Is there such a thing as a Christian or a Muslim baby?

Any person who was born on this earth is born into a certain culture. That culture involves a set tradition, a historical background, an ethnic identity, and a religion. This means that babies are born into certain religions, and don't get to choose themselves what religion they want to follow. For example, if a baby who's parents are Arab and Muslim is born in Saudi Arabia, that baby is considered as Muslim from the moment it leaves its mother's womb. If a baby is born in a christian family in the Rome and is baptized, that baby is automatically Christian. However, being born or thrown into something doesn't always define one's belief system. Examples of this are observable when people convert to other religions. For example, a born Christian can convert to Islam, and vice versa. Nevertheless, babies have defined religions from the day they come into this world, as they are baptized or accepted into the religion or are put through whatever ritual their religion requires. So, babies can be classified as Muslims or Christians, even if they didn't choose their religion.

Being born into a religion doesn't necessarily determine one's belief system. One's choices define that person's belief system. Indeed, children and teens may forced by their parents to follow a certain religion, but once those teens become adults, they have the freedom to choose whichever religion or belief system they like. Most religion tolerate conversions, and if one is willing to embrace another religion, then it is that person's choice, and that is what defines that person's belief system. This is the case especially in the three monotheistic religions; Islam, Christianity and Judaism; as they all believe and follow the same God, a God who tolerates a believer to convert as long as that person truly believes in God.

There is a distinction between babies when talking about their religion, and that is because they were born into their religion. Some people consider this wrong, as they take away a human being's right of choice. However, the human being in question here is a baby, and babies do not have developed enough brains to make rational choices for themselves. That is where the parents intervene. They define the baby's religion, and because parents know what's best for their kids, they believe their religion is the one their baby has to follow.

Faith and its evidence

I believe that, since faith is an uncertain knowledge, it does not require any evidence. Faith is one of the few things that can't be taken away from you since it is up to you to decide whether to have faith or not. No matter how many times a person's faith is proved wrong, this person may still have faith since it somehow gives his/her life a meaning, a reason for existing. The most common example of this is religion. Atheists prove religion wrong every single day but there are still numerous people who do not give up their faith. The idea that there is a stronger power watching over us is an idea created by men, and since there is absolutely no solid evidence of its existence, which is exactly what atheists call their evidence. The lack of evidence to prove the existence of that divine power is what atheists use to prove their point. However, those that accept their theories and still believe are in possession of an humongous amount of faith. They do not need reason to believe. Some just need something to believe in, while others believe because they honestly think that their belief to be true with no solid evidence of this. Nevertheless, this idea, this belief, of a greater power above all men has been able to bring immense groups of people together without paying any attention to its lack of veracity. Furthermore, belief is only acquired when one is willing to open himself to the idea of a greater power and accept that it exists ignoring the lack of evidence supporting it. This is what we call faith. In the contrary, some people decide that society needs us to base our actions and decisions in ideas that have been proven to be correct with solid evidence.

Faith does not require any certain evidence since it is a personal choice whether to have faith or not. No one can make that choice for you since it is something you will have to decide on your own. 

'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins

Here is the link to an interesting documentary by Richard Dawkins called the 'The God Delusion'

http://freedocumentaries.org./teatro.php?filmID=349&lan=en&size=big

Faith and Reason

 Do you think faith and reason are incompatible? Why? Why not?

The idea of faith not only has an important role in our daily lives, but is also a means to knowledge. People tend to follow and acknowledge what they believe.  There are many common features in different religions, which some of them could be the belief of paradise and hell. For instance, both Jainism and Sikhism believe in an after birth. Most of the religions portray the belief in God. However, there are a couple of religions that portray the belief of an individual’s nature such as Taoism and Buddhism. Furthermore, there are many differences in these nine major world religions. For example, the religion of Hinduism is the belief that humans “are caught in samsara.” The Hindus believe in the atman soul. However, Christians believe in God and it is a great difference between these last mentioned two religions. Faith, however, is not on its own but is definitely related to faith.

