Religion versus Reason - Term Paper Example

Religion vs. Reason The of Religion vs. Reason has remained controversial, with some people believing that the two are mutually exclusive, and yet others holding that the two must always go together. While reason refers to the concept of decision-making based on rationality and evidence, the concept of religion holds that faith, which constitutes a set of beliefs derived from dogma, traditions and religious is the essential factor in explaining the world (Alston, 242). Thus, although both reason and religion can co-exist together, they will always raise some conflicts, considering that each concept has a different way of looking at the world, and in most cases, these different ways emerge to be hostile to each other (Wolterstoff, 539). This is because, while the concept of reason requires that an individual should first question everything that goes on in the world, and thus act on the basis of the answers derived from the inquisitiveness, the concept of religion provides for the directly opposite. Religion provides that some of the things in the world can never be explained through human reasoning, and thus it is only through belief that man shall find meaning regarding such things (Fields, n.p.). Therefore, with religion, the explanation to such occurrences in the world can only derive from the revelation and divine message from God, which is true and thus indisputable. Therefore, according to religion, the scripture and the divine texts will always override any form of reason (Rolston, 72). This assertion is bitterly contested by the concept of reason, which argues that such doctrines and dogmas should not be held to be inerrant, and as such they should be questioned, so as to arrive at the true nature of the world (Murphy, 235). Thus, this discussion seeks to analyze the subject of Religion vs. Reason, with a view to arguing that reason explains the world better than religion. Reason provides for the rational analysis of everything found in the world, so that out of the rational analysis, the things of the world can be understood (Alston, 239). In this respect, reason becomes superior to religion in the explanation the world, since unlike religion, it does not prevent anything from being logically analyzed. The major weakness that is associated with religion is that, it fundamentally bases everything on belief and the religious teachings, but does not open the door for the teachings and the beliefs to be logically analyzed (Fields, n.p.). In this respect, the major question that arises, and which religion cannot answer is; how do the proponents of religion know what they know about religion, if they have not applied reasoning to reach conclusion about what religion means to them? The basic tenet of religion is revelation, which is simply the belief in information that cannot be verified and on belief that is never explained (Rolston, 77). The fact that there is a way in which some beliefs can just develop without some reasoning being involved is purely inconceivable. This is because, even where an individual opts to belief in one of the religious doctrines, dogmas or sacred texts, the individual does so on the basis of having evaluated the religious principles that are compatible with the personal beliefs and ideologies (Helm, 44). This simply means that even in the choice of the religion and the belief to uphold, reason is always the basis, and thus reason becomes superior to religion, in explaining the world. Secondly, reasons is superior to religion in explaining the world, considering that it advocates for blind trust, while at the same time opening avenues for diverse interpretations of the religious texts and the scripture (Peterson, 54). This mixed provision of religion serves to indicate that reasoning is paramount, and thus it cannot be done away with, even in matters of religion. While religion has fundamental principles that define the customs, beliefs and practices of religion, it has also opened a door for individual religious believers to interpret and apply the scripture and the religious doctrines in their own ways (Alston, 240). This explains why two different people can read the same part of the scripture or a sacred text, and then give totally different explanations regarding the same. In this respect, reason is allowed to take precedence over belief or any other religious principle, since it is only through reason that different individuals can manage to perceive a single concept and apply it differently. Thus, if religion was purely based on beliefs, dogmas and sacred teachings, there could only be a single way of interpreting every part of the scripture or the sacred texts, considering that without reason, one thing will mean the same to everyone (Murphy, 236). The bottom-line of religion is that; it begins with belief, and then goes ahead to apply reason, through which the individual questions the aspect of belief and evaluates all the different aspects of the belief to finally settle for one position of belief, which the individual can then defend and reinforce with the religious texts and the scripture (Fields, n.p.). This religious procedure is created by the fact that most of the doctrines are ambiguous, leaving room for the individual believers to apply their own perceptions and opinions. Therefore, if religion was superior to reason in explaining the world, it could only have a single mode of application. This means that all the religious believers would not have diverse interpretations and opinions regarding the same religious doctrine (Helm, 47). Further, reason is superior to religion in explaining the world, considering the fact that religion is based on the application of relevant authority to reinforce a position (Peterson, 63). Thus, any religious believer will have selective authority from the scripture or other religious and sacred texts, which reinforces what the individual believes in. This explains why religion is based on the