Religion is irrational, so what?

What’s the problem when one realizes that religion is irrational? Does that mean that one should not believe?

It only means that two FAITHS cannot be reconciled. It does not mean that religious faith is ruled out by a superior power. Reason and religious faith are on the same level, in the same bag. Religious faith cannot be disproved by reason, that is, shown to be false. All that one can do is to show religious faith to be irrational, but it does not mean that, in consequence, it is a good thing not to believe.

Since reason is dead*, everything is permitted.

• as distinct from faith

Sâmkhya

I am amazed by your obsession with an understanding religion.

what do you mean by the above? People who are religious are most rational. Are you religious yourself? If not, how can you comment on religion, something you yourself knows nothing about?

and by ‘reason’ do you mean human logical faculty?

I don’t see what ethics has anything to do with reason. Ethics is governed by our psychological inclinations, while reason is by our understanding of cause and effect. We feel certain way about things, the reason being the way we are.

another thing, if you are so interested in religion why not visit a religious insitution or something. why not go and try religion for yourself before commenting on it like an outsider?

POR,
Theoretically, would you say only people with the HIV/AIDS virus should be concerned with the HIV/AIDS virus?

correct!

and of course we all know that the only reasonable course left is to worship at the temples of the purple wombats…

but wait! no reason! so there can be no excuse not to be kneeling in the front…

all hail the wombats!

-Imp

When I say that everything is permitted, I mean: every BELIEF is permitted.

What difference does it make, whether it is reasonable or not? One believes what he wants, since reason can no longer be the ruler of beliefs.

When people try to grasp reason too harshly, they end up with harsh consequences. The human mind by nature is both rational and irrational, so if you try to put all your perceptions through the meat grinder of reason you end up closing yourself off to your unconcious.

Besides, to assume that everything in exsistence correlates with a set method of reason is ridiculous. If pure reason could lead to a definate picture of all exsistence, then we wouldn’t have so many differing opinions which we obviously do.

Sâmkhya

There’s a difference between irrational and not as yet verified. The very fact that one is unable to discover reason does not define irrationality. There’s no reason to assume the essence of religion which is man’s relationship and potential in relation to his creator is irrational. The question is open and as such cannot be considered irrational.

In tic tac toe, it would be irrational to say that the first to play could lose if he placed an X in a corner box for example. You can work out the possibilities and see that by best play the worst the first player can do is draw. This is conclusive proof.

However, in chess many lines of play could be considered winning and rational reasons explained by experts could be described and demonstrated to prove it. Yet Kasparov in such a case could examine a position and find a combination that changes everything. It was rational to underestimate the position but with new information, it now becomes rational to change ones mind. Rationality now replaces rationality Though the initial analysis was rational and the conclusions valid, its conclusion wasn’t true because of the faulty premise in which the position was understood.

It would have been naive to say that the rational conclusions of the “experts” made doubting them by a regular player irrational.

The same holds true with the essence of religion. I could give many rational descriptions of universal laws in relation to the being of man. The very fact that their interaction cannot be easily demonstrated as in tic tac toe and must remain open to deeper revelations as in chess cannot be said to imply irrationality. The question of verification is open.

Discrimination is important in Christianity for example. It means both the necessity of distinguishing the real from the unreal both inwardly and in contact with external life. False prophets are a dime a dozen. Blind belief would defeat the purpose. That is why verification in regards the essence of religion must include not only thought but conscious intent for the impartial experience of emotional and sensory perception.

Just as the chess player learns new information that changes his views of a position, new information from such impartial efforts can open one to experiences that allow for greater understanding including a higher quality of reason bringing a new dimension to rationality.

For reason to live beyond the realm of the computer which is a dead machine, it needs to become an aspect of human understanding which includes the living perspective of “being” in which associative reason plays only a part. Everything is permitted in fantasy. The purpose of religion in contrast is to expose fantasy for what it is so that a person can grow in the qualitiative reality of their being.

exactly! no reason… everyone must worship the wombats now…

-Imp

Everyone is free to believe what he wants.

For practical purposes, it is better to think reasonably, but in the field of metaphysics, complete freedom.

