"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[dfnj]

"why does it matter how other people choose?"

You mean:
"Why does it matter how other people choose G-d over no-God?"
Right, please?

Regards

You are the one who talked about why add God to the mix. I was asking why do you care?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So that's a yes, is it?

If belief in A is irrational, and Person X believes in A, Person X is irrational.

Yes.
Now is being irrational bad?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why does it matter to you if God is in the mix or not? Why did you feel compelled to say without God is everything is just as good. Obviously choosing God is not your cup of tea. But why does it matter how other people choose? Is it really any skin of your back?

It's just that for many of us such things can be explained and have just as much value. All too often we do see the accusation that those living without such beliefs are missing out on something, be it some of the things you quoted or in having some kind of purpose in life. You can hardly say many don't do this. Why wouldn't I point this out? And unfortunately religious beliefs are still one of the major reasons that causes separation from others just as much as it unites.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's just that for many of us such things can be explained and have just as much value. All too often we do see the accusation that those living without such beliefs are missing out on something, be it some of the things you quoted or in having some kind of purpose in life. You can hardly say many don't do this. Why wouldn't I point this out? And unfortunately religious beliefs are still one of the major reasons that causes separation from others just as much as it unites.

You are aware that we are playing the is-ought problem, right?

• Some religious people claim that non-religious people are missing out on positive values.
• Some non-religious people claim that it is better to be rational.

Neither position apparently hold as universally true for all humans.
Both seems to be subjective and then judge other versions of subjectivity, while pretending to be in some sense objective.

Religious beliefs are not special in being religious as to some mystical quality. Religion as a human behavior is natural. You have to look as human behavior as such and figure out how values work and if it is possible to say that that one value is better than another.
Religion is as a value system subset of value systems as such and you have to figure out how value systems work as such.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are aware that we are playing the is-ought problem, right?

• Some religious people claim that non-religious people are missing out on positive values.
• Some non-religious people claim that it is better to be rational.

Neither position apparently hold as universally true for all humans.
Both seems to be subjective and then judge other versions of subjectivity, while pretending to be in some sense objective.

Religious beliefs are not special in being religious as to some mystical quality. Religion as a human behavior is natural. You have to look as human behavior as such and figure out how values work and if it is possible to say that that one value is better than another.
Religion is as a value system subset of value systems as such and you have to figure out how value systems work as such.

Regards
Mikkel

Well I'll have to disagree about religious beliefs not being special - we wouldn't have so many blasphemy laws in place (with the strictest punishments in some countries) if this were so. Some of us are all for such levelling. That is one of my issues with religions - but obviously not in many or even most countries where such isn't so precious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I'll have to disagree about religious beliefs not being special - we wouldn't have so many blasphemy laws in place (with the strictest punishments in some countries) if this were so. Some of us are all for such levelling. That is one of my issues with religions - but obviously not in many or even most countries where such isn't so precious.

Well, here is an example. In some countries is not the allowed to question the ruling party or its ideology.
Treat religion as a human ideology and then look for similar behavior in other ideologies.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.
Now is being irrational bad?

Regards
Mikkel

Well, I can't really say that it's bad or not.

But that's not really what the thread is about, is it?

The OP argues that believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. However, we have just established that if a person believes in something, then they are irrational. So we must now answer the question: Is belief in God irrational?

What do you think?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I can't really say that it's bad or not.

But that's not really what the thread is about, is it?

The OP argues that believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. However, we have just established that if a person believes in something, then they are irrational. So we must now answer the question: Is belief in God irrational?

What do you think?

How does it matter if it is irrational? I have been told many times that I am irrational. I accept that, but there seems to be more than just being irrational?!!

I accept that religion is irrational. What is next?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

How does it matter if it is irrational? I have been told many times that I am irrational. I accept that, but there seems to be more than just being irrational?!!

I accept that religion is irrational. What is next?

Regards
Mikkel

So then you agree that believing in God in itself makes a person irrational?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then you agree that believing in God in itself makes a person irrational?

Yes. Now what is next?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. Now what is next?

Regards
Mikkel

Nothing. You've answered the question posed by the OP. Specifically, you do not agree with the statement given, and you think that if a person believes in God, that is sufficient to say that this hypothetical person is indeed irrational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing. You've answered the question posed by the OP. Specifically, you do not agree with the statement given, and you think that if a person believes in God, that is sufficient to say that this hypothetical person is indeed irrational.

Interesting. Now as far as I can tell what is going on is that there are different versions and modes of understanding going on in regards to being irrational.
So I think it really doesn't tell you anything, because it is not certain that we are using irrational in the same sense.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

Interesting. Now as far as I can tell what is going on is that there are different versions and modes of understanding going on in regards to being irrational.
So I think it really doesn't tell you anything, because it is not certain that we are using irrational in the same sense.

