Is Theism Irrational?
Twex
Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 4999Members
Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 4999Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Foundations of ethical systems</div> Let us examine the following statement critically:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many religious arguments are a thin borderline away from being utterly emotional. This makes their use in many cases very problematic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Emotional" in the context of a discussion implies "irrational".
Is it correct that arguments derived from theism are inherently less valuable in a discussion than their atheistic counterparts, or is the statement in question irrational prejudice itself?
<a href='http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_irrational.htm' target='_blank'>Even atheists agree</a> that theism <i>per se</i> isn't any more or any less rational than atheism. Given limited evidence, rational people can arrive at different conclusions, based on how they weigh the data.
However, in order to use "religous arguments" in discussions about everyday topics, you need to believe not only that God exists, but also that God has revealed a moral law relevant to our lives today.
Is that irrational? If it is, are the alternatives any more rational?
All ethical systems require premises so that their subscribers can tell right from wrong. At one point or another, <i>any</i> such system is forced to conjure <i>ex nihilo</i> a distinction between good and evil, a definition which cannot be further reduced or rationally examined. You either agree with that definition or you don't, but that's hardly a question of <i>ratio</i>, it's a question of <i>faith</i>.
If we want to make meaningful statements about right and wrong without falling into the trap of moral relativism, we must appeal to some kind of authority, be it God, the worldy law of the society we live in, the principles of utilitarism or whatever else. In either case there will be people who disagree with us; the nature of a good discussion.
However, trying to single out and discriminate against one of these sources of ethical judgement <i>a priori</i> is a logical fallacy. Therefore I disagree with the statement in question. Religous arguments don't border on irrationality and are as worthwhile as other ethical arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many religious arguments are a thin borderline away from being utterly emotional. This makes their use in many cases very problematic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Emotional" in the context of a discussion implies "irrational".
Is it correct that arguments derived from theism are inherently less valuable in a discussion than their atheistic counterparts, or is the statement in question irrational prejudice itself?
<a href='http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_irrational.htm' target='_blank'>Even atheists agree</a> that theism <i>per se</i> isn't any more or any less rational than atheism. Given limited evidence, rational people can arrive at different conclusions, based on how they weigh the data.
However, in order to use "religous arguments" in discussions about everyday topics, you need to believe not only that God exists, but also that God has revealed a moral law relevant to our lives today.
Is that irrational? If it is, are the alternatives any more rational?
All ethical systems require premises so that their subscribers can tell right from wrong. At one point or another, <i>any</i> such system is forced to conjure <i>ex nihilo</i> a distinction between good and evil, a definition which cannot be further reduced or rationally examined. You either agree with that definition or you don't, but that's hardly a question of <i>ratio</i>, it's a question of <i>faith</i>.
If we want to make meaningful statements about right and wrong without falling into the trap of moral relativism, we must appeal to some kind of authority, be it God, the worldy law of the society we live in, the principles of utilitarism or whatever else. In either case there will be people who disagree with us; the nature of a good discussion.
However, trying to single out and discriminate against one of these sources of ethical judgement <i>a priori</i> is a logical fallacy. Therefore I disagree with the statement in question. Religous arguments don't border on irrationality and are as worthwhile as other ethical arguments.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many religious arguments are a thin borderline away from being utterly emotional. This makes their use in many cases very problematic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Emotional" in the context of a discussion implies "irrational". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't write that quote, but my interpretation was different than yours. Instead of implying the definition of Emotional as Irrational, I would use the word Subjective. Don't take me as defending the statement or, in turn, disagreeing, but I would say there is Irrational Emotion and Rational Emotion.
Example: My girlfriend is terrified of the spiders we occasionally find in our house. I consider her emotional response to be irrational.
Example2: Standing at the center of a room full of large, poisonous spiders is terrifying. I consider this emotional response to be rational.
How terrified you would be in each situation is subjective to each person. Therefore, I would insert Subjective where you used the word Irrational.
I would have to disagree. Much of the basis for most religions were developed long ago, by people who did not understand the world around them and therefore created "religion" to explain the unexplainable. Take for instance the fact the the bible says "don't eat pork". In the time during which the was written, proper cooking and storing methods were not yet discoverd and things like pork could kill you. Therefore in an effort of self preservation, pork was deemed unsafe and therefore "God didn't want us to eat it." We know better today.
