Are believers Unsane?

[thaiboxerken]

Canadian author William Harwood, who wrote Mythology's Last Gods (Prometheus Books, 1992) asks whether the word "unsanity" appropriately describes the sloppy thinking in which religionists often indulge.


In the concluding novel of Arthur C Clarke's Odyssey series, he postulates a distinction between "insane" and "unsane". Essentially, the difference is that "insane" means neurologically programmed to be incapable of rational thinking and behaviour (whether such a condition actually exists is not immediately relevant), while "unsane" means able to put one's mind in neutral in order to engage in irrational thinking for the purpose of nullifying evidence that contradicts a security belief.
It is possible that not a single god-worshipper is insane, although Ruholla Khomeini and Pope Pius IX make such a postulation very tentative. But all may be unsane, since even those who could have been freed of god addiction if they had ever encountered the falsifying evidence, are able to rationalize that "when God does it, it's not evil".

A person who believes that the execution of every human who will ever live in reprisal for the crimes of his primeval ancestors would have been evil if Hitler did it, but is not evil when his god does it, may be unsane.

A person who believes that an omnipotent Master of the Universe sentences his imagined enemies to trillions of years of sadistic torture in a hell that even the current pope has repudiated, but is nonetheless a nice guy, may be unsane.

A person who believes that "Not a sparrow falls without his consent," (Mat. 10:29) but when a loved one is killed in a plane crash goes to a church to thank the imagined executioner for his omnibenevolence, may be unsane.


http://www.hanway.co.uk/unsanity.html

[Finella]

http://www.woadiestyol.com/images/2dart/strawman.jpg

[Jet Grind]

This reminds me of a conversation that I've had with my theistic father. He asked me if I thought that all people who believed in God were delusional. It was an obvious attempt to paint me into a corner, so I just answered him honestly and said "Yes, I do. There is no evidence for any god(s) and I think that believeing such things is just a rediculous as believing in Santa Clause of Mother Goose.

If being unsane means refusing the acknowledge to irrationality of your theistic belief then I'd have to say that most theists are not unsane. I think it's really an issue of not puting enough thought into it to realize just how rediculous it is.

[thaiboxerken]

I think Finella has cast a spell on me. LOL.

Cool pic though.

Prometheus Books

Headed by the same person in charge of CSICOp and in charge of a secular humanism organization.

No conflict of interests, no bias, no sirreeee.

No thanks.

would have been evil if Hitler did it,

Took you one post, good job.

-Who

[Frostbite]

I think it's just the brain wiring. Some people are prone to believe in that, others not. Some people are paranoid, others insecure, others truly free...

[marxist2]

Originally posted by Whodini
Prometheus Books

Headed by the same person in charge of CSICOp and in charge of a secular humanism organization.

No conflict of interests, no bias, no sirreeee.

No thanks.

would have been evil if Hitler did it,

Took you one post, good job.

-Who

I'm a bit S-L-O, care to explain?

No sarcastic acidity intended.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I think it's just the brain wiring. Some people are prone to believe in that, others not. Some people are paranoid, others insecure, others truly free...

Christanity and Islam are based in fear. If you are a follower trapped in their dogma - it would be insane to step away. Thus, from the outside looking in, you are unsane to stay.

Unless, of course, you convert to Hinduism....then your Karma can run over your dogma.

But then we'd have to put it in the trunk and take it to the hospital...and it would have to wear one of those cones on its head and have a set of wheels for back legs......

Just make sure you don't convert to Hinduism and everything will be fine.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Whodini
Prometheus Books

Headed by the same person in charge of CSICOp and in charge of a secular humanism organization.

No conflict of interests, no bias, no sirreeee.

No thanks.

would have been evil if Hitler did it,

Took you one post, good job.

-Who

Putting a name and face to the "person" quote.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/home/kurtz/
http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/site/index.html

But hey, given Christian Publishers like Jack Chick to compare against, I'm sure the reactionary jump to "Hitler" comparisons was only to be expected, and evidence of the sort of scholarship we've come to expect from the religiously afflicted.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by triadboy

then your Karma can run over your dogma.

LOL, I hereby officially steal this and will pass it off as my own within 24 hours!

:D :D :D

[Peskanov]

Whodini;

----
quote:
Headed by the same person in charge of CSICOp and in charge of a secular humanism organization.

No conflict of interests, no bias, no sirreeee.

No thanks.
----

You are the one who always talk against attacking the author instead of addressing his arguments (like in you scientology threads).
You could use your own advice, too. How about actually replying thaiboxerken's argument?


Thaiboxerken;
Although I mostly agree with the idea, I think that all humans could be "unsane" to some degree. I can't think of anybody being totally realistic all the time, we all need to delude ourselves from time to time. And we delude ourselves for many reasons, not only religion (love, for example, or bussines,money,etc...).

[darling]

Originally posted by Peskanov
How about actually replying thaiboxerken's argument? I thought the "straw man" picture did that rather nicely.

[Peskanov]

Buddyh, I was only refering to Whodini.
Anyway, I also think that Finella did not answer. Shouting "fallacy" seems to be the trend lately in the R&P forum. No arguments, just crying "strawman! ad hominem!". How bad...
Finella did not offer any argument. If I have to address the meaning of her picture reading her mind, I am sure I am going to misrepresent her position.