scripture and other sacred texts, which are applied as the source of information that the religious believers place their trust in. In this respect, the question that religion should answer is: if reason is of no use in explaining the world, why does religion require some form of authority to reinforce the beliefs, customs and practices? The attempt to answer this question simply points to the fact that, while religion is based on belief and trust that does not question, it is even more based on reason, since it is through reason that the religious believers are able to select the relevant authority that applies to their beliefs. This is because, how would the defenders of religion be able to select the appropriate authority to reinforce and support their religious position, if reason was not involved in the process (Wolterstoff, 541). Secondly, why should the defenders of religion expect to be trusted as being right, while the defenders of reason are wrong? The only answer to this question is that; the religious defenders have applied the relevant reasoning in the religious doctrines, sacred texts and the scripture, making them able to defend a given religious position, obviously by way reason (Fields, n.p.). In this respect therefore, reason becomes a superior mode of explaining the world, as compared to religion. In addition, reason stands stronger than religion, when it relates to the concept of gut and instinct, versus informed decision-making. The major aspect that differentiates man and animals is the concept of reason (Rolston, 75). Both the animals and human share similar intuition in guts and instincts, and thus are able to make certain decisions regarding certain issues in a more hasty and haphazard manner, based on the gut and instinct drive, especially when in danger (Rolston, 75). However, the sole reason behind the fact that animals cannot be religious and thus they cannot express any religious inclinations is because they do not have the ability to reason. Thus, even when gut and instincts exists, allowing animals either to trust or distrust a situation, that is the farthest that the role of gut and instincts can go. It is therefore clear that the ability of man to surpass these limits and engage in further strongly reinforced beliefs that cannot be changed is because humans are able to apply reason to reinforce these beliefs that are first created by the guts and instincts. This is because, if there was no sense of reason applicable in religion, how then would religious believers be able to trust one thing today, and then keep the belief consistent throughout their religious lives, if reason was not the basis of reinforcing the beliefs, amidst the ever changing world of contradictions? If reason had no role to play in religion, then human beings would trust in one thing today but distrust the same the other time. This is what happens with animals, which could be comfortable in one environment today, but find it inhabitable the next day. However, the religious believers keep consistency in demonstrating what they believe in, simply because they are backed by the concept of reason, which in turn keeps them reinforced in their belief (Alston, 246). Therefore, reason serves as the basis of sustaining consistency in the religious beliefs and trust of the believers. Without reason, such believers could keep wavering from one religious position to the other, based on the different interpretations of the scripture and the sacred texts (Murphy, 231). This way, reason becomes superior is explaining the world, compared to religion. The other indication to the fact that reason is superior to religion in explaining the world is the answer to the question; why would the religious believers and defenders want to protect religion from being rationally and logically analyzed, rather opting to advocate for blind trust? The answer to this question is simply; due to the fact that the rational and logical analysis of religion would raise more questions that religion cannot be able to answer (Fields, n.p.). Thus, by reasoning that the concept of religion is full of questionable aspects that are not easy or even possible to defend, religion has in turn advocated for the application of belief and blind trust. However, the bottom-line is that; it is reason that has informed taking this position. This is because, were it not through reasoning that the numerous questions raised could not be answered, religion could have remained open to rational analysis, as it has remained open to different interpretations of the scripture and other sacred texts (Helm, 44). In addition, if the concept of reason was not informed, then, what would account for the existence of different religions in the world, which mainly stems from a single belief, but upholds completely different sets of religious principles? The answer is simply because reason is a major concept that informs religion, resulting to the emergence of different religious beliefs (Murphy, 237). Otherwise, the world would only have a single religion, completely based on a single doctrine, dogma and scripture. However, since the reality is different, reason is the major factor that accounts for the existence of different religions in the world. Thus, it is superior over religion, in explaining the world. Works Cited Alston, William. History of Philosophy of Religion. New York: Routledge, 1998. 238-248. Print. Fields, Douglas. “Religion and Reason: Analytic thinking decreases religious belief.” Psychology Today, April 26, 2012. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason Helm, Paul, ed. Faith and Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Murphy, Nancey. Religion and Science. New York: Routledge, 1998. 230-236. Print. Peterson, Michael. et al. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Rolston, Holmes. Science and Religion: A Critical Survey. New York: Random House, 1987. Print. Wolterstoff, Nicholas. Faith. London: Routledge, 1998. 538-544. Print. Read More