Rationality Rules

[dfnj]

1) Choosing what to believe sounds like self deception, although you can choose how to inform yourself (which can indirectly impact belief)
2) I don't think of my life as meaningless at all. I simply don't think there is a universal meaning.
3) Were God real, I have no idea how (2) would be at all different, although most Abrahamaic religious folk seem thoroughly convinced that life eternal provides meaning, somehow.

1). No, the only deception is the tripe you are selling.
2.) If you say so. Whatever floats your dancing pickle.
3) At least you are honest with how clueless you are about God. I agree Abrahamaic religions are outdated and need to take into account a post atheistic world.

Maybe this book will help you find a connection with something more meaningful than nihilism:

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-Believers-Guide-Uses/dp/B007HRU0DQ

 

[dfnj]

Here is a dilemma: Suppose you had a choice to believe the truth, but that belief would shorten your life and make you miserable.

OR you could believe a comforting falsehood and live a longer, contented life.

Which would you choose?

This is not at all a new dilemma. Voltaire brought it out in his story 'The Story of the Good Brahman'. In that story, the Brahman spoke of his uncertainties and the torture of such. He then points out a washer woman

who is quite content with her beliefs and happy with the world.

A quote:
"I have told myself a hundred times that I should be happy if I were as brainless as my neighbor, but I do not desire such happiness".

And another:
"But on reflection it seems that to prefer reason to felicity is to be very senseless. How can this contradiction be explained? Like all the other contradictions, it is a matter of much talk"

I think whatever the reason is why are you assuming it is a falsehood is causing you not to live as long.

 

[Heyo]

Please explain more.

Regards
Mikkel

Rational thinking is like solving a mathematical equation. There is only one correct answer. The rules of thinking are unambiguous. You may make an error but any rational person will agree when it is pointed out. Some problems are hard to solve but rational people will agree when they are solved and when not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rational thinking is like solving a mathematical equation. There is only one correct answer. The rules of thinking are unambiguous. You may make an error but any rational person will agree when it is pointed out. Some problems are hard to solve but rational people will agree when they are solved and when not.

So with 2 or more humans wanting to do something in opposition to each other there is one correct answer. What is the general methodology of that?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Heyo]

So with 2 or more humans wanting to do something in opposition to each other there is one correct answer. What is the general methodology of that?

Regards
Mikkel

I don't understand the question. If you want to do something in opposition to me and I want to do something in opposition to you, there is no conflict. We should just both do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand the question. If you want to do something in opposition to me and I want to do something in opposition to you, there is no conflict. We should just both do it.

Okay, I want your money and you don't want to give it to me. That one is simple.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not saying our rational thought on complex necessarily results in the truth. But it is still the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. On complex issues like religion/spirituality there may be differences of opinion.

The quality of our rational deliberations is affected by the level of our knowledge and education on the subject and our ability to remain objective.

Actually, I disagree on education. I used to think like many when I was young the solution to the problems of irrational views on science and social issues like racism was education. But since I have found with the increase in education in the USA and elsewhere religion and associated worldviews remain the major determining factors toward. The persons sense of belonging and identity are powerful forces on how they apply their rational thinking to the real world around us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1). No, the only deception is the tripe you are selling.
2.) If you say so. Whatever floats your dancing pickle.
3) At least you are honest with how clueless you are about God. I agree Abrahamaic religions are outdated and need to take into account a post atheistic world.

Maybe this book will help you find a connection with something more meaningful than nihilism:

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-Believers-Guide-Uses/dp/B007HRU0DQ

One of the least useful posts I've seen in a while. I'm in no way 'deceiving' anyone, and find your responses the mental equivalent of colouring with crayons.

Cheers.

 

[dfnj]

One of the least useful posts I've seen in a while. I'm in no way 'deceiving' anyone, and find your responses the mental equivalent of colouring with crayons.

You spelled coloring wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't very rational.

Of him or of me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rational thinking is like solving a mathematical equation. There is only one correct answer.

99% of the time, this is nonsense.

The rules of thinking are unambiguous. You may make an error but any rational person will agree when it is pointed out. Some problems are hard to solve but rational people will agree when they are solved and when not.

What's the "rational" first move in a game of chess?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You spelled coloring wrong.

*blinks*

I'm gonna assume you're trying to be funny.

 

[Bird123]

No, this not about Stephen Woodford or his YouTube channel Rationality Rules. (Though I'm a big fan.)

This is about the high value we give to rationality or at least pretend to do so.

Historically rationality didn't have the same value it has today. No king or emperor has ever been called "the rational". "The Great" is of the highest order, "the brave", "the pious", "the strong", "the conqueror" but never "the smart".

Martin Luther famously denounced rationality: "For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

I guess it is one of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment that rationality has the place it's gained in western society.

But most of our actions or beliefs are far from rational. We are still the emotional animals we were 20,000 years ago. We rationalize our behaviour after the fact more than we think about it before.

Why is that so? Why do religious people especially (but not exclusively) try to convince themselves (and others) that their beliefs are rational when they clearly aren't? Wouldn't it be more honest and easier to admit that it's not rational and denounce the societal pressure that everything has to be rational?

I'm going to make breakfast now, with lots of bacon, eggs and cheese on toast. Is that rational? No, but it tastes good.

How about this: We all have two halves: The reason or rational half and the feeling half. You are right. One should always lead with the reason or rational half simple because if one leads with the feeling half one could get lost is a sea of emotions. It's never fun being lost.

