"It's right for me"

[Wandered Off]

For instance, I'm not an atheist because I "don't want" god(s) to exist.

But it is right for you if one of your primary requirements for belief consists of a solid (to you) justification. Since you can't find one for theism, it's not right for you, and atheism is. It has nothing to do with what you want to be true.

When I was a believer, it was because that's how I modeled the world around me. I started off with assumptions and based belief on them. Later, I ended up altering the assumptions, and the beliefs lost their basis.

I am not convinced we have direct, conscious over our beliefs. You can't "choose" to believe something you don't already just by an act of will or trying harder. Beliefs are more of an emergent property from the very framework you use to interpret the world around you. That framework itself consists of beliefs.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Of course, judging beliefs implies being judged in return. I happen to feel that this is something to be pursued, not avoided.

Well then my friend, I must not judge you for judging others

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am not convinced we have direct, conscious over our beliefs. You can't "choose" to believe something you don't already just by an act of will or trying harder. Beliefs are more of an emergent property from the very framework you use to interpret the world around you. That framework itself consists of beliefs.

I am sure that if we were born into a tribe of pigmies 500 years ago our belief system would look much different.

 

[Meow Mix]

But it is right for you if one of your primary requirements for belief consists of a solid (to you) justification. Since you can't find one for theism, it's not right for you, and atheism is. It has nothing to do with what you want to be true.

Having solid justification for a belief before adopting it isn't just a primary requirement for me, it is the primary requirement for rational, sentient beings period.

Reason disallows its own abandonment (hence the word "unreasonable"). It's not like faith and reason are two different tools we can use to discern truths in the toolbox of the mind -- reason is the entirety of the toolbox. To adopt a belief without justification, without checking for internal and external consistency is nothing short of the butchery of reason; from thereafter we can not claim to be wholly rational.

We can go about our daily lives and do everything rationally but if we choose to be irrational in at least one respect -- by adopting beliefs without justifications -- then we are still irrational, since abandoning reason at any point is by definition irrational.

 

[sandandfoam]

Having solid justification for a belief before adopting it isn't just a primary requirement for me, it is the primary requirement for rational, sentient beings period.

What's a rational being?
Also, what is the rationale for your assertion, have you any evidence?

 

[Meow Mix]

What's a rational being?
Also, what is the rationale for your assertion, have you any evidence?

It's true by definition.

A rational being is synonomous with a reasonable being, since "reasonable" and "rational" are the same thing.

There is no requirement to be rational. Therefore anyone is welcome to be irrational all they want. But that's just that -- they are irrational. If they're fine with that, then okay -- but no reasonable people will be fine with that by definition.

The word "reasonable" has positive connotations in many cultures, and the words "irrational" or "unreasonable" have negative connotations. That doesn't mean anything, really: there's nothing wrong with being irrational if you don't value reason.

What I'm saying is that you can't pay lip-service to reason, then abandon it, and then still call yourself a reasonable person.

This is why I say things like I said earlier -- if belief in religions is irrational then just come out and say so. That's all it takes. "I have an irrational belief" isn't a hard sentence to roll off the tongue. It's only hard if we're kidding ourselves into thinking we're reasonable beings while holding irrational beliefs.

 

[sandandfoam]

It's true by definition.

A rational being is synonomous with a reasonable being, since "reasonable" and "rational" are the same thing.

There is no requirement to be rational. Therefore anyone is welcome to be irrational all they want. But that's just that -- they are irrational. If they're fine with that, then okay -- but no reasonable people will be fine with that by definition.

The word "reasonable" has positive connotations in many cultures, and the words "irrational" or "unreasonable" have negative connotations. That doesn't mean anything, really: there's nothing wrong with being irrational if you don't value reason.

What I'm saying is that you can't pay lip-service to reason, then abandon it, and then still call yourself a reasonable person.

This is why I say things like I said earlier -- if belief in religions is irrational then just come out and say so. That's all it takes. "I have an irrational belief" isn't a hard sentence to roll off the tongue. It's only hard if we're kidding ourselves into thinking we're reasonable beings while holding irrational beliefs.

Kind of like how you can't say you're an 'ordinary person' if you don't have your dinner in the middle of the day.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

We can go about our daily lives and do everything rationally but if we choose to be irrational in at least one respect -- by adopting beliefs without justifications -- then we are still irrational, since abandoning reason at any point is by definition irrational.

