Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: August 20, 2019 02:35PM
It would appear that many times human beings replace reason with religion. They attach themselves to a concept or religion and then turn over their entire lives to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of that organization.
COMMENT: You seem to be suggesting in this post either: (1) That religion is per se irrational; i.e. that you can be religious or rational, but not both; or (2) that most or many people who adhere to religious faith do so at the expense of rational thinking. Both suppositions are false in my view. Here's why:
Religious faith usually has nothing to do with any lack or sacrifice of rationality. The vast majority of religious people adhere to their faith based upon rationally assessed facts and values. It is this mixture of facts and values that cause problems for "evidence" and/or "truth" but they do not undermine rationality. Rationality involves the making of valid inferences from one's assessment of external facts, one's particular circumstances, and one's personal inner values; i.e what one deems to be important in life for whatever reason.
Facts, particularly metaphysical facts, are illusive; it is not easy or always possible to determine which are true, which are likely to be true, or which are unlikely to be true, or likely to be false, and just where the probabilities lie. Moreover, which facts are rationally accepted depends not just upon which are most probably true, but also upon which facts may be true but also have the virtue of being useful, or morally preferable. Suppose you are lost in a vast forest. The facts tell you that it is highly improbable that a town will be discovered just beyond the next ridge. However, such a belief might very well be motivationally useful, as you go from one ridge to the next trying to save yourself. As such, it is quite rational to accept the "irrational" belief that maybe the town will be there, and with that belief push yourself to check.
In short, we pick and choose what "facts" we want to accept, coupled with our values and circumstances and then make rational decisions about our worldview; including whether or not we believe in some religious dogma. This process is just as rational as the atheist who makes rational decisions based upon placing a premium on the value of truth and evidence over other things, like existential comfort, or moral grounding.
In short, it is certainly possible for the religious to engage in irrational beliefs; e.g. beliefs that are inconsistent with their other beliefs, or inconsistent with known and established scientific facts, like the age of the earth. But the atheist can also be irrational. An atheist who refuses to believe that there is a town beyond the next ridge because of an evidentiary and/or probability assessment, might then just sit down and die, allowing himself to be controlled by probabilities. Arguably, that too is irrational in that context.
I have an acquaintance who is TBM and very smart. She knows full well that the Church makes no sense from an evidentiary point of view, or from an objective assessment of its probability of being true. Yet, she believes. When I asked why, she responded: "Because it offers family stability and grounding as well as a hope that life has ultimate meaning. Plus, I just feel that it is right." Is she being irrational? Not at all!
Thus, rationality is a mental exercise that is deeply personal. Denying it haphazardly to "the religious" should therefore be avoided.