Thai's says:

"unsane: means able to put one's mind in neutral in order to engage in irrational thinking for the purpose of
nullifying evidence that contradicts a security belief. "

If anybody think this kind of behaviour (which is, as I said before, universal) is sane, then please offer arguments...

Fine, I'll reply to the issues.

But first I'll invent my own word, Overdumbs, to describe skeptics who aren't really skeptics. The Overdumbs are quite different from the Dumbs, because the Overdumbs should know better, but they suspend their rationality and replace it with pseudo-rationality.

-Who

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Thai's says:

"unsane: means able to put one's mind in neutral in order to engage in irrational thinking for the purpose of
nullifying evidence that contradicts a security belief. "

If anybody think this kind of behaviour (which is, as I said before, universal) is sane, then please offer arguments...

I think Finella and Buddy are calling the examples of unsanity the "strawman". It's not , as many believers exibit the exact behaviors cited.

I have to agree that most people exhibit a little unsanity, but it's my opinion that religions are based on it.

Oh, and I just ignore whodini because he just wants to insult and annoy me.

[Peskanov]

Whodini,
----
quote:
Fine, I'll reply to the issues.
But first I'll invent my own word, Overdumbs, to describe skeptics who aren't really skeptics. The Overdumbs are quite different from the Dumbs, because the Overdumbs should know better, but they suspend their rationality and replace it with pseudo-rationality.
----

"Overdumb". I like how it sounds. You should make a thread about it. :D
Now you can start replying to issues. Is it sane using irrational thoughs to gain self-confidence?

Thai,
----
quote:
I think Finella and Buddy are calling the examples of unsanity the "strawman". It's not , as many believers exibit the exact behaviors cited.
----

I would say some of your examples are on the extreme, but I also know the same religion can be perceived in very different ways. Most christians I know simply avoid thinking in the contradictions of their manichaeist religion. Others really keep the old jew vision of a punitive god. I have known both kind of believers.

----
quote:
I have to agree that most people exhibit a little unsanity, but it's my opinion that religions are based on it.
----

I agree. I see religion & mysticism as a negation of the pain and cruelty found in our wold, and as a negation of our shortcomings as humans. The only way to do so is through irrationality...

[Phil]

Hi all. I just joined the JREF forum and this is my first post. Hope I'm not repeating anything from earlier posts or other threads. If so, apologies.

Well, the barbs and tired Karma/Dogma jokes notwithstanding, I think Arthur Clarke's insane/unsane definitions described in Thaiboxerken's original post are clever delineations of vocabulary, and those words are helpful when describing the delusions of madness and/or the "passive delusions" of blind faith. But I don't know that arguing termonology and nuances of language addresses the important issues.

Is it enough to describe an axe murderer as insane, and a believer as unsane, and because we have such a good definition of 'unsane', simply leave it at that? I realize no one was suggesting we do that, but I didn't notice the posts moving beyond a discussion/argument about words.

The point is, it doesn't take a skeptic or an 'Overdumb' to realize that from unsanity springs much insanity. The events of the last few decades in the Middle East make that point all too clear, as do any other religious movement or incident throughout recorded history. (I don't even have to mention 9/11/01, Jonestown, or Jerry Falwell by name.)

I mean, does it really matter what word we use to describe theists when as a collective, their track record for being sane is less than stellar? In fact, it downright sucks.

I think the word unsane is a harmless if not adequate way to describe a believer. But let's not lose sight of the fact that whether insane or unsane, the bearer of either moniker is touched deeply by irrationality. And worse yet, the potential to be dangerous lurks amid that irrationality.

[Yahzi]

I strongly suggest the book, "The corruption of reality," by John Schumaker (Prometheus Press). It directly addresses this issue.

Basically he demonstrates how being delusional is healthy and evolutionarily effective. So really, it's us atheists who are unsane.

Modern life does not mesh well with our evolutionary heritage in many ways.

[Jon_in_london]

I dont think its a sanity deficiency in most cases, although it undoubtedly is in some (too many?).

Mostly its just intellectual lethargy. Being too damn lazy/scared to challenge your most deep-seated beliefs.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Spectrum, my friends, spectrum.

~~ Paul

[Phil]

I haven't read the book you suggested, Yahzi. Can you offer a sentence or two about how being delusional is healthy? Curious.

There's no doubt man lives contrary to nature, and in this sense we are all 'unsane'. But since that contrary modality is in place, we could do well within it to keep from killing each other simply because one old man that lives in the sky is not buddies with all the other old men that live in the sky. An imperfect world does not have to be an 'insane' one.

[Yahzi]

Bascially, religious services increase the endomorphines in your brain. This makes you happy, which makes you healthy.

Sex does the same thing, but when you think about it, sex is a pretty non-rational act that involves misconstruing reality fairly heavily.

[Phil]

I endorse the latter, not the former.

Thanks

The only thing I might point out is that sex and other fun stuff like that are not an ongoing suspension of rationality, but small pockets of simply letting go for a while. Certainly a healthy prospect in my mind. But I have all too often seen that glazed over, euphoric look on the faces of hardcore believers in situations far outside the confines of their respective churches. And it's kinda creepy.

[Bentspoon]

Bascially, religious services increase the endomorphines in your brain. This makes you happy, which makes you healthy

I haven't read the book and the line above is probably an oversimplification of the premise, but if this is the premise, think of the possibilities

Marijuana is healthy
so is chocolate
alcohol
sex was mentioned
computer games
laying in the sun


The point being that making you happy is not necessarily making you healthy.

