Irrational thought

[Autumnman]

Should the belief in the Judeo-Christian God be determined as an irrational Faith?

According to Webster’s New Universal Dictionary, © 2003 (Webster’s) the English adjective “irrational” is defined as:

Originally Posted by Webster’s

1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. 3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.

Regarding the human “mental faculty of reason”; “reason” is defined:

Originally Posted by Webster’s

3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences; {“reasoning” 2. the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises—“fact” = something that actually exists; reality; truth. And “premise” = Logic, a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.}. 4. sound judgment; good sense. 5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

That which is not subject to the influence of rigorous proof, facts, and/or reality is the basic definition of the words belief and faith as they are applied to a supernatural Supreme Being; God. Therefore, according to all of the above definitions, the belief and/or faith in the Judeo-Christian God is in fact deprived of reason and therefore, irrational!

News Media Polls conducted in 2009 have indicated that more than three-quarters of the U.S. population embrace a belief in “the supernatural”, and over two-thirds of the U.S. population proudly proclaim their religious faith in the Judeo-Christian God, and/or Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Gallup Poll. Dec. 11-13, 2009. N=1,025 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
"How important would you say religion is in your own life: very important, fairly important, or not very important?"

VeryImportant % 54
FairlyImportant % 25
Not VeryImportant % 20
Unsure % 1

12/11-13/09

If the above poll is even remotely accurate, then, according to the Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language definitions provided above, seventy-nine percent of the adult U.S. population must be regarded as IRRATIONAL!

When such insanity presents itself as “normal”, how can the “sound powers of mind” be determined?

[justcharlie09]

Even a "rationalist", by dint of being human to begin with, probably comes up short in the rationality department.

That is to say, I wouldn't think of it as a rational vs. irrational zero sum game, as I would think of it as kind of a continuum of rationality with some people being more rational than others. Some theists and atheists fall at different points along this continuum. Labelling someone with these terms (atheist, theist, agnostic) does not give them a free pass on rationalism anymore than claiming a certain moral philosophy gives a person real estate in the land of the Moral Highground.

More simply:

'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat, 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

Should the belief in the Judeo-Christian God be determined as an irrational Faith?

Yes.

[Autumnman]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Even a "rationalist", by dint of being human to begin with, probably comes up short in the rationality department.

That is to say, I wouldn't think of it as a rational vs. irrational zero sum game, as I would think of it as kind of a continuum of rationality with some people being more rational than others. Some theists and atheists fall at different points along this continuum. Labelling someone with these terms (atheist, theist, agnostic) does not give them a free pass on rationalism anymore than claiming a certain moral philosophy gives a person real estate in the land of the Moral Highground.

More simply:

'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat, 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'

I don't think that "a moral philosophy" can be compared to "rational thought" {as defined by Webster's Dictionary}. Facts are reality, nature consists of facts, and a rational mind will acknowledge and conform to the natural facts of reality. Moral philosophy is both religious and cultural based; that is to say that human beings invent morality. Human beings may interpret the natural facts of nature, but human beings do not invent the natural facts of nature. A human being cannot breathe water. That is a fact.
Autumnman

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

I don't think that "a moral philosophy" can be compared to "rational thought" {as defined by Webster's Dictionary}. Facts are reality, nature consists of facts, and a rational mind will acknowledge and conform to the natural facts of reality. Moral philosophy is both religious and cultural based; that is to say that human beings invent morality. Human beings may interpret the natural facts of nature, but human beings do not invent the natural facts of nature. A human being cannot breathe water. That is a fact.
Autumnman

I wasn't trying to equate the two. Just saying, just because you call a person by a certain name, doesn't mean they are transformed into that person/place/thing/idea/noun in general.

You start with an irrational animal (human) and you end with an irrational animal (human). You can call that irrational animal what you like in between, but you won't make it rational by doing so.

The best any atheist or theist can hope for is to be rational ENOUGH not to hurt others too badly with their own human tendency toward irrationality.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yes.

Damn, beat me to it.

[Pure Argent]

Originally Posted by Sledge

Damn, beat me to it.

Pixy'll do that. I wanted to say it as well.

[Autumnman]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

I wasn't trying to equate the two. Just saying, just because you call a person by a certain name, doesn't mean they are transformed into that person/place/thing/idea/noun in general.

In my OP I did not employ any of these nouns--"Labelling someone with these terms (atheist, theist, agnostic)". They are only found in your post.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

You start with an irrational animal (human) and you end with an irrational animal (human). You can call that irrational animal what you like in between, but you won't make it rational by doing so.

All humans begin as an "animal: the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal rather than the intellectual". However, unless there is brain damage, the human mammal possesses the mental faculty of "reason". The human brain possesses the mental capacity to be rational. The subject I am trying to discuss is, why, with the mental faculty of reason available, is 79% of the adult U.S. population embracing the irrational conception of a Judeo-Christian God?

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

The best any atheist or theist can hope for is to be rational ENOUGH not to hurt others too badly with their own human tendency toward irrationality.

I will now attempt to define the following terms in accord with the Opening Post.
By definition, a “theist” {the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe} is “irrational”. However, all human mammals are born “atheist” {one who disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being} due to the fact that human beings must teach the developing human brain about the presumed existence of a God. The idea or concept of a God is not innate to the human brain.

Autumnman

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

The human brain possesses the mental capacity to be rational.

It does, but it's not very good at it. It's hard work.

Quote:

The subject I am trying to discuss is, why, with the mental faculty of reason available, is 79% of the adult U.S. population embracing the irrational conception of a Judeo-Christian God?

Cultural inertia and childhood indoctrination. And a whole bunch of other factors. It's complicated.

And a large proportion of the remaining 21% believe in other equally silly things anyway. In fact, a significant proportion of the 79% also believe in other equally silly things.

[Autumnman]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

It does, but it's not very good at it. It's hard work.