Certain tennants of religion which basically deal with the way you should deal with one another still hold true, but much of the ground work of religion just does not hold true with modern understanding. Does Apollo drag the sun accross the sky? Will Horus avenge the death of my father? You may say I am being ridicilous, but these were frim religious beliefs at one time.
Esentially, what I am saying is while religion arrives at a good and decent conclusion, it's starting off point is not grounded well. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good idea but if I said a burning bush told me to "vote democratic" you'd call me a lunatic.
Not inherently, but arguments derived from theism should still be backed up with logical thinking. In some instances they are not (eg "I'm right because the Bible told me so and that's all there is to it"), which leads to an unfortunate prejudice against theistically-based arguments, but many of history's greatest thinkers have been firmly grounded in theism.
Yes, there are rationally acceptable theistic arguments, but there's also quite a lot that aren't, as there's quite a lot of <i>a</i>theistic arguments that aren't. This forum being a place for as many people of as differing opinions as possible, we just have to find to a common ground on which to base our discussions, which is why I began that rule with the words "Nobody wishes to forbid you your personal opinion, but...".
The mentioning of religious arguments in this rule stems mainly from people who seek to end discussions with their personal faith. The reasoning goes usually like this: "Holy Book A says that B is wrong, thus I believe it is wrong, thus <i>you</i> are wrong, and that's it." You'll have to admit that it's just impossible to tackle such stances, which unfortunately tend to happen quite regularily, for someone not subscribing to the ideas of Book A.
Most importantly, Jesus Christ, before Jesus, there were no Christians, instead, they were Jewish, still waiting for the promised Savior. Judaism still exists because they chose not to acknowledge Jesus Christ.
Go figure, but on our timeline, our years are outlined by the most significant things that happened. Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ was the basis on BC and AD. So no, I don't find that all theisms are based on emotionalism, most specifically, Christianity, since the basis of Christianity is based on historical facts, the most important undeniable fact that Jesus Christ existed, whether or not he was the savior is the only debate.
there once was this rabbi bloke and they put his name in books, so he _must_ be the holy one?
L. Ron Hubbard really excists so Scientology must be true as well!
*edit* looks at post below this one...
yeah you're right, sorry about that. :/
It all falls back the the story of the <a href='http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html' target='_blank'>Blind men and the elephant</a>. The only time a religion is wrong is when it proclaims it's self as "the one true faith".
I would have to disagree. Much of the basis for most religions were developed long ago, by people who did not understand the world around them and therefore created "religion" to explain the unexplainable. Take for instance the fact the the bible says "don't eat pork". In the time during which the was written, proper cooking and storing methods were not yet discoverd and things like pork could kill you. Therefore in an effort of self preservation, pork was deemed unsafe and therefore "God didn't want us to eat it." We know better today. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you chose this as probably just an example but it will help mine and show you why I think Jews and Arabs don't eat pork according to the bible. Both of these people had fire and a way to cook thier meat so trichonosis wouldn't at all be a problem also just about all meat had parasites. The problem with pork is that pigs need alot of water. If you look at the lands that the Jews and Arabs are from water is valuable. So if a herder of pork were to have pigs he would be selfish and use up alot of water when other people of his village needed it also. So you get an idea that is something like "don't waist water so you have the luxury of pork when youre is nation is thirsty." or something I dunno much about the old testament :/
I tend to agree with Ayn Rand that relgion is an acient philosophy that evolved over our history, and I tend to agree with Judo-Christian philophies that man will always be moraly imperfect, no moral relativity, etc..
I also believe saying athiest and theist are wrong is wrong because you really have no idea if thier is a god or not right? The way they use arguments however I guess can both be irrational like in that article.
I love a good religious debate, comparitive theology is a great way to understand the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many religious arguments are a thin borderline away from being utterly emotional. This makes their use in many cases very problematic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Emotional" in the context of a discussion implies "irrational". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't write that quote, but my interpretation was different than yours. Instead of implying the definition of Emotional as Irrational, I would use the word Subjective. Don't take me as defending the statement or, in turn, disagreeing, but I would say there is Irrational Emotion and Rational Emotion.
Example: My girlfriend is terrified of the spiders we occasionally find in our house. I consider her emotional response to be irrational.
Example2: Standing at the center of a room full of large, poisonous spiders is terrifying. I consider this emotional response to be rational.
