Why Aren't Religions Generally More Rational?

[Sunstone]

Our culture enshrines rationality.

In my experience, enshrining something is the first step towards paying it mere lip service. I think our culture actually values rationality about as much as it genuinely understands it, which is oh so very slightly. At least, that's how I see it.

There is a term that I think encapsulates and values non-rational processes. And that's the movement that was a backlash against the Enlightenment Romanticism. Aesthetics, the arts, emotions - it's romantic.

The rationalism of the Enlightenment was a much needed corrective to the superstitions of former ages, but I agree it was taken too far when it came to deny in later stages the value of essentially non-rational experiences, etc.

 

[Vinayaka]

It seems to take the fun, awe, and mystery out of it for some people, but not for others. I've puzzled over why that appears to be the case.

I think because what's rational for some just isn't for others, or isn't for the masses. Feeling a person's (or God's) vibration is totally rational to me. Makes total sense, especially the more it happens. But not for others. So much is experience based.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's how you said you defined rationality:
"By rational, I mean here in accordance with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. I am not interested in notions that rationality is compatible here with embracing as true or certain any metaphysical claims, such as the existence of deity, or the non-existence of deity."
Where reasonableness enters the picture is that I think your definition for "rational" is rather arbitrary and unreasonable, in that it doesn't particularly inform the issue of religion. Religion deals heavily in metaphysical claims, and offers those claims as truth. Where we run into difficulty is blurring the distinction between truth and fact. The existence of Deity may be rightly claimed as true in a theological, metaphoric, mythic, or metaphysical sense, without necessarily being a provable fact. And it is reasonable -- and rational to do so! I think it's disingenuous to limit "rational" to "what can be factually proven" within the realm of religion.

*sigh* I think you should start your own thread on the subject, rather than attempt to hijack this one.

EDIT: You do understand the irrelevancy to this thread of your objections to it, don't you? I mean, you've got that much, right?

 

[Sapiens]

So do we have any baseline for what constitutes the "rational"? I don't see any particular reason to believe that religion is especially irrational. Religious people don't worship rationality, as a rule. But neither are they more prone than anyone else to making, say, logical errors.

There we part company. If religionists stuck to the supernatural, you might be right, but virtually all wander into the natural world with either fairy tales of the universe or world's creation or self-serving and demonstrably false histories of their belief system/culture. These are far from logical, are usually falsifiable and often simple depend on an argument from ignorance.

 

[Politesse]

There we part company. If religionists stuck to the supernatural, you might be right, but virtually all wander into the natural world with either fairy tales of the universe or world's creation or self-serving and demonstrably false histories of their belief system/culture. These are far from logical, are usually falsifiable and often simple depend on an argument from ignorance.

I wasn't claiming that humans were necessarily rational. I'm not entirely clear what that means. The OP defines rationality in kind of a vague, concept-heavy way, but it doesn't really give us a diagnostic. How do you decide if someone is rational or not?

 

[Sapiens]

I wasn't claiming that humans were necessarily rational. I'm not entirely clear what that means. The OP defines rationality in kind of a vague, concept-heavy way, but it doesn't really give us a diagnostic. How do you decide if someone is rational or not?

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic, not falsifiable.

 

[Sunstone]

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

As it happens, that's not the definition of rational as the word is being used in the OP. Close, but not quite.

 

[sojourner]

*sigh* I think you should start your own thread on the subject, rather than attempt to hijack this one.

EDIT: You do understand the irrelevancy to this thread of your objections to it, don't you? I mean, you've got that much, right?

If you're not interested in notions that rationality is compatible with embracing as true or certain any metaphysical claims, then what notions of rationality, specifically, are you interested in, where religion is concerned?

 

[bobhikes]

I think what I was getting at (and didn't quite get there) is that I don't think religion breaks down along a line of emotion/rationality. Religion is really no more emotional than it is rational. Religion is relational, which needs both these aspects. Religion is a holistic endeavor (unlike mathematics, for example, which is highly rational, or entertainment, which is highly emotional).

I come from a Christen background where all you need is love, faith and forgiveness. Love of God above all, Love your neighbor as yourself. The rules are set by the church as interpretations to guide the faithful. Yes the church uses rational thinking but usually for the wrong purposes.

 

[Sapiens]

As it happens, that's not the definition of rational as the word is being used in the OP. Close, but not quite.

OP: "in accordance with logical reasoning and empirical evidence."
Me: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

Seems close enough for me.

 

[sojourner]

I come from a Christen background where all you need is love, faith and forgiveness. Love of God above all, Love your neighbor as yourself. The rules are set by the church as interpretations to guide the faithful. Yes the church uses rational thinking but usually for the wrong purposes.

Yeah, I agree. And very often the "rational thinking" quickly turns into "justification" which isn't rational at all.

 

[Sunstone]

If you're not interested in notions that rationality is compatible with embracing as true or certain any metaphysical claims, then what notions of rationality, specifically, are you interested in, where religion is concerned?

As clearly stated in the OP: as in accordance with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. To repeat once again: That's the definition of rational that I'm interested in here.

It seems to me that you would prefer for your own reasons I had used your own definition of rational. But instead of trying to weasel me into using your own pet definition, why don't you just start your own new thread making use of it? That would seem to me more reasonable, and less weaseling, than calling me "disingenuous" for not using your pet def.

 

[Sunstone]

OP: "in accordance with logical reasoning and empirical evidence."
Me: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

Seems close enough for me.

I can't argue with you that it's close enough for you.