In my opinion, every single person has a free will meaning one can choose the religion he or she wants to follow depending on what is logical and reasonable for that person. People may shape a reasonable belief through the experiences they go through in their lives. From these experiences, they may build up a logical and reasonable judgment. By the same token, faith plays in all areas of our lives. There are many people who believe in different religions. As it could be remarked in the world today, there are many people who tend to disrespect others due to their spiritual beliefs and might as well fall into a quarrel between each other. Many examples may be seen throughout our lives due to how each country may treat another due to that country’ s major spiritual belief. Narrowing this down to the specific, a religion gives one rules to follow during his or her life and that is what should be done. For example, there are some religions that do not permit the drinking of alcohol, which means that the people following that religion are not allowed to drink alcohol. In addition to this, it is

possible for faith to be explained in terms of reason. For example, we can simply know that God is always present with us because He shaped us in an extraordinary way. If every single person on this Earth would gather with each other in order to create a small leaf, it would not be possible because God is the One and He is the Almighty. Reason plays it all since there are many signs that show us, which is the true religion and with the brain that God gave us, we are able to think deeply about all the signs.

Reason does not only relief one, but also helps that person be sure about what he is believing. Being able to differentiate between reason and faith helps one build a belief system, which that person agrees to. Reason and faith come together since when one believes in something, that person would believe it until the subconscious had already developed a reason to believe in that thing. As reason increases, faith increases as well.

To conclude, I think that religion has the most significant impact on the paths of our lives. It does not only shape the way we live, but also the way we are and how we interact with other people. Religion is the best way to know what is best for one. Moreover, religion is based on both faith and reason. It is because we have faith that reason develops accordingly or vice versa. Finally, every single person may have a belief system, which is faith. However, reason is the best way to be able to defend what one is believing. 

Is there such a thing as a muslim baby, a hindu baby, and atheist baby ?

Babies are often forced to follow a certain religion since they are born. Usually what happens is that wether the baby is born into a muslim or christian family, he or she will most likely grow up and adopt the same religious beliefs as their family. 

Wether we follow a certain religion because it was imposed on us or because it is what believe is best for us is a question we should think about. I believe that most of us follow a certain religion because it is part of the environment where we were raised, thus we do not have much control over it. Choosing another religion other than that your entourage believes in is like betraying family traditions and rebelling against the old system. This is why people who change the religion they were originally born into are very rare. In fact, it takes a lot of courage to do that, because this may result in a lot of problems with the family. 

Since I was born into a muslim family, I grew up as a muslim and did not have much choice as to what religion I want to follow. Yet, I can not imagine myself going up to my parents and telling them that I don’t want to be a muslim anymore. This is because religion plays an important role in our culture and traditions. All of my family members are muslims. Therefore, if I choose to follow another religion, I will be the odd one out. Most people in Morocco who are born into muslim families do not change religions. We might also assume that most moroccans are muslims since Morocco is a muslim country. However, I have already met some Moroccans that are not muslims. Still, these people represent a minority in our country. This is because we are still not familiar and comfortable  enough with the concept of choosing our own religion freely. 

While it is important to respect family  traditions, it is also crucial for each individual to choose their own religion. Religion is belief system. Therefore, each of us should be free to follow a belief system that suits them best. Following a belief system that we do not believe in is ironic and contradicts the entire principle of religion. Going back to the question, I do not believe that there is such thing as a muslim, hindu or atheist baby since as babies we are not even aware of what religion is. Therefore, how can we associate ourselves with a certain religion at such a young age while we do not acquire any knowledge about this subject ? 

Are faith and reason compatible?

Question: Do you think faith and reason are compatible? Why? Why not?