Regards
Mikkel

How would you define "irrational"?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, here is an example. In some countries is not the allowed to question the ruling party or its ideology.
Treat religion as a human ideology and then look for similar behavior in other ideologies.

Regards
Mikkel

But one doesn't usually get executed for such, unlike what happens in some countries for blasphemy. Of course the more repressive regimes don't like criticism, especially when it is accurate, but the blasphemy business is often enshrined in laws.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How would you define "irrational"?

A behavior/thinking in another person or in you for the past, that doesn't make sense to you now.

Irrational is not rational
Rational is with reason or logical (logical is limited, so reason it is*)
Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
It always end up being a justification*.
There are apparently no objective or true justifications possible*. It is always different subjective assumptions.
Assumptions are chosen because they make sense in some sense.

*Those are connected in the 5 modes of the limitations of justifications as per Agrippa the Skeptic. There is also the is-ought problem or the difference between the facts and the evaluation of what matters. And there is the problem of knowledge of the external world.

In other words rationality is in practice never fully objective as no objective justification is possible and it always involve some subjective assumptions/beliefs.

So in the strong sense all worldview are apparently irrational including religious ones. So you asked: Are religious world views irrational? Yes, they are, but that is not particular to religious ones.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But one doesn't usually get executed for such, unlike what happens in some countries for blasphemy. Of course the more repressive regimes don't like criticism, especially when it is accurate, but the blasphemy business is often enshrined in laws.

Well, try that in North Korea. And get back to us or don't get back. Yes, there are more religious countries, but it is not particular to religious countries. Denmark e.g. is religious. It says so in the constitution.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

A behavior/thinking in another person or in you for the past, that doesn't make sense to you now.

Irrational is not rational
Rational is with reason or logical (logical is limited, so reason it is*)
Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
It always end up being a justification*.
There are apparently no objective or true justifications possible*. It is always different subjective assumptions.
Assumptions are chosen because they make sense in some sense.

*Those are connected in the 5 modes of the limitations of justifications as per Agrippa the Skeptic. There is also the is-ought problem or the difference between the facts and the evaluation of what matters. And there is the problem of knowledge of the external world.

In other words rationality is in practice never fully objective as no objective justification is possible and it always involve some subjective assumptions/beliefs.

So in the strong sense all worldview are apparently irrational including religious ones. So you asked: Are religious world views irrational? Yes, they are, but that is not particular to religious ones.

Regards
Mikkel

Your definition seems to not include changes in a person's situation.

When I was a child, a phone was a large object (compared to phones today) that was attached to the wall in a house. For my childhood self, the idea of taking my phone with me when I went out would have been irrational. But now it is not. Now, if I go out, I make sure to take my phone with me. The idea of not taking my phone as an example of thinking that I once had but which makes no sense to me now. Yet it was not irrational when I was a kid to leave my phone at home, and it is not irrational now to take my phone with me.

However, I would say I agree with you for the rest of it, for the most part. I would have to examine in detail what you say in order to conclude whether or not I completely agree, and as it is getting late here, I'm not awake enough to do that just now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your definition seems to not include changes in a person's situation.

When I was a child, a phone was a large object (compared to phones today) that was attached to the wall in a house. For my childhood self, the idea of taking my phone with me when I went out would have been irrational. But now it is not. Now, if I go out, I make sure to take my phone with me. The idea of not taking my phone as an example of thinking that I once had but which makes no sense to me now. Yet it was not irrational when I was a kid to leave my phone at home, and it is not irrational now to take my phone with me.

However, I would say I agree with you for the rest of it, for the most part. I would have to examine in detail what you say in order to conclude whether or not I completely agree, and as it is getting late here, I'm not awake enough to do that just now.

"... in you for the past, that doesn't make sense to you now."
I think changes in personal outlooks are covered there.

Look forward to another post.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

I merely called it a logical possibility that our universe had an unconscious source that, like gods and another mechanism, I could neither rule in or rule out.

Wouldn't that require a definition of "God" such that if we found a real one we could tell whether it were God or not? As far as I know there's no such definition to which the word 'real' can be applied.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wouldn't that require a definition of "God" such that if we found a real one we could tell whether it were God or not? As far as I know there's no such definition to which the word 'real' can be applied.

Well, one way to do it, is to admit that if there is a cause to the universe, that it appears unknowable and that creator gods are thus a part of the unknowable.
The same with actual observation of what must be "magical", because we have ruled everything else out. It could still be natural as it is the entities/entity running the simulation we are in, who are having "fun" with us.
In the end we are playing the knowledge problem of the external world.
Real is what is real to us and that is in a sense subjective as an experience.

Regards
Mikkel