The long drawn out death of rationality.

[nick1181]

Last point - no it isn't. There are atheist fundamentalists all over Urban and a lot of them express views on people with religious leanings which are frankly offensive.

No. All over the world there are religious fundamentalists commiting attrocities and doing damage. People "expressing views" is not the same thing.

Your middle paragraph - could be applied to many belief systems including capitalism.

So what? If "belief" descends into irrationality then it will try to ignore factual observation and inevitably wind up doing damage. Religion is inherently more irrational than capitalism.

You talk about religious structures as though they are the same thing as religious belief. They are not.

This distinction has no relevence here. They tend to go hand in hand in any case.

Finally, my point was not that religion has necessarily helped science, just that it is not an inherent hindrance.

It's most visible role in the world today is as a hinderance.


Over and out.

 

[Stigmata]

All over the world there are religious fundamentalists commiting attrocities and doing damage. People "expressing views" is not the same thing.

Just because aggressive atheists have used violence less frequently than religous fundies over the years it doesn't mean that their brand of intolerance is any more acceptable. Some atheists (you can see them on here all the time) are so blinkered in their prejudices that they appear to ignore all evidence that contradicts their perception of religous people. If that's not irrational I don't know what is.

It's most visible role in the world today is as a hinderance.

I suspect that's because the fundamentalists shout the loudest, as it were.

 

[MysteryGuest]

I'm sorry but I think the original post is premised on some very odd views.

The idea that rationality = science = atheism and therefore irrationality = religion = doom doesn't stand up. What about the great scientific advances of Islam when Europe was in the dark ages? Were the innovations of the industrial revolution, continued through the 19th century achieved in a religious vacuum? Of course not.

It seem to me that the original post is drawing a line, one side of which are the non-religious, forward thinking peoples of the world, the other side are the religious nutters. It doesn't work like that, just because, say, Indonesia or Bangladesh are Muslim countries and have exploding populations it doesn't mean that the world will become a backward, barabric place. Religious people are capable of rational thought and civilised behaviour - though fundamentalism does worry me. But you can't sensibly argue that religion is anti-science or inherently backward, it doesn't stand up to the facts of the last few thousand years - SOME of the facts maybe, but by no means all of them.

*waits for the Urban atheist fundamentalist nutters to start flaming*

Indeed - medieval Islamic mathematicians and astronomers have a pretty good track record. But in the west also there have been many, many top notch scientists down the centuries who believed all sorts of quite out-there stuff "in their spare time" as laptop would put it. The classic example is Isaac Newton who was well into alchemy.

I think some people of a more scientistic worldview have grave difficulty understanding or accepting that rationality is just one part of what it is to be human. They don't like that and get very defensive and aggressive about this inescapable fact. I'm reminded of the Kleinian therapy idea about "owning your feelings". Those of a scientistic (as opposed to scientific) worldview seem to have problems owning their irrationality. They also project their fear of their own irrationality onto others, fulminating against a tide of irrationality which threatens to swamp civilisation when perhaps they're expressing fears about their own personal psychology

Seriously, though, there’s always been a huge amount of irrationality abroad in the world and nothing I’ve read on this thread has addressed even remotely persuaded me that the times we live in now are somehow different.


scientism


disputed wiki article on scientism


Can I just stress here that I loathe pseudoscience - the first thing I used to turn to every Thursday when I read the Guardian was Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column. Pseudoscience irritates the fuck out of, depresses and occasionally even scares me. And I don't have a theistic worldview either.

imo as science is an approach founded on empiricism. Extremely successful as it is, there is no explanation for why empiricism should work, so the “why?” part of a lot of peoples’ psyches (including some scientists) will continue to remain active in other areas.

 

[Stigmata]

^I think Gregor Mendel is a good example of the fact that science and religion are not necesarily mutually exclusive.

 

[MysteryGuest]

Actually I'd like to turn things round, as a bit of a thought experiment.

I've just been watching the King Without A Crown video by Hasidic Reggae artist Matisyahu. I don't believe in his worldview at all, but would this piquant and exotic, slightly melancholic yet at the same time heart-gladdening music have been possible if the belief systems behind it had been successfully expunged from human culture?


Another somewhat different example that springs to mind is Charlemagne Palestine, who treats stuffed cuddly toys as animist totems and who performs surrounded by them (scroll down a couple of paragraphs of that interview for discussion). Without that irrationality, his art wouldn't even exist. Perhaps one should be worried about the scientistic worldview that seeks to annihilate all unreason, even life-affirming unreason such as this, because all unreason is on principle impermissible and must be destroyed. Yes it is indeed a bad thing when people are conned, but I get a feeling of straw man about many of these imprecations against "mumbo jumbo" - I feel that in an artistic context the most imaginative mumbo-jumbo possible should be encouraged.

 

[Poi E]

. Religion is inherently more irrational than capitalism.

The two go hand in hand when you look at the current regime in the USA.

 

[phildwyer]

Religion is inherently more irrational than capitalism.

