Is there any rational reason to care about rationality?

[chrisiacovetti]

This question's been on my mind lately. In some debates and discussions with friends of mine (with entirely different worldviews), I couldn't help but notice how high reason and rationality were being elevated in the arena of religious and philosophical speculation. It seemed logical and basic initially, but after a while I came to feel that not every question does, in fact, have any rational answer. "What is the meaning of life?" "Does God exist?" "Why does evil exist?" "Why is murder wrong?" "Why does reason itself matter?" (I realize some people may object to some of my examples, and argue that some of them do in fact have rational answers, but I hope my point is clear).

So why is reason so important? Is there any logical answer to the question? If not, what would the implications of this be?

[Imperious]

People just need a resolution to things.
I mean think about it, people are happier when they feel like they have a "ending" or when they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
To me, its all stupid, who really cares, just live life. Who cares about the after-world and all that, we will see what happens when we die, so why worry about it while we are here?

[The Atheist]

So why is reason so important? Is there any logical answer to the question? If not, what would the implications of this be?

Humans are pretty stupid, and without reason, no growth in knowledge would happen. We would never cure cancer, combat drug-resistant bacteria, or introduce new vaccines. We would never make any more scientific or mathematical discoveries, we would never travel outside the solar system, never explore new worlds with ever more-powerful telescopes.

Every question may not have a rational answer because some of them will involve emotion, which isn't rational, but physical questions will always have a rational answer. We may not know it yet - quantum mechanics is a good example - but the answer will be in the physical world.

[chrisiacovetti]

People just need a resolution to things.
I mean think about it, people are happier when they feel like they have a "ending" or when they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
To me, its all stupid, who really cares, just live life. Who cares about the after-world and all that, we will see what happens when we die, so why worry about it while we are here?

I can appreciate that.. I'm not sure whether or not people 'need' resolutions or not, but it certainly seems to help most of us.

Humans are pretty stupid, and without reason, no growth in knowledge would happen. We would never cure cancer, combat drug-resistant bacteria, or introduce new vaccines. We would never make any more scientific or mathematical discoveries, we would never travel outside the solar system, never explore new worlds with ever more-powerful telescopes.

Every question may not have a rational answer because some of them will involve emotion, which isn't rational, but physical questions will always have a rational answer. We may not know it yet - quantum mechanics is a good example - but the answer will be in the physical world.

Of course I didn't mean to say that reason doesn't matter when it comes to science, medicine, etc. I tried to make clear that I was only addressing "philosophical and religious spheres," not all knowledge or theory. I'm curious because of your username, though, do you believe that the question of God's existence is something physical to be found in the physical world? or is it subjective, in your mind?

[cafolini]

A rational reason is like a computerized computer or an insulting insult or ... an idiotic idiocy. ROFLMAO

[The Atheist]

I'm curious because of your username, though, do you believe that the question of God's existence is something physical to be found in the physical world? or is it subjective, in your mind?

God is only alive in minds. The question of a god's existence or non-existence only becomes a physical question when claims are made that it interacts with the physical world. Since all religions make that claim, then yes, god/s' existence can be tested in the physical world.

[cafolini]

God is only alive in minds. The question of a god's existence or non-existence only becomes a physical question when claims are made that it interacts with the physical world. Since all religions make that claim, then yes, god/s' existence can be tested in the physical world.

So, if you are told to jump from a fifth floor, even when you know it will lead to your death, and you have preached not to do it all your life, you can test it. It can be tested in the physical world? To prove it? LMAO
You probably wouldn't get diddly of what I just said.

I would not argue that God is not just in people's minds. That's obvious. That's the only place humans will find Him. I will argue that you don't know enough to find Him anywhere else. But in your ignoring (the act of accumulating ignorance) you are arrogant enough to destroy the mystery of life. You are indeed a dictator of ignorance.

[chrisiacovetti]

God is only alive in minds. The question of a god's existence or non-existence only becomes a physical question when claims are made that it interacts with the physical world. Since all religions make that claim, then yes, god/s' existence can be tested in the physical world.

