# Successfully incorporate religion into a rational mind: Can it be done?



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

This question has been on my mind quite strongly for the past week or so. The first member from PerC that I added to my friends list (probably two years ago now) was a rather short-lived IxTP, who happened to be both highly intellectual and a devout Christian. He stirred up quite a lot of trouble on the forums - not by being pushy in his religious beliefs, but by being _rational _in them. I became fascinated by the way he calmly explained his philosophy on God - something not far from my own belief that God and Science are two opposing ideas that can never meet. A belief in God requires faith, the absence of proof, while a belief in scientific fact always requires proof. When people try to argue either for or against faith using scientific evidence, they always come up dry, although they will surely never stop trying this pointless exercise until the end of time.

So recently, I decided to keep my mind open and try reading the Bible again. As I was raised Atheist, I have no particular stigma toward religion from personal experience other than observing some people being incredibly stupid in the name of their religion. But still, for some reason the simple act of reading the book unnerved me. And as I looked through various interpretations and modern philosophies concerning this book, I felt more and more unnerved by the fact that I couldn't find anything inherently wrong with it. Nothing says that I have to take these stories literally, and the morality of the New Testament (which is meant to replace the old and rather insane laws in Leviticus) seems like a reasonable combination of Humanism and Eastern philosophy.

I found myself sitting at the kitchen table thinking, "Okay, but why should anyone believe in God? I don't think I could even pretend to accept such baseless nonsense." That's when I realized that I don't fail to believe in God because I'm rational; it's because I'm terrified of the consequences of such a belief. Would I have to give up my own values and take on the values of some book? Would I have to forego my love for rational analysis and put blind faith in one world view? Would I lose my ability to have an open mind? Would I have to feel guilty for things that I don't rightly want to feel guilty for?

I realized that believing in God has very little to do with actual rationality (after all, God doesn't negate free thinking, the exploration of truth, logical thought, etc.; individual religious leaders do that), but it has everything to do with trust. When I get into a relationship, I have to at some point force myself to trust my partner, simply for the sake of my emotional health and our mutual connection. Getting into a relationship with God is a far more terrifying prospect, because rather than trusting him not to break your heart, you have to trust him not to *condemn* you, and not to overpower who you are as a person.

So for the first time in my life, I swallowed my pride, and I took a leap of faith. Just for a moment, I told myself to trust that I would not lose myself or my values. I got on my hands and knees, and I cried. Suddenly so many things came out of me which I had told myself for years I wouldn't feel guilty for, things which I thought I had moved past. I realized that all this time, I had felt ashamed, had hated myself in ways that I kept so deep down they were consuming me. And I felt something releasing me, far more than I ever could forgive myself.

I don't know if there is a place for God in my life. I don't know if it really takes something external to find this kind of comfort in morality. But I'm curious to find out.


----------



## littleblackdress (Feb 24, 2013)

As an atheist, I hate to see fellows jump ship... we still need to reach critical mass. However, I wouldn't wish to curtail your exploration - it is really important to explore the avenues that interest you... hopefully you wind up finding comfort in it - if that is what you seek.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

devoid said:


> I realized that believing in God has very little to do with actual rationality (after all, God doesn't negate free thinking, the exploration of truth, logical thought, etc.; individual religious leaders do that), but it has everything to do with trust. When I get into a relationship, I have to at some point force myself to trust my partner, simply for the sake of my emotional health and our mutual connection. Getting into a relationship with God is a far more terrifying prospect, because rather than trusting him not to break your heart, you have to trust him not to *condemn* you, and not to overpower who you are as a person.


Could you expand on "forcing yourself to trust?" I'm concerned that relating to yourself with anything that you could describe as "force" might have some nasty long-term consequences, especially with organized religion involved. (Still, if you'd prefer Christianity, I've heard good things about the Jesus Radicals. [OK I know basically nothing about them I just really wanted to link them somewhere on PerC eventually.])

