Why Aren't Religions Generally More Rational?

[sojourner]

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.

I see your point, but I disagree. I think that the general idea and concepts generally are believed in a vacuum from evidence and suspending of criticism, but I don't think that it has to be that way -- or is even advisable that it be that way. I think that a religion can (and should!) be realistic about the myths and metaphors employed, claiming them as myth and metaphor, instead of treating them as cosmology and ontology.

 

[Blackmarch]

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.

depends on the time, and whos leading (or setting the example).
One man's wisdom is another's foolishness.

"Or is it because humans are greatly irrational and religions simply reflect that fact?" I think about everything reflects that to some extent or another

 

[oldbadger]

The Kalahari Bushmen were notorious for buying extended warranties on Rockwell retro encabulators.

Scientists might take samples from a desert trail, peer at faeces under the microscope, inspecting content and temperature, and finally, after much contentious deliberation issue a bulletin that a beast of some kind passed by a few hours before.
A Kalahari Bushmen might look at the surrounding ground, pick up fecal matter and sniff it, possibly tasting some, think about the situation for all of ten seconds and then think to himself... 'Ah, Rhinoceros, single male, travelling fast, in irritable mating anger, heading South, had breakfast at dawn and three sun-depths ahead of me. Not good to have any meeting'

See? Logical.......... Back in the day.

 

[sojourner]

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.

But, see, you're subscribing to the popular concept that religion is supposed to "provide answers." I don't think that's the impetus for religion at all. Religion provides space for asking the tough questions and for wrestling with doubt. A great example of that is the encounter of Jacob at the Jabbok. Jacob wrestled all night with some "shadow figure." After he had wrestled with the questionable figure, he is renamed "Israel," because he has "wrestled with God and prevailed." The people of God (Israel) are a people who wrestle with the tough issues that lead to Divinity.

Do religions miss that mark? Absolutely! But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and condemn all religious endeavor for the mistakes that some make.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I see your point, but I disagree. I think that the general idea and concepts generally are believed in a vacuum from evidence and suspending of criticism, but I don't think that it has to be that way -- or is even advisable that it be that way. I think that a religion can (and should!) be realistic about the myths and metaphors employed, claiming them as myth and metaphor, instead of treating them as cosmology and ontology.

I agree. But looking back over time and history of the different religions the ones without a sensational appeal to some kind of special authority and often divine, falsifiable and outlandish claims are the ones that seem to be the most successful. There are cases where they are fairly rational but not always. I think one of the best 'rational" religions of this day and age would be the UU church. At least from some perspective that they cannot be the one true way and it has some semblance of rationality that there could be some sort of god that is the driving force of all religions which are based upon imperfect revelations.

This is at least a logical and rational conclusion. So I suppose it isn't impossible for a religion to be rational I just think it is highly unlikely that it can be successful.

 

[sojourner]

I agree. But looking back over time and history of the different religions the ones without a sensational appeal to some kind of special authority and often divine, falsifiable and outlandish claims are the ones that seem to be the most successful. There are cases where they are fairly rational but not always. I think one of the best 'rational" religions of this day and age would be the UU church. At least from some perspective that they cannot be the one true way and it has some semblance of rationality that there could be some sort of god that is the driving force of all religions which are based upon imperfect revelations.

This is at least a logical and rational conclusion. So I suppose it isn't impossible for a religion to be rational I just think it is highly unlikely that it can be successful.

You know, I think that rationality and honesty are going to be the driving forces behind religion's continued survival. People want honesty. But they also desire the mythic. If a religion can be honest about the myths it presents, I think that religion will be successful in the coming time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You know, I think that rationality and honesty are going to be the driving forces behind religion's continued survival. People want honesty. But they also desire the mythic. If a religion can be honest about the myths it presents, I think that religion will be successful in the coming time.

I can hope that you are right. I don't necessarily believe you will be right.

 

[sojourner]

I can hope that you are right. I don't necessarily believe you will be right.

Fair enough. No one has the answer here.

 

[Cephus]

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.

But none of those things are actually real. It's just delusion in a cute dress. See my sig.

 

[Cephus]

But, see, you're subscribing to the popular concept that religion is supposed to "provide answers." I don't think that's the impetus for religion at all. Religion provides space for asking the tough questions and for wrestling with doubt. A great example of that is the encounter of Jacob at the Jabbok. Jacob wrestled all night with some "shadow figure." After he had wrestled with the questionable figure, he is renamed "Israel," because he has "wrestled with God and prevailed." The people of God (Israel) are a people who wrestle with the tough issues that lead to Divinity.

Do religions miss that mark? Absolutely! But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and condemn all religious endeavor for the mistakes that some make.

I'm not the one that makes that claim, I get lots of theists claiming that religion does provide answers. In fact, I don't think it does, see my sig. I also don't think that it is, in practice, a place to wrestle with doubt, in fact, it is a place to get rid of doubt. Religion reinforces not asking questions and says that doubt is a violation of the religious belief structure. No matter what it might say in the Bible, that has nothing to do with how modern Christians (and other religions for that matter) actually operate.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my sig though. Want to give it a shot?

