Reiver, you might be interested to take a look at a National Geographic cover story from a few months back; it cites a startling new archaeological find in Eastern Turkey, and suggests that it gives evidence that it was human preoccupation with symbolism, ritual, and magical beliefs which was the factor which first promoted the establishment of settled human communities. After such communities came into being, the logic of needing to produce the resources to support the community kicked in, leading to farming, animal husbandry, and more elaborated political structures. (Moreover, the centrality of symbolism in everyday human life would on its own reinforce customary practices surrounding the raising of food, and the development of political institutions...) In the end, a sort of "para-rationality" and belief in the "para-natural" might be the most signal trait of our species; our species is one which has an overdeveloped causation-detection faculty, one which inclines us to overgeneralize causal forces in our environment, to attribute cause where none can be directly observed. Hence the central importance of the symbolic in our everyday consciousness. But whereas a more nuanced, more expansive definition of "rationality" is probably required to adequately understand the behavior of our species (this definition at once explicating both the utility and disutility of religious faith), it is not the sort of rationality that can be reduced to the rationality of economic calculation, a la 'rational choice' theories. The trope of economic rationality, just like that of scientific rationality, is a latter-day development in human civilization, one wherein our natural dispositions to para-rationality are heavily edited, with very specific ends in view - viz., an (obsessive?) focus on efficient causation, as opposed to more teleological approaches.
I have only dealt with here and now. I've seen that as important as, if religious irrationality can be assumed, its going to be shown now with our rapid scientific and income growth. Why isn't it?
Well... we've probably gone over this ground before, but to rehearse my position: the disutility of religious beliefs in a era like our own (marked by science as the ideal paradigm of the rational) should be evident. Look at Muslim Middle Eastern societies: classic traditionalist societies, the whole lot of them produce fewer scientific papers than Spain does on an annual basis. Allergic to classical Liberal political-economic calculation, these countries remain unfree, economically backward states. Moreover, just a casual glance at the fortunes of Christianity in the Western world, reveals that Christian belief is under pressure; both from increasing indifference, as well as sharp ideological attacks. We should note that the rot of Christian belief has progressed furthest in its European homelands. Just as the influence of modern patterns of thought have been working longest in Europe, the influence of Christianity in that area has declined more than anywhere else. It is reasonable to conclude that those trend-lines are only going to continue. America in the coming generations is also going to see declining faith (indeed, it is already happening: it is a development closely tied to the the consumer-choice model of church affiliation) and a robust anti-theist movement. Wanton ignorance in the form of the denial of evolution and denial of climate-change science, are also irrational beliefs that are embraced by the religious, and will in the not-too-distant-future serve to discredit their whole belief system. So, in general, even if we restrain the scope of the analysis per your premise, the disutility of religion (at least in the West) is slowly but steadily coming apparent. One cannot imagine monotheism existing, at least in any form we would recognize, in 500 years time.
Its not possible to use disutility in that context. We may find any negative impact on the economy disagreeable, but it can be understood within exchange theory (where the utility from a specific form of religion is deemed to be paramount). Its within a macro religious choice that we can appreciate the impact on utility. As an atheist I still benefit from religious attitudes that reduce unsafe sex, alcohol consumption and higher education investments. Even with reductions in religious demand we can utilise standard economic theory. For example, those reductions are larger in countries dominated by one specific Christian denomination. A lack of innovation generated by monopoly power no less! I certainly agree that religion provides a means to allow 'wanton ignorance' to grow. However, we can say the same with many investments in social groups. See some of them on here!
Everyone agrees that religion provides means to allow 'wanton ignorance' to grow, because everyone can watch it looking at the current example of worshipers of religious cults of evolution, climate change, black holes, multiple universes and other cults the half-educated ignoramuses are trying to substitute observed and sensed reality with. However I see no sense in the rest of your arguments, only you know what the heck all that could mean.
Everyone agrees? Don't be silly now! To be fair to the religious, most of them that I know aren't creationists and embrace scientific analysis. Perhaps you should have 'read up' on rational choice theory before responding? It seems strange that you'll refer to ignorance whilst demonstrating an inability to reply with knowledge
Once again, how is it rational to accept the moral, ethical and superstitious beliefs of people dead for thousands of years as a way to live today? Do you honestly think the ignorant savage and superstitious people of 2000 years ago had more knowledge, reason and information to format a set of laws, morals and understanding of community than modern man does?
