it were. The Yoruba cast was holed up in Ife with Dr Kola Oyewo as director while the English group stayed in Ibadan with Dr Tunde Awosanmi as director. They worked together for one month but, as Osofisan quipped, "Man proposes, NEPA disposes!"

The preview we saw in Ibadan was, according to Osofisan, still "a work in progress." The play is clearly a remove from Wale Ogunyemi's Langbodo, which was Nigeria's entry in FESTAC 1977. Ogunyemi's Langbodo also drew heavily from Fagunwa's book. Osofisan's Adventures in the Forest of a Thousand Demons starts on a high with the triumphant Akara-Ogun regaling the village with his audacious visit and safe return from the forest of demons. He bids his adoring audience to make merry, asking them to eat and drink as much as they could ever want, much to the chagrin of the monarch of the land. The play re-enacts Akara-Ogun's life-and-death battle with the dreaded Agbako in which the over-matched hero was only saved from sure death by the timely arrival of the adorable spirit Iranlowo. Akara-Ogun falls madly in love with Iranlowo but she would not follow him back to the world of the humans, only promising that she would always come to his aid.

Akara-Ogun makes another journey into the heart of the forest of a thousand demons to behold the much-adored Iranlowo. He discounts all even omens such as hitting his left leg on a stone and seeing his kola nuts go awry. He is nearly done in by a menacing dwarf only for Iranlowo to reappear with the advice that all Akara-Ogun needed to survive was his brain, the only true weapon for man's freedom. Akara-Ogun thus gets the dwarf to eat cooked yam instead of its raw form and convinces him that the gun contains water, only to promptly shoot the dreadful midget to death.

The king of the land who is ill at ease with the loud mouth of Akara-Ogun asks him to undertake the impossible journey of getting to the very top of the fabled Mount Langbodo. Akara-Ogun selects a handful of crack hunters to go on the unprecedented trip. The irrepressible warriors encounter all kinds of odds until they are almost very dispirited, not knowing actually if Mount Langbodo ever existed. The final scene features the freeing of a tiger in its cage. The tiger promptly takes him captive only for Iranlowo to appear with the old advice that he should apply the brain to get the tiger back into the cage and to lock it inside. Key lessons from the saga are Gratitude, Compassion, Industry, and Honesty.

The performance is a rousing advertisement of total theatre. Music, dance, and well-spiced proverbs hold up the eagle feather of the grand performance. Ify Agwu as Iranlowo played the part with requisite aplomb while Tunde Adeyemo, Toyin Oshinake, Steve James held their forte. They delivered their lines with considerable mastery, and one wonders at the riveting prospect of seeing the full performance of the actual premiere of the play in Lagos in September. The plays, in Yoruba and English, will grace sundry stages at Ibadan, Ife, Abuja, and Lagos in due course.
,
,
,

Uzoatu a poet and novelist, lives in Lagos

Source: http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article03/indexn3_html?pdate=180808&ptitle=Grappling%20with%20a%20thousand%20daemons%20at%20Ibadan&cpdate=180808

anonimi:

Grappling with a thousand daemons at Ibadan
By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

Akara-Ogun makes another journey into the heart of the forest of a thousand demons to behold the much-adored Iranlowo. He discounts all even omens such as hitting his left leg on a stone and seeing his kola nuts go awry. He is nearly done in by a menacing dwarf only for Iranlowo to reappear with the advice that all Akara-Ogun needed to survive was his brain, the only true weapon for man's freedom. Akara-Ogun thus gets the dwarf to eat cooked yam instead of its raw form and convinces him that the gun contains water, only to promptly shoot the dreadful midget to death.

The bold portion seems to suggest that Yoruba religion promotes using one's brain to its limit BEFORE asking God to intervene.
Apparently, we are well endowed to think , but will rather waste our thinking "talent" by burying it and still ask God to deliver us from our self-inflicted misery.
What a shame

Interesting discourse: "Re: On Religion And Rationalism".

However, while appreciating both sides of the divide, my concerns are on whether both intellectuals have a good handle on their arguments. Ogunlesi poses this question:

anonimi:

I now ask the question: does the fact that religious people "risk letting their relationship with their imaginary friends and beings get in the way of their relationship with real people" mean that 'religion' in itself does not "make sense"?

Going one step further, I suppose Jide Akeredolu was playing a convenience game of words. Did anyone wonder who were the likely candidates for his "real people" list?

A case for rationalism
By Leo Igwe

I READ with great interest the brilliant article by Dr. Jide Akeredolu: "Why I am a Rationalist" in The Guardian of Friday, August 1, 2008. But I must say that I found objectionable most of the thoughts and conclusions in the two rejoinders: Tolu Ogunlesi's "On Religion and Rationalism", (The Guardian, of Wednesday, August 13, 2008) and particularly Gordy Onokpite's: "Why I am not a Rationalist", (The Guardian, of Thursday, August 21, 2008.)