Do you think there is a way to make the “hard work” of rational thought more enjoyable so that the “hard work” is more appealing?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Cultural inertia and childhood indoctrination. And a whole bunch of other factors. It's complicated.

I am aware of the socialization process, but there must be some way to introduce “reason” into the cultural dynamic of a modern society that possesses advanced communication skills and technologies. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

And a large proportion of the remaining 21% believe in other equally silly things anyway. In fact, a significant proportion of the 79% also believe in other equally silly things.

If the mental faculty of “reason” is in competition with irrational, silly things then there must be a rational way to win the competition. What are your thoughts?

Autumnman

[justcharlie09]

Quote:

In my OP I did not employ any of these nouns--"Labelling someone with these terms (atheist, theist, agnostic)". They are only found in your post.

And I can't mention something related but not distinctly outlined in your post? Why not?

Quote:

All humans begin as an "animal: the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal rather than the intellectual". However, unless there is brain damage, the human mammal possesses the mental faculty of "reason". The human brain possesses the mental capacity to be rational. The subject I am trying to discuss is, why, with the mental faculty of reason available, is 79% of the adult U.S. population embracing the irrational conception of a Judeo-Christian God?

Sure, people have the ability to reason and be rational. It is a limited ability. Limited by animalistic qualities we continue to possess, limited by experience, and limited by training/conditioning. That's what I'm saying, but you are either ignoring everything I say because I haven't outright nodded in fervent agreement or else, in fairness, I am not making myself abundantly clear. Which is it? So that I can either correct my own error or walk away with the understanding that talking to brick walls, while entertaining, is not particularly productive.

I am not arguing that faith, itself, is rational. It is, by secular definition and theological definition, NOT rational. To say, however, that people having faith does not suggest they fail to be rational in their lives in general (are in other words insane or mentally incompetent), does not make these individuals, overall, irrational. Anymore, than people in general are prone to irrational behavior.

Quote:

I will now attempt to define the following terms in accord with the Opening Post.
By definition, a “theist” {the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe} is “irrational”. However, all human mammals are born “atheist” {one who disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being} due to the fact that human beings must teach the developing human brain about the presumed existence of a God. The idea or concept of a God is not innate to the human brain.

The theist's belief may not be rational, but that does not automatically make the theist, as an individual irrational. The atheist, by contrast, who arrives at their atheism through rational thought, is not automatically rational or more rational than the theist in the rest of their life activities, etc.

As for the suggestion that atheism is a default and that no person could arrive at theism through their own natural tendencies raises a couple of questions... where did religion come from then? and...how do some atheist parents end up with theist children?

Chickens, eggs, which came first, and whatnot.

Also, to say without a doubt that any spiritual leanings are entirely the product of human construction independent of how the brain might otherwise work...you would have to prove this through extensive testing and understanding of human consciousness and brain biology. All of which are being done right now, but none that can be definitive in proving that religiosity or spirituality are "unnatural" or artificial in some way.

What I hear in your words throughout the thread and in the OP is a reiteration of "my team is better than their team". Atheists are more "rational" and not "irrational" like those crazy theists. It is a self congratulatory, "who's with me?", preaching to the choir post.

It's advocacy for your worldview and proselytizing...for a different team and with different words...but don't pretend it's something more "intellectual" than that.

And, yes, I find it annoying. Just as annoying as that other thread going right now pondering who is "eviler" (yes, I know that's not a word).

[Towlie]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

Should the belief in the Judeo-Christian God be determined as an irrational Faith?

What other kind of faith is there? If you look up faith in your Webster's, it'll be difficult for you to avoid the conclusion that "rational faith" is an oxymoron.

[Autumnman]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

And I can't mention something related but not distinctly outlined in your post? Why not?

I am defining my terms by employing an English dictionary. I am not merely stating an opinion.
Just define your terms so that I know what you are talking about.
I specifically did not use the “noun v. noun” approach with the hopes of engaging in a discussion that was more educational rather than confrontational.

It appears as though I was not completely successful.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Sure, people have the ability to reason and be rational. It is a limited ability. Limited by animalistic qualities we continue to possess, limited by experience, and limited by training/conditioning. That's what I'm saying, but you are either ignoring everything I say because I haven't outright nodded in fervent agreement or else, in fairness, I am not making myself abundantly clear. Which is it? So that I can either correct my own error or walk away with the understanding that talking to brick walls, while entertaining, is not particularly productive.

You did not make yourself abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

I am not arguing that faith, itself, is rational. It is, by secular definition and theological definition, NOT rational.

Your quote directly above is “abundantly clear”.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

To say, however, that people having faith does not suggest they fail to be rational in their lives in general (are in other words insane or mentally incompetent), does not make these individuals, overall, irrational. Anymore, than people in general are prone to irrational behavior.

I never said any of the above.
I will say, however, once the individual has suspended his/her disbelief, the mental faculty of reason has been greatly diminished.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

The theist's belief may not be rational, but that does not automatically make the theist, as an individual irrational. The atheist, by contrast, who arrives at their atheism through rational thought, is not automatically rational or more rational than the theist in the rest of their life activities, etc.

I disagree. When the majority of a society have suspended their disbelief, the mental faculty of reason has become severely diminished. We might want to look into “mob-psychology”. I say, “We”, meaning that both of us might want to expand our education toward “mob-psychology”.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

As for the suggestion that atheism is a default and that no person could arrive at theism through their own natural tendencies raises a couple of questions... where did religion come from then?

Anthropological studies into hunter-gatherer cultures suggest that they are less likely to believe in a “theistic” {one true God/Supreme Being} fashion, and more likely to embrace the sublime mysteries that constitute nature. Agrarian, Urbanized {manmade cultures} tend to make God in their own image. A patriarchal agrarian, urbanized culture will generally make “Father” into the image and likeness of God.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

and...how do some atheist parents end up with theist children?