          I personally think that faith and reason are completely incompatible. The simplest explanation for this is that reason relies on facts, evidence and experience while the basis of faith lies upon unproved beliefs. Using definition, we can say that faith and reason are opposites to each other. Centuries ago, when science had not yet told us the way our world functions and what humans are made of, people could only rely on faith to find explanations to the processes of life, such as bad harvests, reproduction and rainfall. Today, we can study physics and biology in order to answer those questions. I do not see any reasoning in faith, and disagree with the concept that faith leads to reasoning. Some claim that science derives from faith in the way that scientists put faith in their hypothesis before testing them. However, the difference between religion and science is that scientists have rational ways to conduct experiments in order to assess the validity of their hypotheses. When the tests have been performed, scientists accept or disregard their studies based on whether the data supports them or not. On the contrary religion has no logical way to be tested, because most of it consists of supernatural entities and ethics. Every single religion lays down its own vision of how life was made and what the purpose of life is, which is not rational in any way, considering our scientific and technological improvements. Even within the same religion, different people have different interpretation of holy texts and symbols. In addition, whereas reasoning is malleable in the way that hypotheses can be refuted, religion is solid and unchangeable. Our rational understanding of the world evolves alongside science, while our religious beliefs and the faith we put in them does not.

          Faith is disregarding logic and reason in order to believe something simply for the purpose of wanting to. Reason is accepting that the world functions a particular way on the basis of fact and evidence. Because there is no facts in religion, and no possible religious faith in reasoning, faith and reason are incompatible.

Faith and Reason

I think addressing only one essential question about the relationship between faith, rationality and knowledge would not do this topic justice. It is important to understand that yes, faith can be a way of knowledge, but that knowledge, does not necessarily mean truth. Faith is blindly accepting something for what it is, without evidence to support it; and there is still a difference between religious faith (to build your life around something baseless), and having faith in your friend to help you with math homework, for example. Reason and faith are completely incompatible because their very premises are incompatible with each other. Faith calls you to question the very foundations of logic and rationality, and you should do this without questioning, something that you would never do in your life. If I came to class and asked my classmates to have faith in me because I am the new Messiah, nobody would, yet I have the same amount of evidence as Jesus and Mohammed had.  Honestly, it is already absurd that faith is included as a way of finding the truth, because it is the most inefficient and lengthy way of finding it, not depending on human actions, but on a time frame. To address the question of religious scientists it is time to call upon the words of Lawrence Krauss, who said, when asked about this very topic: "You can be anything and be religious, you can be a gardner, a pedophile, anything!", to which the mediator of the debate said, "Mr. Krauss there is a very big difference between being religious and being a pedophile", to which he receive the monumental answer of "Not for the Catholic Church it's not". This exchange gives across a few important points. Firstly, unfortunately in the West religion can coexist with anything. Secondly, and more importantly, believing in the teachings of religion- which do contradict science- make one an ineffective scientist. Believing in god and science is just not compatible. Another weakness of faith is that it promises hope, a false hope. As Albert Camus explores through the Myth of Sisyphus, only through the embrace of the situation on earth will one achieve meaning, not by having false hopes of improvement. Because religious faith has this nature of illusion of an "afterlife", it is used to control people, as Marx said, as "opium". When people have a strong belief they will do anything to prove that they do, and to continue having it. The issue with religious faith, is that it is baseless, and that people still use it as an extremely important foundation for their lives, which, in any other case, would require some sort of proof or evidence before believing anything.

Is it possible to have ethics and morals without religious belief and the notion of reward and punishment?

Being an atheist does not make someone a bad person. Just because they don't believe in god does not mean that they believe doing wrong is okay. Religion is independent of whether someone has ethics or morals. Ethics and morals depend on how one was raised. Had I been an atheist, and had my parents raised me in the same way, I would still have had the same ethics and morals. If my parents were also atheist, they would too have the same morals. Although religion can influence a persons ethics and morals, being an atheist does not give a person bad ethics and morals. There are religious people with worse ethics and morals than an atheist and vice versa. Ethics and morals depend on how a person was raised, there life experiences and cultures.

As for having the notion of reward and punishment without any religious belief, it too is possible. Reward and punishment for those who believe in religion is heaven and hell respectively. But for atheists reward and punishment can be personal or social. For example, the reward for helping others may be personal satisfaction, gratification or the happiness and thanks of others. The punishment for hurting someone could be guilt, or a widely known punishment is jail for many things. Having no religion does not mean, similar to ethics and morals, that a person has no reward and punishment. Everyone makes there own rewards and punishments, theist, pantheist or atheist.

Does Faith Require Evidence?