Before delving into my objections, I would like to commend Dr. Akeredolu for his courage and thoughtfulness in stating clearly and persuasively why he subscribes to the rationalist, rather than the religious school of thought. He really exhibited an unusual sense of frankness and candour. I have no doubt that there are many Nigerians like Akeredolu out there who have abandoned the religious baggage and embraced the rational light. But I know they are too afraid to go open and public with their doubts, disbelief and rationalist identity.

My "prayer" is that one day they will muster the courage to leave the closet, and come forward so that we can help deliver this nation from the dark and destructive forces of religious fanaticism and irrationalism. Amen!

Because a nation that allows itself to be defined and be directed by unreason and sacred superstitions will stagnate and die. This is a message that runs through the article of Akeredolu. Incidentally, the authors of the two rejoinders failed to recognise that the seven reasons he gave for being a rationalist are the seven ways religions have underdeveloped this nation.

For instance, he noted that religions instilled "unnecessary fears of demons, witches, spirit-both evil and holy, principalities and powers, Satan or imaginary places like hell" in believers. That is the "gospel" truth. Religion thrives on fear and illusion. The fear of the Lord (or Allah) they say is the beginning of wisdom. So religious believers go through life fearful of imaginary - incomprehensible and nonsensical entities that they have been brainwashed to accept as real, true and powerful.

Religious believers carry with them this sacred baggage that burdens their mind, debilitates their will, narrows their vision, shackles their intellect, distorts their perception, and corrupts their conscience. Believers spiritualise and mystify anything that comes their way-cats, dogs, pigs, snakes etc or happens to them-accidents, sickness, death etc.

And as a result of this spiritual and supernatural corruption and colouration of phenomena, believers hardly entertain a clear, real, and true idea, knowledge and understanding of things, issues and events. They find it difficult to take their destiny fully in their hands. Because they hold that without God they can do nothing. That is why a combination of religion and rationalism as suggested by Tolu Ogunlesi is not tenable. And this is the fault of religion, not of rationalism.

Every religion is dogmatic, absolutist, authoritarian and intolerant of other worldviews. Every religion sees itself as the one and only truth. The religions are in conflict and in contradiction with each other. And, if religions cannot combine among themselves, how does one expect them to combine with the rationalist worldview? Religions do not recognise or acknowledge the validity or veracity of views and perspectives that are doubtful, opposed to or critical of their teachings. That is why it is impossible to forge a mutually inclusive synergy out of religion and rationalism. One cannot be dogmatic and be critical at the same time. A person filled with faith cannot be fully rational. Religion has no space for reason.

Combining rationalism and religion is like trying to merge light and darkness, modernity and primitivity. It is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Because in actual fact, religions embody the thoughts and reasoning of some persons at the infant stage of human race. Simply put, religion is out of date and disconnected from contemporary reasoning and reality. This bitter truth should not make a non-rationalist to misrepresent rationalism, and misinform the public as was the case in the piece by Gordy Onokpite. Mr. Onokpite jumbled too many things together and argued so incoherently in order to explain why he is not a rationalist.

First of all his thesis on rationalism is wrong. Rationalism is not, strictly speaking in contrast with empiricism. Reason comes into play in the evaluation, organisation and interpretation of observable and empirical phenomena. It is with reason that humans can make 'sense' out of sensory data. Reason is employed and applied in everything human beings do even though in varying degrees.

Again, we must not forget that humans are rational beings. That it is reason that sets us apart from other animals. So, one can say, in a loose sense, that we are all rationalists! That is why I was so surprised that Onokpite attributed the achievements of Martin Luther King (Jr.), Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Philip Emeagwali to the so-called spiritual and psychic powers and other abilities that transcend the natural and rational order of things. What nonsense!

Can anyone tell me anything that was achieved by these men that is not explainable and possible within the limits of reason? All the feats achieved by human beings in history have been as a result of the ability to exert not abandon, their rational capabilities. So the time has come for all Nigerians to recognise this: That religion has served us badly. That irrationalism has caused so much darkness, misery and stagnation. The time has come for all Nigerians to move to the next level - the Age of Reason. The time has come for all Nigerians to embrace the rational light and realise a civilisation with a global dimension.

* Igwe lives in Ibadan, Oyo State.

Brilliant response!

anonimi:

So the time has come for all Nigerians to recognise this: That religion has served us badly.

That is because you haven't been rational in thinking things through.

anonimi:

That irrationalism has caused so much darkness, misery and stagnation.