I agree but...can't both faith and reason work together. Lets say my wife is having dinner with another man. Because I have faith in her I do not get jealous because my reason tells me my wife has dinner with other men at times and she has never cheated on me. This is an act of reasonable faith. If a Christian prays for love for his boss in times of stress. This prayer tends to calm him down. Can't it be rational for that christian to pray to God when he knows it will make him better handle the stress. If a Christian Mother has a child that was hit by a car and she prays to God to heal her son and puts it in Gods hands. If this helps her to be present in the hospital for her child on its death bed. Who are we to say this is not rational. Why in the world would anyone want to take that away from her. Life is so hard for so many people. If prayer gives some people relief. Who are we to tell them they are not being rational.

 

[Meow Mix]

Kind of like how you can't say you're an 'ordinary person' if you don't have your dinner in the middle of the day.

Eating dinner in the middle of the day isn't irrational, and the standards of what's "ordinary" can change.

The standards of what's "rational" never change, since it's just the difference between using reason and not.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree but...can't both faith and reason work together. Lets say my wife is having dinner with another man. Because I have faith in her I do not get jealous because my reason tells me my wife has dinner with other men at times and she has never cheated on me. This is an act of reasonable faith.

That's a different context of faith than I was using. Unfortunately, the English language re-uses so many of its words that we run into problems like this where a word has multiple contexts.

It's a different context to say "I have faith that such-and-such exists" from "I have faith that my loved one won't cheat on me." One is making an ontological statement without justification, the other is expressing confidence through induction amongst other things.

When I say faith is incompatible with reason, I'm referring to the first kind.

If a Christian prays for love for his boss in times of stress. This prayer tends to calm him down.

I'm assuming you mean if the Christian prays in front of the boss? In which case the placebo effects of prayer are well known; there is little reason to suppose anything mystical/divine is actually occurring.

If a Christian Mother has a child that was hit by a car and she prays to God to heal her son and puts it in Gods hands. If this helps her to be present in the hospital for her child on its death bed. Who are we to say this is not rational. Why in the world would anyone want to take that away from her. Life is so hard for so many people. If prayer gives some people relief. Who are we to tell them they are not being rational.

If she doesn't have justification to believe her god exists that she's praying to then sure enough it's irrational... that doesn't mean we should jump out like boogeymen while she's trying to comfort herself and say "what are you doing, that's irrational! Get out of here you crazy lady!"

No, that's not what I'm saying at all -- I'm questioning why any of us would want to be irrational in the first place. It's only irrational if we believe without justification, remember: it may well be that some people are fully justified in their belief and we atheists just haven't seen that justification. (I find this unlikely considering how long theism has existed and how many intellectuals have battled for theism, but I of course leave the window open, so to speak).

If someone turns to irrational beliefs for comfort that's within their right to do so. I'm only saying that they can't thereafter claim to be rational, at least when it comes to those beliefs. That's all. "Irrational" isn't a dirty word, it's not like calling someone a maggot or a jerk. It means what it means: that they are not an altogether reasonable person because they have abandoned reason on at least one aspect of their worldview. That's it!

If a person doesn't value reason, which must be the case if they abandon it, then they shouldn't be offended; perhaps even be proud of being irrational I guess?

 

[sandandfoam]

The standards of what's "rational" never change, since it's just the difference between using reason and not.

Again - what's reason?
Is it error prone but logical? Is it relatively error free and probabilistic?
If you mean rational as logical then humans are not good at this (referring to your rational sentient beings above)
Does rationality follow form or meaning?

I don't believe that your generalisation about rationality is itself rational - i believe you're trying to construct a position for yourself as superior to those you regard as irrational

 

[Noaidi]

Can't it be rational for that christian to pray to God when he knows it will make him better handle the stress. If a Christian Mother has a child that was hit by a car and she prays to God to heal her son and puts it in Gods hands. If this helps her to be present in the hospital for her child on its death bed. Who are we to say this is not rational. Why in the world would anyone want to take that away from her. Life is so hard for so many people. If prayer gives some people relief. Who are we to tell them they are not being rational.

This is an important factor. Whilst we may see religious beliefs (of whatever persuasion) as being irrational, if they serve a function for the person involved then it is 'right' for them.
Although I am an atheist, I can appreciate the value and function of religion, particularly in times of stress or discomfort. I have seen that first hand a number of times - a religious person seems able to deal with certain situations better than a non-religious person.

