Why Aren't Religions Generally More Rational?

[sojourner]

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.

It's knee-jerk reactionism. people push them and they dig in their heels harder. Because, for them, irrational belief is all they have. They haven't been given the rationale behind the religion, so they've got nothing real to help them deal with the tough questions.

 

[Riverwolf]

So, are you implying that there's no place for greater rationality in religion? That everything is just fine as it is? I mean, I get that you think the highest goal of religion should not be rationality. But that was not the point of the OP. The point of the OP was why religions aren't more rational than they are, and even whether they could be more rational than they are. You seem to be defending the view that religions are already rational enough.

Not at all. There's always room for improvement, and always will be.

I think the extent of religion's rationality is limited to a given peoples' rationality. It's a skill that needs to be better cultivated. (It's barely cultivated at all in modern public schools).

 

[Revoltingest]

Bacon is rational.

Really? I'd say it's more like love with overtones of lust.

 

[psychoslice]

That is a foolish stance for one to take, among other reasons because it is all but certain to be mistaken.

That's fine, it will be their mistake not mine.

 

[sojourner]

Really? I'd say it's more like love with overtones of lust.

That love isn't rational? Bacon tastes great, smells wonderful, and sticks to the ribs. it also adds flavor to a variety of foods. Sounds rational to love something like that.

 

[Revoltingest]

That love isn't rational? Bacon tastes great, smells wonderful, and sticks to the ribs. it also adds flavor to a variety of foods. Sounds rational to love something like that.

I'm defeated by impeccable logic!

 

[sojourner]

I'm defeated by impeccable logic!

You cannot resist the bacon.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's fine, it will be their mistake not mine.

Hmm... thanks for reminding me, I guess.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

No, let's look at it this way: If you want the OP to reflect your own definitions, get your own thread.

 

[sojourner]

No, let's look at it this way: If you want the OP to reflect your own definitions, get your own thread.

So, are you claiming that it's not rational for religions to utilize myth and metaphor, and to claim those tools as myth and metaphor?

 

[Politesse]

No, let's look at it this way: If you want the OP to reflect your own definitions, get your own thread.

If people don't agree with your claim about believers, what else is there to talk about? Your question can't really be answered; you poisoned the waterhole with the way you asked it. You might as well say "Why aren't women more faithful to their husbands?" or "Why aren't Spaniards more honest?" If it's against the terms of the argument to question the implied accusation you are making, there is no honest discussion to be had.

Indeed, the answer to your question is pretty simple: Religions cannot be more rational, because your OP for all intents and purposes defined rationality as non-Religion. It's tautological and only means anything if the premise is agreed with, but there you have it.

 

[Cephus]

It's knee-jerk reactionism. people push them and they dig in their heels harder. Because, for them, irrational belief is all they have. They haven't been given the rationale behind the religion, so they've got nothing real to help them deal with the tough questions.

Mostly because there is no rationale behind the religion. Oh sure, in the distant past when humanity was ignorant, religions provided "answers". Today, however, the number of answers that can be provided by religion are minuscule and people believe out of tradition or emotional comfort, not because religion gives them any actual answers. Then again, we know now that religion has always been a waste of time and a lot of gullible people have been duped over the years.

 

[Sunstone]

If people don't agree with your claim about believers, what else is there to talk about? Your question can't really be answered; you poisoned the waterhole with the way you asked it. You might as well say "Why aren't women more faithful to their husbands?" or "Why aren't Spaniards more honest?" If it's against the terms of the argument to question the implied accusation you are making, there is no honest discussion to be had.

Indeed, the answer to your question is pretty simple: Religions cannot be more rational, because your OP for all intents and purposes defined rationality as non-Religion. It's tautological and only means anything if the premise is agreed with, but there you have it.

Again, the solution to your problem is to start a thread without the assumptions of this one. But I understand how people sometimes feel better with whining than with doing something constructive.

