ChatterBank23 mins ago
Is Religious Belief Irrational?
36 Answers
Interesting article, recently published
From the article
"Supernatural beliefs might not make sense, but they endure because they're so emotionally satisfying"
Sounds about right to me.
Have a read, see what you think :)
http://
From the article
"Supernatural beliefs might not make sense, but they endure because they're so emotionally satisfying"
Sounds about right to me.
Have a read, see what you think :)
http://
Answers
The reason, and basis, for religion are obvious, thousands of years ago, people lived in small communities, knowledge was in short supply. People rarely left those communities. They looked up at the sky and couldn’t understand what they saw. There had to be a divine presence which answered all the questions, of course the believers needed leaders and...
11:33 Mon 14th Jan 2013
Well, at least one dictionary would define irrational as being
"inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd"
Of course humans will act and behave irrationally, or have irrational beliefs, that have nothing to do with religion or religious faith. No one is trying to claim otherwise,nor does the article.
What the article does say, and I agree with, is that much of the religious doctrines taught to the faithful, doctrines which shape their life and the way they live their lives, doctrines which inform their views on society and culture, are irrational.
Just look at some of the doctrine that informs the RC faith
That hell is an actual location.
Immaculate conception
Papal Infallibility
Original Sin
And all religions will have their own specific set of beliefs which set them apart from the others - and those of one religion will often think that the basic tenets of other religions are irrational.
It is my belief that we would all be better off if we aimed for rationality when making important decisions... :)
"inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd"
Of course humans will act and behave irrationally, or have irrational beliefs, that have nothing to do with religion or religious faith. No one is trying to claim otherwise,nor does the article.
What the article does say, and I agree with, is that much of the religious doctrines taught to the faithful, doctrines which shape their life and the way they live their lives, doctrines which inform their views on society and culture, are irrational.
Just look at some of the doctrine that informs the RC faith
That hell is an actual location.
Immaculate conception
Papal Infallibility
Original Sin
And all religions will have their own specific set of beliefs which set them apart from the others - and those of one religion will often think that the basic tenets of other religions are irrational.
It is my belief that we would all be better off if we aimed for rationality when making important decisions... :)
oh doctrine.....organised religion.....yup crazy as a box of crazy things from the planet crazy. But you see if I had used rationality and logic for every decision in my life then I wouldn't ever have donated to charity, bought daffodils, fallen in love and enjoyed so many years with a wonderful man, had dogs then had more dogs, learned to ride at the age of 40, bought an ipad mini........the list goes on and on.
Irrationality is an inescapable facet of the human equation which must always factor in the fallibility of the human mind. What is inexcusable is the attempt to use human fallibility as an escape clause from responsibility for the consequences of our beliefs and the subsequent actions that follow from them. We live and thrive as a species by virtue or our ability to reason. Religion, far from promoting and advancing rational self interest, condemns the individual for possessing that which is our birthright, our sole means of survival and assuming personal responsibility in the pursuit of our own life and happiness.
Religious belief is not just simply irrational. Religion is anti-rational, anti-reason and inherently anti-human. Religion seeks to destroy us from within, condemning us for our virtues while attempting to use those same virtues as a means to condemn ourselves for seeking that which is the best within us, imploring us to instead seek an unearned forgiveness for the undeserved guilt of having been born human. Religion is the single greatest assault upon reason humankind has ever devised.
http://
Religious belief is not just simply irrational. Religion is anti-rational, anti-reason and inherently anti-human. Religion seeks to destroy us from within, condemning us for our virtues while attempting to use those same virtues as a means to condemn ourselves for seeking that which is the best within us, imploring us to instead seek an unearned forgiveness for the undeserved guilt of having been born human. Religion is the single greatest assault upon reason humankind has ever devised.
http://
Firstly, I fail to understand the correlation that has been made here between religion and favourite colours or buying an ipad. Neither of those things amount to ‘faith’ and nor do they impact upon the lives of other human beings. It’s the usual apologist claptrap designed specifically to avoid addressing the fundamental issue.