 

[sojourner]

I also don't think that it is, in practice, a place to wrestle with doubt, in fact, it is a place to get rid of doubt.

I disagree -- at least in theory.

Religion reinforces not asking questions and says that doubt is a violation of the religious belief structure.

The more fundamentalist sects do that. The more progressive sects do not do that. But if we look to the biblical record, we see people bargaining with God, questioning God, expressing their doubts about what God is doing. I just don't think that doubt and questioning violate belief structure.

No matter what it might say in the Bible, that has nothing to do with how modern Christians (and other religions for that matter) actually operate.

I both agree and disagree. The more fundamental (and possibly the loudest) groups would certainly operate that way. but there are also a large number of progressives who do not operate that way.

I can see your point -- and it is valid, but not across the board. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my sig though. Want to give it a shot?

Here's your sig:
"There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means."

I'd say that religion doesn't have a corner on the market of truth. I'd also say that it doesn't have a monopoly on either the Divine or the holy. I do think religion should have a better grasp of the mythic, out of which meaning is made. I think religion, by and large, does have a better grasp of theology.

 

[sojourner]

But none of those things are actually real. It's just delusion in a cute dress. See my sig.

Oh, I think it's real enough.

 

[Cephus]

I disagree -- at least in theory.

I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about practice, the religious are very terrified of asking any questions about their core beliefs, that's why they demand you take it on faith. It happens in every virtually religion, heck, not long ago the Jehovah's Witnesses put out a screed against higher education because becoming educated "can erode our thinking and convictions". Does that sound like a group who invites doubt and questioning? They are certainly not alone, in fact I doubt you could find any church out there that openly invites it's membership to question the core doctrines of the faith.

The more fundamentalist sects do that. The more progressive sects do not do that. But if we look to the biblical record, we see people bargaining with God, questioning God, expressing their doubts about what God is doing. I just don't think that doubt and questioning violate belief structure.

About the only "church" I can think of where that might be true are the Unitarian Universalists who don't really have a doctrine, they take all comers, whether they follow that religion or not. I'm not concerned with the "Biblical record", I'm concerned with how actual churches really operate today. Some claimed religious ideal doesn't change how things operate in the real world and guess what? The churches who say not to question have their own set of Bible verses, carefully plucked out of context, to support their claims, just like you do.

I both agree and disagree. The more fundamental (and possibly the loudest) groups would certainly operate that way. but there are also a large number of progressives who do not operate that way.

Such as? Name a church that openly tells their members to disregard the Bible and faith and test everything rationally. I don't think you can do it. That would be a mighty empty church.

Here's your sig:
"There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means."

I'd say that religion doesn't have a corner on the market of truth. I'd also say that it doesn't have a monopoly on either the Divine or the holy. I do think religion should have a better grasp of the mythic, out of which meaning is made. I think religion, by and large, does have a better grasp of theology.

Religion doesn't have much, if any truth that you can't get equally well from entirely secular means. Name something demonstrable (which all truth is) that religion has that isn't validated by science and reason. You're arguing that there is this truth, I don't see you showing that it actually is true and how we can discover it's truthful nature objectively. Otherwise, it's just like saying that shysters have a better grasp on gullibility than most people, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. It kind of reminds me of someone on another forum, speaking on another topic entirely, who routinely makes ridiculous statements, then says he doesn't have to back any of it up because he's got the facts and anything that he says must be true by definition because he only speaks the facts.

Nobody takes him seriously either.

 

[Cephus]

Oh, I think it's real enough.

I'm not interested in what you think, I'm interested in what you can demonstrate. There are people who claim they were abducted by aliens too, that doesn't mean I accept their claims unless they can back them up with objective evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not interested in what you think, I'm interested in what you can demonstrate. There are people who claim they were abducted by aliens too, that doesn't mean I accept their claims unless they can back them up with objective evidence.

Can you demonstrate that people don't find a sense of meaning through religion? Or is that merely your opinion? When you demonstrate to me that people finding a sense of meaning through religion isn't "real," we'll talk more.

 

[Cephus]

Can you demonstrate that people don't find a sense of meaning through religion? Or is that merely your opinion? When you demonstrate to me that people finding a sense of meaning through religion isn't "real," we'll talk more.

A sense of *REAL* meaning? How do you define a sense of meaning? Just feeling good? That's not demonstrably real, as I state in my sig. All kinds of absurd beliefs can make people feel good or make them fit in. That doesn't make the beliefs worthwhile or valuable.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about practice, the religious are very terrified of asking any questions about their core beliefs, that's why they demand you take it on faith. It happens in every virtually religion

Hmmm... I don't know about that. The RCC (the largest Christian body) allows informed dissent. The ELCA Lutherans (the largest Lutheran body), the ECUSA, the Presbyterian USA, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the United Methodists and the UCC all allow freedom of thought. Sounds to me like you're spending way too much time dwelling on the fundies.

not long ago the Jehovah's Witnesses put out a screed against higher education because becoming educated "can erode our thinking and convictions".