True, because most people who cry out for "reason" turn out to be the most unreasonable in their outlook.

anonimi:

The time has come for all Nigerians to move to the next level - the Age of Reason. The time has come for all Nigerians to embrace the rational light and realise a civilisation with a global dimension.

This is the same ideology that led men like Hitler to promote the "global dimension" of the Germans as the superior race above others. The result?

i think its time we ask ourselves some questions
how well has religion served mankind? If thw world had been without religion would we have had so many conflicts in our turbulent history?
If we had been born into a different clime where we didnt have the challenges of daily african life will we still be as religious?
imagine if we had a 'tabula rasa' for a mind and we were presented with arguments for bothe religion and rationality which would we choose.?
I think theres a strong case for rationality but its going to be difficult convincing those whose minds have been encoded over millenia with religious doctrine to come to terms with the fact that religion has served humanity badly(and is still a major cause of world conflicts).
Most times religious doctrines are human Failure(eg greed) disguised in a cloak of 'faith',
can our minds ever be freed?

reindeer:

I think theres a strong case for rationality but its going to be difficult convincing those whose minds have been encoded over millenia with religious doctrine to come to terms with the fact that religion has served humanity badly(and is still a major cause of world conflicts).

Sorry to say, but this is one of the most hilarious bullcraps being endlessly recycled for the delight of simpletons. Not putting you on spotlight, but even if you had to be as honest as you can afford to be, have you taken a very unbiased look at your assumptions?

The question is, have you?

pilgrim.1:

That is because you haven't been rational in thinking things through.

reindeer:


I think theres a strong case for rationality but its going to be difficult convincing those whose minds have been encoded over millenia with religious doctrine to come to terms with the fact that religion has served humanity badly(and is still a major cause of world conflicts).

pilgrim.1:

Sorry to say, but this is one of the most hilarious bullcraps being endlessly recycled for the delight of simpletons. Not putting you on spotlight, but even if you had to be as honest as you can afford to be, have you taken a very unbiased look at your assumptions?

reindeer:

The question is, have you?

I wonder when you guys are actually going to present an argument as to why the other is wrong and you are right, rather than just dissing each other and hurling insults. It's all rather boring, I feel.

I personally feel that the issue is not religion vs. rationalism and that is in fact a false dichotomy. The real issue is Ignorance vs. Enlightenment.

And I also resent the way the word Rationalism is used. I think they should use the word Naturalism because that is really what they are advocating. Naturalism says that there is no supernatural world and that everything can be explained by natural forces.

Rational was originally used to refer to the aspect of man's being that could grasp and contemplate Divine things. This is the sense in which Plato and the greek philosophers used the term. Today it is used to refer to the use of Logic in deliberations.

The Modern study of Logic was started by a certain David Hume. David Hume was a scottish philosopher who spearheaded the movement that is today called (funnily enough) 'the Enlightenment'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Hume was the first great philosopher of the modern era to carve out a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy. This philosophy partly consisted in rejection of the historically prevalent conception of human minds as being miniature versions of the divine mind.[4] This doctrine was associated with a trust in the powers of human reason and insight into reality, which possessed God’s certification.

Hume broke reasoning down to two types. Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning:

Deductive reasoning is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises), which are assumed to be true, to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true.[1] An example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is
All men are mortal. (major premise)
Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

In other words deduction says that if A is true and B is True then C must follow. ie. The Sky is Grey. Grey skies precede Rain. Therefore It will soon rain.

Inductive Reasoning on the other hand:

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.[1] It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:
This ice is cold. (or: All ice I have ever touched was cold.)
This billiard ball moves when struck with a cue. (or: Of one hundred billiard balls struck with a cue, all of them moved.)
, to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold.
All billiard balls move when struck with a cue.

In other words, induction generalises from a few instances. So if I have a girlfriend that cheats on me, then I have another girlfriend and she cheats on me, and so with a 3rd, a 4th, and a fifth. By induction I can then infer that All girls are good for nothing cheats. Many people will hesitate to accept Induction as a certain method to arriving at the truth, but would accept that probabilistically I might arrive at the right conclusion sometimes via induction.

What many people fail to realise is that at the heart of Deduction itself there is a big fat core of Inductive reasoning. Take for instance Aristotle's example of Socrates' mortality.

All men are mortal. (major premise)
Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

All men are mortal was arrived at because every man that Aristotle ever knew or heard of eventually died. But to say that All men will suffer mortality was arrived at by Induction from the fact that everyone he knew had died, so therefore he generalised and said that all men will be subject to mortality.
All the laws of reason by which we deduce events are arrived at by induction. If you see something happen often enough, like objects falling to the earth, then one will usually feel safe to assume that there is a law that insists that objects must always fall. and hey presto we have the law of gravity.