Getting back to the point. When people ask me why I don't believe, one of my many answers is that I cannot hang logic up at the church door. The unsane idea makes sense to me.

Bentspoon

[Finella]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I think Finella and Buddy are calling the examples of unsanity the "strawman". It's not , as many believers exibit the exact behaviors cited.

I have to agree that most people exhibit a little unsanity, but it's my opinion that religions are based on it.


I'm glad you finally got the "strawman" pic. Thanks for the compliment, I thought it was a cool pic, too.

Just taking these three examples of your original post:

A person who believes that the execution of every human who will ever live in reprisal for the crimes of his primeval ancestors would have been evil if Hitler did it, but is not evil when his god does it, may be unsane.

A person who believes that an omnipotent Master of the Universe sentences his imagined enemies to trillions of years of sadistic torture in a hell that even the current pope has repudiated, but is nonetheless a nice guy, may be unsane.

A person who believes that "Not a sparrow falls without his consent," (Mat. 10:29) but when a loved one is killed in a plane crash goes to a church to thank the imagined executioner for his omnibenevolence, may be unsane.

You assert that "all [god worshippers] may be unsane" because they exhibit these behaviors. I find it rather amusing that one who prides himself on logic and reason would make such broad, sweeping generalizations. You have no data to back up these claims. And I can tell you as a personal example that I do not exhibit any of these behaviors, god-worshipper that I am, and therefore I prove these claims false.

Strawmen.

As Paul A. said, "Spectrum, my friends, spectrum." There's a wide variety of god-worshippers out there. Even Yahzi makes exceptions for "Quakers and some Buddhists."

However, I find amusing that in this latest post of yours you change your language to say that "many believers exibit the exact behaviors cited." Interesting.

[thaiboxerken]

All god believer are unsane because they have to suspend logic and reason to believe in a god.

And yes, many god believers do exhibit the type of behavior depicted.

Those are just 3 of the examples presented on that webpage.

[Dancing David]

No more unsane than those otherwise rational people who put all of us at risk by driving way over the speed limit.

[Peskanov]

David,
----
quote:
No more unsane than those otherwise rational people who put all of us at risk by driving way over the speed limit.
----

The point being...? A person who systematically drives too fast is a danger for himself and for everybody. Societies fight this kind of behaviour.
Religions promote systematic irrational thinking and negation of some aspects of reality.

Thai posted some painful examples, mostly related to fanatical views, so I will write 2 not-so-extreme examples of dangerous irrationality supported by the catholic church, you know, the leading religion:

- The catholic church heavily fights against state's natality control on China. Anybody with half a mind can see that uncontrolled population growth in China would probably lead to massive famines in few decades.
- The catholic church fights against stem cell researchs (using fetus cells) in all countries, because "all human life is sacred". However, the quantity of lifes this research can save is nearly un-accountable. And the abortions are going to happen anyway!

Irrational thinking as it best...In the case of China, I would say really insane, not unsane.

Spectrum? Somebody show me a religion having sane irrational thinking, please...

[Dancing David]

Oh, I agree that religious thought can be as dangerous as any other thought. I was just pointing out the prevalence of dangerous beliefs, and that they are not limited to religion.

I was denied appropriate medical treatment as a child, I don't really blame my parents any more, they just didn't know that sick people ahould go see the doctor, because they were raised in a cult. A very dangerous religious belief.

[Akots]

How is faith in God irrational or illogical?

Faith in the defenition of a God would be; since God is "The Unknowable," any claim to identify or describe God will fail.

What about those of us who believe, but strive to make no pretense whatsoever as to the nature of such a supreme being, and admit that any inadvertant or unconcious defenition we arrive at would be pure fabrication?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Akots,

How is faith in God irrational or illogical?

Faith in the defenition of a God would be; since God is "The Unknowable," any claim to identify or describe God will fail.

That's a pretty strange definition of God, but OK. So why, exactly, do you believe that anything "unknowable" actually exists? And why do you choose to refer to it as "God", when that term carries a considerable amount of conceptual baggage? In particular, it presents the implication that this "unknowable" thing is a powerful sentient being of some sort.

What about those of us who believe, but strive to make no pretense whatsoever as to the nature of such a supreme being, and admit that any inadvertant or unconcious defenition we arrive at would be pure fabrication?

First of all, just referring to it as a "supreme being" constitutes a pretty significant degree of pretense. On one had you are saying that any definition you could arrive at would be pure fabrication, but on the other hand you are defining it to be a "supreme being". Doesn't this seem odd to you?

If you were truly taking the approach of making no assumptions and no pretense whatsoever about this "unknowable" thing that you call God, then saying that you believe in it would be meaningless, because you would have no idea what it is you are claiming to believe in. Essentially your entire statement of faith would amount to "I believe that things exist which are unknowable". And of course, such a statement is irrational, since in order for you to have any rational reason to believe something exists, it must necessarily be knowable.

After all, a rational belief is one that is based on a logical analysis of what you know. No knowledge -> no rational belief.


Dr. Stupid

[Akots]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
That's a pretty strange definition of God, but OK.

I'm not saying it's the defenition of God. In fact, what I was saying was that there is no possible accurate defenition of God by human standards. I know that "Unknowable" is a property, but I use it as a lack of property here. We can safely assume He has many names, but any allusion is imperfect.


So why, exactly, do you believe that anything "unknowable" actually exists?