Really?! Srrsly? I give you "progressive Xy" and you come back with the JWs?? Do the JWs represent anything other than fundamentalism?

I doubt you could find any church out there that openly invites it's membership to question the core doctrines of the faith.

I know for a fact that the ECUSA and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) do so.

I'm not concerned with the "Biblical record", I'm concerned with how actual churches really operate today.

You didn't make that caveat clear until I brought up the examples in the biblical record.

Name a church that openly tells their members to disregard the Bible and faith and test everything rationally.

One doesn't have to "disregard the bible" or their faith in order to test things rationally.

Religion doesn't have much, if any truth that you can't get equally well from entirely secular means. Name something demonstrable (which all truth is) that religion has that isn't validated by science and reason. You're arguing that there is this truth, I don't see you showing that it actually is true and how we can discover it's truthful nature objectively. Otherwise, it's just like saying that shysters have a better grasp on gullibility than most people, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. It kind of reminds me of someone on another forum, speaking on another topic entirely, who routinely makes ridiculous statements, then says he doesn't have to back any of it up because he's got the facts and anything that he says must be true by definition because he only speaks the facts.

What's with the diatribe??? I agreed with you for the most part, with the exception of theology.

 

[sojourner]

A sense of *REAL* meaning? How do you define a sense of meaning? Just feeling good? That's not demonstrably real, as I state in my sig. All kinds of absurd beliefs can make people feel good or make them fit in. That doesn't make the beliefs worthwhile or valuable.

Meaning and belief are two different things. How do you define a sense of meaning? Yet, meaning is real. How does one adequately define (or demonstrate) love? yet... love is real. You're way too hung up on this sort of false sense that only demonstrable things are real.

(You haven't adequately demonstrated that the meaning people find in religion isn't real. I'm still waiting.)

 

[Cephus]

Hmmm... I don't know about that. The RCC (the largest Christian body) allows informed dissent. The ELCA Lutherans (the largest Lutheran body), the ECUSA, the Presbyterian USA, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the United Methodists and the UCC all allow freedom of thought. Sounds to me like you're spending way too much time dwelling on the fundies.

Informed dissent? How is that the same as teaching their congregants to question their core religious beliefs? And allowing freedom of thought is pretty pointless since they have no actual ability to stop it. Unless they've developed some very powerful mind-control abilities, their allowing freedom of thought is about as pointless as allowing blood to flow.

Really?! Srrsly? I give you "progressive Xy" and you come back with the JWs?? Do the JWs represent anything other than fundamentalism?

I didn't give you the JWs as a response to progressivism, but as a very recent example.

I know for a fact that the ECUSA and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) do so.

I don't really have a lot of interest in liberal Christian churches, they pick and choose their beliefs even more ridiculously than the fundamentalists do. While I'm not pleased with the fundies, at least most of them follow the majority of their book, whereas liberal theists follow what they want to and make excuses why they ignore the rest.

You didn't make that caveat clear until I brought up the examples in the biblical record.

No it's something that's been going on through this entire thread. The ideas contained in a book don't fly airplanes into buildings, people who profess to believe them right now do. The only thing that really matters is what people believe right now and why.

One doesn't have to "disregard the bible" or their faith in order to test things rationally.

Then you're not testing things rationally. If you're not allowed to question the most central core beliefs of your faith, then you cannot possibly consider any inquiry to be rational. That's why people have to be able to question the validity of the Bible and the existence of God, otherwise you're only talking about questioning doctrine, not belief. God cannot be rationally justified, there is no objective evidence for the existence of God and without God, the whole of the Bible becomes nothing more than bronze age mythology. Without the Bible, which is the only source of information on God, then there's nothing to base any belief about God on. You can't count those two out or you're not being open to critically evaluating your beliefs.

What's with the diatribe??? I agreed with you for the most part, with the exception of theology.

Because you're trying to make a special case for religion and I think that's dishonest. There isn't anything demonstrably real that religion can provide that cannot be achieved just as well or better through purely secular means. So you tried to sneak in things that are not demonstrably real, as though they proved it wrong. Whether religion makes people feel good is irrelevant. People who like the idea that magical pixies make the world go round are delusional, not rational. So we have to go back to religion and ask ourselves if this position is the one best supported by the objective evidence. Not does it make us feel good, not do we want it to be true, but is it an intellectually honest and valid position to take, based solely on the evidence at hand? Without a doubt, it is not. That's what people need to deal with.

 

[Sunstone]

But none of those things are actually real. It's just delusion in a cute dress. See my sig.

Your sig does not logically support the conclusion that the things I mention religion provides are not real.