3 ms·

Isn't it the other way around? I just argued that belief in what I call pseudo-facts can be seen as an odd form of rationality, if by announcing your belief in

Isn't it the other way around? I just argued that belief in what I call pseudo-facts can be seen as an odd form of rationality, if by announcing your belief in them you get useful and positive things in return. For organised religion that might be a community of friends and people who will help you in times of need, a feeling of being part of something, a collection of interesting stories and shared cultural artifacts, acceptance by family, less anxiety about death, a moral code to live by or all of them together. In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief, but the overall behaviour that surrounds it can be a rational choice. Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational, and then go on to claim that literally anything can be considered rational because you can just pick your own axioms. That's not how rationality works! You can go ahead and create an argument that seems perfectly reasonable in your own frame of reference but nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared or are clearly nonsense!

humanrebar 10y ago
> In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief I find it optimistic, to say the least, that each individual can reasonably start from first principles, discover whether there is a Creator, discover if God wants anything from us, and then comply with the requirements of God before the afterlife (if there is one). Atheism is a much more defensible position than a personal deism of any specificity. Regarding group membership, some organizations are absolutely about that, but the Jesus of the Bible was clearly opposed to people using religion for personal ends. So there are religions that are open to hanging around for the friendship, but biblical Christianity isn't one of them. > Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational... I didn't mean any offense. It seemed likely that we didn't have the same definition of 'rational' and it seems even more likely now. > ...nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared... Except people clearly do care. And their response is to establish ingroups, outgroups, promote ignorance, and that's not a good road to go down. I would rather people come to an understanding that everyone is mostly rational, mostly logical, and mostly trying to live a good life. They're normal people that made other choices, in other words. Regarding nonsensical axioms, axioms can be nonsense if they are inherently contradictory. The axioms we're talking about here pass that hurdle.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  > I find it optimistic, to say the least, that each individual can reasonably start from first principles, discover whether there is a Creator, discover if God wants anything from us, and then comply with the requirements of God before the afterlife (if there is one). I am willing to bet that there is less people in this world who do this "search on their own and discover god" than there are atheists. In fact, if you hang around atheist circles (The Atheist Experience for example), you'll hear enough people say they lost friends/family after deconverting or even that they still fear Hell even after they stopped believing. > but the Jesus of the Bible was clearly opposed to people using religion for personal ends How would you know? You realize that, assuming that Jesus did exist as a single person and all, we only have accounts compiled by a single authority that had interest in not having any negative portrayal of the guy? It's like saying that Steve Jobs was not a bad person because his authorized biography didn't mention any terrible things (and even then, Jobs' probably mentions his daughter in passing at least). > Regarding nonsensical axioms, axioms can be nonsense if they are inherently contradictory. If you believe in truth-coherence, which seems to be a belief that religiosity-inclined people have. Monists/materialists seem to tend more towards the truth-correspondence view. Under the latter, axioms don't need to be contradictory to be nonsense. They just need to be contradictory with reality.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > How would you know? I said "Jesus of the Bible" to avoid getting into that here. > [Nonsensical axioms] just need to be contradictory with reality. Sure, but there's no objective observation that can prove God does or does not exist. If He is omniscient and omnipotent, He cannot be a dependent variable in any experiment. > I am willing to bet that there is less people in this world who do this "search on their own and discover god" than there are atheists. Any self-professed Christian who deviates from the teachings of the Bible either intentionally or out of disinterest is doing this to some degree. And everyone who considers themselves theist without affirming some more established canon is doing this. I would wager there are more of those than atheist or orthodox (in the broad sense) Christians.
    - 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief I find it optimistic, to say the least, that each individual can reasonably start from first principles, discover whether there is a Creator, discover if God wants anything from us, and then comply with the requirements of God before the afterlife (if there is one). Atheism is a much more defensible position than a personal deism of any specificity. Regarding group membership, some organizations are absolutely about that, but the Jesus of the Bible was clearly opposed to people using religion for personal ends. So there are religions that are open to hanging around for the friendship, but biblical Christianity isn't one of them. > Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational... I didn't mean any offense. It seemed likely that we didn't have the same definition of 'rational' and it seems even more likely now. > ...nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared... Except people clearly do care. And their response is to establish ingroups, outgroups, promote ignorance, and that's not a good road to go down. I would rather people come to an understanding that everyone is mostly rational, mostly logical, and mostly trying to live a good life. They're normal people that made other choices, in other words. Regarding nonsensical axioms, axioms can be nonsense if they are inherently contradictory. The axioms we're talking about here pass that hurdle.

sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> I find it optimistic, to say the least, that each individual can reasonably start from first principles, discover whether there is a Creator, discover if God wants anything from us, and then comply with the requirements of God before the afterlife (if there is one). I am willing to bet that there is less people in this world who do this "search on their own and discover god" than there are atheists. In fact, if you hang around atheist circles (The Atheist Experience for example), you'll hear enough people say they lost friends/family after deconverting or even that they still fear Hell even after they stopped believing. > but the Jesus of the Bible was clearly opposed to people using religion for personal ends How would you know? You realize that, assuming that Jesus did exist as a single person and all, we only have accounts compiled by a single authority that had interest in not having any negative portrayal of the guy? It's like saying that Steve Jobs was not a bad person because his authorized biography didn't mention any terrible things (and even then, Jobs' probably mentions his daughter in passing at least). > Regarding nonsensical axioms, axioms can be nonsense if they are inherently contradictory. If you believe in truth-coherence, which seems to be a belief that religiosity-inclined people have. Monists/materialists seem to tend more towards the truth-correspondence view. Under the latter, axioms don't need to be contradictory to be nonsense. They just need to be contradictory with reality.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > How would you know? I said "Jesus of the Bible" to avoid getting into that here. > [Nonsensical axioms] just need to be contradictory with reality. Sure, but there's no objective observation that can prove God does or does not exist. If He is omniscient and omnipotent, He cannot be a dependent variable in any experiment. > I am willing to bet that there is less people in this world who do this "search on their own and discover god" than there are atheists. Any self-professed Christian who deviates from the teachings of the Bible either intentionally or out of disinterest is doing this to some degree. And everyone who considers themselves theist without affirming some more established canon is doing this. I would wager there are more of those than atheist or orthodox (in the broad sense) Christians.
  - 10y ago