Reflective and Unreflective Engagement
People’s religious beliefs differ from one person to another due to differences in religious perspectives. Most religions have been preoccupied with elevating their God above all others. They believe that their God is the most powerful in the universe in all views. Religion has become the fuel for a fire of hatred in today’s globe. Religion has become the most divisive topic of discussion in the world. As a result, this calls for an inclusive philosophical debate that will accommodate beliefs, opinions, and perspectives that differ from our own.
The fact of the existence of God had called for the attention of many people since it has led to more philosophical discussion, some supporting it and some declining the fact. The existence of God had led to the rise of atheists and theists, which are adamant about the failure to have philosophical discussions. People have a different perception of God based on the religions that tend to be different based on philosophical arguments. As a result, a differentiation between reflective and non-reflective involvement has become essential. Reflective engagement is a commitment to engage in a philosophical study of one’s standards and beliefs for critical scrutiny in the setting of religion. The significance of this contrast is that it brings together two parties with fundamentally contrary views on the presence of God. A proper solution will be established in mutual respect and favor if these parties are prepared to engage in a reflective engagement employing a philosophical approach.
When it comes to studying philosophy, reflective thinking is the essential aspect. As a result, if we want to engage in religious philosophy, we must use simple contemplative reason. A thin line separates reflecting believers and reflective non-believers. Most categories of Christians are willing to challenge their ideas and put them to the test. To establish a sound involvement, we must be able to correctly assess our views and put up with coherent and logical justifications for our beliefs. The philosophy revolves around the idea of reflective reason. When evaluating essential topics, the organization aims to go beyond the obvious. It strives to provide all-important arguments, clarify crucial concepts, and subtly hint at the consequences of various beliefs. Therefore, as a result, seeing how objects seem when caught in reverse intrigues us. This, however, does not imply that both participants, the reflective believer and the reflective non-believer, will indulge in a discussion in which they will strive to align their beliefs. Believers and non-believers who are reflective can set their disparities and preconceptions behind and have a constructive discourse (Bender, Courtney, et al., pg. 72).
.
For various causes, non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers engage in their beliefs. They believe in what they have already established as historical precepts, whether or not they are satisfied with them. As a result, they are uninterested in developing a coherent reasoning process around their religious ideology. They make decisions without considering any factors and what they perceive as irrevocable. We must shatter the aspect of surety to have a genuine philosophical dialogue. Objective truth is alluring, yet it obstructs our tendency to participate in productive interactions with others. As a result, when believers discuss their God and faith, they must do it humbly, acknowledging that we do not have a problem with the truth.
It is critical to realize that the other participant does not seem to be mistaken for you to be correct. This does not follow that believers and non-believers will accord on the spirituality in culture or the validity of a more excellent creator, God. In addition, the parties involved seem to be more likely to have significant disagreements on this topic. Reflective engagement now enters the picture to inform us that not every conflict is created equal. A reflective meeting is helpful because it allows us to understand reality better and promotes rational thought that broadens our horizons. Most individuals have not given much attention to the absolute fact of theism, but they also have chosen to approve or disapprove of it as a social force (Peterson et al., pg. 112). Although some individuals believe strongly in an all-powerful and benevolent God, others declare there is no God and that praying is meaningless and ridiculous, like the concept of miracles.
Non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers believe that any concept that contradicts their convictions, whether atheists or theists, ends the argument. Non-reflective believers and non-believers contribute little or nothing to any discussion or debate about belief and non-belief. At the start of this essay, we stated that we needed to use reflective thinking to comply with a legitimate philosophical debate. Since their beliefs are non-reflective, non-reflective believers and non-believers are of little assistance in this discourse. Non-reflection implies that a person’s thinking is devoid of critical analysis or ideas about their conviction or non-belief. As a result, there is hardly any room for theological argument.