Atheist parents can end up with theist children because “family influence” is often less than cultural influence.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Also, to say without a doubt that any spiritual leanings are entirely the product of human construction independent of how the brain might otherwise work...you would have to prove this through extensive testing and understanding of human consciousness and brain biology. All of which are being done right now, but none that can be definitive in proving that religiosity or spirituality are "unnatural" or artificial in some way.

Define for me “spiritual leanings”, “spirituality”, and “religiosity”.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

What I hear in your words throughout the thread and in the OP is a reiteration of "my team is better than their team". Atheists are more "rational" and not "irrational" like those crazy theists. It is a self congratulatory, "who's with me?", preaching to the choir post.

I defined my terms. There was no “my team” only dictionary definitions, and a poll. I am apparently not “preaching to a choir”. Do you hear any singing?

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

It's advocacy for your worldview and proselytizing...for a different team and with different words...but don't pretend it's something more "intellectual" than that.

Are you up to this discussion? It sounds as though you think you know me, and don’t much like what you think you know. I am not pretending anything.

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

And, yes, I find it annoying. Just as annoying as that other thread going right now pondering who is "eviler" (yes, I know that's not a word).

What you “find annoying” is beyond me and my OP. If you want to carry on a discussion, let’s discuss. If you are still annoyed, then go away.
Autumnman

[Autumnman]

Originally Posted by Towlie

What other kind of faith is there? If you look up faith in your Webster's, it'll be difficult for you to avoid the conclusion that "rational faith" is an oxymoron.

Thank you, Towlie. You are absolutely right. However, there is more to the OP than that oxymoron. That "oxymoron" was quite intentional and was alluding to the other oxymoron "Religious Truth". According to the poll in the OP 79% of adults in the U.S.A. regard "religion" as being important in their lives. Religion could not be deemed as important if one's "faith in God" were not construed as "the fact of God."

Do you see my point?

Autumnman

[Maia]

Well, this entire thing kind of goes back to that Stephen Jay Gould NOMA thread from a few weeks ago. There were a number of speculations about why Gould wrote the book he did on the subject (Rocks of Ages) and why it was, shall we say, quite different from The God Delusion (which I remain convinced was Dawkins' answer to it, with perhaps a certain itsy bitsy amount of nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah quality to it, knowing that Gould couldn't exactly answer back.) I have to say that given the fact that Gould was a straight-up materialist atheist, I think there was some canny realpolitik involved.

SJG's Interior Monologue: Hmm. Let's see. 80% of the U.S. population says that religion is either very or fairly important to their lives (and the figure's been pretty consistent, so it was basically the same in 1999, when he wrote the book.) And you know, even that remaining 20% probably still believes in a lot of weird New-Agey stuff... Now, what would be a good way to open a dialogue with all these people and introduce them to my ideas? How about NOT alienating them from the get-go? Is it really necessary to be snarky and elitist? How about being kind of SNEAKY and starting out by saying lots of nice things about religion, and then slipping in more and more atheist ideas until... MWAH HA HA!! GOTCHA! Anyway, that's kind of how the book went.

[Fiona]

This kind of thing bothers me. I do not see the opposition which I think is implied in the OP.

Quote:

Should the belief in the Judeo-Christian God be determined as an irrational Faith?

According to Webster’s New Universal Dictionary, © 2003 (Webster’s) the English adjective “irrational” is defined as:
Originally Posted by Webster’s
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. 3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.

I am not very clear what you are actually arguing here: on the one hand you may be claiming that the theist position is irrational, as seems to be the case in this part of your post. But you might equally well be saying that the theist himself is irrational: as you seem to be at the end of your post

If you are saying that the theist is himself irrational then I disagree. On the definition you have given we cannot define any person who is not actually ill or impaired as irrational, because every "normal" person has the faculty of reason. I do not see any reason at all to suppose that theists are lackng in mental clarity or sound judgment; nor that they are utterly illogical. Nor can I accept that the atheist is devoid of irrationality. It seems to me that everyone is human and everyone is sometimes rational and sometimes not. So I cannot accept this separation of the sheep from the goats.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that the theist position is irrational then again I cannot agree.

Quote:

Regarding the human “mental faculty of reason”; “reason” is defined:
Originally Posted by Webster’s
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences; {“reasoning” 2. the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises—“fact” = something that actually exists; reality; truth. And “premise” = Logic, a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.}. 4. sound judgment; good sense. 5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

I think that theism fits this definition just as much as atheism does, as well. The problem is that I do not accept the definition of premise included here (as I read it). If you adopt the more usual usage as " A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition. [1913 Webster]" then I think there is no reason to distinguish the atheist from the theist on this basis

Quote:

That which is not subject to the influence of rigorous proof, facts, and/or reality is the basic definition of the words belief and faith as they are applied to a supernatural Supreme Being; God. Therefore, according to all of the above definitions, the belief and/or faith in the Judeo-Christian God is in fact deprived of reason and therefore, irrational!

No. All thought has to start with core premises. It does not matter what you believe, you have to start somewhere, and you cannot start at the beginning. So you have premises: if every premise has to be proved you have an infinite regress. I do not believe for one moment that anyone, theist or atheist, proves every premise before they start inferring stuff based on those premises. For example you may believe the universe is lawful. Have you proved that? What effect does the peculiarity of subatomic particle behaviour have on that premise? Does it make the universe statistically rather than mechanistically lawful? Or what? I would suggest that it is a fair enough premise to adopt. But it remains a premise. It is of course falsifiable in principle, and you may argue that this is where it differs from the premise that god exists. But I am at a bit of a loss to see just how it is falsifiable. I think that most of us, faced with something in physics which seems not to be lawful, would be with Einstein: when he said "god does not play dice" he was effectively saying that cannot be right. It is no different from the theist position. At least that is how it seems to me.

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

Should the belief in the Judeo-Christian God be determined as an irrational Faith?

