3 ms·

Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religi

Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). That being said, I'll accept your fallacious assumption for a moment and turn your question around: what if an emotional system is necessary for self-aware, volitional intelligence? Our emotions are inseperably intertwined with the other aspects of our minds, and it might very well be that they are a fundamental aspect of consciousness.

Locke1689 15y ago
Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). Many philosophers and theologians have attempted to make completely rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. My liberal arts theme in undergrad was philosophy so I've read a fair amount, but I have yet to see a compelling argument yet. Could you please make some suggestions?
- lucasjung 15y ago
  Just because you didn't find them compelling doesn't mean they are somehow flawed. There are whole schools of philosophy that are mutually exclusive and yet are subscribed to each by many very intelligent people who are unable to decisively prove each other wrong. Having studied so much philosophy, you of all people should understand that there is a huge difference between a rational, consistent argument and a proof. EDIT: Proving or disproving the existence of God is, in general, a fool's game. One could probably prove that certain types of deities are impossible, but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible. On the other hand, proving the existence of God would almost certainly require a well-documented divine intervention, and even then many people would (rightfully) remain skeptical. Also, my previous post didn't say anything about proving the existence of God: I said that they made "arguments in favor of religion," which is not the same thing. First, not all religions involve deities. Even if you restrict the discussion to religions involving deities, it is possible to argue that it is desireable or advantageous to believe in God without first proving that God exists. Furthermore, even some atheists argue that religion in general or some religions in particular have had a net positive impact on humanity.
  - ignifero 15y ago
    Good points here, although i must note that your appeal to authority ("many intelligent people") does not lend credence to any of these arguments. For many people, they are no more true than any random syntactically correct sentence. And in any case, i feel this thread is diverting to a ... religious argument. p.s. "...but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible" - could you point to a proof of that?
    - klipt 15y ago
      Well, if you accept that it's impossible to prove that we aren't in a simulation - then it's possible we are in a simulation, and that would make the being responsible for simulating us a deity of sorts.
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      It was not an appeal to authority, nor was it intended to support any of those arguments. It was intended to underscore the point that a particular philosophical argument is not automatically invalid simply because some people, no matter how intelligent and rational, do not find it convincing. In effect, it was a rejection of gp's appeal to his own authority as a student of philosophy. As for your latter point: if you disprove the possibility of deities with a particular quality or set of qualities, I can then describe a deity which lacks those qualities and is therefore outside the set of deities you have proven impossible. For example, if you can somehow prove that there has never been divine intervention of any form (which I highly doubt is possible to prove), then I could respond by positing a deity that does not intervene in the temporal universe at all, but instead rules only in the afterlife. Since the afterlife is beyond temporal measurement, it is by definition beyond empirical observation, and there is therefore no way you can disprove the existence of an afterlife. By extension, there is no way you can disprove the existence of a deity which rules the afterlife.
      - ignifero 15y ago
        Thanks for your time. See, i am an eliminativist myself, so i would doubt things like afterlife and spirit are accessible to us humans. I might accept forms of non-intervening deities if it were confined to setting the initial conditions of the big bang. Point is, arguing against it or for it is like arguing the weather.
ignifero 15y ago
a) The arguments i 've heard about religious faith attempt to explain metaphysics by resorting to metaphysics, which, to me, is weak circular logic; but, fair, i don't have the means to disprove them either. My critical attitude was towards religion, the social construct which has historically been used to manipulate human groups through religious faith. Then again maybe religion has been evolutionary advantageous, although it hasn't been around long enough to be selected out of the population. b) You are right. AFAIK, religious experiences involves the parietal and temporal lobes, so its not just the emotional system. Agree that it's an important (irreplaceable?) part of our self-awareness. However the fact that non-religious people can act ethically in a harmonious society indicates that it might be reduntant. Still, religious beliefs arise in a brain, so there will probably be a way to turn them off (probably not without sideeffects).
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Non-religious people can also believe in superstitious, irrational beliefs. Isn't irrationality inevitable?
  - ignifero 15y ago
    They can, but they don't have to, so it's not inevitable.
    - Apocryphon 15y ago
      Don't they have to? Isn't everyone irrational to some extent? I mean it may be as little or minor as believing one economic/political theory over another in the absence of clear evidence. Or betting on string theory over another explanation.
      - ignifero 15y ago
        Making a random decision in the absence of empirical evidence is rational thinking. It's irrational to make it in the presence of overwhelming evidence or counter evidence.