If I *had* proof, I wouldn't need to believe. I would know. I think you mean to ask how I arrived at the conclusion that God exists.

My concept of "actually exists" is not defined by our ability to percieve. There are lots of things in the world I don't know about, and they still exist. But there is a difference between "Do" not know and "Can" not know. It is natural for us to learn things, so anything that is utterly unknowable would be supernatural. And of course, if we could learn of it, it would join the ranks of other categories of knowledge, and thusly ceace to be supernatural.


And why do you choose to refer to it as "God", when that term carries a considerable amount of conceptual baggage? In particular, it presents the implication that this "unknowable" thing is a powerful sentient being of some sort.

The word God does have a huge connotation attatched to it; when I refer to God, I am not reffering to the "Large, caucasian heterosexual angry human male with a white beard hurling lightning-bolts from on high." At least, I try not to.

Any name attributed to an unknowable property, item, or entity will of course be imperfect as a descriptor. I could just as easily call Him "The Holy Spirit," "The Omnipotent," or "That Which Has Many Names." Or I could call him "Fred." Or I could use Her instead of Him. But I'd be uncomfortable trying to attach a name or title to something I believe is indescribable and unknowable.


First of all, just referring to it as a "supreme being" constitutes a pretty significant degree of pretense. On one had you are saying that any definition you could arrive at would be pure fabrication, but on the other hand you are defining it to be a "supreme being". Doesn't this seem odd to you?

Reffering to God as supreme, omnipotent, all-knowing, etc, is a matter of faith. I *believe* that an entity that created a physical universe, as well as the laws of nature that govern it, would intrinsicly be supreme. I do not have the slightest inkling how one might go about creating a universe, and to me, this would be supreme knowledge; but I do not need to posess that knowledge to consider it supreme.


If you were truly taking the approach of making no assumptions and no pretense whatsoever about this "unknowable" thing that you call God, then saying that you believe in it would be meaningless, because you would have no idea what it is you are claiming to believe in.

On the one hand, my personal belief in the existance of God is just that; a personal belief. I muse and ponder and wonder about God; and the only purpose for such a personal musing would be the evolution and refinement of my own personal morals and beliefs. This is nice and all, but it's not really very practical.

On the other hand, I do follow a religion, with tennants and laws and a history that can be confirmed or disproven. This, I can believe in. And while you can never truly disprove my personal belief in God, you are more than welcome to argue the morality and practicality of my religion. Partly, my personal belief stems from how I've observed others that ascribe to thsi religion; and I approve of their conduct. The behavior of the people within a religion must always be the litmus test for the true intent of a religious movement.


Essentially your entire statement of faith would amount to "I believe that things exist which are unknowable". And of course, such a statement is irrational, since in order for you to have any rational reason to believe something exists, it must necessarily be knowable.

After all, a rational belief is one that is based on a logical analysis of what you know. No knowledge -> no rational belief.

Well, this is kind of a tough one... it's hard to drum up proof of anything Unknowable. Simply put, I know there are things the human race does not know, and there always have been. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The proof for me is in the conduct, behavior and beliefs of others within my religion. It impresses me, both morally and philosophically, and I chose to believe in God of my own will.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Akots,

That's a pretty strange definition of God, but OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not saying it's the defenition of God. In fact, what I was saying was that there is no possible accurate defenition of God by human standards. I know that "Unknowable" is a property, but I use it as a lack of property here. We can safely assume He has many names, but any allusion is imperfect.

In what sense is it unknowable? You are already claiming to know something about God when you describe it as a supreme being. Furthermore, if you truly don't have any idea what its properties are, then it is utterly meaningless to say that it does or does not exist. And if you do have some idea what its properties are, then it is not unknowable.

So why, exactly, do you believe that anything "unknowable" actually exists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I *had* proof, I wouldn't need to believe. I would know. I think you mean to ask how I arrived at the conclusion that God exists.

I mean exactly what I asked. Why do you believe that it exists. Surely you must have some reason for believing?

My concept of "actually exists" is not defined by our ability to percieve. There are lots of things in the world I don't know about, and they still exist. But there is a difference between "Do" not know and "Can" not know. It is natural for us to learn things, so anything that is utterly unknowable would be supernatural. And of course, if we could learn of it, it would join the ranks of other categories of knowledge, and thusly ceace to be supernatural.

Yes, I understand this. What I do not understand is what your reason is for believing that there is anything that is "utterly unknowable". It seems to me that, by definition, if something is utterly unknowable, then you cannot possibly have any rational reason for believing it exists.

And why do you choose to refer to it as "God", when that term carries a considerable amount of conceptual baggage? In particular, it presents the implication that this "unknowable" thing is a powerful sentient being of some sort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word God does have a huge connotation attatched to it; when I refer to God, I am not reffering to the "Large, caucasian heterosexual angry human male with a white beard hurling lightning-bolts from on high." At least, I try not to.

Any name attributed to an unknowable property, item, or entity will of course be imperfect as a descriptor. I could just as easily call Him "The Holy Spirit," "The Omnipotent," or "That Which Has Many Names." Or I could call him "Fred." Or I could use Her instead of Him. But I'd be uncomfortable trying to attach a name or title to something I believe is indescribable and unknowable.

So you are telling me that by "God" you mean only "that which is unknowable"? Can I assume then that your reference to it as the "Supreme Being" was simply a figure of speech, then?

