5 ms·

How is believing in religion rational?

by rcme 3y ago

flkenosad 3y ago
Is it not rational to partake in activities which make one feel good?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Not if those activities end up causing harm to yourself or others. e.g. drugs can make you feel good, but is it rational to keep taking them until you are addicted?
- rcme 3y ago
  Yes, “X is true because it feels good to believe so” is not a rational basis for belief. Most people act rationally and irrationally. So you can hold an irrational belief, i.e. that your religion is the One True Religion, and then take rational actions like going to church based on that irrational belief.
throw0101a 3y ago
> How is believing in religion rational? By having personal experience(s) of things that cannot be explained in any other way? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun By employing one's sense of logic? * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
- gochi 3y ago
  There's an entire explanation section on that link, I don't know why you're using it as proof that "it cannot be explained in any other way". Choosing to believe something happened is one thing, choosing to believe that is undeniably attributed to a larger power is an added layer that isn't rational at all. You are misusing logic in the same way. You are disconnecting it from its value in order to justify a belief in a larger power. This is neither logical or rational. The entire idea that religion is rational or logical is one that's been pushed since the late enlightenment era upon realizing that you cannot control others through religion unless they believe that you are operating rationally on behalf of a larger power. This is the trick. It's very effective!
commonlisp94 3y ago
Is it rational to believe in humanism? Is it rational to believe in social progress narratives? Is it rational to believe in science as a "force for good"? I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world.
- hasbot 3y ago
  > I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world. Really?! That's definitely by viewpoint. I don't talk religion but in my encounters with other atheists, I haven't gotten the feeling that any believe there to be some narrative.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world you mean, people who don't believe there's a god (theism is a belief in a god, not just any belief or even any religion) that's what an atheist is (which is the same thing as a "true atheist", as long as we're making up phrases) a good example of an atheistic belief is "you should be excellent to each other, because it sucks when people aren't like that to you" - no god required
  - commonlisp94 3y ago
    > that's what an atheist is Generally atheists claim to be skeptical of all religion and mysticism regardless of whether it claims a "creator god". If you want to be pedantic and say someone who believes in ghosts, but not God is still be an atheist, well ok. My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs as non-material and unscientific as any religion. Hence they are not inherently more rational. > be excellent to each other I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all. Are you treating them well because it's right, or because it's a benefit to you? If it's just comfort, then it only makes sense when it's convenient for you, or likely to be reciprocated. Should you do what makes other people feel good? Or what is actually good for them? After all, it "sucks" when people try to make you do things. How would you know when to violate your rule of being "excellent"?
vacuity 3y ago
I'll subvert this and say that any religion and atheism aren't rational. Ignoring the case of supernatural compulsion, a given person has ingrained beliefs/values, as well as a personality, that drive what they accept and don't accept. Strictly trying to achieve rationality embodies the scientific method, but science can't prove or disprove anything, ultimately. Beliefs that fill the void there are beyond rationality. A belief that is heavily debunked by science can be considered irrational. Just keep in mind that science isn't perfectly capable.
- rcme 3y ago
  > but science can't prove or disprove anything, ultimately. What? From where do we derive our knowledge of the natural world and universe? How do we know, for instance, that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa? Are you implying that we don’t know that, or are you implying our knowledge of this fact is a divine gift?
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Prove is a very strong word. Science is empirical, an endless journey of testing hypotheses, gathering data, forming theories, and examining gaps in understanding. We do have more or less incontrovertible evidence for the Earth revolving around the Sun, so it's not a problem to take that as fact. However, there are many things that we are much less certain of, such as the nature of dark matter. The closest to complete understanding would be having no evidence to dispute our theories. The separation of this state and the ability to prove things may seem inconsequential as I've described it, but concepts such as the existence of God and the basis of human rights aren't touchable by science.
    - rcme 3y ago
      So your argument is that science can’t prove anything because it can’t prove everything? Also you said science can’t prove or disprove, but it seems trivially easy to construct many things science could disprove. E.g. you could disprove that 5 N of force is not enough to accelerate a 1 kg sphere to exit velocity on Earth.
varjag 3y ago
You tell me?
swat535 3y ago
Rather than engage in a conversation that will wind up being ultimately a superficial argument or confirmation of your current stance I recommend a book. It's called "Theology and Sanity" by Theologian Frank Sheed of Australia. Arguing deep topics with a few lines of text every few hours is no way to be persuaded. But it will all too easily confirm your current ideas simply because you will get tired of it and you will conclude that nobody has any valid arguments against your position. This is why you have to get really serious about it and study under people who have "been there and done that" already. You will have to take the time to go through the entire process it cannot be done online. It is strange that Atheists immediately discount philophical, theological and other arguments. For example, personal experiences and accepting the testimony and authority of those you trust is perfectly rational. It's not fullproof but it's still rational to do so, because there are many sorts of things that we have to accept as true based on such evidence.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
My somewhat mathematical point of view is that I can accept adjoining independent but weird axioms into your axiom set, but I can't accept running around with a formal system that has already reached a logical contradiction or that doesn't even use inference from axioms as its basis.