Well... I see the logic behind some of what you're saying, but it still seems like you're making the same leap of faith in trying to turn the question of God's existence into a tangible, physical one. All religions or philosophies don't claim God interacts with the physical world: Deism, Gnosticism, Epicurianism, and some sorts of Buddhism and Judaism all come to mind. And even in the ones that do (Christianity, Islam, etc.), there are sects that say that God no longer works with the physical like he once did. This would also counter your statement that God's existence can be tested by his interaction (or lack thereof) with the physical. Would you disagree?

But, even beyond this, who's to say that the question of God's existence can only be assessed by what major religions have said about their versions of him? Every religion ever preached may be wrong, but this would not prove that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be a logical fallacy to take that leap? like this:

1. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are wrong
2. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. say there is a god that exists
3. Therefore, no God whatsoever exists

Just some thoughts of mine. I'm curious what you think; you seem really clever and intelligent to me. To be clear though: I'm only discussing for fun, I'm not trying to be aggressive or hostile or anything! Sometimes I don't know how to convey emotion or tone over typing on the internet.

Chris

[cafolini]

1. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are wrong
2. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. say there is a god that exists
3. Therefore, no God whatsoever exists

A good example of syllogistic idiocy.

[The Atheist]

Well... I see the logic behind some of what you're saying, but it still seems like you're making the same leap of faith in trying to turn the question of God's existence into a tangible, physical one. All religions or philosophies don't claim God interacts with the physical world: Deism, Gnosticism, Epicurianism, and some sorts of Buddhism and Judaism all come to mind.

Yes indeed, my hasty posting. I should have qualified the statement as "almost all", and I tend to exclude Buddhism from the umbrella of religion as it is unlike the other varieties.

And even in the ones that do (Christianity, Islam, etc.), there are sects that say that God no longer works with the physical like he once did. This would also counter your statement that God's existence can be tested by his interaction (or lack thereof) with the physical. Would you disagree?

No, I'd agree entirely, which is why I made the point about physical claims. If the god sits and watches only, then it is untestable. I'm not so sure that any christian religions do believe that though. Anglicanism is the closest I know, and they still pray for their god to take action, so they believe it interacts with the physical world, even if they don't make claims on its behalf.

But, even beyond this, who's to say that the question of God's existence can only be assessed by what major religions have said about their versions of him? Every religion ever preached may be wrong, but this would not prove that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be a logical fallacy to take that leap?

Sure, but if we take away the religions, there isn't a god to examine, so the question becomes moot. In all the millions of discoveries man has made, not one of them points to a non-physical origin, so the debate would never arise. In the case of deistic beliefs, an invisible entity that doesn't interact with the physical universe can be treated the same as one that doesn't exist. It always seems to me that having a god incapable of action is a bit of a waste of time.

Very few people think like that, as far as I can tell.

To be clear though: I'm only discussing for fun, I'm not trying to be aggressive or hostile or anything! Sometimes I don't know how to convey emotion or tone over typing on the internet.

Chris

Cheers. Don't be worried, you're not coming over at all hostile, and this is the way the subject is best discussed: theoretically.

I don't argue with believers about their faith, only about what their faith causes them to do.

[chrisiacovetti]

Oh, that all makes much more sense. What defines God's 'interaction with the physical' though? I think most religious people would say that, yes, he interacts with the physical - but only in a spiritual, nontestable way. A Muslim may believe, for instance, that God causes and orchestrates storms or tornados - this is untestable. It is physical interaction, but only through a spiritual mean. I don't think that any ordinary sects of any major religion believe that God interacts regularly and testably much beyond things like this. There are miraculous claims, sure, but these are rare and not constantly available for testing.

Would you disagree?
Chris

[cafolini]

Oh, that all makes much more sense. What defines God's 'interaction with the physical' though? I think most religious people would say that, yes, he interacts with the physical - but only in a spiritual, nontestable way. A Muslim may believe, for instance, that God causes and orchestrates storms or tornados - this is untestable. It is physical interaction, but only through a spiritual mean. I don't think that any ordinary sects of any major religion believe that God interacts regularly and testably much beyond things like this. There are miraculous claims, sure, but these are rare and not constantly available for testing.