First of all, just referring to it as a "supreme being" constitutes a pretty significant degree of pretense. On one had you are saying that any definition you could arrive at would be pure fabrication, but on the other hand you are defining it to be a "supreme being". Doesn't this seem odd to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reffering to God as supreme, omnipotent, all-knowing, etc, is a matter of faith. I *believe* that an entity that created a physical universe, as well as the laws of nature that govern it, would intrinsicly be supreme. I do not have the slightest inkling how one might go about creating a universe, and to me, this would be supreme knowledge; but I do not need to posess that knowledge to consider it supreme.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are not just talking about something "unknowable" here. You are attaching all sorts of specific characteristics to this "unknowable". You are claiming that it created the Universe, and that this act of creation required some sort of supreme knowledge. This belief, which you have just said is a matter of faith, is not based in logic. It is not based on a rational analysis of your knowledge. It is not a rational belief.

If you were truly taking the approach of making no assumptions and no pretense whatsoever about this "unknowable" thing that you call God, then saying that you believe in it would be meaningless, because you would have no idea what it is you are claiming to believe in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the one hand, my personal belief in the existance of God is just that; a personal belief. I muse and ponder and wonder about God; and the only purpose for such a personal musing would be the evolution and refinement of my own personal morals and beliefs. This is nice and all, but it's not really very practical.

I don't know what that means. There is a big difference between "musing and pondering about God", and believing that a God exist. I muse and ponder about God as well, along with all sorts of other things that I don't actually believe exist.

On the other hand, I do follow a religion, with tennants and laws and a history that can be confirmed or disproven. This, I can believe in. And while you can never truly disprove my personal belief in God, you are more than welcome to argue the morality and practicality of my religion. Partly, my personal belief stems from how I've observed others that ascribe to thsi religion; and I approve of their conduct. The behavior of the people within a religion must always be the litmus test for the true intent of a religious movement.

You are talking about things like philosophy, tradition, and social values here. None of this has anything to do with whether your Supernatural beliefs have anything to do with reality or not.

Essentially your entire statement of faith would amount to "I believe that things exist which are unknowable". And of course, such a statement is irrational, since in order for you to have any rational reason to believe something exists, it must necessarily be knowable.

After all, a rational belief is one that is based on a logical analysis of what you know. No knowledge -> no rational belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, this is kind of a tough one... it's hard to drum up proof of anything Unknowable.

Not just hard. Fundamentally impossible, by construction. The entire concept is inherently incoherent.

Simply put, I know there are things the human race does not know, and there always have been. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I would say that it is very likely that it is not possible, even in principle, for the human race to know everything. That does not mean that there are things that are unknowable. Nor is it a rational reason to believe that there are.

The proof for me is in the conduct, behavior and beliefs of others within my religion. It impresses me, both morally and philosophically, and I chose to believe in God of my own will.

Once again, this is a non sequitur. The fact that you find the moral conduct of the people within your own religion to be superior to that of other people is not only completely irrelevant to the question of whether the supernatural beliefs of your religion are true, it is trivial. Of course you find your religion to be morally and philosophically superior to the other religions. So does every other religious person on the planet.

Dr. Stupid

[Phil]

Was in the process of typing when Stimpson submitted the previous post. But I'll post anyway.

Akots,

I don't think you've addressed Stimpson's comments very well.

By my observation, it seems like you're tossing out the word "Unknowable" to somehow skirt the issue of religious faith being irrational. You're spreading it out like a safety net. The problem is, it's full of holes. I think Stimpson strongly pointed out that referring to god as unknowable is hardly valid when the concept of god hangs well within most peolple's view.

Perhaps you could enlighten us further by examining the origin of the conceptualization of your god, and express to us how you know of a thing that is unknowable. Was the idea of this supreme being passed down directly from him/her/it to humans? To you? Or was the idea conceived by frightened and confused people that lived a long time ago?

In either scenario, god is not unknowable. Something unknowable could never be conceived of in the first place, whether coming from on high or coming from a committe of tribal elders. As soon as the concept of god, or any cocept for that matter, flowers into existence, it cannot be termed unknowable. It's not supernatual. It's simply a non-existant idea.

And you mentioned that god is indescribable, but you no doubt have certain traits you've assigned this guy/gal/thing. Loving, vengeful, forgiving, jealous, moral omnipotent, etc. If this sucker is truly unknowable, how do you know those characteristics apply? And if you only 'believe' they apply, why would you not consider that nasty, immoral, stinky, evil, lazy, stupid, and hurtful also apply. Does unknowable automatically equal good?

The bottom line is, your version of the man upstairs is an most likely an idealistic icon that makes you feel safe in what can at times be a cold, unfeeling universe. And if that makes you feel good, then it's a wonderful thing for you. But there is no evidence that your god actually exists, making your belief in him/her/it only as rational as believing in other unsubstantiated things.

Now we can swing back to the topic of this thread, and postulate that you are touched by 'unsanity' (the brain shifting into neutral, the suspension of rational thought) where your religious beliefs are concerned.

[thaiboxerken]

Appeals to ignorance are not rational. Akots is doing exactly that by classifying his god as "unknowable".

Stop the unsanity!!

[Akots]

Originally posted by Phil

Akots,

I don't think you've addressed Stimpson's comments very well.

I don't think I have either... I also think i got carried away with the word unknowable.


