Jump to content

Is there a rational reason for religion?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, koti said:

Scott I wasn’t trying to disprove the notion of a creator and I think you know that very well. Take it easy man...and don’t look out for those yeti’s and monkeys in your cupboard :D 

+1 for being the better man! Respect to you Koti :)

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The analogy is sound.

I’m sure you have read all posts in this thread so you will have seen that I agree with Koti on the invisible yeti metaphor.

I stand by my point that it doesn’t work for visible yetis, as first postulated:)!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You believe in intellectualism for the reasons we don't know and may be you can't justify! But at least you invest a lot in it here and you worship ideas that work for you  Bravo

Besides the obvious difference between a religion and a cult in numbers of worshipers, isn’t majority of modern cults led by a living person treated like a deity by the worshipers where as in religion

Er, no. the whole point is that if something works, we don't need to use belief. For example your computer works, because the underlying technology works, because the underlying science works. 

18 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

+1 for being the better man! Respect to you Koti :)

I’m sure you have read all posts in this thread so you will have seen that I agree with Koti on the invisible yeti metaphor.

I stand by my point that it doesn’t work for visible yetis, as first postulated:)!

Thanks for the respect Scott, I haven’t really earned it here but thanks anyway, I guess...

As for the Yeti’s or whatever other entity for which there is no evidence, it doesn’t matter if you plug in the invisibility factor or not, the example/analogy works just fine with or without it. Think about it... You’re never going to get to see the miniature Yeti in your cupboard and it doesn’t matter if the reason is that it has invisibility capabilities or it just decides to never reveal itself to you - just like god/gods decide to never reveal themselves to you or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 3:17 PM, Scott of the Antares said:

I stand by my point that it doesn’t work for visible yetis, as first postulated:)!

Koti explains it better than I did:

On 7/14/2018 at 10:23 AM, koti said:

As for the Yeti’s or whatever other entity for which there is no evidence, it doesn’t matter if you plug in the invisibility factor or not, the example/analogy works just fine with or without it. Think about it... You’re never going to get to see the miniature Yeti in your cupboard and it doesn’t matter if the reason is that it has invisibility capabilities or it just decides to never reveal itself to you - just like god/gods decide to never reveal themselves to you or anyone else.

Unobservability can take a few forms. Hiding in places mortals can't go is the same as invisibility. Ditto waiting until a prophesied time to reappear. 

 

 

 

It just struck me, can a god be omnipotent if it can't show itself to its followers without destroying the basis of their faith?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It just struck me, can a god be omnipotent if it can't show itself to its followers without destroying the basis of their faith?

Similar to John Cuthber’s example with god creating an impossible task for itself but here, one can always deflect with god never wanting (as opposed to not being able) to reveal itself. It would only be rational for an omnipotent god not to do that...which makes an even stronger case for my miniature Yeti’s, as we all know they’re omnipotent too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,

by the wise as false,

and by rulers as useful" 

Seneca  

There's something in there about judgment too...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's something in there about judgment too...

What exactly? 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just because I feel like stirring the pot a bit...

koti said the Yeti was a miniature. If small enough, it doesn't have to be invisible to be unoberservable.

:P

Could he vary his size like ant man? 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Could he vary his size like ant man? 

He can. I read it in a book written thousands of years ago. He can also turn pine cones into beef jerky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

Don't do it...

 

I'm not sure if that is part of the quote but I do judge, we should judge, the idea of not judging allows people to get by with crimes they should be judged for... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure if that is part of the quote but I do judge, we should judge, the idea of not judging allows people to get by with crimes they should be judged for... 

He is without sin...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Tell it to the judge... I am without a plethora of sins... possibly a definition of "sins" would be in order... 

IOW If you've never done anything wrong, judge away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

IOW If you've never done anything wrong, judge away.

You realise that is why we are in the situation we are in don't you? I stole a candy bar when I was a kid now I have no right to judge a murderer? Come on, I know don't believe that... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP question is probably the wrong one. It would make more sense to ask if there is a LOGICAL reason for religion. 

Lots of rational people are religious. I'm not so sure about how logical their reasons for believing are. Does the belief follow on logically from facts they can be sure of? What happens is that people compartmentalise religion. They reserve a much lower standard of proof for religious beliefs than for other day to day information.

I suppose a perfectly rational person can argue that religion is a good thing, whether true or not. But are they perfectly logical? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I stole a candy bar when I was a kid now I have no right to judge a murderer?

Judge away Mr. Strawman.