Would you disagree?
Chris

Agree. And most miraculous claims do not coincide with the overwhelming majority that's perfectly aware of the theater where the roles are played or misplayed. No testing can be done by witnessing a miracle.

[The Atheist]

Oh, that all makes much more sense. What defines God's 'interaction with the physical' though? I think most religious people would say that, yes, he interacts with the physical - but only in a spiritual, nontestable way.

I'm going to presume you mean things like, "I was the only survivor of the plane/car crash because god wanted me to live", which is the only way a non-testable, physical action can work.

In that case, religion becomes a revolting parody of itself - like the clowns who play football, but thank their god before, during and after a game.

Your god can influence the result of a football game, but allows millions of kids to die of preventable causes?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

A Muslim may believe, for instance, that God causes and orchestrates storms or tornados - this is untestable.

No, that's exactly the kind of physical claim that can be tested, so it's not a good one.

A couple of good examples that spring to my mind are "Holy Fire" and the "Host with the Most".

There are miraculous claims, sure, but these are rare and not constantly available for testing.

Would you disagree?
Chris

No, I don't disagree that few claims are made, but I must qualify it by noting that the lack of claims is a very recent phenomenon. When there was no science to test miracles, they happened daily - every time the sun rose, effectively. The number of gaps that god/s can survive in is shrinking by the day and by the lap of the LHC at CERN. That's why even the Catholic church, once the home of daily miracles is reduced to accepting ridiculously scant evidence of miracles to support Mother Theresa's elevation to sainthood. (When she should be being tried posthumously for mass murder.)

I give religion no points for realising that making outrageous claims won't cut the mustard in 2013, although it seems that the more ignorant theists are still susceptible to believing what they're told by preachers.

Also, I must note that most new wave evangelical/pentecostal churches - which are the only ones growing - have lots and lots of miracles. Almost every service at that type of charismatic church is accompanied by at least one alleged miracle. Those are again testable, but are never allowed to be tested.

[Ecurb]

I've been to charismatic churches where people speak in tongues. It is a mundane, rote part of the church service, at the churches I saw (I was an anthropology grad student). I'll grant that they probably claim divine inspiration, but Catholics claim bread and wine turn miraculously into the body and blood of Christ.

The tired, old Christopher Hitchens calumnies against Mother Theresa are mere hyperbole, by the way. Why should she be "tried for mass murder"? I forget. But I think it's because (acc. Hitchens) she didn't treat the people in her hospices for their diseases. Of course, I haven't treated any of the people in Mother Theresa's hospices for their diseases either, and (probably) neither has the Atheist. Should we all be tried for murder?

[The Atheist]

I've been to charismatic churches where people speak in tongues. It is a mundane, rote part of the church service, at the churches I saw (I was an anthropology grad student). I'll grant that they probably claim divine inspiration, but Catholics claim bread and wine turn miraculously into the body and blood of Christ.

Speaking in tongues isn't even slightly miraculous. I'm talking about the cures that permeate most of the charismatic churches. Those cures are fake.

Transubstantiation is like homeopathy; not worth laughing at.

The tired, old Christopher Hitchens calumnies against Mother Theresa are mere hyperbole, by the way. Why should she be "tried for mass murder"? I forget. But I think it's because (acc. Hitchens) she didn't treat the people in her hospices for their diseases. Of course, I haven't treated any of the people in Mother Theresa's hospices for their diseases either, and (probably) neither has the Atheist. Should we all be tried for murder?

I hardly feel such a nonsense post is worth answering, but unless you are guilty - like Theresa - of spending money on unnecessary slush instead of actual medicine that would cure people in your care, instead of letting them die with clean sheets, then I don't think you're likely to face murder charges. I certainly haven't, so am quite safe.

The real hyperbole is canonising her.