Therefore, Deduction depends on Induction. Therefore naturalistic reason is based on generalisation and is in fact probabilistic rather than certain.
Induction is used by both naturalists and Religionists. A religionists will say his brother fasted for 30 days and got a good job therefore if you want a good job you have to fast for 30 days too. This has no basis other than probability. If something happened once then it'll happen again . . . .! Sorry I got that wrong. It goes like this:

If it happens once then it won't happen again
But if it happens again then it will definately happen a third time.
-Sod's Law.

This is the Baba of all inductive Reasoning.

Yet induction and deduction apart, there is another faculty whereby we can arrive at knowledge. This faculty is what I call True Reason. This is the real Rationalism. That is what Plato called it. Aristotle called it Nous.

The word nous is somewhat ambiguous, a result of being appropriated by successive philosophers to designate very different concepts. A further complication that nous (or Nous) refers, depending on the philosopher and the context, sometimes to a personal mental faculty or characteristic, and sometimes to a corresponding quality of the universe or God.
Homer used nous to signify mental activities in general, but in the pre-Socratics it became increasingly identified with knowledge and with reason as opposed to sense perception.
Anaxagoras's nous was a mechanical ordering force that formed the world out of an original chaos. It began the development of the cosmos.
Plato described it as the immortal, rational part of the soul. It is a godlike kind of thinking in which the truths of conclusions are immediately known without having to understand the preliminary premises.
Aristotle asserted that nous was the intellect, as distinguished from sense perception. He divided it into an active and passive nous. The passive is affected by knowledge. The active is an immortal first cause of all subsequent causes in the world.
To the Stoics, it was the same as logos. This is the whole cosmic reason. It contains human reason as a part.
Plotinus described nous as one of the emanations from divine being.

From here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

Now there is no way I can think of to convince someone of such a faculty as the Nous. Short of having it awakened in you I don't think that it can be demonstrated. Bearing in mind these meanings of the what Rationalism really is can we not see that it is in fact Religion that encourages the development of Reason and in fact the Naturalists that rely not on Reason but on their Appetitive and Emotional minds.

@AIO,

Pastor AIO:

I wonder when you guys are actually going to present an argument as to why the other is wrong and you are right, rather than just dissing each other and hurling insults. It's all rather boring, I feel.

I apologise, but if you notice I made clear that my reposte was not directed to put reindeer on spotlight; just that in general we often hear the same recycled statement made again and again where people who spout them really haven't taken the time to examine the real issues. When I replied thus, I was online (Yahoo IM) and discussing with an atheist friend who at that time just posted about the same time. I asked him to carefully retrace his steps to his "highpriest" (Dawkins) and understand that when the latter made that inference, he actually argued to say that all "real scientists" are atheists! The crap - that idea has been largely rejected even by many intelligent atheists around the world! The one thing we can agree on (as someone has said) is that atheism is not science!

Anyhow, I appreciate your contribution above. However, I'm a bit concerned that while the general idea is carried, people who read with a critical mind might mistake your inference. Let me give a few examples:

Pastor AIO:

And I also resent the way the word Rationalism is used. I think they should use the word Naturalism because that is really what they are advocating. Naturalism says that there is no supernatural world and that everything can be explained by natural forces.

Well, I think Rationalism is precisely the very same thing as Naturalism. Perhaps what you had in mind for the distinction was rather "Rationality" (as against "Rational[b]ism[/b]". The difference could be as outlined below:

(a) rationality - 'the state of having good sense and sound judgment'

(b) Rationalism - '(philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge is acquired by reason without resort to experience'; also 'the theological doctrine that human reason rather than divine revelation establishes religious truth'.

(c) Naturalism - "(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"

You can see that both (b) and (c) are closely linked, and are together different from (a) above.

While it's my position that Christianity is not to be misconstrued for "rationalism", I yet maintain that we are called upon to engage our rational faculties (ie., our reasoning, mental, and intellectual faculties). Does the Biblical faith involve "reasoning"? I believe Isaiah makes the point in stating this: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD" (Isaiah 1:18 ). However, the Biblical faith is not a matter of "rationality", because it is based on divine revelation and supernatural explanations.

The real world we live in cannot simply be explained coherently only on naturalistic terms. Often times, naturalism is unable to qualify the "supernatural" occurences which we know exist in our perception of the real world; thus, we have to learn to appreciate them in their other causes (ie., "super-natural" causes).

Thank you for the ducation pastor AIO.

some of the questions that started getting me fed up with religion include the following.

