3 ms·

None of the following statements are rational or evidence-based, but I consider them to be true: * Life is not perfect as long as there's death. * Humans cann

None of the following statements are rational or evidence-based, but I consider them to be true: * Life is not perfect as long as there's death. * Humans cannot live in perfect harmony with one another because of our pesky evil streak. * Man-made laws cannot eliminate human evil. When philosophising at such depths, it's instinctive to get religious. It's also a handy abstraction. Also, transcending reality through worship helps with the inevitable depression that goes along with deep thoughts about this broken existence. All that said, it's no surprise to me that such irrational thinking bugs a lot of people. I'm only mildly bugged by it anymore since I found Jesus.

_bxg1 8y ago
Despite some others' replies, I never meant to dismiss Christianity, much less religion in general. "It's a handy abstraction" is something I wholly agree with, which I think gets lost on a lot of self-identified "rationalists". I actually think there's a lot of value to be found in religion; the problem comes when it gets infused with a political or national identity and becomes a rallying call instead of a subject of contemplation. The red flags I saw in the article were 1) the hosting organization has a political agenda, and 2) it felt like the author tried to hide the roots of his ideas. It's possible he was just trying to avoid being judged based on his faith, which, yeah. But I've also seen people with an agenda try to propagate their religious or political ideas in a spoonful-of-sugar fashion; obscuring them within content that doesn't advertise itself as such, in hopes that it travels further. I've developed a heightened sense for that sort of thing over the years.
- EdSharkey 8y ago
  Yeah, it's super uncomfortable for me when I see religion mixed with/imposed on politics. I cringe when I hear someone quoting chapter and verse in a political context, having that be the whole basis of their opinion, because a lot of that knowledge they rely on is ancient/dead. Your spoonful of sugar observation is just human nature; people love to spout memes like they're so clever. :) Where we might disagree though is that I believe society, laws, and justice need to be predicated on moral codes. And so it follows that we all need to be able to speak the same moral language fluently. We should be informed by relevant moral teachings in the bible, primarily, and then great philosophers and legal scholars secondarily. What's "relevant" needs to be hashed out through extended civil discourse; it can't be imposed and have any hope for acceptance. I mentioned the bible specifically because it is a high quality doc and liberates the reader rather than shackles with its moral codes and message, which to me makes it unique and worthwhile.

_bxg1 8y ago

Despite some others' replies, I never meant to dismiss Christianity, much less religion in general. "It's a handy abstraction" is something I wholly agree with, which I think gets lost on a lot of self-identified "rationalists". I actually think there's a lot of value to be found in religion; the problem comes when it gets infused with a political or national identity and becomes a rallying call instead of a subject of contemplation. The red flags I saw in the article were 1) the hosting organization has a political agenda, and 2) it felt like the author tried to hide the roots of his ideas. It's possible he was just trying to avoid being judged based on his faith, which, yeah. But I've also seen people with an agenda try to propagate their religious or political ideas in a spoonful-of-sugar fashion; obscuring them within content that doesn't advertise itself as such, in hopes that it travels further. I've developed a heightened sense for that sort of thing over the years.

EdSharkey 8y ago
Yeah, it's super uncomfortable for me when I see religion mixed with/imposed on politics. I cringe when I hear someone quoting chapter and verse in a political context, having that be the whole basis of their opinion, because a lot of that knowledge they rely on is ancient/dead. Your spoonful of sugar observation is just human nature; people love to spout memes like they're so clever. :) Where we might disagree though is that I believe society, laws, and justice need to be predicated on moral codes. And so it follows that we all need to be able to speak the same moral language fluently. We should be informed by relevant moral teachings in the bible, primarily, and then great philosophers and legal scholars secondarily. What's "relevant" needs to be hashed out through extended civil discourse; it can't be imposed and have any hope for acceptance. I mentioned the bible specifically because it is a high quality doc and liberates the reader rather than shackles with its moral codes and message, which to me makes it unique and worthwhile.