How is believing in religion rational?

by rcme 3y ago

How is believing in religion rational?

flkenosad 3y ago

Is it not rational to partake in activities which make one feel good?

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Not if those activities end up causing harm to yourself or others. e.g. drugs can make you feel good, but is it rational to keep taking them until you are addicted?
rcme 3y ago
Yes, “X is true because it feels good to believe so” is not a rational basis for belief. Most people act rationally and irrationally. So you can hold an irrational belief, i.e. that your religion is the One True Religion, and then take rational actions like going to church based on that irrational belief.

throw0101a 3y ago

> How is believing in religion rational? By having personal experience(s) of things that cannot be explained in any other way? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun By employing one's sense of logic? * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...

gochi 3y ago
There's an entire explanation section on that link, I don't know why you're using it as proof that "it cannot be explained in any other way". Choosing to believe something happened is one thing, choosing to believe that is undeniably attributed to a larger power is an added layer that isn't rational at all. You are misusing logic in the same way. You are disconnecting it from its value in order to justify a belief in a larger power. This is neither logical or rational. The entire idea that religion is rational or logical is one that's been pushed since the late enlightenment era upon realizing that you cannot control others through religion unless they believe that you are operating rationally on behalf of a larger power. This is the trick. It's very effective!

commonlisp94 3y ago

Is it rational to believe in humanism? Is it rational to believe in social progress narratives? Is it rational to believe in science as a "force for good"? I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world.

hasbot 3y ago
> I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world. Really?! That's definitely by viewpoint. I don't talk religion but in my encounters with other atheists, I haven't gotten the feeling that any believe there to be some narrative.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world you mean, people who don't believe there's a god (theism is a belief in a god, not just any belief or even any religion) that's what an atheist is (which is the same thing as a "true atheist", as long as we're making up phrases) a good example of an atheistic belief is "you should be excellent to each other, because it sucks when people aren't like that to you" - no god required
- commonlisp94 3y ago
  > that's what an atheist is Generally atheists claim to be skeptical of all religion and mysticism regardless of whether it claims a "creator god". If you want to be pedantic and say someone who believes in ghosts, but not God is still be an atheist, well ok. My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs as non-material and unscientific as any religion. Hence they are not inherently more rational. > be excellent to each other I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all. Are you treating them well because it's right, or because it's a benefit to you? If it's just comfort, then it only makes sense when it's convenient for you, or likely to be reciprocated. Should you do what makes other people feel good? Or what is actually good for them? After all, it "sucks" when people try to make you do things. How would you know when to violate your rule of being "excellent"?

vacuity 3y ago

I'll subvert this and say that any religion and atheism aren't rational. Ignoring the case of supernatural compulsion, a given person has ingrained beliefs/values, as well as a personality, that drive what they accept and don't accept. Strictly trying to achieve rationality embodies the scientific method, but science can't prove or disprove anything, ultimately. Beliefs that fill the void there are beyond rationality. A belief that is heavily debunked by science can be considered irrational. Just keep in mind that science isn't perfectly capable.

rcme 3y ago
> but science can't prove or disprove anything, ultimately. What? From where do we derive our knowledge of the natural world and universe? How do we know, for instance, that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa? Are you implying that we don’t know that, or are you implying our knowledge of this fact is a divine gift?
- vacuity 3y ago
  Prove is a very strong word. Science is empirical, an endless journey of testing hypotheses, gathering data, forming theories, and examining gaps in understanding. We do have more or less incontrovertible evidence for the Earth revolving around the Sun, so it's not a problem to take that as fact. However, there are many things that we are much less certain of, such as the nature of dark matter. The closest to complete understanding would be having no evidence to dispute our theories. The separation of this state and the ability to prove things may seem inconsequential as I've described it, but concepts such as the existence of God and the basis of human rights aren't touchable by science.
  - rcme 3y ago
    So your argument is that science can’t prove anything because it can’t prove everything? Also you said science can’t prove or disprove, but it seems trivially easy to construct many things science could disprove. E.g. you could disprove that 5 N of force is not enough to accelerate a 1 kg sphere to exit velocity on Earth.

varjag 3y ago

You tell me?

swat535 3y ago

Rather than engage in a conversation that will wind up being ultimately a superficial argument or confirmation of your current stance I recommend a book. It's called "Theology and Sanity" by Theologian Frank Sheed of Australia. Arguing deep topics with a few lines of text every few hours is no way to be persuaded. But it will all too easily confirm your current ideas simply because you will get tired of it and you will conclude that nobody has any valid arguments against your position. This is why you have to get really serious about it and study under people who have "been there and done that" already. You will have to take the time to go through the entire process it cannot be done online. It is strange that Atheists immediately discount philophical, theological and other arguments. For example, personal experiences and accepting the testimony and authority of those you trust is perfectly rational. It's not fullproof but it's still rational to do so, because there are many sorts of things that we have to accept as true based on such evidence.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

My somewhat mathematical point of view is that I can accept adjoining independent but weird axioms into your axiom set, but I can't accept running around with a formal system that has already reached a logical contradiction or that doesn't even use inference from axioms as its basis.