How terrified you would be in each situation is subjective to each person. Therefore, I would insert Subjective where you used the word Irrational. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rational thoughts can never be better than the grounds they are formed upon. Your girlfriend being scared of your house spiders migth seem irrational. But as some psychologist said at some point, "Feelings are usually not wrong. Ask instead why they are being felt."
You can easily be scared in a den full of hungry lions. Because you fear for your life. But fear isnt' rational is it? Your mind might tell you that this is a dangerous situation - but your feelings pre-empted that pretty early.
Im perhaps the only one around here wondering about the tendency to dualism when it comes to how we understand our mind. Rationale and feelings are usually presented as contradictions. And perhaps people mistake empiricism with rationale when they go debating whether Book A is True or not on this or that subject.
Rationale is tempered by feelings, and feelings are controlled by rationale. I dont think they are mutually exclusive. You can usually derive some idea of a persons feelings from what they present as their rational thoughts. And if you think about it, it's possible the other way around too.
Therefore the debate on religion in a context of rationale vs. emotions are misdirected in my opinion. The problems are rather created by people stating this or that as a fact (such as we all will meet our lord on judgement day), which isnt anything to do with rationale or irrationality as I see it. IT's rather a question of people making statements on thing they are not qualified to do in an empirical sense.
The term Rational Emotion is a strange fish. What do you really mean by it? That the emotion is founded upon rational thought? And that irrational emotion is emotions that are had removed from any kind of rationale? I think the latter is a borderline case, if such a thing exist. People that have a psychosis might be said to suffer from irrational emotions, since they are entirely controlled by forces that seems to be beyond their grasp.
In any case, Rationale will always be something subjective, unless you were mistaking empiricism with rationality?
<b>"I would have to disagree. Much of the basis for most religions were developed long ago, by people who did not understand the world around them and therefore created "religion" to explain the unexplainable."</b>
Honestly, this statement has been the base of standpoint for most athiests I have come across. Maybe I don't know what you mean by creating a religion, but I do know that miracles don't produce faith, but faith alone will produce miracles.
So did The martyrs of Rome and the twelve disciples create Christianity, a so called "religion?" Is the evidence they base their faith rational? Yes, Jesus was a real person. But what about God as an entity itself? Well the one way I see it is that People based God upon the mighty works around them, like nature and its surrounding. Another way I see it, God through revelation made himself apparent, when the world was Pure untill Adam and Eve sinned, because they chose to do the wrong thing. IMO Adam and Eve are symbols of the first humans.
<b>"The only time a religion is wrong is when it proclaims it's self as the one true faith."</b>
If that is what they believe, then there is nothing wrong with that.
<b>"dirty" animals"</b>
If I recall correctly, God through a vision told Peter to eat all the "unclean" animals, and Peter refused, God told him again, and he still refused. The reason why God told Peter to eat the "unclean" animals was because he was trying to show Peter that it was alright for Jewish people and Gentiles to be together, or for Gentiles to Believe in the Almighty God.
It kills me that i dont knwo the verse, prolly john something.
But no, Theisim, and especially Christianity is not rational, and its not meant to be, If your looking for proof of God's existance, your not going to find it unless you have faith.
Faith is what allows you to see that God is there. Faith is believing that even though bad horrible things happen, God still cares and loves you. Faith is believing that which you have no proof of.
Now, you have heard people say that it is an undenyable fact taht jesus lived and did what it is said he did in the bible, And I, as a Christian, believe this too. But if you are Atheist, Agnostic or otherwise not christian or without faith, there is no proof we can give, not argument based in this world that we can make, because our religion isnt of this world. We belive that God, our Father in Heaven Cares for us, and Loves us deeply, deeply enough to send his son to die for us, and to ressurect him, that we might not face the horrors of hell, to quote " For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believed in him may not perish but have eternal life"
So when you ask me " why does god let X happen" or "what is your proof to belive Y"
I will allways say only that " I have Faith."
[EDIT] About the kosher animals, there is another verse in the bible where Jesus points out that since our souls are not of this world, they cannot be made unclean by worldly things. I sense someone bringing up sin here, and what i would say is that when you sin, you <i>want</i> to do something bad, whereas eating an animal is nto a bad thing...
If we want to make meaningful statements about right and wrong without falling into the trap of moral relativism, we must appeal to some kind of authority, be it God, the worldy law of the society we live in, the principles of utilitarism or whatever else. In either case there will be people who disagree with us; the nature of a good discussion.