 

[JustWondering]

I don't that's a true statement. I don't think "religion was 'designed' to 'make people feel good.'" Religion creates space for people to wrestle with their deeper selves and their deeper experiences. Religion creates opportunities to bring to expression that which is not easily expressed through verbal language. Religion deals with the mythic and the intuitive. Some of that can "make people 'feel better,'" but it's also intense, scary, riddled with doubt, and loaded with unanswerable questions that deal with ontological and existential subjects. It also is invested heavily in matters of ethics that inherently have a lot of gray area. For us to assume that human life and experience can be encapsulated into some formulaic, "right/wrong," black/white" paradigm is ludicrous -- you know, the sort of paradigm that lends itself well to logic and reason.

Sorry, but I disagree. Religion may allow people to wrestle with their deeper selves and all that but most of the religious folks I've personally interacted with know less about their own beliefs than I do and certainly don't use it to wrestle with anything. If religion didn't provide its followers with comfort and reassurance when they needed it, most people would have no use for it and religion would not have as many followers or have as much sway as it does. From my experiences, saying people are religious to deal with and explore deep issues about life and the universe is ludicrous. You may not like to hear this but, most people are sheep who are content to let others make the tough calls and tell them what's what so they don't have to bother thinking about it for themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, but I disagree. Religion may allow people to wrestle with their deeper selves and all that but most of the religious folks I've personally interacted with know less about their own beliefs than I do and certainly don't use it to wrestle with anything. If religion didn't provide its followers with comfort and reassurance when they needed it, most people would have no use for it and religion would not have as many followers or have as much sway as it does. From my experiences, saying people are religious to deal with and explore deep issues about life and the universe is ludicrous. You may not like to hear this but, most people are sheep who are content to let others make the tough calls and tell them what's what so they don't have to bother thinking about it for themselves.

I don't see there is anything unique about this with regard to religion. I don't doubt there are those as you describe, however this maybe this is just symptomatic of human beings.

Some religious folks are very conscious of their beliefs, are very analytical and are rational reasoning individuals.

I don't know but I'd assume it runs the spectrum of personality types just like any other large organized group of people.

 

[sojourner]

As clearly stated in the OP: as in accordance with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. To repeat once again: That's the definition of rational that I'm interested in here.

It seems to me that you would prefer for your own reasons I had used your own definition of rational. But instead of trying to weasel me into using your own pet definition, why don't you just start your own new thread making use of it? That would seem to me more reasonable, and less weaseling, than calling me "disingenuous" for not using your pet def.

1) I didn't call you disingenuous. I said that trying to hold religion to some arbitrary definition was disingenuous.
2) I'm not weaseling you into using "my" "pet" definition.

Let's look at it this way: what can religion put forth as "empirical truth claim?" I think that religion can (and does) put forth the metaphors and myths that illustrate its metaphysical position (whatever position that is), and it is rational for religion to do that. The caveat to that statement is that, as soon as those metaphors and myths take the place of cosmology and other forms of factual history or experience, it becomes irrational.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but I disagree. Religion may allow people to wrestle with their deeper selves and all that but most of the religious folks I've personally interacted with know less about their own beliefs than I do and certainly don't use it to wrestle with anything. If religion didn't provide its followers with comfort and reassurance when they needed it, most people would have no use for it and religion would not have as many followers or have as much sway as it does. From my experiences, saying people are religious to deal with and explore deep issues about life and the universe is ludicrous. You may not like to hear this but, most people are sheep who are content to let others make the tough calls and tell them what's what so they don't have to bother thinking about it for themselves.

I didn't say that religion doesn't provide comfort and reassurance. What I said was that that's not what religion is designed to do. The impetus for religion is far greater than simply "making people feel good." It's not the fault of the religion that people don't take advantage of the opportunities religion provides (and, in fact, encourages).

 

[Cephus]

I think most religion has to become more rational, they cannot stay in their ignorant past beliefs, its just too ridiculers.

But the most extreme theists are doubling down on their religious stupidity no matter how crazy it is, they aren't interested in being rational, they probably can't even spell the word. For them, their beliefs are all-important and everything else is secondary.

 

[JustWondering]

I don't see there is anything unique about this with regard to religion. I don't doubt there are those as you describe, however this maybe this is just symptomatic of human beings.

Some religious folks are very conscious of their beliefs, are very analytical and are rational reasoning individuals.

I don't know but I'd assume it runs the spectrum of personality types just like any other large organized group of people.

Like I said, from my experiences dealing with "religious" folks (Christians primarily) they don't strike me as spiritual and deep thinkers. Most of the time when I discuss religion with the average Christian they eventually end up stammering that they have to talk to their minister, pastor, priest, what have you before getting back to me about a question I raise to them. Churches don't teach people to think for themselves. Churches don't encourage people to read the bible and come to their own conclusions and beliefs about it. That would be dangerous, for the churches anyway.

 

[sojourner]

Like I said, from my experiences dealing with "religious" folks (Christians primarily) they don't strike me as spiritual and deep thinkers. Most of the time when I discuss religion with the average Christian they eventually end up stammering that they have to talk to their minister, pastor, priest, what have you before getting back to me about a question I raise to them. Churches don't teach people to think for themselves. Churches don't encourage people to read the bible and come to their own conclusions and beliefs about it. That would be dangerous, for the churches anyway.

Yes, churches do a poor job of education. But the flip side of that coin is that most people are poor students. Christian education classes are offered, and no one shows up.

Additionally, Xy at least isn't really about "coming to one's own conclusions about the bible and theology," and that's one thing that most folks don't understand (and don't want to deal with) about Xy. Xy is about learning to live together and build relationships, so it's more about "the sense of the community."