You can say that everyone must worship X, and I can say the contrary. We are merely expressing our beliefs.

for practical purposes, all must worship the wombats…

and I never said you had to believe in anything…

-Imp

You are free to express your opinion. I can’t counter it on behalf of reason.

I’m always wary of these topics where “religion” and “irrational” appear in the same sentence. “Irrational” can have so many nuances. Is religion irrational, meaning it goes against previously known truths? Aquinas says no: there is only one truth common to Scripture and Nature.

Is religion provable? Well, on this board they think about approaching religion philosophicaly, when it seems there are other routes, like historical research, to show the veracity of a religion. Some religions are certainly more believable than others.

As for disproving a religion, I think some philosophers would say that Mormonism, as a particular example, would be disproved as they argue that God can not have a body proper to himself. God is an unmoved mover and a body is a moved – so, no body proper to UM. (But I expect BYU Philosophy students should have an answer for this.)

So I think all this “irrational religion” talk is both unsubstantiated and very non-Western.

Regards,
my real name

Mankind’s rationality is evolving. We once believed in witches, we once believed in evil spirits causing illness. Could God be evolved out of us?

Do you mean rationality is evolving, or culture is evolving? Religion is one of the great evolutions of human culture and spirit. Hegel, if i remember correctly, said that religion would be out-evolved by philosophy. I don’t think philosophy can take the place of religious practice, however; if by philosophy you mean only intellectual action and by religion you mean that and further ways of reacting to, and encapsulating in tradition, the experience of God.

mrn

imp

At least worshipping wombats is not by definition all that harmful. Much more harm can be created through worshipping dingbats as in politics for example. Dingbat worship based on reasoned arguments presented in the form of logical talking points asserting the reasoned adoration of the chosen dingbat can easily become more harmful than a blind faith in a wombat.

Today wombat worship, tomorrow forced wombat worship.

same difference.

-Imp

Isn’t political worship merely worship of ourselves, who agree with those we worship? But religious worship is a challenge.

“What’s the problem when one realizes that religion is irrational? Does that mean that one should not believe?”

O- Why is it irrational? It is for billions the most rational thing. And what is rational if not that onj which we can agree on? But perhaps that is the rub. Each religion is quite rational but mankind is irrational.

“It only means that two FAITHS cannot be reconciled.”

O- Just like two opinions, two theories, two guesses etc. Yet a circle is a circle, a line a line and a triangle is a triangle regardless of the faith or religion, creed or preference you hold dear. That is the difference I see between what is rational and what is faith. Is geometry and math free of faith? Is science free of it? No. But they can be challenge by reason; they are underneath reason; they can be attacked by the religion of the rational. Religion is meta-rational; is beyond demonstrations. I don’t consider it irrational, because it makes sense and is not demonstrably false… universally speaking. I say that it is meta-physical because their dogmas are accepted on faith and cannot be submitted to reason. What is God’s name? Yahweh or Allah? Reason has no ledge on which to hold itself. Independent of one another each religion is a reasonable system, like any good theory is, but grafted to another, and that is really where all our problems start, all rational discussion is and must be abandoned and replaced with force alone…as all meta-rational systems are beyond reasoning.

"It does not mean that religious faith is ruled out by a superior power. Reason and religious faith are on the same level, in the same bag.

O- These are dangerous words and beliefs you hold then. It is the equivalent of philosophical suicide.

“Religious faith cannot be disproved by reason, that is, shown to be false.”

O- And cannot be proved by reason, and shown, as you might say, “true”.

“All that one can do is to show religious faith to be irrational, but it does not mean that, in consequence, it is a good thing not to believe.”

O- That is a value judgement…what is “good”? Crusades? Religious wars lasting decades? Inquisitions? Terrorism? Is that “good”?
I don’t mean that we should throw the baby with the bath water but recognize that serious objections can be raised against belief; that for some, like Freud for example, religion is a toxic moment in the history of man.

“Since reason is dead*, everything is permitted.”

O- You say that everything can be believed; yet if everything can be believed, in fact, no-thing can be believed. Love for all paradoxically means love for none.