However, trying to single out and discriminate against one of these sources of ethical judgement <i>a priori</i> is a logical fallacy. Therefore I disagree with the statement in question. Religous arguments don't border on irrationality and are as worthwhile as other ethical arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say that ethics and higher morality is not grounded on religion, but from acts of individuality and self-responsibility. Below is an essay I wrote about Nietzsche and his take on ethics, which I agree with. Sources include the article mentioned. (Apologies for its lengths, I tried to cut out as much as I could).
There is a problem in modernity with morality presented in "Nietzsche Vs. Habermas: Emancipation, Truth, and Ethics": seeking a balance between individual autonomy versus social solidarity, freedom versus ethics and social order. Enlightenment thinkers have tried to put the two together by forcing a “thou shalt” ethics for the sake of the collective on individuals. Such is morality: being in accord with standards of right, a system of ideas of right and wrong (Websters). But Nietzsche counters that then it is contradictory to have individuality based on external demands. “A genuine ethics must be autonomous and cannot arise merely from an external demand”. Nietzsche’s states that ethics requires trust in individuals. But morality is based on lack of trust, based on rules to keep suspect individuals in check. We have the idea of morality because we do not trust individuals to be responsible. Instead, it is stream-lined through “thou shalt” ethics first. The absolutism created by say, religious morality, invites tyranny and repression. Nietzsche’s genuine ethics is grounded on individual responsibility for their own actions, an achieved individuality from a self that rises above morality, laws, and societal conformities. Freedom from morality and dogma for genuine ethics can produce genuine individuality, tying in his Nietzsche’s overman (ubermensch) attitudes. So self-overcoming, a transformation, is the highest ethic ideal and self-responsibility is the key.
Jesus spoke that those with faith were blessed. This mainly because of Jesus speaking of the future, in which they would not witness the miracles much like the era in which Jesus lived. Faith is nothing more than trust.
Yet, people may believe Christianity isn't rational, there are plenty of reasons to believe it is. First and foremost, the blatant existance of Christ, he <i>did</i> exist, and he was said to perform miracles even by his skeptics. He did say he was God, but God is a Trinity, I don't understand completely what the Trinity is.
Christianity's foundation is on that of historical events, accounts even by skeptics and the existance of the church for thousands of years.
Christianity defines perhaps the highest calling of morality and ethics. Asking to be servants among men, slow of anger, gracious, caring, giving, and live in utter selflessness. The Ten Commandments practically defines almost every aspect of what we believe to be wrong in the year 2000, even though created thousands of years ago.
I'm not sure about how convinced of the absence of a Christ people are, but it is very, very rational.
Proponents of <a href='http://www.forerunner.com/theofaq.html' target='_blank'>theonomy</a> will distinguish between the ceremonial part and the criminal code of Mosaic law. They'll argue that the coming of the Messiah has made the cermonial laws (intended to hint at the separation of Jews and Gentiles) obsolete, yet the <i>lex talionis</i> is still in effect as it was not revoked, but endorsed by Jesus. Whether Christians eat pork says nothing about their opinion about the Commandments and the penal code.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The mentioning of religious arguments in this rule stems mainly from people who seek to end discussions with their personal faith. The reasoning goes usually like this: "Holy Book A says that B is wrong, thus I believe it is wrong, thus you are wrong, and that's it." You'll have to admit that it's just impossible to tackle such stances, which unfortunately tend to happen quite regularily, for someone not subscribing to the ideas of Book A. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course such stances can't be tackled.
Neither can you tackle a utilitarist who claims that action A is morally vacant because it doesn't harm anyone, nor an enlightened humanist who claims that every human being is born with the natural right to live a life of dignity.
Such are their convictions. They can be explained, compared and critically checked for internal coherence, but ultimately they can't be rationally disproven, as their premises rest on faith alone.
Instead of warning <i>in general</i> against the logical fallacy of pointlessly begging the question (that's what "I'm right because you're wrong" amounts to), you singled out one specific line of reasoning, as if it were particularly prone to commit this fallacy.
If you singled it out because you think religious <i>people</i> are more zealous and intolerant than secular philosophers, that doesn't coincide with my experience at all. Humanists can be just as spiteful, if not more so, once you challenge the validity of their "natural rights".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nietzsche’s genuine ethics is grounded on individual responsibility for their own actions, an achieved individuality from a self that rises above morality, laws, and societal conformities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what is the value of an ethical system that fails to provide objective standards by which human behaviour can be judged? You can't apply it to real-life situations. Using Nietzsche, it's impossible to condemn the Holocaust or any other atrocity of our century. Anyone can claim to be an Übermensch.