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The OP question is probably the wrong one. It would make more sense to ask if there is a LOGICAL reason for religion. 

Lots of rational people are religious. I'm not so sure about how logical their reasons for believing are. Does the belief follow on logically from facts they can be sure of? What happens is that people compartmentalise religion. They reserve a much lower standard of proof for religious beliefs than for other day to day information.

I suppose a perfectly rational person can argue that religion is a good thing, whether true or not. But are they perfectly logical? 

You're really not getting it, religion is rational because it is...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The OP question is probably the wrong one. It would make more sense to ask if there is a LOGICAL reason for religion. 

Lots of rational people are religious. I'm not so sure about how logical their reasons for believing are. Does the belief follow on logically from facts they can be sure of? What happens is that people compartmentalise religion. They reserve a much lower standard of proof for religious beliefs than for other day to day information.

I suppose a perfectly rational person can argue that religion is a good thing, whether true or not. But are they perfectly logical? 

 

Logic implies premises, rationality does not.

So no, I think the original was best put.

 

I also note that eveyone has so far assumed that religion is about 'good'.

Why so?

 

How about self worship?

Or the worship of Mamon?

 

Are they not both rational in that they are compatible with the principle of natural selection and the theory of evolution?

 

Zapatos have I stirred your pot enuff?

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Judge away Mr. Strawman.

One of use doesn't know the definition of straw man... (hint) it's you... 

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're really not getting it, religion is rational because it is...

So worshiping Adrianna at the rise of the harvest moon is rational? 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Logic implies premises, rationality does not.

So no, I think the original was best put.

Agreed

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I also note that eveyone has so far assumed that religion is about 'good'.

Why so?

Excellent question, I'll ask Satan next time i go to the Satanic Temple. 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

How about self worship?

Now that would be irrational... 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Or the worship of Mamon?

How much Mamon would I need to build a pile big enough to worship or do you have a bit of a thing for Robin Tunney

 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Are they not both rational in that they are compatible with the principle of natural selection and the theory of evolution?

Those can be shown to be true, religion not so much... 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Zapatos have I stirred your pot enuff?

Hell add some more toads and let's stir it up a bit more.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mistermack said:

The OP question is probably the wrong one. It would make more sense to ask if there is a LOGICAL reason for religion. 

Lots of rational people are religious. I'm not so sure about how logical their reasons for believing are. Does the belief follow on logically from facts they can be sure of? What happens is that people compartmentalise religion. They reserve a much lower standard of proof for religious beliefs than for other day to day information.

I suppose a perfectly rational person can argue that religion is a good thing, whether true or not. But are they perfectly logical? 

No, this is a misuse of the term "logic". Blame Star Trek writers for that one, but the correct term is rational, or reasoned, or critically thought out. Pop-sci "logic" has sloppily and subjectively come to mean "Oh, that makes sense to me!", which is just about the opposite of mathematical or philosophical logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zapatos said:

koti said the Yeti was a miniature. If small enough, it doesn't have to be invisible to be unoberservable.

:P

Ofcourse its infitesimally small, I thought its so obvious that it doesn’t need mentioning. Thank you for poining it out though zapatos, your logic is as flawless as it is impregnable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, studiot said:

No, but I do have a soft spot for Koti's infinetti.

 

:)

Its not mine studiot nor it is zapatos’s. I’m sory but you’re going to need to bring this up with the Yeti himself. I’m sure he/she will be more than glad to go over everything with you, I’ll send you a PM with Yeti’s bank account number. Just make sure the SWIFT/IBAN code is correct as Yeti resides far, far away... in Cyprus Heaven. 

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, koti said:

Its not mine studiot nor it is zapatos’s. I’m sory but you’re going to need to bring this up with the Yeti himself. I’m sure he/she will be more than glad to go over everything with you, I’ll send you a PM with Yeti’s bank account number. Just make sure the SWIFT/IBAN code is correct as Yeti resides far, far away... in Cyprus Heaven. 

Oh, sorry.

I thought it was a type of ice cream.

(one cornetti)

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

No, this is a misuse of the term "logic". Blame Star Trek writers for that one, but the correct term is rational, or reasoned, or critically thought out. Pop-sci "logic" has sloppily and subjectively come to mean "Oh, that makes sense to me!", which is just about the opposite of mathematical or philosophical logic.

Maybe it's philosophers who misuse the term "logic". :)   

Formal logic has always looked to me like a failed attempt to insert rules where they won't fit. Ok for the very simplest exercises, but doesn't hold up like maths does. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.