God is all knowing.based on inductive reasoning as you have stated, that means that he knew man was going to mess up with the tree in the garden of eden right? if thats the case why did he allow it to continue?why make the 'tree of life' in the first place when he knew its going to be the source of human problems?
even at that why make the angel that later turned into the devil when he knew what his end is going to be?
So if he still went ahead to make man despite seeing all the troubles ahead of him and seeing all that will befall him then i believe the following assumptions can be made

1. that he was just being sadistic by making man that he knew will fall, that he would have to send his only begotten son, that some people will not listen to that son and he even decided to prepare hell for those whom he made whom he knows will not listen.isnt that strange to you?

2. or we can assume he was powerless to stop some events from happening and only had to make plan B's

3. Except maybe,he's not all knowing

4. It just rings strange to me that there will be a God who made humans and loves them yet will allow so much suffering even to the innocents among them

tell me sir, do we have our facts right about the concept of God?or is he a human creation to make up for our inadequacies or to explain phenomena that we dont have enough reasearch about?

i wasnt exchanging words or 'diss' with the pilgrim fellow,no!that will be wasteful, his post did have a near belligerent tone.but its okay, he doesnt know my innermost quests so its only normal he has assumptions about me.

As to possibility of religion and rationalism coexisting, well id say no, they are mutually exclusive because i don't think rationality will accomodate tye concept of 'faith' whihc is very central to religion.That just implies you don't know but you accept anyway and you ask,is that rational?

reindeer:

Thank you for the ducation pastor AIO.

some of the questions that started getting me fed up with religion include the following.

God is all knowing.based on inductive reasoning as you have stated, that means that he knew man was going to mess up with the tree in the garden of eden right? if thats the case why did he allow it to continue?why make the 'tree of life' in the first place when he knew its going to be the source of human problems?
even at that why make the angel that later turned into the devil when he knew what his end is going to be?
So if he still went ahead to make man despite seeing all the troubles ahead of him and seeing all that will befall him then i believe the following assumptions can be made

1. that he was just being sadistic by making man that he knew will fall, that he would have to send his only begotten son, that some people will not listen to that son and he even decided to prepare hell for those whom he made whom he knows will not listen.isnt that strange to you?

2. or we can assume he was powerless to stop some events from happening and only had to make plan B's

3. Except maybe,he's not all knowing

4. It just rings strange to me that there will be a God who made humans and loves them yet will allow so much suffering even to the innocents among them

tell me sir, do we have our facts right about the concept of God?or is he a human creation to make up for our inadequacies or to explain phenomena that we don't have enough reasearch about?

i wasnt exchanging words or 'diss' with the pilgrim fellow,no!that will be wasteful, his post did have a near belligerent tone.but its okay, he doesnt know my innermost quests so its only normal he has assumptions about me.

In short your own idea of "God" is an invisible fellow up there who makes everything bliss while not interfering in your daily life. You are free to build a temple to that "god".

The God of the bible is different . . . trying to ascribe the ills of the world to Him makes no sense. The world is where it is today because MAN made the "rational" choice to ruin it. Is war, famine, disease, discrimination, racism, slavery the handiwork of religion?

reindeer:

As to possibility of religion and ratioanlity coexisting, well id say no, they are mutually exclusive because i don't think rationality will accomodate tye concept of 'faith' whihc is very central to religion.That just implies you don't know but you accept anyway and you ask,is that rational?

Ok lets try to be "rational" . . . do you believe there is an afterlife or are you gone completely when you die?

In summary why would a perfect being have imperfect creations?
I learnt loads.

Chrisbenogor:

In summary why would a perfect being have imperfect creations?
I learnt loads.

Why would a perfectly responsible parent have kids into drugs?
Simply because the creator has chosen to allow his creations the right of choice to make their own decisions . . . whether right or wrong.

davidylan:

Why would a perfectly responsible parent have kids into drugs?
Simply because the creator has chosen to allow his creations the right of choice to make their own decisions . . . whether right or wrong.

your analogy falls flat because no parent has ever claimed to be all knowing, all powerful and all merciful. . . no child prays to his parents for protection from diseases, and all types of dangers, but people pray to their god for such things. . . . and no parent has ever claimed to be perfect. . . . . There was no choice in the old testament its either you obey the laws and commandments of the hebrew god or you he kills you if he does'nt he sends his prophets or wild animals to do the job for him. . . . so stop talking about choice. . .

@mazaje,

mazaje:

your analogy falls flat because no parent has ever claimed to be all knowing, all powerful and all merciful. . . no child prays to his parents for protection from diseases, and all types of dangers, but people pray to their god for such things.

I have watched with bemused interest and hoped that someone with good thinking could point that out to our dear reindeer.

mazaje:

your analogy falls flat because no parent has ever claimed to be all knowing, all powerful and all merciful. . . no child prays to his parents for protection from diseases, and all types of dangers, but people pray to their god for such things. . . . and no parent has ever claimed to be perfect. . . . . There was no choice in the old testament its either you obey the laws and commandments of the hebrew god or you he kills you if he does'nt he sends his prophets or wild animals to do the job for him. . . . so stop talking about choice. . .