By my observation, it seems like you're tossing out the word "Unknowable" to somehow skirt the issue of religious faith being irrational. You're spreading it out like a safety net. The problem is, it's full of holes. I think Stimpson strongly pointed out that referring to god as unknowable is hardly valid when the concept of god hangs well within most peolple's view.

Perhaps you could enlighten us further by examining the origin of the conceptualization of your god, and express to us how you know of a thing that is unknowable. Was the idea of this supreme being passed down directly from him/her/it to humans? To you? Or was the idea conceived by frightened and confused people that lived a long time ago?

(puts on his Tinfoil E-Meter Q-Source Homeopathic Unsanity helmet) I might as well get into the straight dope of my 'beliefs' now... My religion teaches that no ordinary human being can ever have direct knowledge of the true nature of God. What we do know is passed on to us through manifestations, such as Christ, Moses, Muhhamed, and a very few others; these people are human in nature, but divinely inspired. In addition to telling us as much about God as we are able to comprehend, their purpose is to provide guidelines and teachings of benefit to mankind, each in a progressive manner as mankind evolves and learns.

This is my first assumption; While we can know of God, we are not capable of truly comprehending or percieving Him, or any evidence that might prove His existance. I understand that the more probable reality is that there is no evidence of him because He does not exist. And I do understand that his actual existance or non-existance is a scientific issue that can never be resolved (and in the end, that argument inevitably makes a stong and valid argument for atheism).

This is why a lack of evidence does not discourage me. Though neither does it encourage me.


In either scenario, god is not unknowable. Something unknowable could never be conceived of in the first place, whether coming from on high or coming from a committe of tribal elders. As soon as the concept of god, or any cocept for that matter, flowers into existence, it cannot be termed unknowable. It's not supernatual. It's simply a non-existant idea.

And you mentioned that god is indescribable, but you no doubt have certain traits you've assigned this guy/gal/thing. Loving, vengeful, forgiving, jealous, moral omnipotent, etc. If this sucker is truly unknowable, how do you know those characteristics apply? And if you only 'believe' they apply, why would you not consider that nasty, immoral, stinky, evil, lazy, stupid, and hurtful also apply. Does unknowable automatically equal good?

The bottom line is, your version of the man upstairs is an most likely an idealistic icon that makes you feel safe in what can at times be a cold, unfeeling universe. And if that makes you feel good, then it's a wonderful thing for you. But there is no evidence that your god actually exists, making your belief in him/her/it only as rational as believing in other unsubstantiated things.

The assumptions I make are based on the tennants of my religion, which state that God is unknowable, forgiving, omnipotent, etc. A weak argument indeed, I think you'll agree... but I consider my religion's defenition accurate because I consider other parts of it accurate as well, and consider it reliable for matters of faith.

I think this should be my most important argument:

Do you know what makes me feel safe? The knowledge that however harsh this world is, I will have other human beings to rely on in a time of need. I believe that my religion encourages people to be moral, compassionate, understanding, and benevolent, and THIS I have proof of. This should be the absolute goal of any religion, as well as of all people regardless of religion; the betterment of mankind.


Now we can swing back to the topic of this thread, and postulate that you are touched by 'unsanity' (the brain shifting into neutral, the suspension of rational thought) where your religious beliefs are concerned.
Actually, I'd like to contest those charges; My proof for God is non-existant, and I never stated otherwise. Should someone else provide proof that God doesn't exist (Exceedingly unlikely), or proof of the dangerous, dishonest, or harmful nature of my religion (admittedly possible), I will be among the first to denounce it. I have arrived at my personal decision to follow this religion not out of ignorance or desperation, but out of observations I have made of the religion itself, the people who follow it, and the texts it's people consider holy. Everything I've learned of this religion tells me that it is truly intended to be a benefit to all people, one that preaches tolerance by *practicing* it, and I believe it is more than worthy of my support.

And rather than believe blindly in a God I cannot touch, see, feel or hear, I study what texts and guidelines this religion proposes are accurate, and come to what conclusions I can.

How is that irrational?

[Akots]

Please read my above post, as I think it answers a lot of your questions.

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Akots,

In what sense is it unknowable? You are already claiming to know something about God when you describe it as a supreme being. Furthermore, if you truly don't have any idea what its properties are, then it is utterly meaningless to say that it does or does not exist. And if you do have some idea what its properties are, then it is not unknowable.

The assumption of knowing any of God's properties is that the manifestations of God give us what information about him we can understand. Of course, this is meaningless as an argument for the validity of God or my religion.


I mean exactly what I asked. Why do you believe that it exists. Surely you must have some reason for believing?

Yes, I understand this. What I do not understand is what your reason is for believing that there is anything that is "utterly unknowable". It seems to me that, by definition, if something is utterly unknowable, then you cannot possibly have any rational reason for believing it exists.

So you are telling me that by "God" you mean only "that which is unknowable"? Can I assume then that your reference to it as the "Supreme Being" was simply a figure of speech, then?

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are not just talking about something "unknowable" here. You are attaching all sorts of specific characteristics to this "unknowable". You are claiming that it created the Universe, and that this act of creation required some sort of supreme knowledge. This belief, which you have just said is a matter of faith, is not based in logic. It is not based on a rational analysis of your knowledge. It is not a rational belief.

My recent post adresses this; I hope it will at least be a little less 'unsane' a response for you.


I don't know what that means. There is a big difference between "musing and pondering about God", and believing that a God exist. I muse and ponder about God as well, along with all sorts of other things that I don't actually believe exist.

