I strongly support the premise that religion can be understood within an understanding of rationality. I reject the hypothesis from sociology that, with scientific advancement, religion will eventually die. However, when is someone following an apparent religious belief really just a victim of a cult? Alternatively, can we reject the whole notion of 'cults' as a means to try and ensure more orthodox religious beliefs?
This is the theory I prefer. "Cult" is a label used by religious orthodoxy to ensure their continued power and influence.
Solid thinking for example; religions are to invoke understanding of personal responsibility, not to create pawns and worship to a diety. ie.... pharoahs like to be worshipped but nothing of empathy would ever please explain ie... if everybody dropped on their head at birth was given an owners manual as to 'how it works' or purely 'understanding' then why would anyone need a diety to beg from or appease, or any type of worchip? If each undertood what they are and what their life is for, then why would anyone need something fake to be the cause-all to what is not understood? when the belief assist in understanding. ie.... do unto others as you would have them do unto you i doubt it as each want others to be like them; understand the rules of their accepted belief-paradigm
It goes back to the likes of Lenski who summarised sociology in the 60s as "committed to the positivist view that that religion in the modern world is merely a survival from mans primitive past, and doomed to disappear in an era of science and general enlightenment" I haven't understood your 'cult' comments. Could you enlarge on them?
i see my error. Rituals are the ignorance of a cult. in contrast; many religions assist in comprehending basic empathy without sharing why or how or what for. The "what for" is best understood when applied to self. but i made my error in addressing your inquiry by not addressing how a victim is observed. Rituals show the 'cult' of the religious personality
But Religion is spoken of as being "irrational". How can something that is irrational become rationalized other than by mere acceptance of the thing being rationalized?
Eh? Faith, for example, isn't irrational (we can just have factor in 'after life' utility). I'm more interested in the 'cult' analysis, particularly given the suggested (and arguably exaggerated) attack on free will
No! I have not 'gone off on one'. I am still attempting to resolve the issue behind the 'rationality' thing. Rationalizing, as stated in the definition, is To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior). Therefore, rationalizing, would be forming a 'false belief'. So why 'rationalize'? Do you always make it a point of believing a lie when the truth is too inconvenient?
History and the good lord shows that the right to self righteous treatment and dictation of manuscripts of the old are born upon us by the food of the alcoholic, and those imprisoned for evil doings which were guided by the false devil of Abraham and john. This is not debatable due to the religious superiority of those who hold the scripture of dark forest and non level thinkers of the Noahs ark movement of 400 AD. Some will argue that Jesus is not in the movie but is playing a doctor in real life. If you understand this post, than you are not likely a *********, sovereign citizen, or republican. If you dont understand this post and have only a one liner attack against me. Know this, I do not get in to a war of intellect with a fool who has no weapons. What would jesus do?, The devil mad me do it.
Rationalising, within a behavioural theory approach, would refer- for example- to the use of religious beliefs to minimise the disutility generated through the fear of death. I haven't referred at all to such a phenomenon. I've referred to how religion can be understood within the same approach used to understand investment behaviour. In terms of a simple economic model, we essentially can model religion through constrained maximisation: with the after-life represented directly in the utility function and religious behaviour represented in the 'income constraint'
And.... like the definition of rationalize stipulates... you are attempting to devise self satisfying and incorrect (false) reasons. By not looking at Religion for what it is and by hiding some of the elements behind a different label or tag description, then you are looking at and fabricating a lie in hopes that others will like your lie and follow after your new model.
Repeating your error isn't going to help. I've made a clear distinction between rationalising behaviour (where we consider the consequences of dissonance) and rationality (where we have maximisation behaviour).
Behavior is behavior whether it be maximized or not. Even with your so-called "maximisation behaviour" it results in a course of conduct which translates into 'behavior'. Your distinction amounts to zero distinction. "The assumption of maximizing behavior lies at the heart of economic analysis".... "as·sump·tion (ə sump′s̸hən) noun 1. Religion the taking up of a person into heaven 2. R.C.Ch. 1. the taking up of the body and soul of the Virgin Mary into heaven after her death 2. a church festival on Aug. 15 celebrating this 3. the act of assuming; a taking upon oneself, taking over, or taking for granted 4. anything taken for granted; supposition 5. presumption" "pre·sump·tion (prē zump′s̸hən, pri-) noun 1. the act of presuming; specif., 1. an overstepping of proper bounds; forwardness; effrontery 2. the taking of something for granted" It truly appears that you are taking it upon yourself to realign religion with economics related to finances. In doing so, you are desiring others to follow suit and conduct their affairs AS IF heaven or hell could be bought. That type of attitude oversteps the boundaries of the very foundation of God and religion and especially faith. It further appears that you are attempting to re-write the religious canons so as to make it more appealing to you based upon your private interpretation of those religious precepts. At the end of either scenario, there is the FACT that a particular 'behavior' pattern will be exercised. Therefore, you are engaged in 'rationalizing behavior'; behavior surrounding religious tenets.