According to Webster’s New Universal Dictionary, © 2003 (Webster’s) the English adjective “irrational” is defined as:

Regarding the human “mental faculty of reason”; “reason” is defined:


That which is not subject to the influence of rigorous proof, facts, and/or reality is the basic definition of the words belief and faith as they are applied to a supernatural Supreme Being; God. Therefore, according to all of the above definitions, the belief and/or faith in the Judeo-Christian God is in fact deprived of reason and therefore, irrational!

News Media Polls conducted in 2009 have indicated that more than three-quarters of the U.S. population embrace a belief in “the supernatural”, and over two-thirds of the U.S. population proudly proclaim their religious faith in the Judeo-Christian God, and/or Jesus Christ.


If the above poll is even remotely accurate, then, according to the Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language definitions provided above, seventy-nine percent of the adult U.S. population must be regarded as IRRATIONAL!

When such insanity presents itself as “normal”, how can the “sound powers of mind” be determined?

The give-away is in the last sentence.

Yes, you can take a certain definition of irrational and a sometimes used definition of faith, add a particular definition of fact and include a hand-picked definition of reason and make the conclusion you have made.

However, you can't go on to equivocate your definitions to make another conclusion. If irrational means what you originally took it to mean, you're going to need another step to get to insanity, otherwise justcharlie09's Cheshire Cat has got it spot on.

Here's another (more extreme) example in which I shall demonstrate that you are merely bodily fluid, by similar methods:
Autumnman is a poster on these boards.
A poster is defined as a bill.
A bill is defined as a beak.
A beak is defined as a spout on a jug.
Spout is defined as discharge.
Discharge is defined as bodily fluid.

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Fiona

No. All thought has to start with core premises. It does not matter what you believe, you have to start somewhere, and you cannot start at the beginning. So you have premises: if every premise has to be proved you have an infinite regress. I do not believe for one moment that anyone, theist or atheist, proves every premise before they start inferring stuff based on those premises. For example you may believe the universe is lawful. Have you proved that? What effect does the peculiarity of subatomic particle behaviour have on that premise? Does it make the universe statistically rather than mechanistically lawful? Or what? I would suggest that it is a fair enough premise to adopt. But it remains a premise. It is of course falsifiable in principle, and you may argue that this is where it differs from the premise that god exists. But I am at a bit of a loss to see just how it is falsifiable. I think that most of us, faced with something in physics which seems not to be lawful, would be with Einstein: when he said "god does not play dice" he was effectively saying that cannot be right. It is no different from the theist position. At least that is how it seems to me.

Seems like that to me too. Nice writing, Fiona!

[justcharlie09]

Quote:

I am defining my terms by employing an English dictionary. I am not merely stating an opinion.
Just define your terms so that I know what you are talking about.
I specifically did not use the “noun v. noun” approach with the hopes of engaging in a discussion that was more educational rather than confrontational.

Really?

"If the above poll is even remotely accurate, then, according to the Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language definitions provided above, seventy-nine percent of the adult U.S. population must be regarded as IRRATIONAL!

When such insanity presents itself as “normal”, how can the “sound powers of mind” be determined? "

You just called 79% of the US population irrational and thereby insane, but you're not being confrontational or trying to pat your own back for your own worldview?

Anyway, to directly answer the question: How can sound powers of mind be determined? Again, I answered, on a continuum based on the behavior of the individual. If the theist in question regularly goes around wearing a sandwich board proclaiming the end times, with a pair of Y-fronts on his head, etc... they would be toward the "insane" side of the continuum...obviously. People who are moderate in their actions and generally use evidence-based decision-making (be they atheistic or theistic) would, of course, be toward the SANE side of the continuum.

It appears as though I was not completely successful.

You state a definition of rational and then irrational and then make the connection between theists and irrationality which doesn't hold water.

One can hold an irrational belief (this can be done by an atheist or a theist on a variety of topics beyond the God question) but not be, overall, an irrational person.

Quote:

You did not make yourself abundantly clear.

Well, then, my apologies. Let's hope to clarify.

Quote:

Your quote directly above is “abundantly clear”.

Good, at least we've gotten that far.

Quote:

I never said any of the above.
I will say, however, once the individual has suspended his/her disbelief, the mental faculty of reason has been greatly diminished.

Then please clarify this: "When such insanity presents itself as “normal”, how can the “sound powers of mind” be determined?"

And, you've just said it again. You are extrapolating one belief into many different actions which might be taken by a set of individuals. Painting with a broad brush, as one might say. Theism, in your own words above, is a hallmark of a weaker/lesser mind. If you're going to say it, at least own it for what it is.

Quote:

I disagree. When the majority of a society have suspended their disbelief, the mental faculty of reason has become severely diminished. We might want to look into “mob-psychology”. I say, “We”, meaning that both of us might want to expand our education toward “mob-psychology”.

The branch of social psychology, to which you refer, is not, necessarily, the same animal as theism. Some aspects of organized religion are undoubtedly subject to it (as would any large group), but not necessarily every person who has "faith". The diversity of Christian denominations and the cafeteria-style Christianity which is prevalent in the US generally suggest, to me, that one man's definition of "faith in God" is not necessarily going to resemble the next man's. Even if 80% say religion is important to them we've still failed to identify which religion is important and why. Is it because of community, or God, or celestial fire insurance, what? And which religion? Just saying Christian tells me very little. What kind of Christian? Roman Catholic? Mormon? 7th Day Adventist? Jehovah's Witness? Methodist? Baptist? Liberal? Conservative? Jews for Jesus?

Quote:

Anthropological studies into hunter-gatherer cultures suggest that they are less likely to believe in a “theistic” {one true God/Supreme Being} fashion, and more likely to embrace the sublime mysteries that constitute nature. Agrarian, Urbanized {manmade cultures} tend to make God in their own image. A patriarchal agrarian, urbanized culture will generally make “Father” into the image and likeness of God.

