Maybe a definition of 'rationality' would be helpful. Most atheists - I hope - would acknowledge that believing in superstitions does not make someone clinically insane or incapable of engaging in moral/economic deliberation. It's a fascinating question. Probably it's better to say, that superstition will never die; but organized superstition - i.e. beliefs in magic that are articulated in doctrinal form, and adhered to more or less in their particulars by millions upon millions - such beliefs are on the way out, I think. Their days were numbered almost from the start: as soon as the words were uttered, 'There are no gods but me,' an era of mass unbelief was bound to come... the decline of organized superstition will, in its turn, merely make ecological room for idiosyncratic mysticism, ordinary superstitions, to flourish. I think it's fair to say that there is no way to analytically parse "religion" and "cult." The term "cult" is (for all except students of religions) a pejorative term; but all cults are religions. "Wherever two or three are gathered in his name..." What sort of religiously-motivated behavior could a person indulge, that would enable us to definitively classify them as "out of their minds" - ? Self-sacrifice? Self-mutiliation? Child abuse? Killing others? Suicide? All these actions can be otherwise engaged in by people whom we regard as mentally competent and morally culpable; it seems that if such actions are explicitly motivated by explicit religious beliefs, that hardly makes them less rational - indeed, it might make them more understandable.
Everyone should read the Bible, because: 1) It's the most influential book in history; if you're interested in understanding how the world got like it is today, you need to know a thing or two about Christianity - which means you need to have some familiarity with the Bible. 2) Politics. For well over a thousand years, resorting to scripture has been a way for people to push their preferred political outcomes. Greater familiarity with the Bible is a way to directly push back such tactics. 3) Moral insight. The book hasn't had the influence on civilization that it has had, for nothing. There's a lot of worthy moral reflection in the book. There's a lot that is crap, too, for sure - the book has too much contributing material for us to really expect otherwise.
And your comment above is more useless given the fact that you proclaim "why would an atheist want to read the Bible". This shows that IF you are an Atheist, then you have stated a non-need to read the Bible... Thus eliminating your knowledge that is necessary for you to undertake such a task as explaining "Religious Rationality",,, from any perspective other than one wherein there is no understanding of the Religious tenets. Again, you go head first into comparing apples and oranges without giving consideration that you might well be versed in the apples (economics) but for the oranges (Religion),,, there is nil, because you have expressed that non-need to even 'read the Bible'.
Read my comment again. Note I said "Unless they have some specific reading preferences". You've ignored that of course, using a misrepresentation to prance. Religion is easily introduced within standard economic models. To suggest otherwise you either have to deny free will or assume that rationality isn't a relevant characteristic.
There are a couple of issues that should probably be addressed. #1 - religions have come across the world stage and been swept into the dust bin of history. We now call these former religions mythology. The reasons the religions are no longer considered religions are basically the result of three processes: a. Advancement of knowledge has indeed lead to the demise of some religions. Religions that Roman Mythological traditions existed right along side religions that have lasted far longer and remain valid, such as Buddhism for example. However, claims that Gods live in places they do not, and are verified as such, or that lightening is caused on a God's magical forge are concepts that science can deal with and reveal as substantially false. b. The process of transition is also described in the various holy books themselves, and it is this part that many atheists - no offense - struggle to understand. Their is power in faith, and many of the old religions were swept aside in what are accurately called contests - with old faiths having failed to produce results when confronting the newer religions like Juddaism, Christianity, and Islam. c. That contest, to some extent, takes shape as the world itself has evolved. The Roman world as a place of debuachery, injustice, corruption, pettiness, barbarity, slavery, excesses, disparity .... you name it. The religion the represented this ROman ideal was one of petty, jealous Gods who inflicted the same barabarity that Roman legions would themselves so often hand out in order to maintain cohesion. Is it physical force that controls the world? Or reason? Or some combination thereof. And the thing is, Roman legions, as numerous and well trained as they are, can ONLY enforce order if the fear of their arrival is enough to maintain order (as the threatened appearence of Jupiter was similarly wrathful and destructive). So what happens when the community at large begins to embrace other methods of governance and compliance? Law? Equality? Opportunity? What happens when communities up and down the Empire begin to reject the prescence of the military personal who enforce an order that is increasingly at odds with desire of the humaity governed? And that is exactly what happened to Rome, to Egypt, to Assyria. What makes religion valid is the fact that people read it and find value in what it writes, teaches, and instructs. Sceince is not religion. It is not a moral code. It is not a way of life. It cannot tell us how to define the intagible aspects of life or even offer an instructive insight into those areas. But a document, an idea, that Love, forgiveness, understanding, compassion, and teh acceptance that we neither understand all things nor do we control them are things that have resonated for thousands of years and will continue to do so for a long time to come. When people talk about science replacing religion, it simply makes those seeing these statement aware of just how much they are missing in such assessments. After all, such comments have been made for centuries - religion is still here, and it would behoove the prophets of reasoing to take a look at their arguementation to see what it they are not addressing that has caused them to so repeatedly be wrong.