Firstly I am agnostic, not atheist. There is a big difference <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Also, I do not deny that a carpenter named Jesus existed, or that he preached a wonderful philosophy. I also do not deny that people were so enamored by him that they decided to follow his teachings. I have a very hard time believing that he walked on water, made countless fish appear from a basket, or walked the earth after being nailed to a cross and stabbed in the ribs by a Roman spear. Creating a religion is easy, just ask the Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. (Heck, the romans even created their religion out of stolen gods from the greeks.) The hard part is getting people to subscribe to it. The Romans did not create Christianity, but surely got the ball rolling by making a martyr of Jesus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well the one way I see it is that People based God upon the mighty works around them, like nature and its surrounding.
"The only time a religion is wrong is when it proclaims it's self as the one true faith."
If that is what they believe, then there is nothing wrong with that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well we all know that the sun isn't being pulled accross the sky by a man in a chariot. And while this is a very old example, the basis of my arguement still holds true. Religion was/is used to explain the unexplainable. Working from that premise it is easy to see while Theism can very easily be irrational. What does the Catholic church (or any church for that matter) really know about the afterlife. None of them have been there, or even know someone who has. To base your entire life on a premise that is force fed to you from birth, and also puts restrictions on peoples lives as to whom they choose to love (isn't love the most important thing in this world, if there were more of it there would certainly be an easier go through life for all of us) is ludicrous and rather unforgiving for a religion. Religions that proclaim themselves "the one true religion" are responsible for things like the Crusades and The Inquisition and even the crucifiction of Jesus. For all the evil things people portray Islam being responsible for they are the most accepting of other religions. There is no better example of my views on religion than the blind men and the elephant story I linked to in a previous post. The elephant is god and the blindmen are the various religions of the world.
MY biggest gripe with Religion today is the way it's run and the nonsence they put forth. Why must I go to a specific building at a specific time and give them money for God to hear my prayers? Organised religion is a farce. To say that if I choose to not worship in a group, sanctioned by the clergy, in a preordained place, I will not have a place in the afterlife, is the biggest extortion scam I have ever seen, yet it is swallowed dutifuly by millions. If God is truely omniscient and wants us to love one another, shouldn't it be enough that I do this in my regular everyday life without paying the protection money to God's self appointed earthbound muscle? The corruption in the cathlolic church is well known, yet we continue to feed into it because we are taught to believe that we cannot get to heaven lest we subcribe to the archaic laws put forth thousands of years ago, when people thought a man could raise a stick over his head and make an ocean split open.
It may sound that I think every religion is garbage. This is not the case. I think every religion is part of a greater whole that we cannot understand. I would also never fault someone for their religion. When I was a kid in High School, I was fond of saying "Religion is a crutch". But as I matured, and got a job working in a preschool for multiply handicapped kids I discovered that a crutch isn't a bad thing if you need it. I don't fault people for their religion, I do fault them for narrow minded thinking like having a "one true Religion" or trying to force their religion on me. So, in summation, I do not believe theism is inherantly rational. The word of any religion is based on faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.) cannot be rational (Consistent with or based on reason; logical). What you learn from studying religions can help you to make rational decisions, but is not rational in and of it's self.
Neither can you tackle a utilitarist who claims that action A is morally vacant because it doesn't harm anyone, nor an enlightened humanist who claims that every human being is born with the natural right to live a life of dignity.
Such are their convictions. They can be explained, compared and critically checked for internal coherence, but ultimately they can't be rationally disproven, as their premises rest on faith alone.
Instead of warning in general against the logical fallacy of pointlessly begging the question (that's what "I'm right because you're wrong" amounts to), you singled out one specific line of reasoning, as if it were particularly prone to commit this fallacy.
If you singled it out because you think religious people are more zealous and intolerant than secular philosophers, that doesn't coincide with my experience at all. Humanists can be just as spiteful, if not more so, once you challenge the validity of their "natural rights".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you please start reading my posts? I'm not sure whether it shows up on your screen, but to me, the sentence "Yes, there are rationally acceptable theistic arguments, but there's also quite a lot that aren't, as there's quite a lot of <i>a</i>theistic arguments that aren't." is quite visible at the very beginning of my last post.
