Can Religion and Rational thought coexist?

[Blasted Craigs]

My question in plain English.
Religion usually requires one to have faith, to believe in things that are not proven. To have it proven and believe requires no faith, and thus the proven requires no faith, and faith is a cornerstone to almost all religious practices. Rational thought requires one to have proof to state something is true or false, and on a lack of proof, a thing can only be referred to as probable or improbable, specifically that it may or may not be true.

So, can they both coexist in the same mind? If you say it can or cannot, how likely would you say it does exist, or not exist? And bonus question, is there a benefit or detriment to both existing at the same time, and why?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
My answer.
So, can they both coexist in the same mind?
Yes.
If you say it can or cannot, how likely would you say it does exist, or not exist?
It is not very common for people to have both qualities without one or the other being suppressed, whether a rational person rejecting faith or a faithful person rejecting rationality.
Is there a benefit or detriment to both existing at the same time, and why?
Yes there is a benefit. Being rational keeps one grounded in reality, and ensures one makes hopefully well informed decisions based on critical thinking skills. Faith may seem detrimental, but gives one clear advantage in my opinion. It can give one hope. When rational thought tells one that a situation is hopeless, faith, or hope, can be utilized to keep on moving and trying.

//////////////////
What say you? This is not an effort to attack or criticize, even though I am a profound critic of the religious right in politics, but a discussion on peoples thoughts on whether these two qualities can coexists in a person at one time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes it can.

All of us have a belief or some sort of knowledge that is nothing but fantastical bullshit. All. Of. Us.

We declare ourselves rational but the fact is that you and me both have at least one irascible belief. That's perfectly natural. It happens.

[Herrebrugh]

Yes it can.

All of us have a belief or knowledge that is nothing but fantastical bullshit. All. Of. Us.

We declare ourselves rational but the fact is that you and me both have at least one irascible belief. That's perfectly natural. It happens.

This, pretty much exactly.

[Gothex]

People who say you can't generally haven't tried either.

[Marxist-Leninist Germany]

Yes, of course they can.

[The New Sea Territory]

Nope. Rational people who are religious are ones who identify as a religious person but don't actually follow their religious texts, or they just don't apply their rational thought to their religion.

[Old Tyrannia]

History is littered with examples of cultures and individuals who prove they can and do.

[Sosi]

It has & if not, "hanging on in desperation is the english way".

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

If you partition correctly, yes. Tons of scientists do this already: they assume that the greater mysteries are too great for them to comprehend, and focus on the things they can comprehend.

Of course, you can't be a fundamentalist about religion and still be a good scientist if what you're investigating in any way crosses the territory of what your religion claims.

[Skappola]

Isn't saying "no" to this suggesting that true religious are incapable of rational thought? If so, that would actually be really offensive, and can be disproven by the numerous religious scientists throughout history - unless I'm misunderstanding the question.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Of course they can. There's many theories that suggest that there are Gods that set scientific movements into process.

Just because you have faith in a creator does not mean that you can not be rational thinker when it comes to science. For example, when I was 11, I had theorized that there was a God that had initially set forth the big bang and let everything happen from there. I've met other people who have had similar theories.

However, some people who have too much faith can be impaired by it. Having too much faith, i.e. following the bible word for word, would seriously throw off your scientific rationing/reasoning.

[Zottistan]

Of course. Reason is more of a tool than a fundamental quality of how somebody is. Some people just don't apply it to the same areas or in the same ways as others.

[Great Nepal]

Not without cognitive dissonance and ignoring internal consistency, no. Quite often however there is cognitive dissonance and it is simply ignored - individuals remain rational when it comes to every thing else however give special pass to religion because 'faith'.

[Mavorpen]

There's many theories that suggest that there are Gods that set scientific movements into process.

No there aren't.

Just because you have faith in a creator does not mean that you can not be rational thinker when it comes to science. For example, when I was 11, I had theorized that there was a God that had initially set forth the big bang and let everything happen from there. I've met other people who have had similar theories.