So who am I, a cynical atheist, to take that feeling of comfort from them, however illusory it appears to me?

Religion does serve a function for many people. That doesn't necessarily make their religion 'true', but it works for them. In that respect, their religion is 'right for them'.

 

[Meow Mix]

Again - what's reason?
Is it error prone but logical? Is it relatively error free and probabilistic?
If you mean rational as logical then humans are not good at this (referring to your rational sentient beings above)
Does rationality follow form or meaning?

Reason is just the processes by which we examine beliefs for internal and external consistency -- "internal" for self-contradictions, "external" for contradictions with other beliefs/knowledges/evidences. It's also the process by which we justify beliefs, and how we determine what qualifies as a justification.

You're right that humans aren't good at it. It's a learned behavior. I would guess that every single one of us believes a few things that have hidden inconsistencies which haven't been revealed to us yet because often they can be subtle (see: Russell's Paradox).

There's quite a difference, though, between reasoning yourself into a position that turns out to have a flaw... and abandoning reason altogether to pick up a belief without bothering to justify it.

I don't believe that your generalisation about rationality is itself rational - i believe you're trying to construct a position for yourself as superior to those you regard as irrational

I'm not trying to declare that I'm superior to anyone.

I'm simply saying that either a person values reason or they don't. Reason disallows its own abandonment -- if we value reason, then we ought to refrain from abandoning it because entailed with valuing reason is that it is how we discern truth from nonsense. Abanonding it is equivalent to not valuing it, since by abandoning it we're basically saying "there are other paths to truth than reason," which reason itself prohibits.

That's all -- if someone believes irrationally, then they are irrational. There's nothing superior or inferior about that. If you perceive rationality as "superior," you're making that value judgement -- it must mean that you value reason; and shouldn't abandon it. Have you abandoned reason -- are your religious ontologies justified?

I know it sounds like I'm a mega ***** but what I'm saying is true. "Rational" doesn't have any inherent superior or inferior qualities; it all depends on if we value it. If we value it then we consider rational to be superior.

If we value it and consider rationality superior to irrationality, then one just needs to point out the irrationality of abanonding reason to hold an unjustified belief.

If a person is offended that doing such is "irrational," perhaps they should consider whether or not they do value reason. If they do value reason, they had better re-examine their irrational beliefs.

After all, no one should be offended by being "irrational" if they don't value reason.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I'm not trying to declare that I'm superior to anyone..

No I never thought you did. You just seem to be a person who loves reason.

My point is this... If someone feels that if faith has a benefit in one's personal life. The reason for belief is because of that benefit.

The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which knows God, and not the reason. This, then, is absolute faith: God felt in the heart.
-Pascal

This is how many Christians reason.

Think about this, Harriet Tubman claimed that when she was helping slaves to escape on the underground railroad she could hear the voice of Jesus Christ telling her were to go and what to do in times of trouble. I would say that it was perfectly logical for her to follow that voice. You might say that it was not the voice of Christ but a voice from the deep recesses of her mind. Still I believe she would have been much less successful if she believed it was do to her subconscious mind and not from guidance from God.

It matters not how you and I view it.

 

[Meow Mix]

No I never thought you did. You just seem to be a person who loves reason.

My point is that I feel that if faith has a benefit in one's personal life. The reason for belief is because of that benefit.

The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which knows God, and not the reason. This, then, is absolute faith: God felt in the heart.
-Pascal

This is how many Christians reason.

Think about this, Harriet Tubman claimed that when she was helping slaves to escape on the underground railroad she could hear the voice of Jesus Christ telling her were to go and what to do in times of trouble. I would say that it was perfectly logical for her to follow that voice. You might say that it was not the voice of Christ but a voice from the deep recesses of her mind. Still I believe she would have been much less successful if she believed it was do to her subconscious mind and not from guidance from God.

It matters not how you and I view it.

That isn't "reason," though: that is wishful thinking, a phrase I got derided for using in my first post.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

.....

I'm not trying to be offensive, just examining things.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

.
I'm not trying to be offensive, just examining things.

You're not offensive in any way.
Still I think you get my point and I am tired of arguing for a different team so I will leave this subject alone for now.