This tells me how each group tried to understand something of the supernatural or intangible in existence in relation to their circumstances...but it doesn't tell me why they bothered in the first place.

Quote:

Atheist parents can end up with theist children because “family influence” is often less than cultural influence.

Depends on the person and the family, I would imagine. So, I'll give you that. No mystical source necessary.

Quote:

Define for me “spiritual leanings”, “spirituality”, and “religiosity”.

Well, I would say that some people do have experiences which they relate to otherworldy or supernatural or spiritual sources.

Here's a link to some thoughts on the topic:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...510/cover.html

As for the definitions of those words. I've noted that you are using the dictionary. The conventional definitions of these items will do.

Quote:

I defined my terms. There was no “my team” only dictionary definitions, and a poll. I am apparently not “preaching to a choir”. Do you hear any singing?

No singing, but I think I might have seen some "amen brother, preach on" style statements

79% of the population is irrational for feeling religion is important to them! And I've got definitions that prove it! Okay, that's not verbatim, but it's too close to bother worrying about.

Look, if you're fishing for suckers, I'm afraid you need better bait.

Quote:

Are you up to this discussion? It sounds as though you think you know me, and don’t much like what you think you know. I am not pretending anything.

I don't know you, per se. But, I've seen enough permutations of people who speak in the fashion you do over the course of a lifetime to feel I've made a reasonable guess. And am I up to it? Yes, but it's Saturday night and I've got other things to do.

For what it is worth, I don't really think, thus far, that you're up to it. And, I've already expressed my feelings regarding discussions with brick walls and other bits of masonry. Of theistic or atheistic varieties. I'll do it while it entertains me, but that's about it.

Quote:

What you “find annoying” is beyond me and my OP. If you want to carry on a discussion, let’s discuss. If you are still annoyed, then go away.

No, it's not. I have no problem with atheists--or anyone else. I'm just annoyed by the arrogant and the insecure. I'm sure your back will be patted enough in this thread to quickly forget whatever it is that I've said.

Have fun, I'm off to the movies...

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

Do you think there is a way to make the “hard work” of rational thought more enjoyable so that the “hard work” is more appealing?

No. If I knew that, I'd either be rich or torn to pieces by the mob. Possibly both.

Quote:

I am aware of the socialization process, but there must be some way to introduce “reason” into the cultural dynamic of a modern society that possesses advanced communication skills and technologies. Any ideas?

You're here, aren't you?

Quote:

If the mental faculty of “reason” is in competition with irrational, silly things then there must be a rational way to win the competition. What are your thoughts?

There's only a rational way to win the competition if people are rational. They're not.

[Autumnman]

PixyMisa: Thanks for the input. People are not rational. Sad.

I’ve got to get some rest. But, before I go let me just say:
Virgin birth
Walking on water
Raising a 4 day old rotting corpse

That all rings of irrationality
Autumnman

[Autumnman]

Fiona:
Thank you for your input.

Originally Posted by Fiona

This kind of thing bothers me. I do not see the opposition which I think is implied in the OP.

I do not comprehend your above statement. What “kind of thing” are you referring to? The terms “irrational”, “rational”, and “reason” are pretty well defined. Either they mean what their definitions (within the context of “belief and/or faith in the Judeo-Christian God) convey, or the dictionary definitions do not matter. If the dictionary definitions do not matter then we have a failure to communicate.
I need to look up the term “opposition” and see if I can discern what you are saying in your last sentence above.
I am going to go with the definition of “opposition” that states:

Originally Posted by Webster’s

^7.b.Logic. the relation between two propositions in virtue of which the truth or falsity of one of them determines the truth or falsity of the other

If that is the definition of “opposition” that you are employing above, I cannot see how you “do not see the opposition ... implied in the OP.” It is empirically absurd to believe that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the New Testament was actually, factually, really born by a young female who was impregnated by the Jewish yhwh God some two thousand years ago. It is also empirically absurd to believe that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the New Testament was actually the physical manifestation of the Jewish yhwh God. It is also empirically absurd to believe that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the New Testament actually, factually, really walked on water, or that he brought a four day old rotting corpse back to life. To believe or have faith in a religion that proposes the above examples are “true” is, in fact, irrational.

Originally Posted by Fiona

I am not very clear what you are actually arguing here: on the one hand you may be claiming that the theist position is irrational, as seems to be the case in this part of your post. But you might equally well be saying that the theist himself is irrational: as you seem to be at the end of your post.

I am claiming that according to the definitions of “irrational”, “rational”, and “reason” provided by Webster’s dictionary, “the theist position is irrational. I am also claiming that anyone who thinks that “religion” (with a focus on the Judeo-Christian religion) is “Very Important” or “Fairly Important” in his/her adult life is NOT thinking in a “rational” and/or “reasonable” fashion in regard to their “religious faith”.
I am not saying that these individuals are completely devoid of the “mental faculty of reason” or completely incapable of “rational thought”.
I am saying that these individuals are clearly prone to abandoning their “mental faculty of reason”, “suspending their disbelief,” and “thinking in an irrational fashion”!

Originally Posted by Fiona

If you are saying that the theist is himself irrational then I disagree. On the definition you have given we cannot define any person who is not actually ill or impaired as irrational, because every "normal" person has the faculty of reason. I do not see any reason at all to suppose that theists are lackng in mental clarity or sound judgment; nor that they are utterly illogical.

Let me reiterate what I just stated above:

Originally Posted by Autumnman

I am not saying that these individuals are completely devoid of the “mental faculty of reason” or completely incapable of “rational thought”.
I am saying that these individuals are clearly prone to abandoning their “mental faculty of reason”, “suspending their disbelief,” and “thinking in an irrational fashion”!

Originally Posted by Fiona

Nor can I accept that the atheist is devoid of irrationality. It seems to me that everyone is human and everyone is sometimes rational and sometimes not. So I cannot accept this separation of the sheep from the goats.