When I first started differentiating Fe, "forcing myself" into such and such an attitude was most of what I did with it -- but that never worked very well, and I eventually moved towards "giving voice to however I actually feel" instead. In particular I never "force myself to trust" exactly -- I might reason with myself with Fe about trust, but whether or not I do is still a decision made by that dark and cryptic Fe-ish lobe of my brain, by its own logic and on its own time. Honestly I think that's for the best -- so long as I keep my process healthy, it makes better decisions about these things than the rest of me does.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> Could you expand on "forcing yourself to trust?" I'm concerned that relating to yourself with anything that you could describe as "force" might have some nasty long-term consequences, especially with organized religion involved. (Still, if you'd prefer Christianity, I've heard good things about the Jesus Radicals. [OK I know basically nothing about them I just really wanted to link them somewhere on PerC eventually.])
> 
> When I first started differentiating Fe, "forcing myself" into such and such an attitude was most of what I did with it -- but that never worked very well, and I eventually moved towards "giving voice to however I actually feel" instead. In particular I never "force myself to trust" exactly -- I might reason with myself with Fe about trust, but whether or not I do is still a decision made by that dark and cryptic Fe-ish lobe of my brain, by its own logic and on its own time. Honestly I think that's for the best -- so long as I keep my process healthy, it makes better decisions about these things than the rest of me does.


I am extremely paranoid. When a new person touches me, I have the urge to punch them and run away. So yes, I do have to literally force myself to trust a new partner not to hurt me. They have to earn it of course, but in the end it's my choice, and it's not an easy one for me. It's rather like forcing yourself to drink medicine that tastes bad when you know rationally that it won't hurt you in any way, and may in fact help. It's not like I continually force myself to trust; it's just the one initial moment where my paranoia makes me want to stay in bed and shut the world away.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

devoid said:


> I am extremely paranoid. When a new person touches me, I have the urge to punch them and run away. So yes, I do have to literally force myself to trust a new partner not to hurt me. They have to earn it of course, but in the end it's my choice, and it's not an easy one for me. It's rather like forcing yourself to drink medicine that tastes bad when you know rationally that it won't hurt you in any way, and may in fact help. It's not like I continually force myself to trust; it's just the one initial moment where my paranoia makes me want to stay in bed and shut the world away.


Gotchya. I might call that courage rather than force then, but whatever language works for you.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> Gotchya. I might call that courage rather than force then, but whatever language works for you.


Yeah... but I guess that seemed too determined. xP


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

devoid said:


> So recently, I decided to keep my mind open and try reading the Bible again. As I was raised Atheist, I have no particular stigma toward religion from personal experience other than observing some people being incredibly stupid in the name of their religion. But still, for some reason the simple act of reading the book unnerved me. And as I looked through various interpretations and modern philosophies concerning this book, I felt more and more unnerved by the fact that I couldn't find anything inherently wrong with it. Nothing says that I have to take these stories literally, and the morality of the New Testament (which is meant to replace the old and rather insane laws in Leviticus) seems like a reasonable combination of Humanism and Eastern philosophy.


 Would an omniscient god need to replace his laws and standards though? It seems like that would be something he'd get right on the first try. Also there are still plenty of things in the New Testament which are pretty messed up. For example,

Ephesians 6:5, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

1 Peter 2:18, "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.



devoid said:


> I found myself sitting at the kitchen table thinking, "Okay, but why should anyone believe in God? I don't think I could even pretend to accept such baseless nonsense." That's when I realized that I don't fail to believe in God because I'm rational; it's because I'm terrified of the consequences of such a belief. Would I have to give up my own values and take on the values of some book? Would I have to forego my love for rational analysis and put blind faith in one world view? Would I lose my ability to have an open mind? Would I have to feel guilty for things that I don't rightly want to feel guilty for?


You never got around the baseless part. In order to stay completely fair you'd have to give weight to every other baseless belief I.E. Pink Unicorns, flying monkeys etc. All of these things are absurd and have no more weight or less weight than a biblical god. 



devoid said:


> So for the first time in my life, I swallowed my pride, and I took a leap of faith. Just for a moment, I told myself to trust that I would not lose myself or my values. I got on my hands and knees, and I cried. Suddenly so many things came out of me which I had told myself for years I wouldn't feel guilty for, things which I thought I had moved past. I realized that all this time, I had felt ashamed, had hated myself in ways that I kept so deep down they were consuming me. And I felt something releasing me, far more than I ever could forgive myself.


You expected to feel bad for things you had done before. Thus, you felt bad for them. My guess is these things weighed on you for a while but you never really put too much thought into them recently.