 

[Politesse]

Again, the solution to your problem is to start a thread without the assumptions of this one. But I understand how you might feel better with whining than with taking action.

What... action do you recommend? I'm not trying to offend you, but your post is not asking a reasonable question. What else can one say?

 

[Sunstone]

What... action do you recommend?

Start your own thread with the premisses of your choice. You're like the man who walks into a Ford dealership and demands to be shown Toyota products while accusing the Ford dealership of being biased. Don't you see the absurdity of that? Start your own thread.

...but your post is not asking a reasonable question.

Your opinion is noted. It happens to be one I myself disagree with.

What else can one say?

No one can force you to participate in this thread.

 

[Sunstone]

If people don't agree with your claim about believers, what else is there to talk about? Your question can't really be answered; you poisoned the waterhole with the way you asked it. You might as well say "Why aren't women more faithful to their husbands?" or "Why aren't Spaniards more honest?" If it's against the terms of the argument to question the implied accusation you are making, there is no honest discussion to be had.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually believe that religions contain no irrational elements? I ask because your remarks suggest to me that you think that might be an open question.

 

[Sunstone]

So, are you claiming that it's not rational for religions to utilize myth and metaphor, and to claim those tools as myth and metaphor?

I am making no general claim one way or the other on that issue. I suspect it would depend on the specific myth or metaphor and how it was interpreted. Are you making the claim that the ways in which religions utilize myth and metaphor is always rational?

 

[Sunstone]

Mostly because there is no rationale behind the religion. Oh sure, in the distant past when humanity was ignorant, religions provided "answers". Today, however, the number of answers that can be provided by religion are minuscule and people believe out of tradition or emotional comfort, not because religion gives them any actual answers. Then again, we know now that religion has always been a waste of time and a lot of gullible people have been duped over the years.

It seems to me that religions provide people with much more than you're apparently aware of. For instance, they provide at least some people with encouragement in the face of opposition, they provide some people with the means to multiply the good or evil they do, they provide some people with a feeling that their lives or the world makes sense, and so forth... One could create quite a list of things religions provide people with.

 

[sojourner]

I am making no general claim one way or the other on that issue. I suspect it would depend on the specific myth or metaphor and how it was interpreted. Are you making the claim that the ways in which religions utilize myth and metaphor is always rational?

Not at all. I think that most religions understand that myth and metaphor are myth and metaphor from the standpoint of their clergy and scholars. But I think most religion's laity confuse the myth and metaphor with cosmology and ontology.

I'm really confused about where you're coming from, and I don't mean to derail your thread; I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, because it's not making sense to me. I must be missing something here. You ask whether religions could become more rational (where "rational" means not making truth claims where metaphysics are concerned). What I read is that you want to know if religions will do away with their mythic and metaphoric tools. If that's the case, it doesn't make rational sense for a mechanic (to use an example) to quit using wrenches to fix cars. Then the mechanic would stop being a mechanic and become something ... else. Am I missing something?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Assuming religions could be more rational than they are (and I believe that's a generally safe assumption), then why aren't religions more rational? Is it because people prefer something else to rationality? And if so, is that because they don't see many benefits to rationality?

Or is it because humans are greatly irrational and religions simply reflect that fact? But if that's the case, must they reflect that fact? Is a truly rational religion possible? For instance, could there be a religion that was in accord with logical reasoning and empirical evidence?

Are religions generally becoming more rational over time? Or is the appearance that at least some religions are becoming more rational over time false or misleading?

Is there some other reason religions aren't all that rational?


Please note: 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.

The problem would be the inherent nature that is required for religion. The general idea and concepts must be believed in a vacuum from evidence and suspending of criticism. This is generally reinforced by social pressures and learning.

But I think that if a religion was truly rational in that it questioned its own existence and method fairly often then It probably would not survive as long or be as successful as needed to be a religion of power in the world. Though this is more or less just my personal opinion on the matter.