Rationality Rules

[Augustus]

But most of our actions or beliefs are far from rational. We are still the emotional animals we were 20,000 years ago. We rationalize our behaviour after the fact more than we think about it before.

Why is that so?

We evolved to survive and reproduce, not to strive towards some arbitrary goal of understanding 'objective truth' just for the sake of it.

Why do religious people especially (but not exclusively) try to convince themselves (and others) that their beliefs are rational when they clearly aren't? Wouldn't it be more honest and easier to admit that it's not rational and denounce the societal pressure that everything has to be rational?

It is a hangover of the Reformation that people seek to justify religion in terms of rationality. Completely unnecessary imo.

Are any belief systems rational to the extent that they don't rely on us accepting some subjective, unproven, and often downright false axioms in order for them to make sense?

In such situations reason requires some foundations on which to build, but these foundations are value preferences rather than objective truths.

As we saw from the Enlightenment, some 'rational' ideologies followed a liberal, humanistic path and others were decidedly illiberal (although humanists tend to like to forget about the latter when they preach 'enlightenment values').

Even something as innocent sounding as 'progress' has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths (if not hundreds).

 

[Nakosis]

No, this not about Stephen Woodford or his YouTube channel Rationality Rules. (Though I'm a big fan.)

This is about the high value we give to rationality or at least pretend to do so.

Historically rationality didn't have the same value it has today. No king or emperor has ever been called "the rational". "The Great" is of the highest order, "the brave", "the pious", "the strong", "the conqueror" but never "the smart".

Martin Luther famously denounced rationality: "For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

I guess it is one of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment that rationality has the place it's gained in western society.

But most of our actions or beliefs are far from rational. We are still the emotional animals we were 20,000 years ago. We rationalize our behaviour after the fact more than we think about it before.

Why is that so? Why do religious people especially (but not exclusively) try to convince themselves (and others) that their beliefs are rational when they clearly aren't? Wouldn't it be more honest and easier to admit that it's not rational and denounce the societal pressure that everything has to be rational?

I'm going to make breakfast now, with lots of bacon, eggs and cheese on toast. Is that rational? No, but it tastes good.

There are times I need to be rational.
But, it ain't often.

 

[George-ananda]

Why do religious people especially (but not exclusively) try to convince themselves (and others) that their beliefs are rational when they clearly aren't? Wouldn't it be more honest and easier to admit that it's not rational and denounce the societal pressure that everything has to be rational?

I hold my religious/spiritual beliefs to be 'rational' as I am sure do most others. A rational person can believe the understanding he holds is the closest to truth that we can understand after all the evidence and argumentation is fairly considered. That is a rational approach in my eyes.

 

[Heyo]

Hmm. He and his anti-trans rant are the reason I - and several co-hosts and prominent ACA members - gave up on the Atheist Experience and the Atheist Community of Austin.

That wasn't very rational.

 

[Sunstone]

But most of our actions or beliefs are far from rational. We are still the emotional animals we were 20,000 years ago. We rationalize our behaviour after the fact more than we think about it before.

Why is that so? Why do religious people especially (but not exclusively) try to convince themselves (and others) that their beliefs are rational when they clearly aren't? Wouldn't it be more honest and easier to admit that it's not rational and denounce the societal pressure that everything has to be rational?
.

Great OP, Heyo! Thank you so much for this one!

I do NOT entirely agree with the following view of things, but I offer it here as a view I have heard expressed and that I find interesting...

Please allow me to quickly summarize several lines of evidence by saying that most likely only about 15% of humans want to be rational, and those 15% want to be rational mostly because they fear being wrong. In other words, kick "love of truth" out the door as a reason that anyone might want to be rational. At best, a few of us fear being wrong. The remaining 85% of humanity is more likely to be motivated by a desire to be socially accepted and/or rank in popularity than they are by a desire to avoid being wrong. Hence, the answer to several of your questions is that most people do not want to be rational so much as they want to be seen as rational.

