Reason and ridicule

I appreciate the good points mentioned in the article and its comments to defend religion reasonably. Regards

Is Islam a universal religion?:Nothing is left on blind-faith

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3806300-post302.html

paarsurrey wrote:

The Truthful Revelation is always reasonable; the One-True-God is All-Wise; so the revelation has to be reasonable, if correctly understood.

Peaceful dialogue with reasonable arguments is the language of correct understanding between human beings. Revelation helped by reason or reason helped by Revelation is the source of knowledge that could be acquired in the ethical, moral and spiritual realms. Islam provides it in the practical life.

It is for this that Islam is called a global or universal religion. Nothing is left on blind-faith.

Regards

Rational argumentation and Revelation both help to determine which religion is true

The viewers are advised to visit the link given below to know the context of the discussion and then form their own independent and sincere opinion.

http://anaivethinker.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/how-i-became-an-atheist/comment-page-1/#comment-129

paarsurrey | April 2, 2014 at 11:03 am

@ anaivethinker | April 1, 2014 at 9:50 pm
“Do you think that rational argumentation is sufficient to determine which religion is true, if any?
-Brandon” Unquote

Reason is a bounty that the One-True-God has bestowed on us the human beings and it is common to everybody believers or non-believers. Some use it most while some don’t use it much. As one sees with eyes things that are physical and material; for inner reflection reason is sort of inner tool of seeing.

Reason of itself is blind; it always needs a conjugal partner to ascertain things. For things happened in the past reason needs history or archaeology etc., for the present one needs radio, television, newspaper and for future just a conjecture.

Human eyes cannot see things without light; human ear needs a medium to hear.

The conjugal partner of reason to find the one true God is Word of Revelation; neither science nor the scientific method. Science can only deal in the things material and physical; not even the spiritual things.

The one true God created everything physical, material and spiritual; and he is out of these realms or dimensions. He is everywhere with His attributes though.

With all its merits reason cannot lead one to certainty; the maximum reason can guide us to is that there should be a God; the Revelation leads one to certainty.

One should not believe in myths; myths could be reasoned out and that is very good.

Regards

How to make a comparative study of Religion?

Please click the following link to get the context of the discussion.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/comments/belief/#comment-8876

paarsurrey
MAR 25, 2014 @ 23:05:55

@unkleE :MAR 21, 2014 @ 03:22:18
Quote : “Hi paarsurrey, how are you going?
You have built this comment around the statement that to know God, we need a revealed book. What you say raises three questions in my mind:
1. Must God reveal himself through a book? Could he ever do it some other way?
2. How do we know which book is the truest revelation of God?
3. How would you propose to discuss these things? If, for example, you simply quoted the Koran and I quoted the Bible, we would get nowhere. So how else can we discuss?
Thanks.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend
I am fine.

“The statement that to know God, we need a revealed book”

I think I did not literally make that statement. Well, I don’t object if one has got that understanding from the post.

unkleE : “to know God, we need a revealed book”
Paarsurrey: To know God and as to how his attributes work; His Word is most useful for that purpose.

I think you also agree with me on this point.

Don’t you?

I try to answer to your other questions below:

1. unkleE :“Must God reveal himself through a book?

Paarsurrey: I think you agree that God revealed Himself on Moses and Jesus; and a Jew or Christian cannot deny that.

Perhaps you want to know from me as to why He did manifest in this way.

Since the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is only attributive; He is not a physical or spiritual being that we could see Him with our physical eyes; though we can see his attributes working behind everything in Nature, in silence.

Yet it has always been primarily His communication or Converse through which He had manifested to human beings. Hence the importance of the spoken Word of Revelation which is verbal when revealed and also secured in writing, in the book form, is the most important source of guidance that leads to Him; it can never be over-emphasized.

Nature manifests Him silently but the Word speaks of Him loudly.

unkleE : “Could he ever do it some other way?”

Paarsurrey: Yes; He could manifest Himself in diverse ways; and nobody could limit the ways of his manifestations; yet He cannot be limited by anybody or forced by anybody to change His ways:

[35:44] …………………………….. But thou wilt never find any change in the way of Allah; nor wilt thou ever find any alteration in the way of Allah.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=35&verse=43

For one; all truthful revelation from the One-True-God is to be believed; be it of the past, present and or future; be it on Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad etc; all is to be believed; being from the same source of one God.

2. unkleE: How do we know which book is the truest revelation of God?

Paarsurrey:
a. By comparative study

b. And the reasonable inner-evidence of the Word Revealed according to the attributes of the One-True-God. We could do that; not at all difficult to discern.

3. unkleE: How would you propose to discuss these things? If, for example, you simply quoted the Koran and I quoted the Bible, we would get nowhere.

Paarsurrey: I think you have observed me quoting from the revelations of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad in this connection; I don’t think it will pose a problem even now.

These quotes should not depict simply the authority of God; but the reason/wisdom content in the same must reflect the attribute of God being All-Wise. The quotes must therefore be full of evident reason and wisdom. The gist of the reason must exist there.