In order to be able to answer this question, we must first be able to construct a definition as to what faith is.  Faith is rather difficult to define neutrally, for example, according to St Paul faith is "the conviction of things hoped for and the assurance of things not seen".  On the other, Sigmund Freud argues that faith is "the believing of propositions upon insufficient evidence".  In both contrasting definitions, faith is associated with the lack of evidence.  Without evidence there is no certainty which then allows faith to take over.  Faith in a sense can be perceived as the substitute for certainty.  Unlike beliefs, or theories, faith does not require validation or any justification.  In fact, faith is merely strengthened or weakened by either the presence or lack of evidence.  With or without evidence, faith will remain.  If faith required evidence, than faith would no longer be needed, because evidence provides certainty.

Faith is the combination of belief, action, and confidence.  The idea of faith allows us to create assurance for things that we hope for.  Every single person has faith.  Whether it is in God, yourself, or others, faith remains present.  But often the rationality of faith is called to question.  Some argue that because faith is constructed on the basis of lack of evidence, the reasoning behind why one would have faith is deemed irrational.  But often it is forgotten that nothing is completely certain.  With that said, science is only able to take our understanding of the phenomenons of the world to a certain level of understanding.  Referring to Ali's post on the clash between reason and faith, the use of the question chain effectively demonstrates the limits of science and reason.  After a certain number of questions in the cycle, our knowledge becomes inadequate as we fail to reach the desired answer using reason.  Because absolute knowledge is intangible, scientists must also have faith. Scientists must have faith that the universe is orderly and that us humans are capable of finding that order (TOK textbook).  As soon as we have extended past the periphery of reason, we have no other choice but to resort to faith.

To answer the essential question "Does faith require evidence?", no it does not.  Why? Because the idea that we create the foundation and strength of our beliefs in response to the presence of evidence is what fabricates the concept of faith.  If we were certain of everything faith would not be necessary.  As this is not the case, faith still and will possess a powerful presence that ultimately shapes the way in which people live their life.

Is there such a thing as a muslim baby, a hindu baby, an atheist baby?

Since a baby is not a fully developed human it is not consciously aware of being a part of any type of religion. However many people are born to religious parents and are often spoon fed their parents religious views. This is not fair since you are often forced onto your parent’s beliefs. Children are heavily dependent on their parents and parents often exploit this dependence by teaching them about religion. What is important to note here is that religion is not the issue, it is the lack of choice a child has on developing their own views about it.

          Just because you are born into a religion does not mean you have to adhere to it. Everyone has the ability to change their beliefs if they do not agree with the ones presented to them. Whilst there may be constraints on how one would go about doing so in a religious environment it is not until you become older that you are really able to comprehend religion anyway. At that point you would be an Adult and can make your own decisions. The fine line is that you should not thrust your religious beliefs on your children but rather let them find their own path with guidance. However, not teaching your children about religion will leave them exposed to other people’s beliefs.       

        Religion is ingrained into a person’s nature from a very young age and often remains a part of them as they grow older. In addition, there are often religious rituals that are performed on babies that vary depending on the religion. For instance, a Muslim baby would have the adhaan (muslim call to prayer) whispered in their right ear as the first thing they hear. Rituals such as these make them a part of the religion but they still have no choice.        

       There is no such thing as a “Muslim baby”, we all know that a baby is not able to think independently on such a complex concept.  They are rather a baby born into a Muslim family that is brought up with the religion. Whether they continue to remain in that same religion is entirely up to them. 

Reason Equals Faith

Do you think faith and reason are incompatible? Why? Why not?