You are talking about the addendum to an addendum to a rule that was specifically and expressively <i>not</i> aimed at the whole of an argumentative category, nor intended to be judgemental towards any notion, and then proceed to tell me that I'm balantly and negatively generalizing towards the theistic school of thought.
Sorry, but this is coming quite close to another addendum: "It's very much to ask, but try to consider other peoples argumentations, as opposed to ways of beating them."
Also, utilitarist claims, like any post-Kantian philosophy, <i>can</i> be tackled argumentatively, because their basic assumptions, such as the utilitarist idea of the valuing of a thing after its objective use or the naturalistic ideas that consititute the foundation of humanism, can be compared and rationally weighed against each other. It's a little different with theistic ideals that often (note that again, I'm not generalizing towards the whole of theistic philosphy) deliberately proclaim their dependance on the personal acceptance of a divine entity.
In response to "organized religion", if ANY place of worship (regardless of faith) preaches you MUST come to their church, synagogue, mosque, haunted forest, etc or receive eternal damnation then please immediately leave that religion/denomination. Faith that is seemingly forced into one's heart is as useful as not believing at all. Faith comes to those on their own terms and personal acceptance.
Even more so, if they say that you MUST give X amount of dollars for anything less than helping to spread the Word of God to unbelievers, then please reconsider the place of worship you are at.
The Bible simply states that because God <i>has</i> given his priceless blessings (namely His only Son, Jesus) to people that are naturally sinful and undeserving, it's the least one can do to give your "first fruits" to Him a.k.a "the tithe" or 10% of what you have. This offering is supposed to be used to directly promote the growth of the church, whether that is for missionaries, building growth, or simply handling out leaflets around the neighborhood inviting unbelievers to worship. I believe, as well as most Christians that I know believe, that if my giving of a fraction of what I have will save just <b>one</b> person from suffering in hell, it's worth every penny. Giving should be a celebration of what you have received.
Now, this being said, your offerings toward God is NOT a payment for forgiveness. (which prompts me to mention the Catholic "Indulgences") Because Jesus came to Earth and took on the sins of literally every person who has existed, is on this Earth right now, and will exist until he comes back, we are granted forgivenes for the amazing price of FREE, all that is needed is that word that shows up again and again...<i>FAITH</i>.
As far as the rational/not rational debate goes, it's all based on your personal definition of rational. "Rational" or "Consistent with or based on reason; logical" (as Torak put it) can be used in the advocation of Christianity. For instance, I can proudly say that "I believe that Jesus has died for everyone's sins and because of that it's rational in my mind that if you believe in Him and His works, you'll go to heaven, with my basis being directed to my faith/religion, and more importantly, the Bible.
To the unbeliever, it could be used as to provoke the argument. Once could say "Well, it's not rational to believe that a man that called Himself the Savior could die and be raised from the dead." Without faith that doesn't sound rational to the normal human, basic logic based brain, which really just bring us to the point we started at, doesn't it now?...oh well.
Thanks for reading and if there's any more questions/concerns/things you don't understand/slams at my logic, I'm always willing to read/listen.
Edited - Typos, Grammar, repeated words and the like...
Allso, the point about the future verse, i said exactly what you did, and my point was exactly that, we dont see any miracles, so we find it hard to belive tehy ever occured.
here is a verse that shows what i mean about faith : John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
none of us have any steadfast proof one way or the other, none of us,
you can cite old roman documents talking about jesus's execution, you can cite the bible, you can cite the miracles Jesus performed, but the documents could have been tampered with, the bible could have been allso, and the seeming impossibility of the miracles Jesus performed.
When it comes down to it, only your own faith cannot be refuted, you either choose to belive, take the <b>leap of faith</b> and believe, or you dont
From a Christian standpoint, Christianity is not supposed to be rational, its not supposed to make sense, after all why would a God who we have sinned againts time and time again give us eternal life? why would a God who created us with love, and whom we disobeyed and cursed, give us ANOTHER chance? And by sacrficing his only Son?
It doesnt make sense..... To be a Christian is to have faith in the Grace of God.