Several thoughtful Religious people provide intellectual justifications for their faith in God. Most thoughtful believers, for example, recognize and accept the impossibility of proving God’s physical existence. They understand that they can’t point to anything concrete and say, “This is my God.” It becomes difficult to describe God with words. We can’t fathom God’s mystery because He is all-knowing. God is undeniably anything we can’t put into words. Since words seem incapable of defining God, it does become difficult to be used as confirmation of Divine revelation or of our belief. Since there is no assurance of God’s existence, reflective non-believers ultimately conclude that there is no God. Reflective non-believers will employ Michael Martin’s “Negative Principle of Credulity,” as he defined. According to the law, when there is no evidence for God, it is logical to believe that there is none.
Before participating in a theological debate with someone, it’s usually a good idea to figure out if they’re a reflective or non-reflective believer. This can be accomplished by asking a few questions and observing how another individual adheres to their beliefs. This can be accomplished by seeing if they are open to discussing options. We can discern if they are ready to have their views reviewed after obtaining this information, regardless of whether they accept the presence or non-existence susceptible to the introspective argument. It will be achieved by discarding preconceived beliefs about what it means to live as a superior creature. To have an honest dialogue, we must also set aside the preconceived notions about ourselves.
A reasonable dialogue begins the instant a believer alludes to a declaration about their connection with the God they believe. Similarly, anyone who disputes specific religious components is free to engage in an honest, reasonable debate. Only reflective and non-reflective believers, regardless of whether they hire in reality or not, can have a serious discussion about their religious claims. When both participants cling to their predetermined notions, the hurt occurs, and it becomes challenging for them to have a decent dialogue. When individuals have a non-reflective mindset, they tend to disregard the opinions of others and believe their reasoning is ideal. This leads to a hardening of the non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers, who are unwilling to make place for an alternative concept or way of thinking. Another benefit of establishing a clear distinction between reflective and non-reflective parties is that it gives mindful believers and reflective non-believers a forum to acknowledge the component of thoughtful involvement. As a result, we must be watchful to prevent non-reflective persons from disrupting by refusing to join in a constructive debate.
Non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers all provide us justifications for why we must not partake in a philosophical conversation about our religious views. They further remind us why it is impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion amongst folks who are not like-minded in the absence of reflective thinking. The unwavering dedication of unreflective non-believers to their beliefs distracts them from the significance of religious principles, such as respect for the law. As a result, atheists confuse rule for extortion, underestimating the importance of authority in sustaining a positive community. When non-reflective believers combine religion with other elements, a dilemma occurs. It indeed conjures up a poisonous concoction. It appears when religious authorities believe they are 100 percent correct and everybody else is incorrect, resulting in an attempt to enforce control on people. Non-believers are frequently opposed to it.
The additional benefit of philosophical dialogue between non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers is that it allows atheists to understand their doubts. While surety suggests conceit and complacency, uncertainty leads to humility, indisputably accurate. When you look into some of the world’s most essential faiths, you’ll notice that individuals defend their feeling of favor by accepting ambiguity. They should rather bury those predetermined, ambiguous notions. For much of humanity’s civilization, religion’s primary purpose was to create people who fit into a specific society by encouraging them to believe in certain ideals. Theology was a virtue in and of itself, but people pick what and who they engage in or adore in a modern environment. Today’s objective of theology indeed is to assist people in finding inner contentment and to have a positive effect on others’ existence (Haidt pg. 233).
Religion may be used constructively and destructively since it is founded on a human invention with norms and expectations. It can be used to subjugate others by closing down analytical reasoning in the lack of reflective sense. On the other hand, religion has a beneficial impact on an individual’s well-being because it offers fulfillment. Thoughtful believers and non-believers are critical participants in a substantial philosophical discussion and debate. Non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers have paradoxical utility because they are both useless in a philosophical argument. At the same time, they assist us in wanting to engage with others who are not reflective. It’s important to remember that we don’t have to agree with others to learn from them. The individual who absorbs from everyone is the most knowledgeable. It is always possible when we are open to fresh and diverse ideas.
Works Cited
Bender, Courtney, et al., eds. Religion on the Edge: De-centering and Re-centering the Sociology of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2013.pg 58-86
Early, Barbara. “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt: (2012). New York, NY: Pantheon Books, Illustrated, 419 pp., $28.95 (hardcover).” (2015): 231-233.
Peterson, Michael, and Dennis Venema. Biology, Religion, and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 109-116.