Insofar as embracing the irrational Judeo-Christian faith the atheist is devoid of that particular irrationality. Therefore, in this regard, the adult human atheist is less prone to abandoning her/his “mental faculty of reason”, “suspending her/his disbelief,” and “thinking in an irrational fashion”!

Originally Posted by Fiona

If, on the other hand, you are saying that the theist position is irrational then again I cannot agree.
I think that theism fits this definition just as much as atheism does, as well. The problem is that I do not accept the definition of premise included here (as I read it). If you adopt the more usual usage as " A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition. [1913 Webster]" then I think there is no reason to distinguish the atheist from the theist on this basis

By the definitions provided in the OP, “the theist position is irrational”!
A theist is an individual who embraces “the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation” (Webster’s). The term belief meaning, “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: to follow the Christian belief” (Webster’s), then, by definition, the theist Christian belief/faith is irrational.
It is irrational to believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was actually born of a virgin.
It is irrational to believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament actually walked on water.
It is irrational to believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament actually brought mortal life back to a four-day-old rotting corpse.
It is irrational to believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament actually bodily resurrected himself after his own mortal death.
It is irrational to believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament actually Is, Was, and Always Shall Be the manifestation of the Jewish yhwhGod.

Originally Posted by Fiona

No. All thought has to start with core premises.

There are thoughts that are based in facts, nature, and/or reality. There are thoughts that an adult human being does not have to believe. There is a foundation of tangible, actual reality that exists, and the existence of that foundation—the force we refer to as “gravity”, water does not support the human foot, water is for drinking, air is for breathing, and on and on—is not contingent on human observation or thought. This foundation of reality does not depend on a scientific equation or a religious faith. This foundation of reality exists whether humans mentally complicate it, mentally accept it, or mentally reject it. The human mental faculty of “reason”, by definition, is specifically oriented to embrace the actual facts provided by the foundation of our mutual, objective reality.

I look forward to your reply.
Autumnman

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

I do not comprehend your above statement. What “kind of thing” are you referring to? The terms “irrational”, “rational”, and “reason” are pretty well defined. Either they mean what their definitions (within the context of “belief and/or faith in the Judeo-Christian God) convey, or the dictionary definitions do not matter. If the dictionary definitions do not matter then we have a failure to communicate.
I need to look up the term “opposition” and see if I can discern what you are saying in your last sentence above.
I am going to go with the definition of “opposition” that states:

If that is the definition of “opposition” that you are employing above, I cannot see how you “do not see the opposition ... implied in the OP.”

Apart from the definition of "premise" I did not challenge any of your definitons. I did challenge the argument you constructed on those foundations: or at least I challenged what I thought was your argument. I may have misunderstood but I did try to clarify your claim, in course of my post. I am still not sure what you are saying.

Quote:

It is empirically absurd to believe that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the New Testament was actually, factually, really born by a young female who was impregnated by the Jewish yhwh God some two thousand years ago.

It is also empirically absurd to believe that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the New Testament was actually the physical manifestation of the Jewish yhwh God.

It is also empirically absurd to believe that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the New Testament actually, factually, really walked on water, or that he brought a four day old rotting corpse back to life. To believe or have faith in a religion that proposes the above examples are “true” is, in fact, irrational.

What is the sense of "emipirically" in this part? The most usual use I have come across is provable "by observation" or "by experiment" But that cannot be what you mean. The word can be used to mean information gained by experience, certainly: but in that sense it is generally used to distinguish it from theoretical knowledge, is it not? To put it another way, this sense of the word seems to me to be "common sense" and if I substitute that for "empirically" in this part of your post it still makes sense: as it does if I just leave the word out.

From my point of view that is because the word is serving no function except to put a veneer of science on something that is intrinsically "unscientific" as that term is normally understood. I think that is irrational, personally. While experiment does have some place in the study of history (chemical tests for dating ink, for example) it is a small part of the historian's arsenal, as I understand it

Quote:

I am claiming that according to the definitions of “irrational”, “rational”, and “reason” provided by Webster’s dictionary, “the theist position is irrational.

I do not see anyone disagreeing with that: but on the definition as you are applying it it seems to me that all positions are irrational in the same way. I had the impression you disagreed with that and that was the opposition I was having trouble with.

Quote:

I am also claiming that anyone who thinks that “religion” (with a focus on the Judeo-Christian religion) is “Very Important” or “Fairly Important” in his/her adult life is NOT thinking in a “rational” and/or “reasonable” fashion in regard to their “religious faith”.

I cannot see this follows from your argument at all: I cannot even see it is distantly related to it. If a person says that their religion is important in their life, then it is. There is no rational way to argue with them at all. It is like arguing that they prefer milk chocolate when they have just told you they prefer dark: absent any reason to suspect dishonesty they are right and you are wrong and that is the end of the matter.

It may be that what you are saying is that religion should not be important in their life: but that is rather a different matter and has no bearing on rationality whatsoever. It is a value judgement no different from a theist's value judgement that you should not sleep with someone unless you are married.

Quote:

I am not saying that these individuals are completely devoid of the “mental faculty of reason” or completely incapable of “rational thought”.

ok

Quote:

I am saying that these individuals are clearly prone to abandoning their “mental faculty of reason”, “suspending their disbelief,” and “thinking in an irrational fashion”!

As are we all in some areas. But you have not shown that they are prone to do so in the area of religion in particular. Perhaps that is not what you are saying either. If not I have missed your point again, sorry: but I don't think I have because you seem to state it quite explicitly in the next part:

Quote:

Insofar as embracing the irrational Judeo-Christian faith the atheist is devoid of that particular irrationality.