I'm using the term to make a distinction with the more aggressive sociological analysis. Rational suicide is an interesting topic in itself. In terms of self-sacrifice though the analysis into 'religious rationality' will typically focus on problems associated with free riding. By making religious investments particularly costly, the half-hearted who will provide little to the rest of the flock are kept at bay
Read my comment again, you seem to have misrepresented what I said also. I provided a disclaimer for you to lean on. http://www.politicalforum.com/3905621-post27.html Religion is easily introduced within standard economic models. To suggest otherwise you either have to deny free will or assume that rationality isn't a relevant characteristic.[/QUOTE] Rationality is not a relevant characteristic, because most people who are not believers in the Bible side with the Atheists in saying that 'religion is irrational'. Why should I argue with their clamor when that clamor serves to defeat you and your claim toward some supposed and made up rationalization for 'religion'? Also read http://www.politicalforum.com/3905621-post27.html
At the same time competition between religions has led to innovation and spawned new flocks. Perhaps its that competition which has ensured people continue to find significant value in what it 'writes, teaches, and instructs'?
Group selection is a controversial idea, but prima facie I'm inclined to entertain it as a way of explaining, at least in part, the rise and durability of organized religion. The definition of rationality is a very vexed, deep philosophical problem. Maybe the central philosophical problem. When it comes to rationality, I think we can speak of there being "multiple equilibria" in the way that the norms of rationality are determined and re-affirmed, from one civilization to the next. An ultimate theory of rationality would enable us to plot these equilibria, see what conditions enable us to shift from one to another. Ultimately, I think that all religious beliefs will be able to be made sense of - in principle at least - by game theory. And I suppose that, along with Freud, I believe that a diagnosis of the deep structure of our motives, will free us from patterns of thought that impose artificial constraints on our discretion to think and act. I think that the jig is up for organized superstition. We are right at this moment almost at a world-historical tipping-point when it comes to monotheism; Christian monotheism is endangered in its historical homelands, and the elite everywhere in the Western world are turning their back on Christianity. In its place we see a wave of "New Age" enthusiasms - but these will never have the vigor or the staying power of the Old Religion.
What was distinctive about the Semitic faith traditions, was their empahsis on conduct - monotheism was ethical monotheism. This explicit moral dimension is crucial to understanding the spread of monotheism. Unfortunately, in a manner parallel to the way paganism was undermined by the way advances in knowledge cut against its fanciful claims, monotheism is being undermined: as a civilization that had been brought to moral maturity under ethical monotheism's tutelage, is now finding that the godhead's moral example is all too often wanting. Salvation only for those who have received grace? The evident divine condemnation of homosexual love? The ever-pressing, insistent fact of the suffering of the innocent and the prosperity of the wicked? No, We can do better... ...begin to reject the very idea of the 'Emperor' - ? That no one - not even the godhead - is above the law? Science may well not be a religion, but it most certainly contains an at least tacit ethic, a general philosophy of life. Dare to Know. Use your imagination. Withold judgement. Test claims. There is a moral revolution sleeping in such ideals. But you're missing the most important part - science self-consciously recognizes its limits. In all of human history prior to this, claims to knowledge almost always accompanied divinely bestowed prerogatives. What you are describing, in contrast, is another revolution in the history of human thought - one crucial for the political separation of church and state, upon which all freedom as we know it depends. Religion cannot be replaced, because the optimism of men will always find ritual, para-rational expression. But this time, though the new boss might be the same as the old, we're not gonna be fooled... If you take a longer view, organized superstition is endangered. In the early 16th century, it was unimaginable that Christendom would be permanently rent by schism. After the schism, mass unbelief was unimaginable. But look where things are in Europe now - not yet four centuries on. Will monotheism last another thousand years? Seems like an awful hopeful bet to me.