This is perhaps the most egregious error of postmodern ideology. The monotheistic religions are constructed around rationalism, and in effect equate God with Reason. Capitalism, in sharp contrast, is utterly irrational, since its basic assumption is that something purely illusory--financial value-- has a real existence and an independent power.

 

[Aldebaran]

All these are the direct result of the fetishization of reason, which is the fatal and terminal error of human history.

No. They are the direct result of typical human failure to look beyond the own - direct, and wanted - interests and results.

Yet I agree that we currently see the results of a time period where everything which even remotely can be given the label "rational" becomes immediately over-estimated and placed on a throne without much questioning if that is a place it deserves.


salaam.

 

[phildwyer]

Yet I agree that we currently see the results of a time period where everything which even remotely can be given the label "rational" becomes immediately over-estimated and placed on a throne without much questioning if that is a place it deserves.

Quite so. In other words, reason has become an idol, a *fetish.* Let me repeat here that a fetish of something is the opposite of its essence.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think it's that.

The difference from, say, 25 years ago is that we have more states that have been partly captured by visible forms of organised militant irrationality - the US, Zimbabwe, Israel, Iran...

You forgot the most agressive murderous of all:
The USA, completely dominated by the irrational that is sold as rational to the lazy gullible.
Even when looking purely from direct and long term US economical strategy, the current US government ideology influencing its policy is totally irrational, especially in the way they try to achieve their goals.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

The idea that rationality = science = atheism and therefore irrationality = religion = doom doesn't stand up.

No, it doesn't. The rational thinking of the poster is blinded by some weird prejudice. Probably born out of ignorance.

Religious people are capable of rational thought and civilised behaviour - though fundamentalism does worry me.

I would think that I am.
Fundamentalism is a word referring to Christians in the USA. It doesn't exist in the context of Islam. (I call those who twist Islam to abuse religion to serve their goal "Radicals".)

salaam.

 

[laptop]

@Aldebaran:

the US,

Meanwhile... Some posters have been responding defensively to the implied attack on irrationality.

Would they like to say where they stand on snake-handling tongue-speaking nutters?

Or, for that matter, on the suitability of people who believe that their god is about to destroy the world and that before it happens they will be lifted bodily into a place called "heaven" to be in charge of policies that could, er, end the world?

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm not entirely convinced that scientific progress has happened in spite of religion rather than being helped by it in any significant way.

In Islam it is a command to study. Study is recommended to all as being even better then praying. The reason for this is simple: If you study, you not only use the gifts of Allah administered to you by your creation and hence show gratitude. All you study ultimately stemms from Allah. Hence by studying, you explore creation and try to understand it, hence you try to get a better knowledge of Allah.

Religious people may be capable of thought and rational behaviour - but religion is essentially a power-structure based on motivating people on the basis of something that can't be proved - on the basis of irrationality. Things like love and compassion have this funny way of going out the window in favour of hate and violence.

1.Can you prove God doesn't exist? How? If you can't, how is your assertion that God doesn't exist rational?
On an other discussion board I once proved God exists in the (human perception of) abstract. Can you even prove God doesn't exist in the abstract?

2.You have a wrong view on the essence of religion.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Meanwhile... Some posters have been responding defensively to the implied attack on irrationality.

Would they like to say where they stand on snake-handling tongue-speaking nutters?

Or, for that matter, on the suitability of people who believe that their god is about to destroy the world and that before it happens they will be lifted bodily into a place called "heaven" to be in charge of policies that could, er, end the world?

Sorry, overlooked you did mention it. (I'm a bit tired, hence my twinbrother Dyslex attacks = I overlook easily shorter words etc...)

I have no clue what you refer to
Probably the "armageddon" believers, but then I would first need more information on what that actually is supposed to be. My study on Chrsitianity is limited to Catholicism.


salaam.

 

[laptop]

Probably the "armageddon" believers

A subset of them. Your search keyword is "Rapture".

 

[Aldebaran]

No. All over the world there are religious fundamentalists commiting attrocities and doing damage. People "expressing views" is not the same thing.

I suppose you are talking about GW Bush & Crew?

Religion is inherently more irrational than capitalism.

capitalism comes down to the creation, sustainment and constant renewal of a want for unneccesary goods in order to invoke consumerism and to create the situation in which people even have to pay to the capitalists for necessary goods, like the water resources of their own country.
It creates mass debts, complete depency of the masses, widens and deepens the gap between the haves and the have nots and only serves creation, sustainment and enlargement of the financial capital owned by the world's few Real Capitalists.
Hence these Real Capitalists are the only ones who could eventually claim that there is something rational in the Capitalist System.

salaam.

 

[Poi E]

Good observation there Aldebaran.

The worlds real capitalists are venture capitalists and fund managers, I suppose. But even they are just employees in drag.

 

[Crispy]

1.Can you prove God doesn't exist? How? If you can't, how is your assertion that God doesn't exist rational?
On an other discussion board I once proved God exists in the (human perception of) abstract. Can you even prove God doesn't exist in the abstract?

