Is Having a Religion a Sin To Rationalists??

[Vinayaka]

I always find it fascinating how one person can deny another person's experience. "No, you didn't see that." isn't much different than yelling at a child that he's not upset, and you're not angry.

But that's the nature of the 'rational' mind, I guess.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Short answer: Yes.

Of course rationalists would not word the belief in this fashion as they reject the notion of sin. Having a religion at this point in history is at best a major mistake, insult, or/and faux pas. Logic and empiricism bear fruit, faith only caters to the lower reptilian regions of our brains and adds nothing. I will say more, but I would rather listen for now.


re·li·gion /rəˈlijən/ noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

That definition is nonsense. You are obviously very ignorant over what both religion and rationalism are and so you resort to making crude caricatures out of both.

 

[Ingledsva]

Is Having a Religion a Sin To Rationalists??

Short answer: Yes.

Of course rationalists would not word the belief in this fashion as they reject the notion of sin. Having a religion at this point in history is at best a major mistake, insult, or/and faux pas. Logic and empiricism bear fruit, faith only caters to the lower reptilian regions of our brains and adds nothing. I will say more, but I would rather listen for now.


re·li·gion /rəˈlijən/ noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

SIN - A transgression of a religious or moral law.

Any course of action regarded as shameful or deplorable.


MORAL - of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action or character.


Having a religion is not a sin, or immoral.


However, acting on some of the beliefs and actions of some of those religions, would fall under those definitions, in the negative.


Such as the abuse, or mistreatment, of people because of race, or sexual orientation.


Or the idea that it is OK to kill the children of your enemies, etc.


*

 

[Uberpod]

What if the person feels certain of the experience and feels the materialists are just trying to 'explain away' something the materialists don't really understand.

Feeling certain of something that is absolutely wrong is a common human experience ( See research on Eyewitness Testimony and / or Out-of-body experiences.) Feeling of certainty without concurrent repeatable corroboration is not accepted evidence to a rationalist -- especially when an alternate explanation can be demonstrated with consistency.

It is still rational to believe, from experience, that there are real things a materialist does not understand.

Please provide a specific example so it may be evaluated.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Oxford English Dictionary uses this definition as its main entry. I think it is the most reasonable level of specificity. Other definitions take on a tinge of metaphor, as in any passionate beliefs. And. that is not to what I refer. I advocate passionate beliefs that are based on evidence and logic.

Well, let it be known that I very much disagree.

 

[Uberpod]

Well, let it be known that I very much disagree.

Duly noted. BTW, Chi is a superhuman controlling power I do believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Duly noted. BTW, Chi is a superhuman controlling power I do believe.

Chi, the Taoist concept? I don't think I agree with that either.

 

[bobhikes]

One who holds that the belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Well I'll never be rational. Emotions are a big part of my life and I use them in my decisions. I may even decide on an action by flipping a coin. Don't get me started on how I form opinion's.

 

[George-ananda]

Feeling of certainty without concurrent repeatable corroboration is not accepted evidence to a rationalist -- especially when an alternate explanation can be demonstrated with consistency.

How do you repeatably corroborate or repeatably uncorroborate a spiritual experience? What do you look for?

Real spontaneous events are by definition not repeatable.

Later edit: (i'm anticipating a possible response already) let's say the spiritual experience involves a saint studied by a church commission and the saint has three verified miracles (includes physical evidence) associated with him/her. So why must I as a rationalist conclude my experiences were delusions and all the miracle investigations are also wrong?

 

[Uberpod]

Well I'll never be rational. Emotions are a big part of my life and I use them in my decisions. I may even decide on an action by flipping a coin. Don't get me started on how I form opinion's.

I do not think we need to discount emotion and intuition entirely. They can be great source of hypotheses, and are essential for motivation. I think we can be informed by them but not ruled by them.

 

[Sir Doom]

I don't find sin to be a rational belief. So... you know... no.

 

[Uberpod]

How do you repeatably corroborate or repeatably uncorroborate a spiritual experience? What do you look for

? Take a near death experience, for example. People repeatedly claim they rise above their bodies and can see themselves below. Some Cardiac units have added a neon sign pointing upward from the patient bed. No Near death patient has been able to identify what the sign says.

Can near death experiences be replicated by oxygen changes in the brain without death?

Real spontaneous events are by definition not repeatable.

I am not saying that it is easy but extraordinary claims really do need extraordinary evidence.

Later edit: (i'm anticipating a possible response already) let's say the spiritual experience involves a saint studied by a church commission and the saint has three verified miracles (includes physical evidence) associated with him/her. So why must I as a rationalist conclude my experiences were delusions and all the miracle investigations are also wrong?

