Is simplistic, naive, illogical thinking a prerequisite for being religious?

Question

Let me hear you now, brothers and sisters

This is a serious question. I am here to learn.

Erin J - a solitary witch? (Who's your dealer?)

Sid B, you are wrong. Einstein was not religious. He had a whimsical way of explaining his feelings about the nature and origins of the physical universe - that is not religion.

CassieKay - you take it personally - typical

Answer 1

Of course!

Answer 2

No, I don't think it's a prerequisite, though that may apply to some believers. I think in order to believe some of the things that religions teach, you have to be willing to suspend disbelief. From the posts of religious people in this forum, it appears that some are comfortable accepting things on faith because faith is comforting and comfortable. It's irrelevant whether it is true.

Excellent examples of persons of faith that cannot be called simplistic, naive, or wholly illogical, harpertara.

Answer 3

A study done on a scientific academy found that in response to a religious statement, having to rate it between 1 (totally improbable) to 5 (very likely true) - only some 6% actually rated it higher than 3. The majority found it to be improbable. So there may be a link between higher intelligence and religious naivety (that is believing without proof). By the way, Einstein was not religious.

Answer 4

Some of the greastest, most profound people in this world are/were religious.
Theresa of Avila - a profound Catholic mystic whose writings are just as valid today as they were in the middle ages.
Mahat Magandi - whose ideal of non-violent protest spawned a free nation and whose philosophies are still being studied (he was Buddhist, and a monk)
Pope John-Paul II - a person who tried to unite people, not divide and who was a major voice for peace and tolerance between all people
Martin Luther King, Jr. - once a practicing Baptist minister who galvanized the civil rights movement
Need I go on? Being religious does not me you are "simplistic, naive, illogical", it means you believe in something/someone higher than yourself.

Answer 5

It depends which 'religion' you are thinking of. Some people seek the 'feel good factor' without any authority from the word of God or His eternal blessings. Christianity offers the one true Gospel of the coming kingdom and we are told that anyone who believes in any other gospel will be condemned. So people make that choice for themselves. False doctrines or God's Truth. Christianity is certainly not illogical. I recommend that you actually study the Scriptures for they are inspired by the LORD God.

Answer 6

Absolutely not.
Some of the greatest scientists have been Christians, for example:
Newton, Keppler, Maxwell, Galileo, Francis Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Babbage, the Wright borthers, Herschel, Kelvin, Joule, Pasteur, etc

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084/

Religion and science are separate, but one's religion (or worldview) determines how one interprets the actual physical evidence.
For example evolutionists typically have a humanistic/materialistic/ atheistic worldview (religion), and creationists have a Biblical worldview.
The debate is not science versus religion, it is the science of one religion versus the science of another religion.

Answer 7

No it is actually the opposite. Although pure faith is an admirable thing most Christians base their faith on reason. It is actually atheism that is illogical.

LOGICAL PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD No. 1.

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS MUST HAVE A SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION FOR ITS EXISTENCE. NOTHING CAN EXIST WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS SUFFICIENT REASON MUST BE FOUND EITHER IN THE EXISTING THING ITSELF. OR IN THAT WHICH GAVE IT EXISTENCE. TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY; IF A THING EXISTS THEN EITHER (1). IT IS SO PERFECT THAT IT MUST EXIST AND CANNOT BE NONEXISTENT, OR (2). IT HAS RECEIVED EXISTENCE BY THE ACTION OF SOME EFFICIENT CAUSE.
NOW IF A THING IS SO PERFECT THAT IT MUST EXIST AND CANNOT BE NON-EXISTENT, IT IS SELF EXISTENT. SUCH A THING CONTAINS IN ITSELF THE SUFFICIENT REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE. AND SINCE IT MUST EXIST BY REASON OF ITS OWN ESSENTIAL PERFECTION, IT HAS HAD NO CAUSE, IT IS ETERNAL; IT IS NECESSARY BEING (i.e. IT NECESSARILY EXISTS), AND IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THE ACTION OF ANY PRODUCING CAUSE.
IF A THING HAS RECEIVED EXISTENCE BY THE ACTION OF SOME EFFICIENT CAUSE, IT IS NOT A NECESSARY, BUT A CONTINGENT BEING, FOR IT DEPENDS UPON, IS CONTINGENT UPON, THE ACTION OF ITS PRODUCING EFFICIENT CAUSE.