Whenever you take on the notion of the biblical god, you have to reconcile an all powerful, all knowing, perfect being who is malevolent in that he still allows evil to exist. As for most of the modern philosophical stuff that is merely post hoc rationalization. They'll want to believe something and then find a basis for it. In doing this you run into the problem of knowing what is literal and what is allegorical.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

@judowrestler1

Thank you, that was a very well constructed post. The concept of replacing the standards is that the "old laws" were no longer necessary, namely things like Leviticus which have no relevance in a civilized society. As human beings change, so must their systems. I'm not sure exactly how to approach the question of slavery, namely because it's no longer legal in most countries. At the time it was quite a commonplace thing, and I imagine it wouldn't have done many slaves any good to try to stand up for themselves. Just as Leviticus was written at a time when people required very harsh societal laws to keep peace, order and prosperity, Ephesians was written at a time when insurrection simply meant death. If there's one theme I've noticed in the bible it's "live long and prosper," hah hah hah... But yeah, if God's only power to control humans is through literature, he's not exactly going to end slavery so easily. It could be viewed as part of our race's struggle to fully understand our nature and how to overcome it.

Who's to say that beliefs have to be "fair," and how are you measuring fairness? I would say that believing in unicorns doesn't really open as many doors for me when it comes to connecting with other people or discovering a sense of purpose. I'm a utilitarian at heart, so I wouldn't be considering this if it weren't useful to me in some way.

I completely agree with you that this could all very well be an illusion based on my own psychological need. The question is: is there anything unhealthy about that? After all, we go about our day under the illusion that matter is solid rather than mostly empty space, that objects have inherent color rather than simply bouncing light into our eyes... If we had to think about these things nonstop, our brains would be overloaded with information. This is how I feel about philosophy: Keeping a truly open mind to every plausible philosophical explanation for life and existence is exhausting. Nihilism and Atheism are both exhausting concepts, and can strongly alienate a person from the world. If believing in God allows me to live my human experience in a way that benefits me and others, is it truly wrong, or is it simply another healthy and natural illusion?


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Leibniz, explained it like this. Basically God created for us the best possible universe to live in. The reason we have evil is just proof of our free will as humans. Without free will this wouldn't be the best possible universe to live in. With free will comes evil. Having free will out weighs getting rid of evil. That is the 4 sentence version

Of course many were critics of this, including Voltaire. He even wrote the novel _Candid _to show how ridiculous any argument is when taken to its extreme but most prominently critiquing the "This is the best of all possible worlds." argument.

It is quite possible there was a creator who at least set all the motions in place like a big science experiment. I like to constantly examine my view on the subject so I sometimes believe there is, sometimes believe there isn't and most of the time have no idea what to believe. Most of us have no idea what is going on anyway. Life is just a whole bunch of improvisations.


----------



## Trajan117 (Mar 31, 2013)

devoid said:


> This question has been on my mind quite strongly for the past week or so. The first member from PerC that I added to my friends list (probably two years ago now) was a rather short-lived IxTP, who happened to be both highly intellectual and a devout Christian. He stirred up quite a lot of trouble on the forums - not by being pushy in his religious beliefs, but by being _rational _in them. I became fascinated by the way he calmly explained his philosophy on God - something not far from my own belief that God and Science are two opposing ideas that can never meet. A belief in God requires faith, the absence of proof, while a belief in scientific fact always requires proof. When people try to argue either for or against faith using scientific evidence, they always come up dry, although they will surely never stop trying this pointless exercise until the end of time.
> 
> So recently, I decided to keep my mind open and try reading the Bible again. As I was raised Atheist, I have no particular stigma toward religion from personal experience other than observing some people being incredibly stupid in the name of their religion. But still, for some reason the simple act of reading the book unnerved me. And as I looked through various interpretations and modern philosophies concerning this book, I felt more and more unnerved by the fact that I couldn't find anything inherently wrong with it. Nothing says that I have to take these stories literally, and the morality of the New Testament (which is meant to replace the old and rather insane laws in Leviticus) seems like a reasonable combination of Humanism and Eastern philosophy.
> 
> ...