It is not a perfect Book if it needs external reasons to be provided; that portion which is devoid of reason must not be from Him.

Nobody is entitled to put words into God’s mouth; He is all-knowing.

Does it help?

What is your thinking on your three questions?

Regards

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/comments/belief/#comment-8878

paarsurrey
MAR 26, 2014 @ 11:53:30
@unkleE: MAR 26, 2014 @ 06:54:25

“if we discuss the revelations we each believe in, how can we draw any conclusions? ”

I think I said that I believe all truthful Word revealed from the One-True-God on His prophets messengers; I even mentioned names of some of them.

I don’t see any problem.

“unless we already have some truth outside the books by which to judge their truth”

If the revelation is truthful; it would have inner truthful evidences also.

“We would need some criteria by which to make our comparisons”

I mentioned reasonable criteria.

“I was using historical and scientific learning”

People write history differently; it is not 100% correct. There was a period when there existed no written history; Truth existed even then.

Science is only a child of the yesterday and works in the things physical and material; Religion guides in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; both work in different spheres. Science cannot prove or disprove important subjects of religion like existence of God.

This is what I think; others could think differently

Regard

Reason has its own limitations; it cannot go beyond

http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/the-omnimalevolent-creator-and-the-problem-of-good/#comment-8843

paarsurrey
March 22, 2014 at 7:28 am

@captaincatholic ; March 20, 2014 at 5:15 pm
“paarsurrey–
You’re helping me to understand Islam and I appreciate that. I suspect that, just as it is with Christianity, some adherents are stubborn and shallow in their thinking and say thoughtless things that sound completely outrageous to intelligent people who are honestly trying to get at the truth; whereas some (I would count you in this group) have done a little bit of thinking on their own and therefore look for a deeper meaning or a more profound truth behind the teachings of their own tradition.
I don’t think the religious split is between Muslims and Christians and Jews and Atheists and . I think the religious split is between the narrow minded and the open minded in any system of belief.” Unquote

I think I agree with you; except that the Atheists say that they don’t follow any belief system; if I have correctly understood them.

It is good that they prefer reason and that is good, not a bad thing; it is one bounty that the One-True-God has bestowed us the human beings and is common to everybody, some use it most while some don’t use it much. As one sees with eyes things that are physical and material; for inner reflection reason is sort of inner tool of seeing.

Like eyes cannot see clearly even things material and physical that are very close or that are far-off from the eyes; so the reason has its limitations also; it cannot go beyond that.

One should not believe in myths; myths could be reasoned out and that is very good.
I think you are a reasonable Catholic Christian.

Pleasure to meet you

Thanks and regards

P.S.I visited your blog.

Playing politics “in the name of Atheism” rather than sticking to reason and tolerance

Paarsurrey at blog: “Confessions Of A YEC”

“Mis-quoting others, atheists being dicks”

http://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com/
http://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/mis-quoting-others-atheists-being-dicks/#comment-1264

paarsurrey | March 6, 2014 at 20:09

@ confessionsofayec

“Now this particular individual is rather outspoken and like to say things that shock and will argue them until the other party gives up. Some of his posts and comments are so abrasive that my wife has blocked his comments from showing on her feed. He certainly isn’t the type to admit a mistake easily, so I wasn’t particularly surprised when his response to my correction was to reply that whoever said it, it was effing funny.

It is this kind of atheist that, sadly, gives the rest of us a bad name and it is this kind of mentality that, also sadly, many people of a religious persuasion imagine when they think of atheists. I know that is the sort of person I thought most atheists were because that is what I had been warned about many times growing up.

The truth of course, is that this is not characteristic of most atheists, it is simply that this is the kind of atheist that gets noticed the most.” Unquote

I don’t think there are many serious and positive atheists anymore. From the time they had started sort of following Richard Dawkins as their leader; under his direction they have adopted derision and ridicule as their prime tool of “Atheistic preaching”; this has taken them afar from reason and dialogue. This has made them stubborn, arrogant and intolerant of others. They enjoy fellow atheists who support them and sort of reassure them of their ideology “atheism”.
I would say the new-atheists; about 99% of them have become like this.

One other dilemma of a universal divide is that the Atheists almost collectively are siding with the religious extremists; that they are bent upon proving that Religions teach violence even to the moderate adherents of religions; I don’t know what benefit accrues to them from this.

In my opinion they are creating a wrong religious phobia.

If there had been people with vested interests who played politics “in the name of religion”, now there are people who play politics “in the name of Atheism” and the like; flip side of the same coin.

Of course on could differ with me; but that is my experience with the Atheists.

“The Sanctification Cloak”: “God said it”: “the reason content”- not the authority to stifle questioning

I posted following comments: blog “triangulations” topic “The Sanctification Cloak”: link:

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/the-sanctification-ploy/

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/the-sanctification-ploy/#comment-124513

paarsurrey
02/22/2014 at 4:41 pm
@ Sabio Lantz
““God said it.”
“When you declare that a god told you something, you are attempting to shut down the discussion. We are not suppose to question the gods. By declaring that a god declared some ‘truth’, you are using the sanctification cloak to stop all questioning.” Unquote

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 has introduced a different notion of “God said it”; he ( and most of his followers) presents the reason content in the quote not the quote as an authority. If one understands the reason content in the quote, that is sufficient , otherwise one could ignore it.