Why is it rational to reject them without actually reading them or finding something that is irrelevant today? I mean is firendship suddenly passe? Love? Does money NOW not distort morality as it did in the past? Are we a perfectly just society? Is there no need for charity? Compassion? Is wisdom suddenly boring? hmmm ... most people figured this out thousands of years ago, and your still struggling with it .... because of how intelligent you are. So fire away, what is it you find so perplexing about the teachings of Jesus?
If utility is gained from accepting superstitious beliefs then its easy to embed it within a model based on rationality The secularisation thesis, whilst there is some evidence in its support, has certainly not provided us with an understanding of religious trends.
You agreed with other guy, I agreed with you, and there has been no objection against us. What is silly in stating that everyone agrees? This is exactly what I am saying, - religious embrace scientific analysis. Come again, what is your problem? Thanks for clarification. This is what I was asking for. I never thought that in order to understand somebody’s posts on PF one should first ‘read up’ on rational choice theory or any other theory for that matter. I stand all correct, - only you know what the heck all that could mean. What is strange? I do not have knowledge of rational choice theory. I don’t think I am even capable of gaining such knowledge … ….or any knowledge for that matter. How then you would expect me to reply with knowledge? Would you agree that you are totally ignorant of the reality where they teach that “you are not here to gain any knowledge, you try and you are out. We teach you not to know..”. I was taught not to know anything in my upbringing. You cannot even imagine such an upbringing, can you? Would you agree that you are totally ignorant of realities existing around you? Now when the matters are clarified why don’t you make a disclaimer for your posts: “Not for those who do not have knowledge of rational choice theory or any other knowledge” so at least some people including myself would be warned and skip over another declaration of blind ignorance and inability to conduct an intelligent conversation? As I’ve been saying only you know what the heck all that could mean. That is if to give you the benefit of doubt. Brushing all doubt aside, for sure you don’t.
The truth has been spoken. Scientific achievement will never eliminate ignorance, stupidity and childish fear it represents and expresses.
Religious rationality gives the game away somewhat! I found a little irony in you referring to ignorance when your whole response was based on a knowledge 'hole'.
Did you really have to repeat the same little attempt to an ad hom twice? If you have nothing to answer, just dont answer. The public will decide who is ignorant.
Just trying to help. Referring to ignorance when only replying with knowledge deficiency just isn't cunning! Get back to me if you bother to try and respond with knowledge
What help? I spent years learning not to have knowledge, something you are totally ignorant of like a Native American 300 years ago was ignorant of fire arms, and now you want me to turn into a savage. You're reapeating the same suggestion the 3rd time. Where is help, what would be my motivation?
I'm not sure I even understand what this means. Can you give a specific example? Something that people have claimed is counter to what you say but you would argue that it's not.
I did actually look in some detail at the article. Some points were better than others. Here's the main thing I would comment on. Reason (which I take to be identical with logic as I've never been able to delineate any difference) is merely about internal consistency. So while I would agree that there is nothing stopping a religious infrastructure from being entirely consistent within itself, and hence technically rational, I would not agree that this means it will have any relationship to the observed world. Simply, while religion can be rational (even though I would argue that in many cases it factually is not), this is not sufficient for it to be scientific.
I don't try to bulldoze over how perceptions have been derived. I do, however, acknowledge that perceptions that I find wanting are still consistent with rationality. For example, right wingers will utilise myths in order to hide from debate. I personally love debate; I therefore find such behaviour bleedin despicable. However, its easily understood within a rationality framework Now I'm neither positive or negative over religious behaviour. Its been a dramatic mass killer but it also creates positive externalities that we all benefit from. I just appreciate that the atheist rant about religion is itself an assault on rationality
Now that truly expresses an oxymoron. Common : that which is not based on intellectualism but instead is commonly applied to all ... + sense: the abilities of the intellect.... standing in opposition to 'methodological expectation'... a 'words of art': probably derived from the congregations within the synagogues of science (intellectualism as a religion).
But I still doubt that religion is required or expected to be rational. I just allowed that it COULD be and STILL be totally divorced from reality. This is why I asked for an example.
Nuclear Argument. Your clear intent is to equate reason and fantasy, thereby rendering argument itself impossible.