More precisely, if the people someone most seeks to be socially accepted by value rationality, then that person will most likely want to be seen by them as rational. In other words, being seen as rational sometimes confers status to people. That's why they want to be SEEN as being rational -- but do not necessarily want to BE rational.

Now, is the above theory true? I'm not sure, but I suspect it's more interesting than it is true. For example. That bit about we at best only fear being wrong. That sounds to me like it overlooks the fact that some us find pleasure in discovery. Maybe we are not seeking the truth in any literal sense, but we are at least getting off on discovering new things -- including new truths.

On the other hand, I do think that for many many people being rational is more about being seen as rational than it is about actually being rational.

Any way, just some food for thought, Heyo.

 

[Heyo]

I hold my religious/spiritual beliefs to be 'rational' as I am sure do most others. A rational person can believe the understanding he holds is the closest to truth that we can understand after all the evidence and argumentation is fairly considered. That is a rational approach in my eyes.

Follow the evidence where it leads? That is a rational approach. Arriving at a different destination as everybody else - that shows that either most people fail at thinking rational or the application of rational thinking isn't what brings us to the truth.
Either way, what makes you think that rationality has value?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Follow the evidence where it leads? That is a rational approach. Arriving at a different destination as everybody else - that shows that either most people fail at thinking rational or the application of rational thinking isn't what brings us to the truth.
Either way, what makes you think that rationality has value?

You have to differentiate between objective truth, inter-subjective(social) and subjective truth. And then there is the big one metaphysical truth.
In fact those 4 are not even all the versions of truth there are.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Heyo]

Please allow me to quickly summarize several lines of evidence by saying that most likely only about 15% of humans want to be rational, and those 15% want to be rational mostly because they fear being wrong.

Without having seen the evidence the author refers to I stay skeptic about the 15% number but I see the differentiation as useful.

In other words, kick "love of truth" out the door as a reason that anyone might want to be rational. At best, a few of us fear being wrong. The remaining 85% of humanity is more likely to be motivated by a desire to be socially accepted and/or rank in popularity than they are by a desire to avoid being wrong. Hence, the answer to several of your questions is that most people do not want to be rational so much as they want to be seen as rational.

More precisely, if the people someone most seeks to be socially accepted by value rationality, then that person will most likely want to be seen by them as rational. In other words, being seen as rational sometimes confers status to people. That's why they want to be SEEN as being rational -- but do not necessarily want to BE rational.

That seems to be a good explanation, but ...

Now, is the above theory true? I'm not sure, but I suspect it's more interesting than it is true. For example. That bit about we at best only fear being wrong. That sounds to me like it overlooks the fact that some us find pleasure in discovery. Maybe we are not seeking the truth in any literal sense, but we are at least getting off on discovering new things -- including new truths.

On the other hand, I do think that for many many people being rational is more about being seen as rational than it is about actually being rational.

Any way, just some food for thought, Heyo.

My suspicion is that most people know that rational = good but haven't really learned how to be rational. I.e. they genuinely believe to be rational when they aren't. I think that those who know that their rationality is fake are a minority. But intent is notoriously hard to prove.
On the other hand, most people who are shown to be irrational, won't admit that because they know that rational = good and they can't be bad. They would be more easily swayed if they knew that irrational isn't automatically bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Without having seen the evidence the author refers to I stay skeptic about the 15% number but I see the differentiation as useful.

That seems to be a good explanation, but ...

My suspicion is that most people know that rational = good but haven't really learned how to be rational. I.e. they genuinely believe to be rational when they aren't. I think that those who know that their rationality is fake are a minority. But intent is notoriously hard to prove.
On the other hand, most people who are shown to be irrational, won't admit that because they know that rational = good and they can't be bad. They would be more easily swayed if they knew that irrational isn't automatically bad.

But that is irrational and thus bad.

As for the 15% that is in line with the estimates I have read about.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't understand the bold part.