Very, very true, but the distinction lies in the size of the axiom set. People with a hard-core commitment to logic (mathematicians, physics) like their set of axioms to be as small as possible. Just as an example, when Kurt Godel proved that there could be no finite complete axiom set for mathematics, a number of ranking mathematicians committed suicide. Physicists are working tirelessly to find the unified field theory out of the same desire. It's this desire that makes religion seem like such a preposterous basis for morality. You are taking thousands and thousands of pages of scripture to be your set of axioms, truth beyond the reach of argument, which is a completely unacceptable size to someone with a devotion to logic as a way of life.
This sentiment is expressed so often in moral debate because you run into the wall so quickly when arguing againt a religious stance. With so many axioms, the moral position on nearly every action is a one or two step jump from something that is taken to be true beyond debate. It is very frustrating, and feels very false.
What if someone happened to take as an axiom in his beliefs, "It is my purpose in life to murder you." Killing you would be the obvious and 'logical' action, but you wouldn't accept him as a rational person. Part of assessing the logical base for a position involves evaluating the axioms, particularly, how many there are and how arbitrary they are according to your experience. Even if religion doesn't fail the second test in your eyes, it certainly fails the first.
A significant objection.
But I don't think the Christian axioms are nearly as huge as you make them to be. Jesus summarized the whole of the law in just two sentences, and the detailed version is 10 Commandments long. All moral conclusions are inferred from this foundation, and if other parts the Scripture are quoted; it's merely for convenience.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This sentiment is expressed so often in moral debate because you run into the wall so quickly when arguing againt a religious stance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you argue with the wrong tools. Would there be so many Christian denominations if informed disagreement about key issues was impossible?
You can attack translation, interpretation and significance of every single sentence of the Scripture. Whole books have been written about a comma in John 1:3. Perhaps this exegetical form of debate just doesn't suit your taste, but I assure you that meaningful discussion about Christian morality <i>is</i> possible. It's rational, logical and fruitful.
Only if you argue with the wrong tools. Would there be so many Christian denominations if informed disagreement about key issues was impossible?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I'm a late joiner to this thread, and to answer the thread topic - I do believe theism to be rational.
Twex the Christian denominations are not formed because of disagreement about key issuses. The denominations are formed because of disagreement over side issues. Thats the difference between a denomination and a cult. All denominations have to have several key issues that they agree on - the Jesus Christ is real, alive, the Son of God. That the only way to God is through Jesus and they have to believe in the Trinity. I think those are pretty much all the real key issues. You fail to believe in one, and you are no longer a denomination - you become a cult.
Denominations are formed from disagreements about smaller issues. Baptists believe baptism is really important. Catholics believe giving and repenting is really important, as well as the importance of Mary. Anglicans have their differences as well. But we all think that the other denominations are Christians and are going to be accepted into heaven. Now admittedly we have our disagreements - take for example the Catholics. I personally as a Baptist think they are silly thinking that Mary, a mere dead human, can actually influence the all powerful divine Jesus. But I still know that their will be a lot a Catholics in heaven.
Hrrrm, I've got a bit distracted their sorry, but I think my point is pretty clear. The Christian faith is best summed up in those two commandments you mentioned and the verse (not sure which) to become a Christian you must "Believe in Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord and admit it publicly"
And there you have it - ur a Christian. Nothing about church there, nothing about giving money, nothing about evolution or creation, just that statement.
Once again Im losing the thread, better stop now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Would be great if objective judgement of the "key issues" was so simple, but what does it mean to believe in the Trinity? Is Modalism trinitarian or monistic? People will disagree.
Your definition also makes the Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) a cult, although they follow the teachings of Jesus to the letter and consider him the Son of God. Again, it's not undisputed whether they are.
All I wanted to show was that Christian debates are far from "hitting walls" quickly. They're in fact very vivid, but atheists don't notice, as they bail out as soon as the discussion reaches theological realms.
I don't think they can exactly be blamed for this. If arguing with a mindset requires studying thousands of pages and thousands of years of the history of a belief system that they have no interest in, then its really not worth it to try to argue. I would say that it is the burden of the religious person to bring all of the doctrine that justifies their position to the table (which a lot of people do) rather than count on the other side to go out and find them if they want to continue the discussion. Even with this it is very difficult to argue with the position, because any justification for the other side of the argument usually isn't in the scripture or doctrine that they quote, but the frustration comes primarily from the "just cuz" type of religious argument.
This again is just a function of the size of the axiom set. You can debate with most secular philosophies competently by just knowing a few basic principles and applying them.