Rise above your petty dogmatism . . . it clouds your ability to understand the issues others pass across. That (in bold) was not the issue, rather it was simply meant to create another way by which to view Chrisbenogor's statement: why would a perfect being have imperfect creations?

I ask then . . . why would perfectly responsible parents raise a child who turns out a drug addict?

The answer to both questions is - the power of choice!

- To your tired, over-used and irrelevant claim that there was no choice in the old testament . . . again your ability to understand it is based on your own willingness to see opposing opinion.

In the old testament days . . . religion = politics hence religious laws would automatically be quite similar to our secular laws of today. Modern day laws say a rapist can face the death sentence, how was that different to the laws of 4000yrs ago where idolaters (disobedience to the law) could face the death sentence? It is unfortunate that in your beclouded state you constantly seek to judge 4000 yr old states by values of today. Sickeningly absurd.

As regards talking about choice . . . it is more than RELEVANT today. Forget about what happened 5000 yrs ago, it is frankly a misused smokescreen . . . you have a choice TODAY . . . to ignore God and stop bothering about religious threads or to face the truth of salvation.

reindeer:

As to possibility of religion and rationalism coexisting, well id say no, they are mutually exclusive because i don't think rationality will accomodate tye concept of 'faith' whihc is very central to religion.

Hmmm, how could I help you now, dear reindeer? Look at the two words you are confusing: "rationality" and "rationalism". These two are worlds apart and never mean the same thing! Yea, I guess because they sort of 'role' on our tongues in pronuncitaion, many people are unable to distinguish between the two! Phew, I tire.

It is just as in the case of people who misconstrue "simpli[b]city[/b]" for "simplis[b]tic[/b]". . . hehe, they are not the same!



Edited:

On the question of the topic, I would agree with reindeer that religion and rationalism are mutually exclsuive - as far as the Christian faith is concerned.

davidylan:

Rise above your petty dogmatism . . . it clouds your ability to understand the issues others pass across. That (in bold) was not the issue, rather it was simply meant to create another way by which to view Chrisbenogor's statement: why would a perfect being have imperfect creations?

I ask then . . . why would perfectly responsible parents raise a child who turns out a drug addict?

The answer to both questions is - the power of choice!

- To your tired, over-used and irrelevant claim that there was no choice in the old testament . . . again your ability to understand it is based on your own willingness to see opposing opinion.

In the old testament days . . . religion = politics hence religious laws would automatically be quite similar to our secular laws of today. Modern day laws say a rapist can face the death sentence, how was that different to the laws of 4000yrs ago where idolaters (disobedience to the law) could face the death sentence? It is unfortunate that in your beclouded state you constantly seek to judge 4000 yr old states by values of today. Sickeningly absurd.

As regards talking about choice . . . it is more than RELEVANT today. Forget about what happened 5000 years ago, it is frankly a misused smokescreen . . . you have a choice TODAY . . . to ignore God and stop bothering about religious threads or to face the truth of salvation.

why are you always using human activities to justify the actions of your god? i said men created god/gods in their own image simple. . . .  the men of 4000 years ago created god in their own image so are the men of today. . . . . the hebrew god said he is perfect. do you know what it means to be perfect? the hebrew god said he is all knowing but his actions in the bible are all to the contarary. . . . . the only thing that is absurd is the 100 You turn the hebrew god made from the old testament to the new teatament. . . .  why did the hebrew god change and grow with humanity. . . . ? he is suppsoed to be perfect isnt he? thats why i think allah has some guts he said his revelations in the koran were final and needs no innovation and most moslems try to adhere to his laws as was written in the koran. . . the bible said that the hebrew god is the same yesterday, today and forever. . . . why did he order the death and destruction of his enemies in the oldtestament and not now? why did he change. . .  the bible says he never repents and he never changes why the change from an all perfect being. . . . . by the way why was religion=politics in the old testament and not now? your answers make no sense to me i must say. . . . . by the way what happened 5000 years ago is still relevant when we are discussiing about a diety that is supposed to be the same today, yesterday and for ever. . .

mazaje:

why are you always using human activities to justify the actions of your god?

- Because we are human, not gods.
- because that is the easiest way to understand complex issues.
- because that way we can more understand the thinking of the God who made us.

Even the bible says it categorically, we use the physical to understand the spiritual. John says it even better . . . how can you hate your brother whom you see and claim to love God you cannot see?

It is also one reason Christ spoke in parables . . . an avenue to use physical things they could easily comprehend to understand the workings of heaven.