Yes, religious belief is irrational, and it’s irrational in more ways than one, not least because it’s entirely irrational to attribute the unknown to the unknown.
Looking at the rationality of the doctrine, imagine a criminal being brought before a judge, and the judge tells him ‘You’re guilty, but I’m going to free you and hang an innocent man in your place’. That scenario is, courtesy of later authors, reflected in the bible story of the trial of Jesus and the subsequent release of the criminal Barabbas – and it’s one that elicits condemnation from Christians who are well aware that such a judgement is neither just nor rational. Nevertheless they conveniently fail to recognise the ironic parallel between that story and their God’s judgement in decreeing that an innocent man would die that the sins of Christians may be forgiven. That appalling decision the faithful accept without question - and moreover, they are grateful for it. Where is the rationality in that – and more to the point where is the morality the church is so fond of telling us it promotes? In this instance, neither appear to be a consideration to these reputedly ‘good’ people.
Moving on to Islam, here is a religion founded on the political aspirations of one ambitiously astute man who chose popular Judaism, which claimed then – and still claims - a God-given right to the promised land, as his role model. The glaring inaccuracies of the Koran aside, and simply examining the doctrine, this is another religion that prides itself on morality, but is nevertheless intent on damning the innocent – and in some instances actually murdering them - for the crime of failing to believe the lie.
As the article suggests religion does satisfy the emotional needs of the ‘needy’ – it negates their personal insecurities and endorses their own impression that they are somehow rather more special than the rest of humanity – at least more so than those who are not possessed of such fertile imaginations.
Fundamentally any religion that condemns the innocent – babies included - as ‘sinners’ is hateful – and those who, without question, accept that philosophy as either just or true are not rational.
Yes, religious belief is irrational, and it’s irrational in more ways than one, not least because it’s entirely irrational to attribute the unknown to the unknown.
Looking at the rationality of the doctrine, imagine a criminal being brought before a judge, and the judge tells him ‘You’re guilty, but I’m going to free you and hang an innocent man in your place’. That scenario is, courtesy of later authors, reflected in the bible story of the trial of Jesus and the subsequent release of the criminal Barabbas – and it’s one that elicits condemnation from Christians who are well aware that such a judgement is neither just nor rational. Nevertheless they conveniently fail to recognise the ironic parallel between that story and their God’s judgement in decreeing that an innocent man would die that the sins of Christians may be forgiven. That appalling decision the faithful accept without question - and moreover, they are grateful for it. Where is the rationality in that – and more to the point where is the morality the church is so fond of telling us it promotes? In this instance, neither appear to be a consideration to these reputedly ‘good’ people.
Moving on to Islam, here is a religion founded on the political aspirations of one ambitiously astute man who chose popular Judaism, which claimed then – and still claims - a God-given right to the promised land, as his role model. The glaring inaccuracies of the Koran aside, and simply examining the doctrine, this is another religion that prides itself on morality, but is nevertheless intent on damning the innocent – and in some instances actually murdering them - for the crime of failing to believe the lie.
As the article suggests religion does satisfy the emotional needs of the ‘needy’ – it negates their personal insecurities and endorses their own impression that they are somehow rather more special than the rest of humanity – at least more so than those who are not possessed of such fertile imaginations.
Fundamentally any religion that condemns the innocent – babies included - as ‘sinners’ is hateful – and those who, without question, accept that philosophy as either just or true are not rational.
I will read the article later on when I have a bit more time. But going to the title of your thread here, it depends what you grade as rational? Because rationality depends upon the knowledge we have acquired. In simple words what we know and what we do not know using our given sense or perhaps some kind of equipment. Then in that regard there so many things that did not exist only few years ago, or a couple of centuries ago. Only because we did not know that they were there.
The reason, and basis, for religion are obvious, thousands of years ago, people lived in small communities, knowledge was in short supply. People rarely left those communities. They looked up at the sky and couldn’t understand what they saw. There had to be a divine presence which answered all the questions, of course the believers needed leaders and this gave way to organised religion. The fact so many disparate religions sprang up shows how questing for knowledge humans were and are
If we take the bible, here you had a set of “answers” as well as rules, and if your priest told you that thousands of miles away the son of god had lived and the book was the word of god, well you believed it, because it answered the questions.