Wow this is indeed a very moving story. I'm glad you are able to think so clearly and see things in both ways despite being raised atheist. You have realized that religion in the end really is about a trust and not about logic vs blindness. That is a great place to be because that means you are not plagued by the misconceptions people on both sides have. But remember also that this trust is not necessarily about surrendering your beliefs or values to follow a book. The book is a guide. The Bible, Quran, Torah, Bagavad Gita these are all guides to help you think about human kind as a whole when you act rather than just yourself. Its less important to follow individual passages and rules outlined in the books but its more important to simply believe and trust that God can give you strength and support and to believe that he can hear you and answer you when you pray. If you feel you can do that then religion might be good for you. If not then I think you should just keep searching for answers and not stress yourself out about it. If you are meant to be a follower of God whether it be as a Christian, Muslim, Jew or maybe just a simple follower without an organized congregation then it will happen if you keep your mind open and look out for the signs. Don't feel pressured just be free to take in information from the world around and decide what makes the most sense to you


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

@devoid thanks, for being able to discuss this rationally. I live in the bible belt(literally, 0.1 miles from a church) so any time I bring up religion down here it becomes so emotionally charged I'm uncomfortable.



devoid said:


> Thank you, that was a very well constructed post. The concept of replacing the standards is that the "old laws" were no longer necessary, namely things like Leviticus which have no relevance in a civilized society. As human beings change, so must their systems. I'm not sure exactly how to approach the question of slavery, namely because it's no longer legal in most countries. At the time it was quite a commonplace thing, and I imagine it wouldn't have done many slaves any good to try to stand up for themselves. Just as Leviticus was written at a time when people required very harsh societal laws to keep peace, order and prosperity, Ephesians was written at a time when insurrection simply meant death. If there's one theme I've noticed in the bible it's "live long and prosper," hah hah hah... But yeah, if God's only power to control humans is through literature, he's not exactly going to end slavery so easily. It could be viewed as part of our race's struggle to fully understand our nature and how to overcome it.


Suppose God power extends beyond the ability to control people through literature. Would he not be able to make a society were slavery wasn't necessary. Surely an all powerful being who cared enough about all people to send his own son to die would be able to make a society where owning another human was not common practice.

On the other hand, say he can only control people through literature. Then he's not omnipotent and not god. 

Presuming god to be all powerful, all knowing, etc.. as the bible says god is leads to many questions the biggest of which is the question of evil. I'd read up on it here it offers the classical problem and what some solutions given. Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 



devoid said:


> Who's to say that beliefs have to be "fair," and how are you measuring fairness? I would say that believing in unicorns doesn't really open as many doors for me when it comes to connecting with other people or discovering a sense of purpose. I'm a utilitarian at heart, so I wouldn't be considering this if it weren't useful to me in some way.


I probably could have written that clearer. My purpose was to say that if you are willing to consider god real on the basis of evidence currently presented then where are you willing to draw the line on other things with the same amount of evidence. As for it being useful, that is not nearly as important as the question of "is it true?"



devoid said:


> I completely agree with you that this could all very well be an illusion based on my own psychological need. The question is: is there anything unhealthy about that? After all, we go about our day under the illusion that matter is solid rather than mostly empty space, that objects have inherent color rather than simply bouncing light into our eyes... If we had to think about these things nonstop, our brains would be overloaded with information. This is how I feel about philosophy: Keeping a truly open mind to every plausible philosophical explanation for life and existence is exhausting. Nihilism and Atheism are both exhausting concepts, and can strongly alienate a person from the world. If believing in God allows me to live my human experience in a way that benefits me and others, is it truly wrong, or is it simply another healthy and natural illusion?


Your completely right we all have to make assumptions. I have a hedonistic and nihilistic view of life though so, to me it doesn't matter whether or not this is a matrix and I'm being fooled. My purpose is to live what I believe is my life in a way that I derive the most pleasure out of it. Nihilism and Atheism don't have to be any more alienating than you make them. Although there is no grand plan you can still make a plan for your own life which includes helping other people, a sense of community etc.. When I view atheism and nihilism I don't see darkness, but a great sense of freedom which enables all paths, not just the path of a deity. 

As for would it be wrong and the emotional standpoint, the answer is no. You can and should do whatever makes you happy. I found a belief in god constricting. The thought that there was no purpose to anything was fine with me. The thought that there was an all powerful god who passively enables war, famine, disease etc.. would be way too much to bear.