God exists in the abstract like unicorns exist in the abstract. They are a well defined mental construct that everybody agrees on - behaviour and so on. We could construct all sorts of reasonable stories and facts about unicorns, and it would all be self consistent. However, I cannot prove a negative - and this is not how to win an argument. The onus is on you to convince me that god exists, as an addition ot the world that I can detect with my senses.

 

[Stigmata]

God exists in the abstract like unicorns exist in the abstract. They are a well defined mental construct that everybody agrees on - behaviour and so on. We could construct all sorts of reasonable stories and facts about unicorns, and it would all be self consistent. However, I cannot prove a negative - and this is not how to win an argument. The onus is on you to convince me that god exists, as an addition ot the world that I can detect with my senses.

IMO the lack of solid evidence either way makes theism and atheism equally irrational. To me, rationalism in this context entails acknowledging that we do not know the truth at this point.

 

[Poi E]

On that basis we should then admit the possibility of polytheism, I suppose.

 

[Stigmata]

Fair enough. Hindus believe in it, maybe they're on to something.

 

[laptop]

On that basis we should then admit the possibility of polytheism, I suppose.

Oh, my Flying Spaghetti Monster. The probabalistic argument.

The only thing we know about gods is that their number is an integer.

We can imagine universes containing 0, 1, 2, 3... ∞ gods.

We have no grounds* for assuming that the universe we inhabit is in any way special.

Therefore the probable number of gods is ∞/2

* Except, of course, for things that we may hear gods or voices say. But on average ∞/4 of the voices we hear should say that the universe is mundane, and ∞/4 that it's special because it contains, er, them.

 

[Poi E]

Yeah, that sounds right. After a few drinks. I really should be outside but contemplating irrelevancies is distracting.

 

[Aldebaran]

God exists in the abstract like unicorns exist in the abstract. They are a well defined mental construct that everybody agrees on - behaviour and so on.

1. You don't give any proof that the unicorn exists in the abstract by saying that it does exist in the abstract.
2. You don't even give proof that myths about the existence of the unicorn cannot be linked with an idea concerning the existence of the Divine.
3. The concept "God" is all but a well defined mental construct that everybody agrees on.

We could construct all sorts of reasonable stories and facts about unicorns, and it would all be self consistent.

I think if you start inventing stories about unicorns, you could come on thin ice when arguing about it with an expert on popular ancient myths.

However, I cannot prove a negative - and this is not how to win an argument.

You claim that God does not exist and that this is fact, and then you say you can't prove it because it is a negative?
In my view that is as much as admitting that you don't even have an argument.

The onus is on you to convince me that god exists, as an addition ot the world that I can detect with my senses.

Correction: You must convince me that the world you detect with your senses is in fact the world as it truly exists and hence also the world as it must exist for me and for everyone else.
You must also convince me that there is nothing more to and nothing beyond the world as you say you detect with your senses.
Good luck. I think we are bound to go on for a few years and I think you are on the loosing end to start with

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

IMO the lack of solid evidence either way makes theism and atheism equally irrational. To me, rationalism in this context entails acknowledging that we do not know the truth at this point.

It is indeed equally irrational from a purely rational point of view, since there is no way anyone can "know" the truth about it.

salaam.

 

[Poi E]

Correction: You must convince me that the world you detect with your senses is in fact the world as it truly exists and hence also the world as it must exist for me and for everyone else.
You must also convince me that there is nothing more to and nothing beyond the world as you say you detect with your senses.
Good luck. I think we are bound to go on for a few years and I think you are on the loosing end to start with

salaam.

Maybe it's a matter of priorities rather than argument. If I ignore the material, I'm stuffed. Disregarding spiritual speculation has not affected my happiness.

 

[Aldebaran]

Maybe it's a matter of priorities rather than argument. If I ignore the material, I'm stuffed. Disregarding spiritual speculation has not affected my happiness.

Did you ever give it a thought that the material is possibly the golden cage you live in, not knowing what is outside, hence not missing it and even oblivious to the fact that you are in the cage?
Why do you think you are happy? Where does this happiness comes from and what if all of a sudden your material world changes drastically? Couldn't it be an enriching, interesting experience for you to explore life beyond the material which confines you to your self-chosen limitations?

salaam.

 

[Poi E]

Yes, some people need it. I find the beauty that I divine from the world around me to be enough, though. Maybe I'm blessed with the love of family, friends and a special someone.

 

[Crispy]

IMO the lack of solid evidence either way makes theism and atheism equally irrational. To me, rationalism in this context entails acknowledging that we do not know the truth at this point.

I guess it's safe to say there may well be unicorns then?
Anyway, let's not get onto the existence of god. As much as it seems like a contradiction, I think it's possible to believe in god but still approach the material world in a rational way (as Aldebaran kinda points out)

 

[phildwyer]

Correction: You must convince me that the world you detect with your senses is in fact the world as it truly exists

Only a fool believes that the world of the senses is the "real" world. It is the world of *appearance,* and appearance is by definition distinct from reality.