First of all, I would like to say that I completely think that faith and reason are compatible. The reason for this is that I believe that faith stems out of reason. Although many people believe that religion is based on blind conviction, it is quite the opposite. I personally think that it cannot be possible that billions of people who follow religions are not using reason to justify their faith. Faith stemmed from humans searching for a meaning for their existence. Many humans asked the essential question: who created the earth, and the universe?  Using reason, many of these people determined that someone, or a supernatural entity must have been the cause for the creation of the universe. This assumption, which was based purely on reason, still holds today, as there is no scientific explanation, which can explain who or what was the cause for “the beginning of time”. The creation of different gods stems from different cultures, and therefore, different interpretations. Every religion offers a rational explanation to who created the universe, or what will happen to us after we die. Many people would say that there is no proof of god existing, or of what will happen in the afterlife, and that believing the doctrines of these religions is completely irrational. But there are many things in life, for which there are very few explanations for, but we use reason to explain, such as alien life forms, or demonic possessions. To put this in parallel, faith, which is an abstract concept that deals with intangible things that leave little proof, is justified through reason, as there must be an origin to our existence. Therefore, it can be said that reason and faith are basically identical, when talking about religion, faith is a type of reasoning used.

On the other hand, it is true that certain aspects of religion, such as miracles, do not follow reason to one hundred percent. Many of these miracles, and supernatural happenings that have been recorded in several religions, require a great deal of faith in order to believe, as it would be highly unlikely that these events occur again. For example, scientifically, it would be impossible for someone to be resurrected, although stories such as this are present in religious texts. Therefore, in certain aspects of religion, reason is more detached, and faith takes over. It is not that faith conflicts with reason, but rather, faith is a term to designate when reason is used in situations with little proof, such as religion.

Reason and Faith

Friday, April 11th 2014

If reason stems from logic, what is the source of faith? How do you define faith? Can you give an example of how you might apply it in real life? How are faith and reason related? 

Since reason stems from logic then, the source of faith is logic. In the early ages, people were asking themselves various questions. In order to answer these questions, they came up with the idea of a spiritual world. After closely looking at different religions and the applications of faith in other areas, I have come to realize that faith and reason are not polar opposites. In fact, faith can be defined as the conviction, or belief in something without material evidence. Through this definition, we can assume that we have faith in our senses and in our memories since we are relying on them in order to acquire our knowledge without any evidence that they are reliable. As we have already seen in the unit of perception, our memories and senses are actually fallible. Therefore, we must have some faith in them in order to form our perceptual knowledge. We can also use reason in order to prove that God actually exists. For example we can disprove the paradox of suffering which rises the question “Why is there so much suffering in the world if God is all knowing and all loving? We can therefore use reason in order challenge this paradox and prove the existence of God.  First of all, according to Islam, the world we are currently living in is temporary and therefore all the suffering and atrocities will eventually come to an end. Those that are able to follow the right path in this temporary world will discover an eternal world where no suffering exists. In addition, if we acknowledge the fact that God has implemented some physical and morale laws, it would make sense that he allows suffering if a person does not adhere to these laws. If an innocent person suffers, it could be to test his faith and commitment to his religion. Those who are able to face this suffering and continue to believe in God despite their misery would ascertain their faith to God and continue do-good deeds to repent themselves. However, if one does not have faith, it would make sense for him to respond to all the suffering through arguments against God. Therefore both sides could use reason to prove whether God exists or not. 

Another real life situation where we could apply faith would be medicine. When we go to a doctor, or take medicine to cure an illness, we are certain that our disease will be cured. In this case we have faith in science since we trust the previous scientific discoveries without having any evidence that these conclusions are actually valid and that the scientist were competent. For example, how can we know for sure that atoms actually exist as it is since no tool is precise enough to see an atom? As a result, we need to have faith in the scientists that came up with the atomic model. This causes a chain reaction since many other scientific discoveries rely on the atomic model. As a result our faith in the existence of atoms affects our whole belief in science and enables us to acquire more knowledge. Finally, through these examples we can see that faith and reason are not completely opposites as we can use reason to prove faith and since faith can lead to further reasoning.

Religious Babies? : Response to EQ

Question: Is there such a thing as a catholic baby or a muslim baby? What defines and determines someone’s belief system? 

Response: In my own opinion, no, there aren't any babies of any particular religion or group. Like many aspects of life like attitude, habits, likes and dislikes, etc., they are all influenced on where we are born and what family we are born into. Babies are all born with the same malleable minds, but if one is born into a Christian family, odds are, they'll be raised as a Christian and grow up to be a Christian. Where we are born also plays a large part. Say a baby was born in Morocco, unless they were the child of an immigrant family or from a family that had heritage in another country, the odds are that they will be raised with Muslim faiths and ideals. We are born as undefined lumps of flesh and are raised to be a part of a certain group or faith.