Now i ask a hypothetical question - why are you obsessively opposed to using human activities to justify the action of God?
- Because you know they expose your supposed "questions" as empty and devoid of a genuine thirst for knowledge.

You'd be better off if we just answered all your questions with - "God knows best".

mazaje:

the men of 4000 years ago created god in their own image so are the men of today. . . . .

. . . in short, God does not exist. On what basis then are you even on this thread?

mazaje:

do you know what it means to be perfect?

I'm sure the definition of "perfect" is not exclusively yours. What is "perfect" to you may not be to your neighbour.

mazaje:

by the way what happened 5000 years ago is still relevant when we are discussiing about a diety that is supposed to be the same today, yesterday and for ever. . .

God is the same yesterday, today and forever . . . unfortunately man isnt. That is the reason what happened 5000 yrs ago isnt applicable today. Unlike the jews of yesteryears . . . we now have a secular government that actively strives to separate church and state. Long long ago church was the state.

  . . . in short, God does not exist. On what basis then are you even on this thread?

To reiteraite what i have been saying all along.

I'm sure the definition of "perfect" is not exclusively yours. What is "perfect" to you may not be to your neighbour.

The hebrew god said he is perfect but has done very imperfect things as far as i am concerned. . . . . .

God is the same yesterday, today and forever . . . unfortunately man isnt. That is the reason what happened 5000 years ago isnt applicable today. Unlike the jews of yesteryears . . . we now have a secular government that actively strives to separate church and state. Long long ago church was the state.

what happened 5000 years ago is still important when dealing with a diety that made all the laws at that time. . .  the never changing and all perfect god made all those babaric laws not men hence its relevance . . . . for example. . . . God will kill children and unborn fetuses because their parents worship other gods (Hosea 13:16).God will force fathers and sons to eat each other and scatter their remembrance (Ezekiel 5:10
God will kill men, have their children smashed, and have their wives raped (Isaiah 13:15-16).  even the men at that time i believe were disgusted by such a god for making such laws. . . . why was he so unforgiven, vindictive ,belligerant and so wicked. . . . . men never made most of the old testament laws god did, why where his laws so outright mean and wicked. . . . .why was he so quick to anger and destruction? why did he punish people for the sins of their parents? sins they never commited?  why didnt he give his followers the choice the people like the one people have today. . . . ?

mazaje:

To reiteraite what i have been saying all along.

which is essentially 2 things:
1. Nothing
2. Tired old repetition of the same debunked claims we've heard for the last 200yrs.

mazaje:

The hebrew god said he is perfect but has done very imperfect things as far as i am concerned. . . . . .

Depends on who's defining "perfection". I dont think you're unbiased enough to do so.

mazaje:

what happened 5000 years ago is still important when dealing with a diety that made all the laws at that time. . . why didnt he give his followers the choice the people like the one people have today. . . . ?

What is the relevance of that question 5000yrs after? Which is your point? That the people of those days had no choice? how does that affect you?

davidylan:

which is essentially 2 things:
1. Nothing
2. Tired old repetition of the same debunked claims we've heard for the last 200yrs.

Depends on who's defining "perfection". I don't think you're unbiased enough to do so.

What is the relevance of that question 5000yrs after? Which is your point? That the people of those days had no choice? how does that affect you?

what happened 5000 years ago is still important when dealing with a diety that made all the laws at that time. . . the never changing and all perfect god made all those babaric laws not men hence its relevance . . . . for example. . . . God will kill children and unborn fetuses because their parents worship other gods (Hosea 13:16).God will force fathers and sons to eat each other and scatter their remembrance (Ezekiel 5:10
God will kill men, have their children smashed, and have their wives raped (Isaiah 13:15-16). even the men at that time i believe were disgusted by such a god for making such laws, men would hane made better and more tolerating laws. . . . why was he so unforgiven, vindictive ,belligerant and so wicked. . . . . men never made most of the old testament laws god did, why where his laws so outright mean and wicked. . . . .why was he so quick to anger and destruction? why did he punish people for the sins of their parents? sins they never commited?. . . . . . it only points out to the fact that men created god at that time and now created a new one to fit the new way of life and understanding of the world. . . . .