Regards
Mikkel

It is relatively simple. Human nature has not changed since humans have been human, and our rational abilities are dominated toward survival of the individual and community throughout human history. Yes, human progress in science and technology is the product of human rational abilities, but our rational abilities are double edged sword, and our rational abilities have been also used to resist change and maintain ancient cultural tribal perspectives, and of course reject the progress of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

But that is irrational and thus bad.

As for the 15% that is in line with the estimates I have read about.

Regards
Mikkel

The bad and the good is justified by fallible human rational abilities. What is considered good and rational in one culture may be considered bad and irrational in another culture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is relatively simple. Human nature has not changed since humans have been human, and our rational abilities are dominated toward survival of the individual and community throughout human history. Yes, human progress in science and technology is the product of human rational abilities, but our rational abilities are double edged sword, and our rational abilities have been also used to resist change and maintain ancient cultural tribal perspectives, and of course reject the progress of science.

You treat humans as one in regards to human nature. I don't think it is that simple. Further it seems as you treat human nature as rational? Do you do that?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Heyo]

The bad and the good is justified by fallible human rational abilities. What is considered good and rational in one culture may be considered bad and irrational in another culture.

Good and bad are culturally defined but rationality should be universal. (It is one of the problems that people seem to accept that rationality as subjective.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Good and bad are culturally defined but rationality should be universal. (It is one of the problems that people seem to accept that rationality as subjective.)

What people 'seem to accept' is very very subjective. The rationality is universally a part of the objective nature of human beings, beyond that it is how humans apply their rational abilities with mixed motives mostly selfish.

Though the positive side of our rational abilities is science and technology, but the question of the rational application of science and technology is another story.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually survival of the species, community, and the individual rules.

 

[shunyadragon]

I hold my religious/spiritual beliefs to be 'rational' as I am sure do most others. A rational person can believe the understanding he holds is the closest to truth that we can understand after all the evidence and argumentation is fairly considered. That is a rational approach in my eyes.

Rational approach in one's eyes is not a good argument for anything being true. Being rational and a rational approach like all fallible humans does not make it true, because fallible humans of many different diverse and conflicting beliefs consider their beliefs to be the result of a rational approach in their eyes.

Unless there is consistent predictable objective verifiable evidence to support our rational conclusions it remains very subjective and inconsistent.

 

[George-ananda]

Follow the evidence where it leads? That is a rational approach. Arriving at a different destination as everybody else - that shows that either most people fail at thinking rational or the application of rational thinking isn't what brings us to the truth.

Some indeed are better at rational processing than others. The quality of our rational positions is based on how informed we are and how objective we remain in our deliberations.

Either way, what makes you think that rationality has value?

Reason and rationality are the best and most important tool in our arsenal for understanding the world.

As religious/spiritual subjects are more abstract than things of the mundane world, they are certainly more difficult to understand. But I wouldn't go so far as to say any beliefs are just as good as any other then. Education and rational thought are still the most valuable tools we have when considering the metaphysical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good and bad are culturally defined but rationality should be universal. (It is one of the problems that people seem to accept that rationality as subjective.)

Please explain more.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[George-ananda]

Rational approach in one's eyes is not a good argument for anything being true. Being rational and a rational approach like all fallible humans does not make it true, because fallible humans of many different diverse and conflicting beliefs consider their beliefs to be the result of a rational approach in their eyes.

Unless there is consistent predictable objective verifiable evidence to support our rational conclusions it remains very subjective and inconsistent.

I am not saying our rational thought on complex necessarily results in the truth. But it is still the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. On complex issues like religion/spirituality there may be differences of opinion.

The quality of our rational deliberations is affected by the level of our knowledge and education on the subject and our ability to remain objective.

 

[dfnj]

Did you choose to be religious with the extended life span in mind?
Or did you choose (or fall into) your religion and later discovered that you had a statistically longer life? (A.k.a. rationalization after the fact.)
Would you change your religion if I could show the members of the other religion had a longer life span?
Do you value rationality or do you just pretend?
Would you become an atheist if I could show you that atheists are statistically more rational?

No to the first question. No, I don't pretend to know what is rational.