A miracle might simply be a low probability event. The occurrence of a low probability event has a different meaning before versus after it happens. You cannot find a low probability event then trace back to a detail and claim significance. IE, you cannot find a lottery winner and conclude that his rabbit's foot caused his win. You need to study rabbit's foot owners and their differential odds of good events.

 

[Uberpod]

I don't find sin to be a rational belief. So... you know... no.

Blasphemer @!!!

 

[George-ananda]

? Take a near death experience, for example. People repeatedly claim they rise above their bodies and can see themselves below. Some Cardiac units have added a neon sign pointing upward from the patient bed. No Near death patient has been able to identify what the sign says.

Can near death experiences be replicated by oxygen changes in the brain without death?

NDE's have been debated enough times here so we don't need to start that again. I, as a rationalist, have heard enough of a large body of cases where people know things that are not reasonable to believe they learned by normal means for me to believe it is extremely likely that these experiences include things dramatically outside of the materialist worldview. That is my most rational opinion.

I am not saying that it is easy but extraordinary claims really do need extraordinary evidence.

The body of similar cases to me is extraordinary evidence.

A miracle might simply be a low probability event. The occurrence of a low probability event has a different meaning before versus after it happens. You cannot find a low probability event then trace back to a detail and claim significance. IE, you cannot find a lottery winner and conclude that his rabbit's foot caused his win. You need to study rabbit's foot owners and their differential odds of good events.

Certainly what you say is understood and considered by any rational thinker before believing in miracles. For example, I would need a lot better evidence before accepting the rabbit's foot miraculous abilities. But there is sufficient evidence for other claims in my rational opinion.


I'm sure we can debate forever about the reality of certain paranormal phenomena. To cut to the chase; are you saying all Rationalists must be atheist-materialists? I'm saying some Rationalists can be atheist-materialists and some can have religious spiritual beliefs too.

 

[Uberpod]

NDE's have been debated enough times here so we don't need to start that again. I, as a rationalist, have heard enough of a large body of cases where people know things that are not reasonable to believe they learned by normal means for me to believe it is extremely likely that these experiences include things dramatically outside of the materialist worldview. That is my most rational opinion.

Do you take into account phenomena like the Barnum effect and s4elf-confirming biases??

I'm sure we can debate forever about the reality of certain paranormal phenomena. To cut to the chase; are you saying all Rationalists must be atheist-materialists? I'm saying some Rationalists can be atheist-materialists and some can have religious spiritual beliefs too.

I think there is a continuum of rationality actually. But, it seems to me there is a strong negative correlation between rationality and belief in paranormal explanations.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you take into account phenomena like the Barnum effect and s4elf-confirming biases??

Yes....I have studied proponents and skeptics for decades. A large number of subjects rationally dovetailed for me and formed my worldview.

I think there is a continuum of rationality actually. But, it seems to me there is a strong negative correlation between rationality and belief in paranormal explanations.

I think there is a positive correlation between logical type thinkers and people who want an understanding of the universe that they can at least sort of get their heads around. Paranormal things tend to blow that 'getting close to understanding' up and they dislike the immense confusing unimaginable ramifications of paranormal things. They like materialism; it makes sense.

 

[Uberpod]

I think there is a positive correlation between logical type thinkers and people who want an understanding of the universe that they can at least sort of get their heads around.

I do believe there is a moderate negative correlation here. Logical people will tend to just admit to an unknown or the unknowable while while casual thinkers accept place holder as explanations. Think unknown origin of life plus evolution versus Goddidit.

Paranormal things tend to blow that 'getting close to understanding' up and they dislike the immense confusing unimaginable ramifications of paranormal things. They like materialism; it makes sense.

We differ on our perspective of who the mental loafers tend to be. Level of education and the ability to tolerate and push toward more abstract thinking is positively associated with skepticism not the opposite. Embrace of a paranormal explanation seems often to be an acceptance f a conclusion before it has been systematically analyzed.

 

[Uberpod]

This thread is really a companion thread to Is being gay a sin according to your religion.
Interesting how this dovetails. It's not very fun when something important to you is the source
of unbridled derision by another group of people. People don't seem to mind being brazen about
their distain, while being very sensitive when what they find sacred is questioned.

 

[Riverwolf]

One who holds that the belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Vulcans, basically.

Well, Vulcans do still have ritualistic practices, so in regards to the OP's question, I'm going to say... no.

 

[Uberpod]

Vulcans, basically.

Well, Vulcans do still have ritualistic practices, so in regards to the OP's question, I'm going to say... no.

Having a ritual or not is a side issue. It is neither necessary or sufficient to qualify a belief system as a religion.

Religion surely is a "sin" to rationalist - Maybe not a cardinal, deadly type sin. It's a lesser sin equivalent to what Catholics think about masturbation.