Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • Lots of new material added with no citations. Tagged since September 2021

Bahá'í not Ba'hai[edit]

Bahá'í not Ba'hai. If anything it should be "Baha'i". Ba'hai is just plain wrong. SHahB 17:49, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

He's right, you know. WP articles it at Bahá'í Faith, by the way. Shall we honor the weird symbols over the i's as well as the correct apostrophe? humanUser talk:Human 18:35, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, just because Wikipedia spells it that way doesn't mean we should. It largely depends on what method you use to transliterate it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
That's also how spells it... and However, a number sites spell it Ba hai or Ba Hai. Interestingly, this site spells it the shabby way, but the "title" of their page is spelled "Ba'hai (The University of Manchester)" - Ba'hai. There are approximately 6000 Baha'is in the UK today.... humanUser talk:Human 19:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

hey, I just used the spelling from the Islam article. Redlinked it then wrote what I knew. Which isn't much, though I visited one of their temples once, and they had all sorts of religious symbols everywhere. Does anyone know more? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 11:11, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No foul. It looks like one of those foreign (ie non English, non Latin alphabet) words that hasn't been condensed to an agreed-upon modern transliteration yet. Like all the spellings of Moammar Kaddafi's name. Perhaps we should make a brief mention of this in the article? humanUser talk:Human 13:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Don't worry about making it brief... you've got plenty of space. :D Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 17:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
I recycle my used bits, too. humanUser talk:Human 19:16, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Four years later, but whatever. "Baha" means "light" in Farsi. Add 'i and you get "follower of". So Baha'i is nearer to correct. The funny diacritic over the 'a' is the most correct version, but meh, who can be bothered? Ba'hai comes about because people mispronounce it that way (correct pronunciation is "baHIGH") IF anyone has any questions, I regret to say I know WAY more about this religion than I care to. VOXHUMANA 12:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith and Rationality: Should I add this info?[edit]

The Baha'i Faith (this is the name Baha'is use and is how it represents itself to the world ie. UN etc) is unique in that it claims that the belief is not through blind faith but through logic and rationality. This opens the door, offering itself to be tested and refuted with falsifiability etc. | Abdul-Baha, states that for Baha'is science and religion are in harmony, which is a fundamental tenant of the religion:

"If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time." -`Abdu'l-Bahá 1912, Parid Talks, p. 143

Dr William S Hatcher, mathematician and philosopher and a prominent Baha'i argues in Logic and Logos that the faith should be tested using the scientific method and that it will pass this test (without offering any evidence, I guess if you wanna know go find it yourself or something):

For Baha'is the datum of religion is the phenomenon of revelation. The Baha'i Faith offers the scientific hypothesis that revelation is a periodic phenomenon for which the fairly long
Baha'is believe that man's social evoloution is due to the periodic intervention into human affairs of the creative force of the universe by means of the religious founders or Manifestations..The only way we can judge Baha'u'llah's fascinating hypothesis that social evolution is due to the influence of the Manifestations is the way we judge any proposition: scientific method. This is the only way we can judge Baha'u'llah's claim to be one of the manifestations. In the case of Baha'u'llah we have many things we can test empirically. Baha'u'llah made predications... The Baha'i Faith is thus the contemporary for of religion, and we should not be surprised that it is so accessible to the method of contemporary science." ( 114-115)
Since in the Baha'i View internal religious experience is not simply the self's experience of itself but a direct response to the datum of the Manifestations [revelation = datum]. ( 120)

He uses lots of sciency words but does it pass the test. Baha'is use this as a prophesy of Baha'u'llah: Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal. (Kalímát-i-Firdawsíyyih (Words of Paradise), c.1879–91)

Does that sound like nuclear bombs or climate change? Some may say it's vague but Baha'is differ...So why arn't yall Baha'is already?

Others can be found here WP:Bahá'í prophecies maybe I/we can refute these. Also a refutation of the arguments of Hatcher's using formal logic can be found here:| A Critical Discussion of William Hatcher's Proof of God. Skinnytony1 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Skinnytony1 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism, or rather lack thereof[edit]

It's awfully strange that this page seems to be free of the SPOV critiques most pages on religion are subjected to (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)