Religion

[Nalaris]

I think it's more likely that there's a force behind the Big Bang as opposed to it being a random event based off the fact that it hasn't happened since, ever.

Also, by exerting mastery over the string theory (which may or may not be true) and the four forces of the earth (Electromagnetism, Gravity, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear), one could recreate all of God's miracles.

Assuming the string theory is true (which I'm not, but I do think it's quite possible) than God is completely possible, and maybe even probable.

If there's something I don't know here, feel free to correct me: I seek only truth.

[Diego]

hf:

Rationality is a man-made concept, and, I would argue, inherently subjective.

Man-made concepts need not be subjective. Everything was at some point subjective to the single mind or group of minds that created it. But rationality (and logic) became frameworks of clearly established methods and semantics for humans to interact; a language of sorts so that everyone can speak and be understood by anyone else who understands the language, ridding one from issues such as ambiguousness of real-world languages and such. In that sense, as far as mankind is concerned and can ever be concerned, rationality is the only objective standard we've ever achieved.

To say that people of faith cannot rationally uphold that belief, is misleading. To someone who may feel 'touched', their faith would seem entirely rational to them.
To you, and to me, that is not rational, in our sense of rational.

No, that's blatantly wrong. Faith is, by definition, irrational. If you have evidence for your belief, you don't have faith, you're making a logical choice. If you have rationality behind your belief, you don't have faith, you're being rational. Worldly concepts are leading you to an otherworldly answer, which makes the entire ordeal senseless. Faith is 100% subjective and personal; faith trascends the limitations of our mind and our world, and is a blind, total vote of confidence in something for no tangible reason whatsoever. Faith is belief not based on proof, not based on evidence, not based on testimony, not based on anything remotely rational or logical on this Earth. If you need any of the above to believe, you're not faithful.

Not that I am suggesting that it makes a 'believer' rational, just because they feel rational. Whilst rationality may be subjective, it is also relative - and the commonly upheld notions of rationality do not converge with what someone of faith may feel.

Again, not true. Rationality is directly related to logic, as in, one is rational when one's actions are logical. Logic will never lead to faith, as their definitions simply contradict each other. As thus, faith is never rational. Simply because someone thinks their faith is rational it doesn't mean it is; logic is absolute and mathematical, and rationality, while slightly more complex, is as precise.

Additonally, I would argue that objective rationality does not exist (cannot, as it is a word, and meanings associated with words are far from ojective).

Semantics. The notion of rational behavior as behavior drawn from a logical perception of the world is fairly easy to extrapolate as objective.

But, even if there was such a thing as objective rationality, no person could ever be such a thing, we cannot, by our nature, be objective.

Obviously. Thought is always influenced by emotion, and emotion is irrational. However, rationality usually refers to one's actions and decisions (things that can be controlled) rather than one's thoughts and feelings (things that cannot). One can be rational in one's behavior without being rational in one's emotions in much the same way I can be peaceful in my actions while thinking about beating the shit out of someone.

Arguments arise when two groups cannot comprehend why another group thinks, feels, does whatever they do. We have, at our side, a pleathora of arms in the form of words. But those we argue with have the exact same set of weapons, but wield them differently.

Indeed. Luckily, logic is precise enough to have a correct way of being wielded, and a definite set of results per scenario.

We can say some people are irrational to believe in illogical faith, others would argue that we are irrational for not opening ourselves to 'feeling' God's presence. We may say they are blind for not considering the obvious flaws in their reasoning, in return, we are blind for not seeing how obviously truthful their concerns are.

Every single religious concern, piece of evidence, sensation and emotion can be shot down by science and logic. There is no unexplained, there is only the misinformed. Thus, belief is irrational. Not wrong, not stupid, but not rational.

All right and wrong, irrational and rational, logic, reasoning, proof, truth and falsehood are all subjective, as are all words.

Moot point. The concept of logic trascends that of language, as logic is indeed a meta-language, a mathematically-precise scenario for human interaction. It's subjective to, say, another species (maybe) or another civilization (maaaaaybe), but even this is debatable, as it is vastly drawn from mathematics, and mathematics are the one thing on this Universe we're pretty sure is 100% objective.

Pie:

Why couldn't someone who believes in religion have "no reason or explanation for ever being remotely rational or logical at all. "?

Because it would be incoherent with their other choice, of course.

Nalaris:

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject:
I think it's more likely that there's a force behind the Big Bang as opposed to it being a random event based off the fact that it hasn't happened since, ever.

There have never been any naked singularities since, ever.

[Floris]

Interesting question of mine here: is your above post rational? and is so, can you rationally explain faith?

[Diego]

Well, my above post attempts to stick to rationality, or to view things in a rational way.

