Is Religion rational?

Ahem.

Fuzzy logic only predicts the likely outcome, not the actual outcome. When you fail to have even the starting variables or some relative point from which you can prove or disprove something, it no longer applies, like regular logic.

Seriously, go on, I can talk about the omnipotent being all day long and how elusive it can be.

Then nothing is rational! Not even agnosticism.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:30:07 PM by Baff

When we're talking in the scope of what most religions talk about, yes. Now, come back to me when you figure out a way to transcend and then view most known reality.

I don't understand how fuzzy inferences from the evidence put in front of you is not rational.

Nah, the problem with that is that we don't know how much we're missing and to what extent, not even on a relative scale, which means the outputted truth value may in fact be severely off.

Well... when I do I will be the greatest philosopher of the 21th century, and of history!

So that is not going to happen.

Might as well try, as a scientist and philosopher.

Nah... Ill play Call of Duty instead.

@USAF a page and a half ago: I can prove it's fallible given other accepted things. For instance: BIGASS FLOOD! Scientifically impossible. You can't simultaneously believe in the existence of scientific laws, that are universally applicable, and believe that something scientifically impossible occurred.

You can do a sort of "We're in the matrix" thing that says that the rules of science of this day were different back then, though.

While it may not be completely probable that the entire Earth is flooded, and I admit I know little of the geography of Israel and surrounding area, maybe just that part of the Earth was flooded, which is completely possible (just ask Japan).

What about an arch with 2 animals of each kind?

Threadhop: The question isn't really so much "is religion rational?", at least not to me. It doesn't really have to be. Not everything has to be strictly rational (and I say that as someone who considers himself a very strong rationalist) we all do things or believe things that might be a bit irrational.

The question to me is more what are the social/cultural effects of various religious beliefs and are they a positive thing or a negative thing for our society on the whole.

Again, that's not what the Bible says. Biblical literalists aren't all fond of this whole "it was only one small part of the world, and it wasn't forty days, and the arc didn't really have two of every animal" etc etc etc.

I mean, if the entirety of a genetic line was from two animals, you'd have some SERIOUS deformities.

Not to mention the young earth-ism, the being turned into a pillar of salt, so on and so on and so on.

Maybe God didn't actually tell Noah to get two of every animal, he just thought that if the whole world was going to be flooded he should. So he got two of each of the nearby animals, which rejoined the herd (who presumably saved themselves) later.

Again, not what the bible says.

If the Bible is inaccurate, why should we take it seriously when it claims that Jesus was the incarnated son of God? If we take it to be metaphor, why should we not take Jesus' role as the son of God as a metaphor?

edited 13th Aug '11 4:55:04 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

We don't need to make this just an argument about Christianity—Deism isn't dead.

Yes, but Christianity is the religion I explicitly called out as being "irrational" (to a certain extent, at least) in a previous thread, hence prompting the creation of this thread.

I don't think deism is irrational per say. I do, however, question what it means to "exist" outside of time and space, which is the entire point of deism, as it deals with the cosmological argument.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:57:58 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

And like you said, it was written by humans. Originally by humans directly inspired by God, yes, but then translated and rewritten by many different humans. So the truth value of the Bible is kind of irrelevant to the related religion on the whole, it's just unfortunately the best method we have of learning about it. It even has changes on what it says. Like say "Beat your child to teach him wisdom" to Jesus saying "Do not bring any harm to children". For me though, I'm judging that no matter how the entire thing evolved and mutated, the entire work points at or closely to what is good.

God can view any point in time, makes all the changes in how God wants the universe to flow from the starting seed of generateuniverse.exe and then watches it because it's all going to roll out as God wants it?

edited 13th Aug '11 4:59:37 PM by Ramus

It's pointless to try and argue with "Christianity." What works against a Catholic won't work against a Unitarian Universalist.

Unitarians aren't really Christian (or, rather, they are not necessarily Christian). This isn't a No True Scotsman argument, so much as it's a definition of Christianity that involves the belief that Jesus was the literal son of God.

edited 13th Aug '11 5:01:50 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Xtianity is 2rational" according to its Back Story:

1) Adam and Eve sinned therefore all humans are guilty.

2) The cure for guilt is blood and sacrifice.

3) Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac, but sacrificd a goat instead.

4) Jesus was sacrificed to cure all guilkt.

5) The sacrifice of bread and wine cures all sins.

These doctrines cannot be rpoven by Science, but all togetherf they make a rational scheme.

Things can be rational or irrational. You can't prove it, though. Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgement of this fact.

Scientifically impossible by the currently-understood value of "science". I believe there are scientific laws, and that they are immutable. It is our understanding of what they are that constantly changes. We live on one planet that orbits one star out of billions, amidst infinite galaxies. How can you possibly begin to believe that what we understand is actually and absolutely how everything works?

I don't believe there was a world flood, but I cannot without a doubt prove it absolutely. I can prove it didn't happen... perhaps... using today's understanding of science. But not absolutely in a way that can never be proven wrong. Until we know absolutely everything there is to know, nothing is final in knowledge.

Which is why I say it's stupid to worry about it.

edited 13th Aug '11 5:20:52 PM by USAF713

So basically common sense is subjective. Well, that might go a few miles in explaining why common sense isn't so common.

Exactly, in addition to morality. I hesitate to say reality is relative as well, because it's not, but Rule of Perception is a powerful force. I refer you back to my "You can't prove Britain exists because I haven't been there" argument.

edited 13th Aug '11 5:34:04 PM by USAF713