The History of Demanding a Rational Basis for Religious Truth-Claims

[Sunstone]

As I understand it, the notion that religious truth-claims (such as "the gods exist", etc) need to be justified by some rational means dates all the way back in Western thought to Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600 BCE in what is now Asia Minor.

As with most things, the details are sometimes disputed, but it seems most scholars agree that Thales began the Western tradition of assuming that all natural events have causes which can be discovered by reason. An alternative view would be that the causes of natural events are known only to authorities -- such as priests -- or revealed only by traditions. That was the view that seems to have prevailed before Thales. It should be easy to see how the notion that natural events have causes that can be discovered by reason can morph over time into a demand that even religious truth-claims make rational sense. Indeed, the rise of theology in the West is almost certainly a consequence of Thales' revolutionary idea that the nature of things can be discovered by reason for theology is basically an attempt to figure out rational reasons for religious truth-claims (whether it succeeds in doing that is up to you to decide).

Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?






____________________________

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I understand it, the notion that religious truth-claims (such as "the gods exist", etc) need to be justified by some rational means dates all the way back in Western thought to Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600 BCE in what is now Asia Minor.

As with most things, the details are sometimes disputed, but it seems most scholars agree that Thales began the Western tradition of assuming that all natural events have natural causes which can be discovered by reason. (This 'assumption' appears to be strongly supported by the explanatory success of the sciences.) It should be easy to see how such an assumption can morph over time into a demand that even religious truth-claims make rational sense. Indeed, the rise of theology in the West is almost certainly a consequence of Thales' revolutionary idea that the nature of things can be discovered by reason for theology is basically an attempt to figure out rational reasons for religious truth-claims (whether it succeeds in doing that is up to you to decide).

Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?

It think you are giving to much credit as such to rationality as for what the world really is. Methodological naturalism makes sense, but that has nothing to do with what the world really is.
Knowledge is a belief system that apparently works. That is properly about it.

As for justification you run into Agrippa the Skeptic and his 5 modes. Justified true beliefs are just in practice just words to play with. But what do I know? I am a Cartesian and strong skeptic.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Valjean]

Not everyone appreciates rational thought. Some prefer simple, comforting platitudes. They need their opiate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not everyone appreciates rational thought. Some prefer simple, comforting platitudes. They need their opiate.

And appreciate is a feeling. How rational as with reason or logic.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?

Sure, as long as the rationale is functional rather than factual (as any facts regarding the nature and existence of "God" are not verifiable).

I am not impressed by, "Fact: I prayed to God for a red bicycle for Christmas, and I got one, so God is real!"

I am impressed by, "I need a means of generating hope and ethical priority in my life, so I use my concept of God to do that". The former is little more than a victim of their own desire.
While the latter is someone who is aware of their own limitations and has found a way of dealing with them that works for them.

 

[PureX]

Not everyone appreciates rational thought. Some prefer simple, comforting platitudes. They need their opiate.

To need an opiate, find it, and use it to one's advantage, IS rational.

 

[Heyo]

Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?

Yes and no. I usually don't interfere into religious affairs and I think it is rude to do so. But the moment the religious want to interfere into the secular world, they have to play by the rules of the secular world. I.e. any claims or demands have to be based in reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and no. I usually don't interfere into religious affairs and I think it is rude to do so. But the moment the religious want to interfere into the secular world, they have to play by the rules of the secular world. I.e. any claims or demands have to be based in reality.

What is the secular world? Could I get the scientific theory of the secular world? What is it mathematical/scientific formula?

What reality? That religious beliefs are real as religious beliefs and work as subjective beliefs. Or is that not a part of reality?

Who made you the objective authority on what the world and reality are?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?

To the extent that people rely on the claims being factually true, it's definitely a good idea to demand a factual basis for religious truth-claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To the extent that people rely on the claims being factually true, it's definitely a good idea to demand a factual basis for religious truth-claims.

I believe in God. It is a fact, that I can do so. Is that good enough?

 

[1213]

...
Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?

I think it is good. And it is the reason why for example I reject the theory of evolution as explanation for all species.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe in God. It is a fact, that I can do so. Is that good enough?

How does your belief in God inform your actions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does your belief in God inform your actions?

I believe that humans are scared and with worth and dignity. I believe in democracy, human rights, a secular society and a welfare state. That comes from the empathy and compassion in humans, at least some of us and that is how God made us. We can make a better world by believing in each other.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?

We cannot effectively demand answers, because we are not owed them. Its fine to pursue them.

Since we don't see reality clearly then the worst lie is to think that we do, but most of us start out thinking we do starting from childhood. Children who don't start out thinking the reality is sound feel unsafe, and that's not good for them developmentally. A child's natural state is to accept things as they seem. That is natural childhood. I think when new people are born we are still incomplete, like chicks still in the egg. We have to peck our way out. We have to find out that things aren't always what they appear to be and what we are told. Healthy skepticism should be added afterwards to the lasting glow of a healthy childhood.

I believe children do need an 'Opiate' but that adulthood should bring awareness for most people. I don't think its healthy for people to always believe that we have an absolute sense of what is going on. I think that uncertainty is part of being an adult as is a certain amount of suffering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We cannot effectively demand answers, because we are not owed them.

If someone tries to impose their religion's rules on me, then I'm going to demand that they justify it. If their justification hinges on some tenet of their religion being factually true, then they most certainly owe me a rational basis for their claim that the tenet is true.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If someone tries to impose their religion's rules on me

Well you know Sunstone's OP doesn't provide the context for how you're reading the question, but that's not how I'm reading it. I guess if you're a child and you grow up with absolute certainty that the world is everything you're told and always are given the facts about everything there are many positives to that, but I think this will also make you vulnerable to liars. I think there is a healthy medium where as a child you live in the comfort of believing that you are surrounded by truth and that truth is good and real, but at some point you should begin to question that. You should learn to find your way out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If someone tries to impose their religion's rules on me, then I'm going to demand that they justify it. If their justification hinges on some tenet of their religion being factually true, then they most certainly owe me a rational basis for their claim that the tenet is true.

So please explain how morality can be factually true?
Or how the Big Bang is factually true?

Just for the fun of it:
The many meanings of truth
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

You throw around words. So here is something about truth:
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

There is a reason, it is called methodological naturalism and is about scientific evidence and not philosophical naturalism and truth.
Methodological naturalism rests on the unprovable assumption that the world is fair and knowable. Science has nothing to do with truth or proof. Leave that to philosophy.

There is no truth or proof about what reality really is. Not in science, philosophy or religion. It is beliefs, which apparently work.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

Yes and no. I usually don't interfere into religious affairs and I think it is rude to do so. But the moment the religious want to interfere into the secular world, they have to play by the rules of the secular world. I.e. any claims or demands have to be based in reality.

I don't disagree, but we all have our own "reality". So what is required, I think, is a realistic consensus. Which is why, when the religious want to impose their conception of reality on others, they are, and should be required to create a consensus before doing so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't disagree, but we all have our own "reality". So what is required, I think, is a realistic consensus. Which is why, when the religious want to impose their conception of reality on others, they are, and should be required to create a consensus before doing so.

But that has nothing to do with the religious as such.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

But that has nothing to do with the religious as such.

Regards
Mikkel

True. It should apply to all of us. But a lot of people do tend to use their religion as their justification for wanting to control the behavior of those around them.