Philosophy vs Religion: A Rational Debate on Truth and Belief

Religion, Philosophy, and Truth — A Rational Dialogue

◈ Background of the Discussion​

This thought-provoking dialogue revolves around a Marxist philosopher, Imran Shahid Bhinder, and responses presented in defense of religion, particularly by Dr. Zahid Mughal and others.


Bhinder's central claim was that religion has no connection with knowledge or reality, and its interpretations are merely based on assumptions. In contrast, Dr. Zahid Mughal and his associates presented philosophical and logical arguments in defense of religion, demanding a concept of reality that is non-assumptive.

◈ Imran Shahid Bhinder’s Key Points​

❶ Incompatibility of Religion with Knowledge
According to Bhinder, the explanations religion offers about reality are assumptive and have no relationship with knowledge or scientific thought.


❷ Declaring Core Religious Beliefs as Assumptions
Concepts like the existence of God, creation of the universe, origin of man, Day of Judgment, Heaven, and Hell were all labeled as mere “assumptions”.
He argued that religious doctrines cannot be established through historical, social, or scientific evidence.


❸ Primacy of Reason
Bhinder emphasized that human reason is the sole valid means of understanding reality and claimed that religion obstructs the pathway of rational inquiry.

◈ Responses by Dr. Zahid Mughal and Other Participants​

❶ Religion’s Relationship with Reality
Dr. Zahid Mughal rejected the notion that religion has no connection with reality. According to him, religion provides clear and comprehensive answers to fundamental questions:

• What is the world?
• Who is man?
• What is good and evil?
• Where is knowledge of truth to be found?

Reference: Zahid Mughal stated, “Faith in God establishes a particular concept of reality, which subsequently becomes the foundation of knowledge and reason.”


❷ Nature of Assumptions
According to Zahid Mughal, an idea being “assumptive” does not invalidate it. Every philosophy and field of knowledge is built on certain assumptions. The real question is:
Which assumptions are more rational and plausible?


✧ Example: Philosophy, science, and logic also rely on axioms or presuppositions, which must be accepted to build any system of knowledge.


❸ Relationship Between Reason and Revelation
Empirical reason has its limitations and cannot comprehend transcendent truths. Religion, through revelation, presents those truths which lie beyond the realm of reason, such as the foundation of good and evil or the purpose of life.


Reference: Zahid Mughal stated, “Empirical reason is incapable of providing a fundamental criterion for good and evil—unless it first accepts a moral standard as a presupposition.”


❹ Challenge to Present an Alternative Concept of Reality
Dr. Zahid Mughal and others repeatedly challenged Imran Shahid Bhinder to present a non-assumptive and non-religious concept of reality that is more rational than the religious one.
Bhinder continually evaded giving a direct answer to this challenge.


❺ Coincidence and the Creation of the Universe
Other participants in the discussion raised objections against the idea that the existence of the universe and life is merely a result of coincidence:

• Is it reasonable to believe that billions of galaxies, life on Earth, and human consciousness are mere accidents?
• If there is necessity in the structure of the universe, why shouldn’t there be a conscious cause behind it?

✧ Example: Muhammad Farooq asked, “Is the necessity of coincidences even possible without assumptions?”

◈ Analysis of the Dialogue​

❶ Limitation in Bhinder’s Critique
Bhinder objected to religion for being based on assumptions but failed to provide any clear position or argument for an alternative conception of reality.
His views remained limited to criticism of religion without any robust philosophical or scientific basis.


❷ Zahid Mughal’s Methodology
Dr. Zahid Mughal not only articulated the logic behind religious beliefs convincingly but also challenged critics to clarify their own foundational views.
His approach remained scholarly and dialogical throughout.


❸ Questions of Reality
This dialogue highlights that whether it's religion or philosophy, every worldview is built upon certain fundamental assumptions.
The real question is: Which assumptions are more rational, comprehensible, and closer to human consciousness?

◈ Conclusion​

This dialogue demonstrates that both religion and philosophy attempt to answer the fundamental questions about reality. However, religion’s explanation appears to be more comprehensive and rational.
While philosophical critique is valuable, it remains incomplete unless it offers a compelling alternative conception of truth.