Can I explain faith, rationally? No. That's an oxymoron. True, real, religious faith is entirely impossible to explain in rational terms.

[Pie]

Faith in evolution Is imposibal to explain in all rational termsl.

I know I may be biting a bullet, but I see no difference from me believing compleatly in my religion, to you believing in evolution, exept that Mine does not need to put down evidence that is fals to truthify it.

Aaand I'm board.

[Mykey]

Everything, everything.

[Diego]

Of course. Evolution does not require faith, and someone who has faith on evolution is as irrational as someone who has faith on God.

Your religion does not have evidence for it, and as a Christian, you should not seek, need or ask for evidence for it. You aren't convinced of religion, you believe in religion. On the other hand, people do not (or should not) believe in evolution, but rather, be convinced of it by the truckloads of good science backing it.

Now, on the other hand, there is no more merit in believing in logic and rationality than there is in believing in faith and religion. Just that, when one wonders where each path leads to and how life would work out when choosing each of them, rationality and logic seem like the better choice, to me, personally. You're all free to choose the other path, just don't try to justify it as rational, sensible or logical.

[Pie]

*Ehem* Must I go over the life of jesus again?

[Diego]

As supported exclusively by the Bible? No.

[Mykey]

Whether there are analogues?

[Zanthos]

Now aren't I the odd one out...

A practicing catholic going to a science institute...

Mass here is held in a room below my dorms...

[Floris]

Really there is only a small difference, one relies on blind fanaticism, and doctrine, while another has the same, but one that is periodically amendable.

Excuse me, blind fanaticism?

[Floris]

Of course. Evolution does not require faith, and someone who has faith on evolution is as irrational as someone who has faith on God.

Your religion does not have evidence for it, and as a Christian, you should not seek, need or ask for evidence for it. You aren't convinced of religion, you believe in religion. On the other hand, people do not (or should not) believe in evolution, but rather, be convinced of it by the truckloads of good science backing it.

Now, on the other hand, there is no more merit in believing in logic and rationality than there is in believing in faith and religion. Just that, when one wonders where each path leads to and how life would work out when choosing each of them, rationality and logic seem like the better choice, to me, personally. You're all free to choose the other path, just don't try to justify it as rational, sensible or logical.

Two questions:

As you personally think that a life of rationality and logic seems the better choice, what about your emotions and your feelings in your life then(this is an open question)?

Secondly, I think it is not necessarily impossible to live a life with both faith and rationality.

[formerly known as hf]

Diego,
Whatever else you may consider logic and rationality to be, they are but mere words. And not one word can ever have a universal, objective meaning.

Any one word will only have as much meaning as a like-minded group of people give it. And these meanings are divergent, and differentiate over time and space, and between individuals and cultures.


Logic and rationality may have dictionary-definitions, may have applicable practicalities, may have abstract notions which they describe, but they are, above all, words, and words and language cannot be anything but inherently subjective.


I am not arguing that faith is, or can be rational in the way you or I would consider something to be rational. But it it not impossible that someone of faith can feel their belief to be rational.

Rationality and logic have divergent meanings. They may refer to abstract, academic notions. They can also be used to say that someone feels somethng is self-evident, the obvious choice, etc. In the terms of the way you and I understand language, that would be an incorrect use of language, but it is a mode of use that millions use. That cannot be disregarded.


My ultimate point, really, is that to call faith irrational, is to ignore how many people utilise the words rational and logical in their lives.

Faith is belief not based on proof, not based on evidence, not based on testimony, not based on anything remotely rational or logical on this Earth.

Which is where notions of rationality as objective, fails.
Rationality, to be objective, also requires objective use of 'proof', evidence, truth etc. None of which can be objective.
As pie has continuously demonstrated, proof, and evidence is very far from an objective concept. To many people, they have their proof, they have their evidence, they have all they need to make, for them, a 'rational' desicison to believe.


My biggest disagreement then, moving away, yet again, from the subject of the topic, is this statement,

Man-made concepts need not be subjective ... rationality is the only objective standard we've ever achieved.

Is just something I can never agree with.
Human beings are inherently subjective, we cannot be objective in our reasoning, nor do I think a state of objectivity is at all possible when human perception is involved.

Language is inherently subjective, it cannot be used objectively. A word has meaning in as much as it has a common usage, and no word has a universal usage.

Even the abstract notions of logic and rationality, in the academic sense, are not an objective.

(For a cliche example) 1+1=2 is only as logical and objective in that it is the 'truth' in the world of numerics as commonly understood. Outside of that sphere, it no no longer an objective statement. It is disputed.
We, as humans, do not (cannot) have a universal understanding, thus we can never percieve or make statements which have universal objectivity.

[formerly known as hf]

One of my favourite passages;

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can't tell you.)