It is a pretty vague statement... sorry. What I mean is that my religion does not attempt to state a scientific proof of God.


You are talking about things like philosophy, tradition, and social values here. None of this has anything to do with whether your Supernatural beliefs have anything to do with reality or not.

These issues are adressed by my religion, and by studying what it has to say, I'm more able to make an informed opinion about wether or not the religion is aligned with my own beliefs. I never said it served as proof of God; rather, the concept and possability of a God is food for thoguht.


Not just hard. Fundamentally impossible, by construction. The entire concept is inherently incoherent.

This is what I meant... bleh. Vagueness bad. :o


I would say that it is very likely that it is not possible, even in principle, for the human race to know everything. That does not mean that there are things that are unknowable. Nor is it a rational reason to believe that there are.

Allright then... so there is a finite amount of knowledge we can learn? Learning one thing prevents us from learning another? Why is it so unthinkable that some knowledge is unnatainable? Or does newly gained knowledge perpetually reveal a new problem to study, thus leading to new knowledge?


Once again, this is a non sequitur. The fact that you find the moral conduct of the people within your own religion to be superior to that of other people is not only completely irrelevant to the question of whether the supernatural beliefs of your religion are true, it is trivial. Of course you find your religion to be morally and philosophically superior to the other religions. So does every other religious person on the planet.

Dr. Stupid

I do not find the moral conduct of the people within my own religion superior to all other religions. And wether or not I do is irellevant. I simply find it apporpriate.

Oog... methinks I've been slapped silly here. I'll make an effort to be less vague, and more coherent in the future. :o

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Akots,

This is my first assumption; While we can know of God, we are not capable of truly comprehending or percieving Him, or any evidence that might prove His existance. I understand that the more probable reality is that there is no evidence of him because He does not exist. And I do understand that his actual existance or non-existance is a scientific issue that can never be resolved (and in the end, that argument inevitably makes a stong and valid argument for atheism).

This is why a lack of evidence does not discourage me. Though neither does it encourage me.

It should discourage you. You have just conceded that there no reliable evidence to back up your beliefs, and that the most reasonable explanation for the available evidence (and lack thereof) is that God does not exist. The fact that this does not discourage you from believing in God is a clear indication of some sort of irrational thought process.

Do you know what makes me feel safe? The knowledge that however harsh this world is, I will have other human beings to rely on in a time of need. I believe that my religion encourages people to be moral, compassionate, understanding, and benevolent, and THIS I have proof of. This should be the absolute goal of any religion, as well as of all people regardless of religion; the betterment of mankind.

As you said, this should be the goal regardless of religion. What you are talking about is philosophy, specifically humanism, and has no relevance to the existence of God, or the Supernatural, or to the question of whether a belief in God is rational.

Actually, I'd like to contest those charges; My proof for God is non-existant, and I never stated otherwise. Should someone else provide proof that God doesn't exist (Exceedingly unlikely), or proof of the dangerous, dishonest, or harmful nature of my religion (admittedly possible), I will be among the first to denounce it.

The dishonest, and potentially harmful, nature of your religion is manifest in the fact that it ties all of these philosophical ideals to a mythology. If it was just a philosophy (and the philosophy appears to be what you are claiming is valuable in it), then nobody would be saying anything. It is the specific unsupportable claims about the nature of reality that people have a problem with. And by tying this mythology to the philosophy, your religion is encouraging non-rational thought and beliefs. By encouraging faith, it is discouraging you from taking a good long critical look at both your own philosophical position, and those of others. It presents the myth that there is some sort of objective superiority to the philosophy and values it represents, rather than trying to defend them through logical argument and critical analysis, as a philosophy would. In short, it hides its philosophy behind theology, and relies on faith rather than reason to defend itself.

I have arrived at my personal decision to follow this religion not out of ignorance or desperation, but out of observations I have made of the religion itself, the people who follow it, and the texts it's people consider holy. Everything I've learned of this religion tells me that it is truly intended to be a benefit to all people, one that preaches tolerance by *practicing* it, and I believe it is more than worthy of my support.

Which once again has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether the objective supernatural claims it makes are true, and in no way makes believing these claims without any reliable supporting evidence rational.

And rather than believe blindly in a God I cannot touch, see, feel or hear, I study what texts and guidelines this religion proposes are accurate, and come to what conclusions I can.

How is that irrational?

That depends on how you reach your conclusions. You clearly did not reach the conclusion that the supernatural claims of your religion are true through a logical analysis of the available evidence. Instead you have chosen to accept the unsupported claims of your religious texts, based on the fact that you agree with the philosophical position of your religion. That is not logical.

I suppose that if you are operating under the misconception that your agreement with the philosophical and moral values of your religion has some relevance to the likelihood of its mythology being true, then your belief could be considered rational. Is that the case? Or do you recognize that this is a logical fallacy?

Dr. Stupid

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Akots,

Allright then... so there is a finite amount of knowledge we can learn? Learning one thing prevents us from learning another?

Not exactly. Clearly there is only a finite amount of knowledge any individual can learn, simply due to the finite lifetime of a human being. Likewise, so long as the human race is finite in numbers, we will never possess an infinite amount of knowledge.

Why is it so unthinkable that some knowledge is unnatainable?

It is not unthinkable. There is just no logical reason to believe it is true. More importantly, if some particular piece of knowledge is truly unattainable, how would we know it? The existence of unattainable information is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypothesis, and thus completely vacuous.

