Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
This does suppose that rationality and logic are exclusively best...and viewing the world in those terms can be dangerous. There is, quite simply, more to the universe than what can be rationally known. From the very beginning of our tenure as a species, there have been attempts to tap in to that reality...an area that empirical thought simply cannot understand.
Moreover, it's an unbelievable assumption to claim that all forms of religious consciousness are irrational, and damage the human existance. There is hardly anything, dare i say it, rational about claiming something that you cannot prove.
|
Just to clear up, I didn't mean to say that
all religions are damaging, just that some are, and others have a great potential to be. Other times they are the cause of great attrocities. Now, I do understand however, that things done by evil people in the name of a religion does not imply that the religion is evil.
However, i stand by what I said about the irationality of religion. If you were to take a soley rational view of the world, you would have no reason to believe in a god. However, people have a tendancy to "personalise". What I mean by this, is that the place an over-emphasis on their emotions, as if they were the most important thing in the world. They don't want to accept their insignificance in the cosmic scheme of things, so choose to comfort themselves with a God who loves them, or some other sort of unfounded belief.
When this was discussed in my (mandatory) religion cass in secondary school (think, high school) I was debating the debate for atheism as a tiny minority. Eventually I accused someone of believing just for the sake of believing without making any effort to confirm her beliefs, or looking for any evidence to confirm or deny what she believed. Then eventually she came out with the line: "I believe because I believe", and then gave me a look as if she had just crushed me withing her iron claws of irrefutible logic!
Don't try and tell me that that isn't irational.
I will use the same example I used in the
atheism thread. If I were to tell you that I believe in the invisible purple llama that lives under my bed, would you consider
me rational? I doubt it.
You then go in and start poking under the bed with sticks and then tell me that you don't feel the llama, so it mustn't be there.
I tell you that the llama is there, I just know it, and that it cannot be poked with sticks, its not a normal llama.
I get lonely at nights sometimes, but then I remember that I am not alone, my pet llama is there to comfort me. I can
feel that he is there. He loves me you know.
What is the difference between God and my invisible pet llama?
I will concede that there is definately more to this universe than we already know.
It is also quite likely that there is more to the universe than we can ever experience. Take for instance the possibility of a fourth spacial dimension, one which we can never percieve directly or indirectly.
However, just because there are things that we do not know (or things which we can never know) does not give carte blanche to go ahead and arbitarily make up what-ever stories you feel like, and claim them to be equally valid as any empirical knowledge. Scientists do sometimes allow themsevles to indulge in letting their minds wander, and coming up with various ideas, expainations and events that are less than grounded in reality. sometimes they even get published. They are called science-
fiction novels, and some are indeed very entertaining.
I will admit also that pure logic and rational thinking can be dangerous to society. Being completely logical, and rational and egocentric can lead to a sort of hedonistic nihilism, which I feel many people in this world have reached. The problem lies in what is known as the prisoners dillema.