Beliefs stem out of the feeling half. Beliefs are important because without them we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts are not known.

Perhaps, religion has created the problem. Religion teaches people to Believe above all else. Religion teaches people to accept beliefs rather than question them. Since it is easier to believe and accept rather than Discover the real answers, most, I think, take the easy route rather than the best route. Having taken the easy route, many would rather stand their ground than reconsider their choice. Besides Discovery still takes lots of work.

Look around. A Being capable of creating all this has to be very very smart. Such a Being must have High Rational Thought.

So often religion places a focus on feeling, however let's not all forget God has a High Rational half as well. When one understands what God is doing with us and this world, one starts to understand God. When one understands, everything is rational. Everything will add up. Perhaps, this is the base people should use when searching for True Answers. If it doesn't add up, it isn't God. It's mankind's Beliefs.

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. I say science will Discover God before any religion will. Why? Religion does not search for answers. Religion claims their beliefs are the answers even when those beliefs do not add up. Further, religion does not correct the errors. On the other hand, by studying God's handy work, Science is walking toward God, and science is happy to correct those errors. It's just a simple rational conclusion.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Oh yes, my feeling half loves that bacon, however my rational half has decided there are better things to eat. Since my rational half is leading, I no longer eat bacon. In just a little time, one never misses it.

 

[Heyo]

Of him or of me?

Of you and the ACA. From what I registered of the whole affair via YouTube, Stephen made an honest mistake. The over-reaction was totally emotional, outrage culture, white knighting, bs. Atheist+ self destruction all over again. For a group that theoretically holds "atheism is not an ideology, the only thing that qualifies an atheist is, that s/he doesn't believe in god(s)" it showed a whole complex of ideology.

 

[Augustus]

Rational thinking is like solving a mathematical equation. There is only one correct answer. The rules of thinking are unambiguous. You may make an error but any rational person will agree when it is pointed out. Some problems are hard to solve but rational people will agree when they are solved and when not.

Outside of the hard sciences, and some simple, strictly limited problems with near perfect information (which rules out most problems involving humans), is this frequently the case though?

What range of situations would you judge that there is only correct answer that all ration people must agree with?

 

[Heyo]

Perhaps, religion has created the problem. Religion teaches people to Believe above all else. Religion teaches people to accept beliefs rather than question them. Since it is easier to believe and accept rather than Discover the real answers, most, I think, take the easy route rather than the best route. Having taken the easy route, many would rather stand their ground than reconsider their choice. Besides Discovery still takes lots of work.

That is part of the problem but the greater problem is when the religious don't admit to being about belief and instead claim to be rational.
Stephen Jay Gould had the idea of non overlapping magisteria but some religions, especially those with all-omni gods, weren't content with their half of the split and had to have it all.

 

[Heyo]

Okay, I want your money and you don't want to give it to me. That one is simple.

99% of the time, this is nonsense.

What's the "rational" first move in a game of chess?

Outside of the hard sciences, and some simple, strictly limited problems with near perfect information (which rules out most problems involving humans), is this frequently the case though?

What range of situations would you judge that there is only correct answer that all ration people must agree with?

There are many situations where rational thinking doesn't apply, mostly because of insufficient information or unclear definitions.
The only rational conclusion is then to admit that there is no rational conclusion (yet).
You can't have my money, but that's a judicial matter not a rational one.
There is no winning first move in chess (that we know of).
There is no single god for whom you can flawlessly argue existence.

That doesn't mean that rationality is limited only to a very small set of problems. It just means that one has to carefully choose the question. Instead of searching for an absolute answer one can choose to eliminate the most irrational possibilities and then emotionally pick from the rational ones. (Or the other way around, preselect options and find the most rational one.)

Just don't call something rational that can't be defended by reason against another option.

 

[Augustus]

That doesn't mean that rationality is limited only to a very small set of problems. It just means that one has to carefully choose the question. Instead of searching for an absolute answer one can choose to eliminate the most irrational possibilities and then emotionally pick from the rational ones. (Or the other way around, preselect options and find the most rational one.)

There is a very significant difference between saying we can apply reason to a problem, and saying that problem has only 1 rational solution that every rational person must agree with though.

We can apply reason to all kinds of problems, but that doesn't rule out there being multiple rational potential solutions that people could legitimately disagree on without being 'irrational'.

For example, we must apply reason to the coronavirus problem, but there is never going to be a single rational solution to it. This is because it involves values, preferences, imperfect information and uncertainty.

 

[Heyo]

There is a very significant difference between saying we can apply reason to a problem, and saying that problem has only 1 rational solution that every rational person must agree with though.

We can apply reason to all kinds of problems, but that doesn't rule out there being multiple rational potential solutions that people could legitimately disagree on without being 'irrational'.

For example, we must apply reason to the coronavirus problem, but there is never going to be a single rational solution to it. This is because it involves values, preferences, imperfect information and uncertainty.

When you solve a quadratic equation, there can be zero, one or two solutions. The correct answer is therefore a set.
Same with rational solutions. The answer may be a set. And like with a quadratic equation, calling only one solution the answer would be wrong. There is only one correct answer and that is the set. Omitting a solution is wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you solve a quadratic equation, there can be zero, one or two solutions. The correct answer is therefore a set.
Same with rational solutions. The answer may be a set. And like with a quadratic equation, calling only one solution the answer would be wrong. There is only one correct answer and that is the set. Omitting a solution is wrong.

So the correct answer is that some times there are many correct answer to the same problem. Okay.
How come that is possible?

Regards
Mikkel