Rationalism and religion

by Narkissos 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  NARK says: "I feel what we usually call "irrationality" plays a very important, albeit provisional and transitory, role. For instance when one's rationality comes to a crisis, i.e. when our presuppositions change. As a JW I would have sworn that I had been rationally convinced of the three presuppositions to my religious rationality. But now I know this was not the case. I chose to believe because I chose to believe. And I later chose to disbelieve, or believe something else, because I chose so.

  I need the light of day. But I also need the darkness of night and its "irrational" dreams (which still belong to language, even though they don't seem so). Both motivate my actions, even if the daylight falsely claims everything."

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

  Hmmm. Are you saying we have to beat our head against the wall to appreciate how much better it feels NOT to?

  Presuppositions are __provisional_assessement. They are hypothesis. They are a rough sketch in need of further fleshing out. Reality smacks us and wakes us up and we see what needs erasing and what further details are needed.

  Living on Presuppositions is dangerous. All knowledge is provisional. All Concepts must needs remain open to further advancements or refinement.

  When we CHOOSE TO BELIEVE we are, in effect saying, "I don't know and my ignorance is the foundation for what I do next".

  Most of us can get by with making hundreds of errors. We do so every day. It is not the errors we cherish, however, it is the recalibration that is important. If we do not RECALIBRATE, we are by definition fools. Nobody consciously embraces being a fool.

  I'm not really sure how much you are embracing the "darkness". That disturbs me. I'll assume it is hyperbole.
• 

  Cicatrix

  "If you can be convinced you cannot trust your own perceptions and your own rational mind you are left defenseless to any wild and wooly claim or colorful story or feel-good scenario by any shyster or emissary of God's wild kingdom."
  
  I agree. That's why I stand by my opinion;)Perhaps my experience will change my opinion with time. But until I reach the end of my life, I will not close myself off to the explanations of others, nor stop investigating what exactly perception is.
  
  It seems that there is an example of a difference of perception here on this board. I gave a definition of "religious" that came verbatim from my dictionary, that stated that religious is defined as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality OR deity."
  
  Atheists are convinced that objective thinkers endeavoring to apply rational standards use Reality as a standard.Is this application not ultimate reality?What could be a more ultimate reality than Reality itself?
  
  My dictionary also says that religion can mean "A personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs and practices." and "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
  
  My dictionary is real and tangible, and it has these definitions in it that I can read, and that can fit the Atheist ideology that "objective thinkers endeavoring to apply rational standards use Reality as a standard."
  
  This is an application of ultimate reality. You hold to it with ardor and faith, discounting and trying to dissuade any one who disagrees with your system of beliefs. Therefore, my perception is that Atheism is a religion, using my dictionary's definitions. I find this to be very reasonable.
  
  Perhaps you are offended by my perception, because you view religion only as being any "wild and wooly claim or colorful story or feel-good scenario." In that case, I would understand why you feel as you do about Atheism being classed as a religion. But for the record, I don't have that view of religion. I respect your opinion and your concern that others not be hurt by religion, and enjoy reading what you have to share about Reality and reason.
  
  As far as all of those mystic thinkers who are corrupting the new crop of college students, well, I didn't learn about any of them in college.I didn't take philosophy, my psych teacher was an atheist, and my mythology teacher taught mythology as MYTHS (although he didn't cover Hebrew mythology to avoid offending Christians in the class).
  
  Oh, and the Reverend of my church is an Atheist, btw;)
• 

  Cicatrix

  Congrats on your thousandth post, Narkissos:)
• 

  Narkissos

  Living on Presuppositions is dangerous.

  Living is dangerous.

  That disturbs me.

  That was meant to.
• 

  Cicatrix

  "I feel what we usually call "irrationality" plays a very important, albeit provisional and transitory, role. For instance when one's rationality comes to a crisis, i.e. when our presuppositions change. As a JW I would have sworn that I had been rationally convinced of the three presuppositions to my religious rationality. But now I know this was not the case. I chose to believe because I chose to believe. And I later chose to disbelieve, or believe something else, because I chose so.
  