Dear david

you should realise that being on this thread means more than just coming here to come and dispel the idea of God, no. Its also an evidence of a search to know the truth about what we have been taught since we were kids.

the analogy of perfect parents just doesnt do it, men are supposed to have 'choice' and do either good or evil right?lets say thats ok by me but i would then wonder,did God have a choice as to the type of creatures he made?could he have decided to make more perfect beings who would make all the right choices and give him less headaches?See all the questions arose because i saw a world that has its fingers on the self-destruct button,and this is the same world that he made with his own hands(isnt it?),and the same world that he loved so much and gave his son for, how come he just watches as the innocent suffer?if you say thats cos of our choices,cant he do anything about it?doesnt he love them anymore?Cant he send another begotten son or has he run out of creative powers?
humans have a choice yes, but does God?
Mr pilgrim,sorry about the error, it was a typo.
Can someone tell me why a perfect God will love israel more than other nations when he made all of them and put his likeness into each and every human?
Take the story of Noah, after making humans and seeing that they have run amock, he proceeded to wipe off everything to 'reset' the earth tune isnt it?but he should have known that humans would return to those ways and even do worse later on, yet he left them, and later in future he'll send all the wrongdoers to hell,oh Gosh , if he knew them from the beginning why make all the bad folks at all?
So i ask, is he really all knowing?will you as a human who isnt all knowing go ahead with creation when you know how they'll end up?
im still bothered, i need real answers.
thanks

@reindeer,

reindeer:

Mr pilgrim,sorry about the error, it was a typo.

No worries, guessed as much.

reindeer:

Can someone tell me why a perfect God will love israel more than other nations when he made all of them and put his likeness into each and every human?

The real question is not so much about those whom God loves - that could be stretched beyond just merely Israel. If you have carefully studied even the Biblical texts themselves, you would understand that there were other nations besides Israel who knew and had fellowship with God long before the nation of Israel was born.

The case of Israel is one of a covenant relationship - and God Himself reminded them that it was not about anything special in themselves that qualified them for His love; but rather because He established His love with them based upon His covenant with their progenitors (see, for example, Deut. 4:37 and 7:7-8). Further on, He reiterates the fact that their special privilege was not based upon what they might have claimed as their righteousness, but rather because of the wickedness of those who preceded them ("^(a)Not for thy righteousness . . . ^(b)but for the wickedness of these nations" - Deut. 9:4-5). If one is to examine your line of argument for a perfect God, it is simply a well established case that a perfect God will detest wickedness in any nation.

However, because people often tend to be simplistic in their idiosyncrasies in discussions of this nature, I often wonder if they are asking the real questions of the day. If you have your own concept of "a perfect God", it would only be sensible to share that knwoledge with others and then let them weigh your presuppositions. The argument against the convictions of other people while proferring no alternatives is simply a lazy and intellectually dense attitude in discussing any matter.

Now, the question is this: what is your own concept of a perfect God, and have you found that god for yourself?

The silliness of the whole argument is quite unfortunate. It is as much as proposing to find "a perfect man", and if that man fails to qualify by a set of preconceived and biased assumptions, then we berate the entire human race! Just in the same vein, one might wonder if you have knowledge of a "perfect God" to assume this theory of assumptions. This is not about whether God exists or not; rather, the case seems to be polarized now about the quest to find your idea of a "perfect God". The simplistic case of arguing on the basis of God's love for Israel demonstrates how narrow people tend to think, especially when they haven't carefully examined the Biblical texts for themselves and examined the backdrop of the issues they intend to query.

reindeer:

the analogy of perfect parents just doesnt do it, men are supposed to have 'choice' and do either good or evil right?lets say thats ok by me but i would then wonder,did God have a choice as to the type of creatures he made?

God will not make a choice for you to do evil - if that is your choice. You're poorly drawing your inferences by pretext rather than context. The result of man's choice in doing evil does not question the idea of God's choice in the "type" of creatures He made. What has your choice (good or evil) got to do with your origin (being created by God)? One's choices to do evil has nothing to do with who created him or how he was created.

In the broader scheme of things, we know how many people care less about spirituality or religion, and yet do not wait to be educated about their choices to do evil. Yes, they choose to be "evil" for no religious reasons; and that reality is with us in every country of the world. However, not many people are asking questions about that reality.

reindeer:

im still bothered, i need real answers.

I can understand why these issues may be worrisome to you - and you're not alone. No one should disparage you for your concerns. However, a more helpful way of looking at issues and finding answers is to ask the real questions. The question of God's love and man's choices are interpreted variously; but the real question begins to emerge when one considers the veracity of each worldview that is being proposed.

Let me explain what I mean by a perfect God having imperfect creations.
We all know that human beings have a weakness, which is the tendency to do evil, if God is perfect why is his creation imperfect and then if punishes them for being human beings.
There are many possible answers ranging from the possibility that God is either not "omnimax" and capable of mistakes to that he enjoys watching the battle going on within us everyday.
Popular among there is the concept of freewill does not hold water, being a Supreme being he should have known the effect of what giving human beings freewill will be only to punish them for exercising that which they did not ask for. Then the remedy to save becomes sending his only son to remedy the situation by dying for his creation, death is the way to appease a supreme being.
The truth is either way one cannot totally prove the existence or the opposite of it, so just believe in whatever gets you through the night.