Rational and rationalising behaviour are distinct. I've already illustrated that by comparing a cognitive dissonance argument with a standard constrained maximisation approach. The latter certainly can be used to refer to religious rationality. It can also be used to reject the secularisation hypothesis and also offer an explanation for why religion cannot be deemed to be an 'inferior good'
And you just had to throw in a heap of secularized terms to finally end up saying what we already knew. Your last 9 words are the more perfect summary. "..religion cannot be deemed to be an inferior good." So what real point are you trying to make?
I've simply described religious rationality, whilst also noting that its consistent with empirical phenomena. Do you actually understand what I mean by that?
Simply???? Not hardly! If anything, you have hidden your intent with a bunch of terms that the average Christian and the average person are not familiar with. Are you certified in the field wherein those terms are the 'words of art'? Looking at that clause, on a word for word basis, and not taking away from or adding to the definitions of each term used in that clause; YES! I fully understand that clause to mean exactly what it says.... that "..religion cannot be deemed to be an inferior good." Now unless you are claiming some inferred meaning other than what is obvious on its face, then your question is leading and would also mean that your statement constituting the clause would not be obvious but potentially deceptive.
I assume knowledge. Its rude not to Clearly you didn't understand the term. Don't be shy now, you can always ask for clarification. It refers to the impact of income on demand. We can reject that, as income rises (typically reflecting an increase in productivity and therefore know-how), demand for religion falls. Its very much linked to the secularisation hypothesis, which effectively suggests a positive relationship between knowledge and atheism over time.
Well, if there is in existence this suggested "positive relationship between knowledge and atheism,, " then why do atheists have such a hard time understanding and comprehending the Bible? Also, your alleged 'impact of income on demand', may well work within the secular system of economics, but economics has little to do with the activities of religion. Your perception of monetary involvement in and within the church organizations is a little bit skewed. There is and has always been a need for monetary involvement due to the physical needs of the church as in any other organization, however there is no "demand" for payment on the part of the members of such churches.... merely a request that donations be made. Also bear in mind, those donations can be given in what is known in the secularized economy as 'in kind contributions', and even those are on a voluntary basis and exempt from any demand of income. Finally, because you now admit that there was a hidden meaning behind the clause, it stands to reason that there was a deliberate intent to deceive the readers in the goal behind the mentioning of such clause. Words of Art. Economics and the Church are in fact at opposite ends of the spectrum.
BTW: With each of your postings, you are also carrying this thread down the slippery slope of going "off topic". The title of this thread "Religious Rationality" says nothing about 'economics' or 'money' or 'income'. As for me, I am still trying to iron out the issue of the 'rationalizing'... the intentional devising of superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for (one's acts, beliefs, desires, etc.[in this case religion]), usually without being aware that these are not the real motives. So far you have steered away from resolving that issue.
Why would an atheist want to understand the bible? Unless they have some specific reading preferences it would be an exercise in poor time management. Economics perhaps the vehicle to apply rationality to the topic. You've provided no valid critique of that approach. We'd have to suggest that the economic approach is inappropriate, perhaps adapting sociological analysis into cults. You're confusing economics with accountancy now. Its not about money. Its about investments aimed at maximising utility. I only admit that you haven't understood anything I've said but have been too proud to ask for assistance. Pride? Such a sin! You're repeating your previous erroneousness. Rationalising is quite distinct from rational behaviour. For example, with rationalising behaviour we'd expect a link between belief and age (reflecting how our fears of death increase as we age). Rational behaviour, in contrast, would only refer to a link through the impact of changes in marginal utility over time (e.g. a prime-aged male may invest less time in attending church because of the opportunity costs from lost work or leisure)
Then I would suggest that your use of this forum for the purpose of Religious Rationality is a matter of poor time management and a waste of band width; UNLESS the purpose of your rationality is a means of understanding and comprehending the Bible. But then if you don't already understand and comprehend the Bible, then all of your efforts in Religious Rationality is again an "exercise in poor time management. Good suggestion, up to and including only that portion that is emphasized above. Time is money. At least in this secular society. Accountancy is an individual responsibility. But seeing as you have brought up yet another subject.... to whom will this accounting be submitted for final judgment? God? I only admit that you haven't understood anything I've said but have been too proud to ask for assistance. Pride? Such a sin! You're repeating your previous erroneousness. Rationalising is quite distinct from rational behaviour. For example, with rationalising behaviour we'd expect a link between belief and age (reflecting how our fears of death increase as we age). Rational behaviour, in contrast, would only refer to a link through the impact of changes in marginal utility over time (e.g. a prime-aged male may invest less time in attending church because of the opportunity costs from lost work or leisure)[/QUOTE]
Your suggestion would be useless given you have no understanding of my preferences. A juvenile effort. Accountancy is but erroneous comment given the analysis into rationality must focus on economic costs (i.e. without an understanding of what has been foregone there is no means to achieve the optimal result). For the religious we'd require some adaptation of the household production understanding of time allocation, with religious and non-religious goods produced subject to the constraints imposed by work demands and leisure pursuits