When the two largest bodies of humanity, both with substantial growth rates, are Islam and Christianity, that is an interesting claim to make. The simple fact of the matter is that this is an area, as I mentioned earlier, that atheists seem to have a blind spot. The vast majority of the religions that are growing have little or nothing to do with science. Seriously, what does sceince have to say about the teachings of Jesus? Or Mohammed? What does sceinec have to do with the importance and imperative of faith, hope, and love? And the answer is nothing. So the more I see this line of reasoning, that religion is in danger from sceince (you do realize that religious people understand sceince?), the more I see a gap of understanding of what religion really is. I challenge you to find a sermon of Jesus that is fundamentally undermined by science. You really think a force that is powerful enough to create a universe (mutiverse) is going to be governed by the ... what? And what of actualy morality from the Bible do you find fault with? No, it doesn't. Sceince is best when it is totally devoid of these things. When we introduce emotional or moral components to science we fundamentally attack what is necessary to make science work: objectivity. Science is a measure, a tool, but it does not, and indeed should not, care what the data says. The data, once presented, then falls within human ethical and morality systems for judgement and decision. When you start worshipping the objective side of that equation, you fundamentally corrupt it. Sceince did not create secularism. Secularism was created in the aftermath of the 30 years war, a war so destructive it left much of Central Europe devoid of population. In the aftermath of that war, the various agents decided that it would be best to avoid another similarly destructive war and created the concept of secularism .... as we know it. It also, in doing so, empowered the modern nation state to enforce that secularism. And we should not take for granted the decision made on that table hundreds of years ago - which essentially allow a man to think and seek his own spiritual rewards. Before that, it was just fine and dandy for a group of nobels to take over a neighboring community and impose its religious, political, and military rule on a population. Secularism, a creation of religion (not science), undid that concept ... laying the basis not just of the modern state, but nationalism itself. And what does sceince say about nationalism? A force that has shaped, and continues to proufoundly shape the world we live in? Please explain why you think it is in any way accurate to succintly describe the totality of either the Koran or Bible as a but of ritualized optimism? Once again, people have been saying this for centuries and religion is as sound as ever. And the reason? Because science cannot disprove God. When sceince gets to the point that it can seriously make claims that there is testably no God? Perhaps then we will see the end of religion. In the mean time: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-orphan-planets-20110519,0,3758656.story Our comprehension of the universe has evolved by orders of magnitude in just the past decade. And with each discoevry, we are reminded of just how little we know about the universe and the forces that are shaping it. All the atheists that chastized religious people for the previous paradigm of planet formation are now struggling to understand how planets can be, by the billions, floating around in outer space without a host star? The idea that science is to the point of conclusion where it will eliminate religion is nothing more than a statement of faith. Furthermore, is grossly misrepresents the view of religious people, who are in many cases, fully aware of the advances in science. Again, we know why old religions are confined to mythology. We know that advances in sceince are only a threat to those aspects of religion that masquarde as science. Now, what part of the message of Jesus is in danger from sceince?
Am I to speculate now that you are suggesting yet another round of rationalizing? This time, changing the definition of 'rationalize' so as to make it more convenient to you and your peers by hiding such language as "to devise superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for (one's acts, beliefs, desires, etc.), usually without being aware that these are not the real motives". Yes I know, you did not mention 'rationalize', you mentioned 'rationality'. what is 'rationality' but the practice of 'rationalizing'?
Let me see if I can make this case another way? Atheists, do you believe that the word is governed by a set of logical rules? That causes and effects are largey testable and measureable? If so, you will have issues in the real world. And the lesson in this case in provided by one GEN James Mattis, our current CENTCOM commander. In his previous assignment as the JFCOM Commander, he was the guy in charge when a rules based approach to war was on the offer to become military doctrine. He rejected it. the case being made was essentially that, cause A on a country will always result effect B on a given enemy formation. Several tests were conducted, all apparently confirmed this rosey appreciate for war - that is until GEN Mattis asked to see the supporting data, data that his gut (and years of militaru experience) told him were skewed or off. His gut feeling was right. The data was in many cases none existant or simple made up, and, furthermore, subsequent combat operations would would substantially vindicate GEn Mattis's concerns. For example, in a rules based approach to war, the detsruction of the enemies main force should result in captiuation. However, and student of mlitary history knows that both is and is NOT the case. For example, the Eastern Front in WWII and Iraq, this was certainly NOT the case, even as it WAS the case in Panama, Iraqi I, Kosovo, etc. So the rule, though apparently applicable in some instances, was clearly at odd with reality in others - meaning it is not a rule. And difference, as GEN Mattis himself confirmed, was the difference between a closed and open system. For example, if you objective is to cause a nation wide black out, then in a CLOSED system where power generation is measureable and effectable - then the removal of a certain number of power stations and trasfer hubs will effectively eliminate a power grid. It is a closed system of power generation, and the removal of power generation results in ... less power generation. However, humanity has never followed such simplistic logic as the closed system. If we equate the removal of power from an enemy miliary to equate to a loss of systemic control - that is certainly a desireable effect to create in your enemy - but, WILL it defeat him? If you eliminate all his tanks, eliminate his ability to coordinate artillery and lareg manurver forces, will that ALWAYS defeat you enemy? Quite obviously, the answer is no. When you enemy simply adopts an assymetric approach ... what then? When IED's replace enemy tanks? What then? It is in these open systems that a rules based approach of cause and effect simply fails. And humanity is VERY much a open system. Humanity is not sceintific. Religion is the instrument of exploration to those intangible that drive us ... to extraordinary and unpredictable results.