Those aren't theories. Those are guesses and ideas and aren't scientific in the slightest.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not without cognitive dissonance and ignoring internal consistency, no. Quite often however there is cognitive dissonance and it is simply ignored - individuals remain rational when it comes to every thing else however give special pass to religion because 'faith'.

You've never met conspiracy theorists have you?

[Great Nepal]

Not without cognitive dissonance and ignoring internal consistency, no. Quite often however there is cognitive dissonance and it is simply ignored - individuals remain rational when it comes to every thing else however give special pass to religion because 'faith'.

You've never met conspiracy theorists have you?

Actually I was friends with a guy who thought tesla power coil exists and could be used to give everyone free power but the government are hiding it because they want campaign funds from electricity companies. I pointed out that if that was true, one of electricity companies would buy it off the greedy government, monopolize electricity and take over the world... He never spoke to me after that.
I think they are example of what happens when we use Occam razor in reverse: anything which makes fewest assumption is lie by the powerful group and anyone who points that out is either part of the conspiracy or too dumb to see it.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes. But a lot of people haven't any interest in reconciling them. Well-thought theology doesn't seem to be the mainstream anymore.

[Skappola]

Yes. But a lot of people haven't any interest in reconciling them. Well-thought theology doesn't seem to be the mainstream anymore.

I blame the evangelicals

But really, what ever happened to Martin Luther-esque thinkers creating new religious doctrines based on complex reinterpretations of the bible? Not to suggest that this was the norm in the past, but it seems as though religion has somewhat regressed in complexity among many churches.

[Conserative Morality]

I blame the evangelicals

But really, what ever happened to Martin Luther-esque thinkers creating new religious doctrines based on complex reinterpretations of the bible? Not to suggest that this was the norm in the past, but it seems as though religion has somewhat regressed in complexity among many churches.

Ugh, Martin Luther is where this nonsense started.

But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

...

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

[Skappola]

I blame the evangelicals

But really, what ever happened to Martin Luther-esque thinkers creating new religious doctrines based on complex reinterpretations of the bible? Not to suggest that this was the norm in the past, but it seems as though religion has somewhat regressed in complexity among many churches.

Ugh, Martin Luther is where this nonsense started.

But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

...

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

Lovely.
Let me change the "Martin Luther" to "Nestorius and Arius" and my post will still stand. Coincidentally, I'm not part of a religion which follows the principles of either of these thinkers, but I still recognize their significance in theology.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

It can and it does. How else would many reputable scientists openly profess to be religious believers?

Most religious authorities these days too agree that religious faith and scientific rationalism do not inherently conflict each other. Both are but different methods of exploring reality, each complementing the other. The rational science seeks to explain and understand how things work and why, while religion seeks to explain their purpose.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

There's many theories that suggest that there are Gods that set scientific movements into process.

No there aren't.

Theistic Evolution. Creationism.

Just because you have faith in a creator does not mean that you can not be rational thinker when it comes to science. For example, when I was 11, I had theorized that there was a God that had initially set forth the big bang and let everything happen from there. I've met other people who have had similar theories.

Those aren't theories. Those are guesses and ideas and aren't scientific in the slightest.[/quote]

Theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Religious ideas can be considered theories, just as the Big Bang can be.

[Imyoji]

One can balance it if they try hard enough. But a lack of faith allows some ease if one so chooses, I'd say.

[Mavorpen]

Theistic Evolution. Creationism.

Neither are scientific theories. They don't even qualify as hypotheses.

Theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

That's nice, now how about using the definition of theory as it actually applies to science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Religious ideas can be considered theories, just as the Big Bang can be.

No they can't. The fact that you're not using official scientific terminology for the term "theory" is indicative that you have utterly no clue what you're talking about.

[United Russian Soviet States]

They can easily coexist.