Knowledge is Non-existent!

The clash of science and religion throughout the past decades has paralleled the clash between reason and faith. Reason is associated with science while faith is associated with religion, and these are the primary arguments for both systems. Non-believers attempt to discredit the existence of an afterlife and of a god, by pointing out the lack of rationality. The counter-argument to this claim is that faith requires no rational and that it originates from a deep belief and "knowledge". However, if we were to discredit faith as means of "knowing", then there is nothing in this world that we would understand, and therefore there is nothing in this world that we would know. Here is an example (Question Chain) to prove this theory:

We know that grass is green, but Why?

Because I have eyes and I can see that it is green

Why is it green?

The waves arrive at the cones in my eye and portray this colour.

What makes it green, and not a different colour?

It emits a specific wavelength different from that of different colours.

How does the length of a wave determine colour?

Ummm............................................................................................

You will reach a question that you cannot respond to with reason, and thus theoretically absolute knowledge is unattainable. When you ask a self-acclaimed intellectual, they will state that knowledge is attained after answering a specific answer in the Question Chain, but the issue with this is that humans are asserting the limits of such a chain, revoking the absolute property to the claim. Furthermore, thousands of years can pass where a scientist can answer more questions on the chain, and they will then think that the limit that self-acclaimed intellectual has asserted is ignorant, creating an endless cycle of unanswerable questions. Thus the very basis of scientific approach coupled with reason is disproven, requiring a certain level of faith. Religious individuals just decide to end at an earlier question on the Question chain.

Reasoning the Existence of an Afterlife

The existence of a time of living after our unavoidable deaths is a topic constantly debated between people of different backgrounds, religions, and opinions. In this post, I will show reasoning as to why I believe in an afterlife without presenting the usual religious argument of "it just does because I believee in it".

Firstly, I should explain that my entire theory is based off of the existence of memory. I'll give a small-scale scenario to explain before getting to the hard-to-explain nity gritty of the basis of my theory. Imagine that, at some point in life, you go through a horrible accident that leaves you with amnesia. Everything before that moment seems to have never existed, right? The you in the past from the frame of time you have forgotten due to your condition should not have any idea what's going on and you should "wake up" with only memories before the accident. The events you have forgottens till happened, you just don't remember them.

Now that the scenario has been layed out (hopefully I didn't make it too confusing to understand...) now I'll tie it to my theory of the existence of the afterlife. Take the amnesia scenario above, only replace the memories you have lost with your entire life and the accident that gave you amnesia with death. If there weren't any moments after death, how could we have a conscious memory since, if my scenario is relatable, we shouldn't have any consciousness of anything that is happening or has happened in our lives? Since (hopefully) all of us have a conscious memory of our lives, there must be some eternal side of our lives in which we continue to keep the memory of our lives. If there wasn't, we would have the "wake up" moment with no memory minus the waking up part. There would be nothing at all. Through this reasoning, I believe there is a time after death in which  we are able to keep our memories. Whether it be Heaven, Hell, whatever, there should be some form of life after death. The only problem I have with my theory is that only the individual person can say whether or not they have a consciousness of their life experiences. I can say "yes, I have a conscious memory of my life, so there must be an afterlife" but anyone readings his can't know this because it's MY memory. Maybe I won't be in any place after I die, but the events that I have "forgotten" due to the "amnesia" still happened, even if I don't remember them, everyone else involved does remember.

On another note, I'd like to explain how my theory fits with the belief of reincarnation. Say there was someone named John Smith who has lived a life full of experiences and memories but, like all of us will, ultimately dies. He is then reincarnated as a new person named Bob Jones but has absolutely no memories of his past life as John Smith. The death is like amnesia, Bob can't remember his life as John but the events of John's life still happened, so the "afterlife" for John would be his life as Bob.

To conclude, I'd just like to apologize if my explanation of my theory is very confusing. I am still trying to get to a point where I can easily explain it without so much confusion as it is a very tough thought process to describe with words.