We don’t stop anybody from questioning; one could still question.

We can still quote from the “God said it”, for the reason content in the quote.

So on and so forth.

Please

In response to Challenge of Sam Harris : Reason, passions and Morality

In response to Challenge of Sam Harris, I have sent the following essay:

Reason, passions and Morality

The topic of morality has little relevance with science; hence this topic has never been discussed in any text book of science as to its claim or the reasons in this regards. The question relates to religion as its nature suggests.

The true relationship between the human morals viz-a-viz natural human instincts has been discussed and explained in the book “Philosophy of Teachings of Islam” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) – the Promised Messiah. I will provide a summary of it below mostly in his words.

Natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities.

For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good-mannered. In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.

A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.

A human infant, as soon as it is born, seeks its mother’s breasts, and a chicken, as soon as it is hatched begins to pick up corn. In the same way the spawn of a leech behave like a leech, a baby serpent behaves like a serpent and a tiger cub behaves like a tiger. A human infant begins to exhibit human reactions as soon as it is born and those reactions become more and more remarkable as it begins to grow up. For instance, its weeping becomes louder, and its smiles become laughter, and its gaze becomes more concentrated.

At the age of a year or eighteen months it develops another natural trait: it begins to display its pleasure and displeasure through its movements and tries to strike someone or to give something to someone. All these motions are natural impulses. Similarly a barbarian who possesses little human sense is like such an infant and displays natural impulses in his words, actions and movements and is governed by his natural emotions.

Nothing proceeds from him in consequence of the exercise of his inner faculties. Whatever surges up from his inside under the operation of a natural impulse and as a reaction to external stimuli, becomes manifest. It is possible that his natural impulses that are exhibited as a reaction to an external stimulus may not all be vicious, and some might resemble good morals, but they are normally not the consequences of reasonable reflection and consideration, and even if they are to some degree so motivated they cannot be relied upon on account of the domination of natural impulses.
In short we cannot attribute true morals to a person who is subject to natural impulses like animals or infants or the insane, and who lives more or less like animals. The time of true morals, whether good or bad, begins when a person’s reason becomes mature and he is able to distinguish between good and bad and the degree of evil and goodness, and begins to feel sorry when he misses an opportunity of doing good and is remorseful when he has done some wrong. This is the second stage of his life which is designated by the Holy Quran the self that reproves.

True Courage: Of the natural conditions of man is that which resembles courage, as an infant sometimes seeks to thrust his hand into the fire on account of its natural condition of fearlessness. In that condition a person fearlessly confronts tigers and other wild beasts and issues forth alone to fight a large number of people. Such a one is considered very brave. But this is only a natural condition that is found even in savage animals and in dogs.

To be steadfast against every personal passion or against any calamity that attacks like an enemy and not to run away out of cowardice is true courage. Thus, there is a great difference between human courage and the courage of a wild beast. A wild animal is moved only in one direction when it is roused, but a man who possesses true courage chooses confrontation or non-resistance whichever might be appropriate to the occasion.
I give below a passage from the book:

“It is characteristic of the human self that it incites man to evil and is opposed to his attainment of perfection and to his moral state, and urges him towards undesirable and evil ways. Thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals. When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then these three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states.” Unquote

Click to access Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

One may like to read answer to the “FIRST QUESTION- The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” from the above book to understand the topic of morality fully.

Reason and Passion: in religion

Reason and Passion: in religion and government
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/reason-and-passion-in-religion-and-government/

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/reason-and-passion-in-religion-and-government/#comment-123860

paarsurrey
02/06/2014 at 11:15 am

I think Sam Harris has not understood the true relationship between the human morals viz-a-viz natural human instincts; which has truly been explained in the book “Philosophy of Teachings of Islam”. Sam Harris should read the question and its answer given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the above named book. I think he will get convinced and save the prize money also. Sorry for Jonathan Haidt, he may lose.

I give below a passage from the book:

“It is characteristic of the human self that it incites man to evil and is opposed to his attainment of perfection and to his moral state, and urges him towards undesirable and evil ways. Thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals. When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then these three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states.” Unquote

Click to access Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

One may like to read answer to the “FIRST QUESTION- The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” from the above book; about twenty pages in all.

Language and Religion

I have written a comment on the “Triangulations” blog at the topic
“Language & Religion as Decorations”:

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/language-religion-as-decorations/

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/language-religion-as-decorations/#comment-123773

My comments are given below;

paarsurrey
02/04/2014 at 10:46 am

@ Sabio Lantz

I don’t get you exactly. Please elaborate.

Arabic is not my mother tongue; yet when Quran is recited in Arabic by a good Qari (a correct reciter); it spell bounds one.

Yet this is one quality of Quran; its real miracle is in its meanings, its message and its appeal to reason where reason could lead one to, reasonably.

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/language-religion-as-decorations/#comment-123773