  I need the light of day. But I also need the darkness of night and its "irrational" dreams (which still belong to language, even though they don't seem so). Both motivate my actions, even if the daylight falsely claims everything."
  
  Nicely put, Narkissos, this is what I was trying to illustrate in a round about way. I tend to feel it's an evolutionary and cyclical sort of thing that can rear up when events in life create a crisis situation. I'm wondering if we ever outgrow the need for "irrational dreams."
  
  I kind of hope not:)
• 

  Terry

  Narkissos says:

  Terry,

  You'll have to tell me someday how Nietzsche is Kant's co-conspirator. The charge you level at both is exactly the one Nietzsche levels at Kant as far as I remember.

  _______________________________________________________________________________

  They are both mystics!

  Nietzche took emotion as a form of reason (which is nonsense) and Kant made the rational mind defenseless. Neitzche gave us Hitler and Kant gave us generations of religious slaves working for the Common Good by doing their "duty".
• 

  jgnat

  The pseudo-rationalism I can do without are the "proofs" from those who have already presupposed that the Bible supercedes perception. I have chosen to live with unknowns. Such as, what happens when I die, where God lives, etc. These will remain unknown, before bible-believers try and "help" me answer these questions, because I cannot independently corroborate the evidence from the Bible from my own perception. I chose to remain Christian regardless. My God sacrifices himself for people, and I am honored to follow His example. Whether this is a construct of my own mind or Truth does not matter, it has the same effect on me. I believe I am living the Christian life in the way Jesus intended.

  Thank you, Narkissos, for laying out the rationalizations I have made for myself. ...and here I thought it could not be articulated. Bravo, and bravo for reaching 1000.

  By the way, Terry, I did not become a Christian out of fear, nor do I remain in fear.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Great thread. Everyone's posts have been interesting.

  On the topic of whether JW doctrine can be said to be rational, my opinion is that - even given their presuppositions - it is not a rational belief system. Rationality entails dedication to reality. JW doctrines are held together with baling wire and bubble gum and rely on publishers never, ever questioning them openly. Submit their doctrines to the tiniest amount of scrutiny and they fall apart. Therefore, any semblance of rationality is only a fake construct designed to look like logic. The gold test happens for Witnesses when they start feeling that peculiar, horriffic sensation of danger whenever contrary evidence begins to appear. This fact alone should convince any Witness to re-evaluate how rational his belief system really is.

  The "rationality" of JW doctrines is rather like a facade on a Hollywood set. Sure, it looks like a courthouse. It has lots of nice colums and stairs and oak doors. Yes, the Watchtower uses lots of "therefores" and "A = B = C" expressions and the occasional references to expository dictionaries and first-century writings. But walk through those oak doors and you'll have the jaw-dropping experience of realizing that it was all just an elaborate hoax. There is no rationality in the Watchtower world. Only pained attempts to simulate it.

  SNG
• 

  Euphemism

  Narkissos... great topic! I think, however, that there's a difference between rationality and rationalism.

  Rationality, to me, implies the use of valid reasoning; i.e. self-consistent principles of inference. (And I agree with SNG that even on merely internal consistency, the WTS doctrine fails.) Rationalism, OTOH, is more a philosophical position; specifically the one that Terry espouses so ardently.

  Of course, as malleable as language is, the words can have other meanings. Rationality, for example, can signify simply the use of the brain's reasoning capacity, independent of the validity of the principles of inference. And rationalism can mean a dedication to rationality, in either form. In that sense, the Witnesses are rationalist, with their claimed reliance on reason as sole epsitemology.

  Personally, I am a rationalist in the latter sense, but not in the former. I do believe that reason, in the abstract, is the ultimate expression of the real world; but humans, for all our logical capacity, are not creatures of reason. We are easily overcome by bias even when we try to avoid it, and we can usually sustain contradictory notions with little effort, which is a logical abhorrence. Expecting true rationalism out of human minds is, IMHO, fruitless idealism.
• 

  onintwo

  Guilt is such a powerful motivator. Can't think of a religion that doesn't use it. Fear factor needle pegged at about 1000!

  Onintwo