Which particular irrationality? The irrationality of adopting a premise and building your position on that foundation? It is not possible to avoid doing that, IMO. But you mean that they are less likely to adopt that particular premise, and that is true by definition. They will adopt some other premise without proof instead. That a theist adopts a different irrational premise from an atheist is tautological, it seems to me. I certainly cannot see any evidence that

Quote:

Therefore, in this regard, the adult human atheist is less prone to abandoning her/his “mental faculty of reason”, “suspending her/his disbelief,” and “thinking in an irrational fashion”!

Most of us seem to believe that the universe is mechanistically lawful though there seems to be evidence this is not so. To the extent we do this we have abandoned our mental faculty of reason just as much as the theist. But it seems to me that neither has done this in fact. We found on premises which seem to be helpful: we act as if those premises were true: we cling to the core ones because abandoning them means we have to rebuild our world view from the bottom up and that is painful and scary: and when we are forced to by the weight of evidence we do eventually abandon them (kicking and screaming) or we dont. That goes for everyone, theists, atheists, and all

Quote:

By the definitions provided in the OP, “the theist position is irrational”!

A theist is an individual who embraces “the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation” (Webster’s). The term belief meaning, “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: to follow the Christian belief” (Webster’s), then, by definition, the theist Christian belief/faith is irrational.

A theist need not believe in one god at all: but you are specifically talking about the abrahamic theists so for the purpose of this discussion yes. How is this different from a belief that the universe is lawful?

Quote:

It is irrational to believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was actually born of a virgin.

Well not all of those who believe in the Abrahamic religions believe that: nor do all christians. But for those who do, can you show me how it is irrational? Given the premise of an omnipotent god with a funny attitude to sex and a Bond villain's approach to simplicity when it comes to getting things done, I see nothing irrational about it. It is perfectly possible to arrive at that conclusion from those premises. It is admittedly an inefficient way to go about achieving his purpose: but so is producing 100,000 tadpoles to get 3 frogs. It is just his way

<snip>

Quote:

There are thoughts that are based in facts, nature, and/or reality.

That is my working hypothesis too

Quote:

There are thoughts that an adult human being does not have to believe.

Most of them, I think

Quote:

There is a foundation of tangible, actual reality that exists, and the existence of that foundation—the force we refer to as “gravity”, water does not support the human foot, water is for drinking, air is for breathing, and on and on—is not contingent on human observation or thought.

This foundation of reality does not depend on a scientific equation or a religious faith. This foundation of reality exists whether humans mentally complicate it, mentally accept it, or mentally reject it.

Yes.

Quote:

The human mental faculty of “reason”, by definition, is specifically oriented to embrace the actual facts provided by the foundation of our mutual, objective reality.

I do not understand that bit. I do not think that either reason or irrationality is "oriented" to actual facts: I think maybe the "lizard" part of our brain is: but that is not what makes us human

[Ichneumonwasp]

Tertullian certainly thought Christianity was absurd. That is why he said he believed it. I think many take the same approach.

[Ecthelion]

@Justcharlie09

So existing in perpetual ignorance is what you're bringing to the table? Sounds like a plan, apparently most of the US population is down with it. I'm hip, I can be ignorant too!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

Should the belief in the Judeo-Christian God be determined as an irrational Faith?


..snip...?

Isn't all faith irrational (as used in the religious sense) - it is not meant, even by the religious, to be rational.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Ecthelion

@Justcharlie09

So existing in perpetual ignorance is what you're bringing to the table? Sounds like a plan, apparently most of the US population is down with it. I'm hip, I can be ignorant too!

Okay, I'll bite

No, it isn't. What I've said, repeatedly, is that one irrational belief does not make the individual or group, on the whole, worthy of the label "irrational" or insane overall.

Conversely, one rational belief does not make the group or indvidual, necessarily, worthy of the label "rational".

Theism or faith may be irrational by definition but that does not make theists irrational by definition.

The argument doesn't work.

I'm not advocating for ignorance. I'm advocating a healthy respect for other people as complex, whole beings rather than caricatures.

It would be equally wrong to assume atheists are immoral because they do not subscribe to a religion or deity:

Religion teaches morals. Atheists do not have a religion. Therefore, atheists must be immoral.

Atheism is a position arrived at by rational thought. Faith is not arrived at by rational thought. Therefore, all people who have faith must be irrational.

....


It just doesn't work.

Both atheists and theists can be intelligent, moral people. Why does taking this position pose such a problem?

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Autumnman

PixyMisa: Thanks for the input. People are not rational. Sad.

I’ve got to get some rest. But, before I go let me just say:
Virgin birth
Walking on water
Raising a 4 day old rotting corpse

That all rings of irrationality
Autumnman

Faith is irrational by definition, the faithful are not necessarily irrational.

Also, we're dropping the role of myth and symbolism in the human mind. Yes, some people do literally believe in virgin births and walking on water. Mostly, the kind who find Jesus on their grilled cheese sandwich or Mary on a plank of wood. Others, however, use this myth and these symbols to express an idea--not a scientific or historical reality.

People are only rational when viewed on a continuum. Some behave more rationally than others. No one can be perfectly rational/immune to their own human nature.


ETA: I am also in agreement with Fiona.

[Towlie]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

Faith is irrational by definition, the faithful are not necessarily irrational.

That sounds pretty irrational right there.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Towlie

That sounds pretty irrational right there.

How? "Faithful" describes a person/group who has faith in some thing (be it Christian deity or other). Faith itself, in a deity is not rational, but a person who has such a faith is not automatically irrational in all areas/aspects of their life and thoughts.

Is it irrational because of your own (irrational) value judgement regarding my premise or is it irrational because you can refute it?

[Towlie]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

...but a person who has such a faith is not automatically irrational in all areas/aspects of their life and thoughts.

So what? That's not a requirement to regard someone as irrational. Actually, I doubt that anyone is irrational in all areas/aspects of their life and thoughts.

[Ecthelion]

Because we're talking about all we can possibly know of our existence. I think that it's impossible to put belief in God in the same column as the college frat kids who don't believe in alcohol poisoning.

