A good question Phoenix.
We must look at some of the nuances of the word "rationality".
In a traditional scientific sense "rationality" has been concerned with prediction and control using logic and public evidence. In this semse then "religion" is clearly "irrational" because it fails to meet these criteria in one or more aspects. (This is Dawkins position).
However "science" has moved on a bit from the traditional mode. Naive realism with an "objective universe" has been superceded by a much more problematic paradigm involving the interactions and expectations of observers. Furthermore the "success" of a "controlling" science has been queried at least two senses (a) from the point of view of the lack of definition of "causality" especially with respect to "time" as a psychological construct and (b) from the ecological critique of a "live now pay later" philosophy.
Thus the word "rationality" is to some extent "up for grabs" because science now has overtones which allow for the "nonanthropomorphic" and "the mystical". If we examine the "rationality of religion" in this light it is very clear that any proposed "deity" must have very different "qualities" to that of a traditional "prime mover" or interventionist God .(this is Polkinghorne's position).
Indeed, "rationality" has almost reverted to its much wider meaning as "anything which works as a thought system". This could encompass a range of options including Gaia (the earth as a wholistic organism) or "cosmic consciousness" where all of us and everything we conceptualize IS "the deity" (this might approximate a Taoist position ).
So in reponse to your question " can we be religious and lead a rational life" this must depend on how our everyday interactions are "informed by" our attitude to "reality". In as much that the monotheistic religions have not taken on board the "open nature" of such reality I would say "no" to the monotheists. Their concept of "rationality" is self limiting.
husker wrote:how does "faith" fit in with rational or not?
To believe something based on principles which obviously cannot be depended on to lead to correct conclusions is irrational. Believing in some fact based on faith certainly cannot be depended on to produce correct answers more often than randomly, as any laboratory test would immediately show. It is like simply defining yourself to be right.
(Apologies but the edit systenm prevented me from correcting my last paragraph)
........So in reponse to your question " can we be religious and lead a rational life" this must depend on how our everyday interactions are "informed by" our attitude to "reality". In as much that the monotheistic religions have not taken on board the "open nature" of such reality I would say "no" to the monotheists. Their concept of "reality" is outmoded and self limiting.
fresco- I understand your point, and can certainly understand the concept of the "open reality". It is something that I have considered from time to time, but have not put enough thought into it, to have a valid opinion.
In that no one can assert with complete certainty that there is or is not a deity--it certainly seems irrational to me to make either assertion. How much more irrational to build "castles in Spain" upon the foundation of a speculative and irrational assumption . . .
Setanta- I absolutely agree with you. I don't think that anyone can say, with any degree of certainty, whether there is a deity or not, or even speculate about the nature of a deity, if there were one.
That is why I find the religionist position so absurd. To develop an entire body of thought, with parameters and suppositions, based on virtually nothing, to me, is the height of foolishness.
The shame of it all, are the millions of people who have suffered in the name of these religions.
And will suffer yet again, in their millions . . .
What of the millions that religion has helped?
Dog bless you, Wayward Sister . . .
Dog understands your delusions, and forgives you . . .
May The Celestial Butt-Sniffer hum your leg with true fervor . . .
Ramen . . .
I think faith is inherently irrational -- I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the fact that it's irrational, and that in fact there is a place for faith of some kind in everyone's life. (I have faith in karma, for example, which is not very rational at all.)
I have read things from a few scientists (most scientists I know personally are not religious) who are very rational in their scientific lives but see a value in faith for its own sake -- the value of suspending disbelief occasionally. (They do this in a very private, personal way, though.)
I just think it's important to acknowledge that faith is irrational rather than to claim some overweening truth to it.
By the way, when I referred to illogical messes earlier in one of these discussions, I did not mean faith per se -- I begrudge no-one their faith. Rather, I meant the lack of logic shown in the discussions thereof.
The imposition of religeon by the people in power seems quite rational to me.
In the industrial areas of Britain, back in the early Victorian period, the factory bosses were only too pleased to see a Methodist minister in the vicinity, as he could at least be assured that a certain proportion of his workforce would be banned from consuming alcohol, and therefore be able to do a hard days work.
When Britain was carving out its African part of its empire, the missionaries went hand in hand, in an effort to give the natives some good old hell and damnation learning. Military might would have been sufficient on its own, but a good bit of fear and magic can make the natives a little less troublesome.
Yep, religeon is totally rational, if you want to take control of an impressionable population, keep 'em quiet and get more than a good days work out of them. After all, their suffering on earth becomes a whole lot easier when they suddenly learn that they will receive some form of reward once they die.
The whole concept of religeon though, I find irrational to the point of being laughable.
Why the hell do I keep spelling religion with an "e"?
Something Freudian there, methinks.
Phoenix32890 wrote:I don't think that anyone can say, with any degree of certainty, whether there is a deity or not, or even speculate about the nature of a deity, if there were one.
That is why I find the religionist position so absurd. To develop an entire body of thought, with parameters and suppositions, based on virtually nothing, to me, is the height of foolishness.
Phoenix, in another thread i asked Setanta whether a belief in free will was a superstition. he didn't reply, although Doktor S opined that it was. in case Setanta & Doktor S aren't the same individuals, maybe Setanta would care to respond this time.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1761434&highlight=superstition+free#1761434
i think the question is relevant to this thread, because the idea of justice is commonly based on the notion of free will, but there is no iron-clad proof that human beings have free will.
It's not wrong, but it's not rational.
And laws + policies should be based on rational, logical principles.
Momma- I don't see anywhere in my post where I mentioned voting. People who vote are entitled to vote for whom they want.
Lord Ellpus extends the "control" aspect of "rationality" to level of social control and cohesion. The anthropologists Evans-Pritchard famously described the "rationality" of a belief in witchcraft among the Azande. These beliefs were resistant to the imposition of colonial justice and court room trials. The Azande ignored the findings of the court conducted their own parallel trial by examining the behaviour of a poisoned chicken.
The point is that "belief systems" are not individually held, they permeate the language and culture within which we interact with each other.
Those of us who would argue with religionists have the same "problem" that Westerners have with the Azande.