THUS THERE ARE ONLY 2 KINDS OF THING POSSIBLE:
(1). ETERNAL, UNCAUSED, NECESSARY BEING, AND
(2). CONTINGENT BEING, WHICH IS EFFICIENTLY CAUSED.
FURTHER: CONTINGENT THINGS MUST BE TRACED BACK TO A FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE, WHICH IS ITSELF NECESSARY AND UNCAUSED BEING. FOR CONSIDER: A CONTINGENT THING IS A CAUSED THING, ITS CAUSE PRODUCED IT. IF ITS CAUSE IS ALSO PRODUCED, SOMETHING PRODUCED THAT CAUSE, AND SO ON. IF (A) COMES FROM (B), AND (B) FROM (C), AND (C) FROM (D), AND (D) FROM (E), AND SO ON, THEN SOMEWHERE AND SOMETIME WE MUST COME TO A FIRST CAUSE WHICH IS ITSELF UNCAUSED, WHICH IS NECESSARY BEING. ONE CANNOT TRACE BACK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION INDEFINITELY NOR TO INFINITY; ONE REALLY MUST REACH THE BEGINNING AT SOME STAGE. TO SAY THAT THE SERIES IS INDEFINITELY LONG AND TO LEAVE THE MATTER THERE, IS TO MAKE AN INTELLECTUAL SURRENDER OF THE WHOLE QUESTION. AN UNWORTHY COP-OUT. SUCH A SURRENDER IS SIMPLY A REFUSAL TO FACE FACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, TO SAY THAT THE SERIES OF CAUSES IS INFINITELY LONG (i.e. HAS NO BEGINNING) IS TO ASSERT AN ABSURDITY. FOR AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE CAUSES IS IMPOSSIBLE; FINITE ADDED TO FINITE CAN NEVER EQUAL INFINITE. REASON FORCES US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CONTINGENT THINGS INVOLVE OF NECESSITY THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNCAUSED AND NECESSARY FIRST CAUSE.
NOW, CAN THERE BE MANY UNCAUSED AND NECESSARY FIRST CAUSES? CAN VARIOUS CHAINS OF CAUSATION BE TRACED BACK TO VARIOUS FIRST CAUSES? OR IS THE FIRST CAUSE NECESSARILY ONE CAUSE? IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE FIRST CAUSE IS ONE AND ONLY ONE. FOR A BEING THAT IS SO PERFECT THAT IT MUST EXIST MUST HAVE THE FULNESS OF PERFECTION, IT MUST HAVE PERFECTION IN A WHOLLY UNLIMITED MANNER. WHY? BECAUSE SUCH A BEING IS SELF- EXISTENT AND WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF CAUSES. CAUSES DO TWO THINGS: THEY MAKE AN EFFECT WHAT IT IS, AND THEY LIMIT THE EFFECT SO AS TO MARK OFF ITS PERFECTIONS FROM THOSE OF OTHER THINGS. HENCE A BEING THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF CAUSES, AS A NECESSARY BEING IS, IS INDEPENDENT OF THE LIMITATION WHICH CAUSES IMPOSE. THUS THE FIRST CAUSE IS FREE FROM LIMITATION; IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS INFINITE. NOW AN INFINITE BEING IS UNIQUE; THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE MORE THAN ONE SUCH BEING. FOR, IF THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE, THERE WOULD BE A DISTINCTION OF BEING BETWEEN OR AMONG THEM; THIS DISTINCTION WOULD BE ITSELF A LIMITATION, AND SO NONE WOULD BE INFINITE. SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THERE ARE ARE TWO INFINITE BEINGS, (A) AND (B). (A) HAS ITS OWN PERFECTIONS IN AN UNLIMITED DEGREE; (B) HAS ITS OWN PERFECTIONS, SIMILARLY UNLIMITED. NOW IF (A) AND (B) ARE NOT IDENTICAL [AND THUS ONE] THERE IS A DEFECT AND A LIMITATION IN (A), INASMUCH AS IT HAS NOT THE PERFECTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY (B)'s. IN LIKE MANNER THERE IS A DEFECT AND A LIMITATION IN (B), INASMUCH AS (B) HAS NOT THE PERFECTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY (A)'s. THUS UNLESS (A) AND (B) ARE IDENTICAL AND ONE, NEITHER IS INFINITE. HENCE, THE NECESSARY FIRST CAUSE MUST BE ONE AND INFINITE.

SUMMARY.
CONTINGENT THINGS DEMAND THE EXISTENCE OF ONE, NECESSARY, INFINITE FIRST CAUSE;
NOW THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE, ARE CONTINGENT THINGS;
THEREFORE, THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE, DEMAND THE EXISTENCE OF ONE, NECESSARY. INFINITE FIRST CAUSE.

THIS WE CALL GOD.

Answer 8

Only Faith.
And Love.
And Kindness (as in not calling others simplistic, naive and illogical).

I am assuming you consider yourself to be complex, wise and logical. That is very unbiased of you! :-)

Peace to you.

Answer 9

Actually you're half right. The Bible tells you to be come as little children, and wouldn't you agree that children thinks simple and illogical when compared to you as an adult.

Answer 10

I love my Lord. I love to study His word. I need Him, I would not make it to my Father's house without Him. I have done my homework. I chose to follow Jesus. I do not have to understand everything in His business to run some errands for Him.

Answer 11

Well, no, I don't think so.

Although, my atheist boyfriend would probably agree with you. He gets around the obvious objections by clarifying that I am "spiritual" not "religious" because religion is organized and I'm a solitary witch. Semantics, but I let him get away with it. ;)