Locke1689 15y ago

Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). Many philosophers and theologians have attempted to make completely rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. My liberal arts theme in undergrad was philosophy so I've read a fair amount, but I have yet to see a compelling argument yet. Could you please make some suggestions?

lucasjung 15y ago
Just because you didn't find them compelling doesn't mean they are somehow flawed. There are whole schools of philosophy that are mutually exclusive and yet are subscribed to each by many very intelligent people who are unable to decisively prove each other wrong. Having studied so much philosophy, you of all people should understand that there is a huge difference between a rational, consistent argument and a proof. EDIT: Proving or disproving the existence of God is, in general, a fool's game. One could probably prove that certain types of deities are impossible, but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible. On the other hand, proving the existence of God would almost certainly require a well-documented divine intervention, and even then many people would (rightfully) remain skeptical. Also, my previous post didn't say anything about proving the existence of God: I said that they made "arguments in favor of religion," which is not the same thing. First, not all religions involve deities. Even if you restrict the discussion to religions involving deities, it is possible to argue that it is desireable or advantageous to believe in God without first proving that God exists. Furthermore, even some atheists argue that religion in general or some religions in particular have had a net positive impact on humanity.
- ignifero 15y ago
  Good points here, although i must note that your appeal to authority ("many intelligent people") does not lend credence to any of these arguments. For many people, they are no more true than any random syntactically correct sentence. And in any case, i feel this thread is diverting to a ... religious argument. p.s. "...but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible" - could you point to a proof of that?
  - klipt 15y ago
    Well, if you accept that it's impossible to prove that we aren't in a simulation - then it's possible we are in a simulation, and that would make the being responsible for simulating us a deity of sorts.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    It was not an appeal to authority, nor was it intended to support any of those arguments. It was intended to underscore the point that a particular philosophical argument is not automatically invalid simply because some people, no matter how intelligent and rational, do not find it convincing. In effect, it was a rejection of gp's appeal to his own authority as a student of philosophy. As for your latter point: if you disprove the possibility of deities with a particular quality or set of qualities, I can then describe a deity which lacks those qualities and is therefore outside the set of deities you have proven impossible. For example, if you can somehow prove that there has never been divine intervention of any form (which I highly doubt is possible to prove), then I could respond by positing a deity that does not intervene in the temporal universe at all, but instead rules only in the afterlife. Since the afterlife is beyond temporal measurement, it is by definition beyond empirical observation, and there is therefore no way you can disprove the existence of an afterlife. By extension, there is no way you can disprove the existence of a deity which rules the afterlife.
    - ignifero 15y ago
      Thanks for your time. See, i am an eliminativist myself, so i would doubt things like afterlife and spirit are accessible to us humans. I might accept forms of non-intervening deities if it were confined to setting the initial conditions of the big bang. Point is, arguing against it or for it is like arguing the weather.

ignifero 15y ago

a) The arguments i 've heard about religious faith attempt to explain metaphysics by resorting to metaphysics, which, to me, is weak circular logic; but, fair, i don't have the means to disprove them either. My critical attitude was towards religion, the social construct which has historically been used to manipulate human groups through religious faith. Then again maybe religion has been evolutionary advantageous, although it hasn't been around long enough to be selected out of the population. b) You are right. AFAIK, religious experiences involves the parietal and temporal lobes, so its not just the emotional system. Agree that it's an important (irreplaceable?) part of our self-awareness. However the fact that non-religious people can act ethically in a harmonious society indicates that it might be reduntant. Still, religious beliefs arise in a brain, so there will probably be a way to turn them off (probably not without sideeffects).

Apocryphon 15y ago
Non-religious people can also believe in superstitious, irrational beliefs. Isn't irrationality inevitable?
- ignifero 15y ago
  They can, but they don't have to, so it's not inevitable.
  - Apocryphon 15y ago
    Don't they have to? Isn't everyone irrational to some extent? I mean it may be as little or minor as believing one economic/political theory over another in the absence of clear evidence. Or betting on string theory over another explanation.
    - ignifero 15y ago
      Making a random decision in the absence of empirical evidence is rational thinking. It's irrational to make it in the presence of overwhelming evidence or counter evidence.