However in 2,000 years humanity has grown, the world shrunk a man in London can speak to a woman in Melbourne and discuss a paper from NASA that explains a comet. A woman in Mumbai can talk to a climate researcher in Seattle about the rise of a locust swarm.
One by one the myths and “answers” of the bible have been dispelled not argued against but destroyed for the fact they were wrong. Human knowledge doesn’t have all the answers so some biblical solutions persist. The codes of justice and morality, which are not perfect, now outweigh the barbarous “justice” and savage morality of the bible. The hypocrisy and contradictions have been taken apart and shown for what they.
Given that all of these once truths are shown to be nothing more than lies, untruths and misinformed opinion, why would anyone think that to belief in such a book (or any book) and religion is in anyway rational, escapes me.
The fact that in the 21st century, I as a secular person, have to tolerate the interference in every walk of life by irrational people and their beliefs annoys me. You are entitled to your beliefs, what you are not entitled to is to foist them on me. You are not entitled to foist them on the world and I am sick of being called aggressive because in the 21st century I can shout enough.
This is the end of days for religion, but will you go quietly into the night, as you should, of course not.
Yes it is irrational to believe in being in the sky.
If we take the bible, here you had a set of “answers” as well as rules, and if your priest told you that thousands of miles away the son of god had lived and the book was the word of god, well you believed it, because it answered the questions.
However in 2,000 years humanity has grown, the world shrunk a man in London can speak to a woman in Melbourne and discuss a paper from NASA that explains a comet. A woman in Mumbai can talk to a climate researcher in Seattle about the rise of a locust swarm.
One by one the myths and “answers” of the bible have been dispelled not argued against but destroyed for the fact they were wrong. Human knowledge doesn’t have all the answers so some biblical solutions persist. The codes of justice and morality, which are not perfect, now outweigh the barbarous “justice” and savage morality of the bible. The hypocrisy and contradictions have been taken apart and shown for what they.
Given that all of these once truths are shown to be nothing more than lies, untruths and misinformed opinion, why would anyone think that to belief in such a book (or any book) and religion is in anyway rational, escapes me.
The fact that in the 21st century, I as a secular person, have to tolerate the interference in every walk of life by irrational people and their beliefs annoys me. You are entitled to your beliefs, what you are not entitled to is to foist them on me. You are not entitled to foist them on the world and I am sick of being called aggressive because in the 21st century I can shout enough.
This is the end of days for religion, but will you go quietly into the night, as you should, of course not.
Yes it is irrational to believe in being in the sky.
Of course there are many things which our present knowledge cannot explain by using the powerful tool of reason. To which the only attitude should be 'we don't know yet and we may never know'.
To use this as an excuse for deliberately embracing irrationality, which includes religion, is absurd. Ancient man used to do this when he put down everything he couldn't understand to some god or other.
As naomi so succinctly put it, it is irrational to attribute the unknown to the unknown. To put it another way, if you explain mysteries by specifying a god then you have lumbered yourself with having to explain the god. Good luck with that; no-one has managed it yet.
To use this as an excuse for deliberately embracing irrationality, which includes religion, is absurd. Ancient man used to do this when he put down everything he couldn't understand to some god or other.
As naomi so succinctly put it, it is irrational to attribute the unknown to the unknown. To put it another way, if you explain mysteries by specifying a god then you have lumbered yourself with having to explain the god. Good luck with that; no-one has managed it yet.
May I insert a question here which I posed on another thread, and I don't believe was either fully addressed or answered;
"Is a non-provable 'untruth' that makes a person happy, and gives a sense of well-being, not better than a non-provable 'truth' that makes a person feel unhappily jejune?"
(please note the words untruth and truth are in quotation marks.)
"Is a non-provable 'untruth' that makes a person happy, and gives a sense of well-being, not better than a non-provable 'truth' that makes a person feel unhappily jejune?"
(please note the words untruth and truth are in quotation marks.)