Oxymoron warning. Danger, danger. There's nothing rational about believing there's a God who no one has ever had any sort of contact with but plans every little thing we all do. How's he gonna cope when there' 30 billion of us? Need a big whiteboard won't he? Might be hiring by then. You don't need science to kill religion, just people who can think beyond what they are taught as babies.
Sounds like a misrepresentation of the religious to me. Without rationality we're not left with many options for the continued high demand for religion. Knowledge, unless there is some mass hysteria engineered by some all-powerful cult elite, should lead to religion's marginalisation. It doesn't. For example, evolution can be simply seen as reflection of the beauty of God's creation. We instead see numerous traits quite consistent with the standard economic approach: religion competition effects, demand characteristics consistent with a household(/religion) production model and fundamentalism designed to minimise free riding losses.
More of your senseless rhetoric and you still fail to address the primary issue named in the title of this thread. "Rationality"... why Rationalize religion... paint it with whatever color (word/label) that you desire, and it will still be religion. In that definition of rationalize that I provided to you.. you should have noticed the dictionary usage of the term "superficial". That is the location where you are proceeding from.
Its merely about understanding behaviour. The knock-on effects are potentially diverse: from discouraging religious monopolies (e.g. the Church of England 'state support' can be seen as damaging, given the market power of the Church will harm innovation and therefore well-being) to allowing fundamentalism (with free rider solutions, rather than cultish brainwashing, being pursued) Sorry, not interested in juvenile put-down exchanges. Its just too sunny outside.
Religious rationality is a oxymoron. You can put two together in a sentence but it still is worth a try. I refuse to pray for myself like a helpless rat, or beg to anyone for anything like a worthless coward, or worship any one or anything like a useless unworthy troll . Is this a rational statement, Or a religious statement?
I can't agree. Take, for example, Becker's approach to the allocation of time. Here, we have a utility maximisation approach based on the construction of commodities subject to a time and income constraint (e.g. watching a movie will require dosh and also takes up time). Its rather straight-forward to adjust the utility function in order to distinguish between non-religious consumption and religious investment. We just need an after-life term!
Indeed. There may be rational religiousity but trying to make sense of religious rationality is a futile exercise.
Crikey you fellows are out of date. Take Adam Smith. He paid much more attention to religion (as another 'sector' in the economy) than fluff like the invisible hand
So, rather than benignly pray for yourself and others, you think it demonstrates a far higher degree of 'rationality' to actively run around insulting other people's faith - a faith you have no 'rational' reason to disagree with - other than allowing people to find their own spiritual - as opposed to sceintific - course on? That seems to not just be a very emotional position, but one that is a decidedly negative emotional position to boot.
Says the atheists who want religious sanction, in the military alone, to have religious leaders for a set of beliefs that are not religious yet have religious requirements (only in the military mind you) that are not found anywhere else and are totally unexplainable. I believe the word most atheists are rationally searching for would be: conceit. Conceit that, based solely on your unevidnced faith that there is no God, that this somehow imbues you - as if by magic - with a greater rationality, intellect, and understanding of the universe in its entirety .... and this ability seems not to manifest itself through great achievement in sciences and innovation ... but by crapping on other people through conceit. You tell us, rational adherents, why one atheists after another stomps into these thread with haughty derision and yet cannot explain the reasoning they so often claim as their birth right without getting trapped in circular logic and blatant contradiction which they claim they hate? Atheists seem to the people least able to deal with the intangible aspects of life. Somehow though, by turning their back on these things - they are actually smarter than everyone else? Intelligence not through ability of merit, but through atheism's magic.
I'm sure that to you and people of your ilk, the rationale of atheism does seem magical. But no, it's simply common sense and skepticism based on methodological expectation.