Of course most people have a handful of irrational things they hold on to, but something as insane as believing in God is monolithic in comparison. I'd even say that anyone who believes in God can not be classified as a "moral, intelligent person," because no one who believes in such nonsense deserves to be commended for their PhD in whatever. Without an affinity for logical, objective reasoning, one can't be referred to as intelligent.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Towlie

So what? That's not a requirement to regard someone as irrational. Actually, I doubt that anyone is irrational in all areas/aspects of their life and thoughts.

I've already said, several times, that people can only be evaluated for rationality on a continuum or scale. Some are, without doubt, worthy of a position of higher "rationality" than others on that scale.

That some theists are irrational is not something I have a problem with, as arguments go. Some theists are irrational. The problem, for me, is the assumption that somehow theism and irrationality are somehow synonymous. In other words, the position that any theist deserves the label of "irrational person" or "ignorant".

My position is that you can only call ALL theists irrational if similarly formulated arguments are correct in calling all atheists immoral.

Making a blanket statement about a loosely defined group of people simply because you don't, personally, like one facet of their mental landscape is absurd.

So you don't like the fact that some people are religious. I don't like that some people put fake scrotums on their trucks and chew tobacco. So what?

[justcharlie09]

Quote:

Because we're talking about all we can possibly know of our existence. I think that it's impossible to put belief in God in the same column as the college frat kids who don't believe in alcohol poisoning.

I fail to see the connection you are making.

Quote:

Of course most people have a handful of irrational things they hold on to, but something as insane as believing in God is monolithic in comparison. I'd even say that anyone who believes in God can not be classified as a "moral, intelligent person," because no one who believes in such nonsense deserves to be commended for their PhD in whatever. Without an affinity for logical, objective reasoning, one can't be referred to as intelligent.

Then you are as pigheaded, dogmatic, and bigoted as any fundamentalist member of a religion ever was.

It's a different name for a fatwah/crusade and the infidels are of the theistic kind, but it's the same damned thing in the end.

If you want to pretend otherwise, so be it, but you're not really fooling anyone.

[Ecthelion]

Well there's a legitimate risk assessment that I had to make when I decided to think the way I do. I'd say that religion is contributes to stagnation of human development, and yes many many people would disagree.

And you'd be wrong comparing me to a religious fundamentalist. I arrived at my conclusion from a utilitarian perspective, based on facts that to my knowledge are widely accepted among the community of fellows who write textbooks and all that jazz.

If you want to pretend religion is ok as long as people aren't blowing themselves up in the name of God, that's not ok with me :P

[Towlie]

Originally Posted by justcharlie09

The problem, for me, is the assumption that somehow theism and irrationality are somehow synonymous. In other words, the position that any theist deserves the label of "irrational person" or "ignorant".

Since you mention ignorance, I should mention that it's often behind belief in a god as well. Our primitive ancestors, who believed in their various gods simply because they didn't have the benefit of scientific knowledge and had no other way to explain the world around them, were not necessarily irrational; but their belief wasn't really based on faith either. You can hardly blame them if a supreme being was the only rational conclusion available to them based on what they knew. However, I still feel that those who do have access to modern knowledge and reject it in favor of beliefs lacking evidence can only be classed as irrational.

You said that faith is irrational by definition and I agree with that, but belief in God is not necessarily irrational. It can also be, and in the past was, the result of innocent and understandable ignorance.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Ecthelion

Well there's a legitimate risk assessment that I had to make when I decided to think the way I do. I'd say that religion is contributes to stagnation of human development, and yes many many people would disagree.

And you'd be wrong comparing me to a religious fundamentalist. I arrived at my conclusion from a utilitarian perspective, based on facts that to my knowledge are widely accepted among the community of fellows who write textbooks and all that jazz.

If you want to pretend religion is ok as long as people aren't blowing themselves up in the name of God, that's not ok with me :P

I find your attitude of assumed superiority and general bigotry equally repugnant.

So, I guess we won't be going out for coffee anytime soon. So it goes.

I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.

[Ecthelion]

Likewise

[Maia]

Well, I didn't think I'd jump in here, but sometimes one ends up doing things when one least expected to...

(steps out into the line of fire)

Originally Posted by Ecthelion

Well there's a legitimate risk assessment that I had to make when I decided to think the way I do. I'd say that religion is contributes to stagnation of human development, and yes many many people would disagree.

This may well be, but that's not the same argument you're making elsewhere.

Quote:

And you'd be wrong comparing me to a religious fundamentalist. I arrived at my conclusion from a utilitarian perspective, based on facts that to my knowledge are widely accepted among the community of fellows who write textbooks and all that jazz.

"And all that jazz"? This isn't exactly what I'd call a well-reasoned argument. What are the facts? What is the community? Who are the fellows? Which textbooks? Which jazz?

Quote:

If you want to pretend religion is ok as long as people aren't blowing themselves up in the name of God, that's not ok with me :P

Did you get this directly from page 301-308 of The God Delusion, the section entitled How 'Moderation' In Faith Fosters Fanaticism? I've been seeing this "argument" a lot, and it seems suspiciously similar to Dawkins' statements here. This is seven pages of just about the worst reasoning and evidence I've ever seen, and Dawkins should be embarassed that he put his name to it. I have thoroughly dissected it elsewhere and I would be happy to do it again. Can you support these ideas about the dangers of moderation in religion any better than Dawkins did? The same evidence he supplied is not going to fly. It was terrible.

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Towlie

You said that faith is irrational by definition and I agree with that, but belief in God is not necessarily irrational. It can also be, and in the past was, the result of innocent and understandable ignorance.

I suppose it isn't necessarily irrational, but generally, it isn't unfair to say the conclusion is not based on concrete forms of evidence such as might be arrived at through the scientific method. Which is, by the way, what I meant.

Of course, that last sentence is a bit smug... "oh, those poor, simple fools who didn't have the good sense to be and think like me..."