Or does newly gained knowledge perpetually reveal a new problem to study, thus leading to new knowledge?

It could. Who knows? :)

Dr. Stupid

[Diamond]

I don't think it has anything to do with sanity, but with good and poor pattern recognition. For many the simplistic (and often demonstrably wrong) explanations for natural phenomena have great appeal and there is a natural human aversion to change those cherished beliefs when denial is much the easier option.

We are not creatures of logic in any case, and scientists are no different in being purblind to their own prejudices than anybody else.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Diamond
I don't think it has anything to do with sanity, but with good and poor pattern recognition.

Yes. But I'd remove 'recognition' from that assessment. It seems it has more to do with good and poor (if you like) patterns of behavior. We're just playing with words here. Insanity & Unsanity. Unsanity, or the disregard of reason by otherwise reasonable people is an inconsistant, if not poor pattern of behavior.

We are not creatures of logic in any case, and scientists are no different in being purblind to their own prejudices than anybody else.

I have no comment about scientists and their prejudices except to say that there are some scientists who recognize their prejudices and strive to stow them away or eliminate them completely. They're called good scientists. Don't want folks to be 'purblind' to that.

[Akots]

I have been struggling to write a response to Dr. Stupid's excellent analasys and observations, but am unable to either explain or justify my irrational beliefs in a logical or rational manner. Thusly, I can only conclude that religion, theology and unfounded faith are indeed quite irrational things for humans to uphold. There have been sillier and nuttier ideas, I'm sure, but perhaps not many.

But on the other side, I simply cannot believe that the most rational decision is always the "best" decision. I am not trying to shield my beliefs by saying they are the exception to the norm; but I strongly believe one's faith, or lack of faith, is an extremely personal and subjective matter.

I keep claiming that I'm not trying to prove the existance of God, while also claiming that it cannot be done. And yet for some reason I think I tried... how irrational.

I think the best I can do is follow Phil's comment about science; recognize the irrationality of my beliefs, and strive to keep my predjudices from clouding my judgment. Which is good in any situation.

Hm...

I wonder... is the human race inherantly rational? Or are we slowly becoming more and more irrational as time goes on?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Akots,

But on the other side, I simply cannot believe that the most rational decision is always the "best" decision.

It's not always the "best" decision. I will say this, though. If you hold a set of values, and you define the "best" decision to be the one which is most consistent with those values, then it seems clear to me that rational thinking is going to give you the highest likelyhood of making the best decision, based on the information you have available.

Making the decision based on unjustified beliefs may give you a sense of confidence in your decision that you could not get otherwise. It may even give you the false impression that a bad decision was actually a good one. What it is not going to do is give you a higher likelyhood of actually making the best decision.

In fact, that is exactly where the danger in religion lies. Once you begin relying on something other that rational thought to make your decisions, you also lose (or severely impair) your ability to determine whether your decisions were good ones or not. The obvious culmination of this being people who base their decisions entirely on faith, and then also have faith that they made the right decision, regardless of the observable consequences.

I am not trying to shield my beliefs by saying they are the exception to the norm; but I strongly believe one's faith, or lack of faith, is an extremely personal and subjective matter.

Of course it is. But the question of whether rational or irrational decision making is more effective for deciding how to best live up to your values, is an objective one.

I keep claiming that I'm not trying to prove the existance of God, while also claiming that it cannot be done. And yet for some reason I think I tried... how irrational.

I think the best I can do is follow Phil's comment about science; recognize the irrationality of my beliefs, and strive to keep my predjudices from clouding my judgment. Which is good in any situation.

Hm...

That's the best anybody can really hope to do.

Dr. Stupid

[Phil]

Akots asked:
I wonder... is the human race inherantly rational? Or are we slowly becoming more and more irrational as time goes on?

I think we are inherantly rational; at least at the most fundamental and base level. As animals, we're driven by survival instincts, which may be cold and harsh at time, but are not irrational. We know that if we don't address that empty feeling in our stomachs, we will stop living. We know that we can kill something and ingest it, and that empty feeling will go away. We don't hang from a tree branch to let the emptiness leak out of us onto the forest floor. We know that there is a certain activity that feels really good, and oh by the way, when we participate in that activity new ones of us arrive shortly thereafter. We don't dance around rocks, hoping they will turn into children.

But as human animals, we've developed higher brain functions. We communicate more efficiently and on a much higher scale. And as a result, our lives have become much easier, allowing time for reflection, contemplation, and questions. We are not consumed with the business of survival anymore, and the door is open for great ideas to be introduced as well for monumental nonsense to flourish.

Now as individuals, we have the capacity to examine everything rationally and discard the BS, as I'd wager most of us that participate in this forum do. But as a collective, the signs often point to an acceptance of the nonsense, which would speak to the second part of your question, Akots.

This phenomenon may be an offshoot of ignorance or it may be just plain laziness, but it's another luxury of our softer existence. In many instances, we're irrational simply because we can be.

Anyone else have a thought?

[Peskanov]

Phil;

----
quote:
I think we are inherantly rational; at least at the most fundamental and base level. As animals, we're driven by survival instincts, which may be cold and harsh at time, but are not irrational
----

Instincts are totally irrational by definition. There are reasons for instinct to be the way it is, but the instinct process is not rational at all.

I disregard about the human being mostly rational. I would say the majority of the physical actions is automatic, and surely something similar happens with mind activity.