----------



## RandomNote (Apr 10, 2013)

Look at "god" not religion......that's my 2 cents.


----------



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

Your reasoning for entertaining the existence of god is entirely emotional. 

Christianity sounds similar to eastern philosophies because it directly copied from religions that preceded it in that region.

Zoroastrianism

The religion of Mithra, who had 12 apostles, performed miracles, sacrificed himself for man kind, and rose days later. I can name at least 5 other pagan gods that sound exactly like Jesus Christ.

Facets of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Plus many more I don't feel like outlining.

There is nothing new about Christianity or the Bible, every concept in it has been borrowed.

With that being said what makes your god and religion anymore valid than any of the above religions / gods? 

Yes religion can be incorporated into the rational mind, but only so long as the individual prevents the rational mind from critically analyzing that belief. Belief in god is gained first and foremost through an emotional need that overwhelms the rational mind, so naturally there is always a divide between the two. Hence the reason that logical individuals will not apply analysis, empiricism, or critical thought exercises to their faith. They justify their belief with only faith and then apply ad hoc reasoning to make it seem as true as possible.

In all honesty, religion is not rational, it does not make sense, and the believers of it only have an emotional need for it. A rational without an emotional need for religion *never *reaches the conclusion that a specific god exists of type "a" religion. At the most they end up taking up a position of agnosticism or deism, which makes a lot more sense than any god or religion mentioned on earth.

If you have that much of an emotional need for religion, by all means believe in it. If it saves you from despair then religion becomes useful. In my opinion however a rational finds despair in not discerning objective truth (or at least getting as close as possible to what he/she perceives as the objective truth.) To accept god for emotional reasons without acknowledging the overwhelming plethora of contradictions in the bible, immoral actions of god and implications of imperfection that god displays, the historical doubt of Christ's existence (as in a man walking on water and raising the dead), the stolen concepts from earlier religions, and etc. etc. I don't see how you could call yourself a true rational. But I can see how "rationals" end up being religious (through ad hoc reasoning and arguing from unfalsifiable positions.)


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

@aizen & @judowrestler1

Yeah, that's pretty much what I decided it came down to: I can't seriously believe that any of this is any more true than any other mythology. I still envy those who can believe in such things, and perhaps it could have helped me... if I were capable of fully deluding myself. But I'm not.


----------



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

devoid said:


> @_aizen_ & @_judowrestler1_
> 
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I decided it came down to: I can't seriously believe that any of this is any more true than any other mythology. I still envy those who can believe in such things, and perhaps it could have helped me... if I were capable of fully deluding myself. But I'm not.


In the end we must help ourselves. Even among the religious there are many of them that are depressed. We have to create happiness for ourselves, god will not give it to us and belief in god will not give it to us either. A homeless atheist and a homeless christian are in the same boat, even if the homeless christian feels that god is with him as he prays, he is still just as hungry as the atheist.

I say that to bring up this point: Regardless of faith or lack of faith, those that are happy took active steps to achieving it. Making yourself feel better with religion doesn't necessarily solve anything, it just gives you temporary peace and an altered perspective until reality smacks you in the face again.

I personally do not believe that happiness is something that just happens to grace you. You have to truly work for it, whether that happiness is gained through making money, holding together a relationship, providing for your family, and everything else under the sun, I think that it's something that must be taken.

Anyways I feel that I'm beating a dead horse so I'll stop.


----------



## Foibleful (Oct 2, 2012)

I think you're leaving something out. For you to believe that faith in God equals irrationality means that you have to discount the cumulative life experiences of millions and millions of people. And all those people have to be irrational, self-deluding people who can't stand up or think for themselves. Do you really, truly believe that that many people are cognitive weaklings? To me, that takes more faith than believing in God.


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

Foibleful said:


> I think you're leaving something out. For you to believe that faith in God equals irrationality means that you have to discount the cumulative life experiences of millions and millions of people. And all those people have to be irrational, self-deluding people who can't stand up or think for themselves. Do you really, truly believe that that many people are cognitive weaklings? To me, that takes more faith than believing in God.


Try harder next time
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Foibleful (Oct 2, 2012)

judowrestler1 said:


> Try harder next time
> Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You know, I can see your point. But you are quite rude.

However, I did not say that God is real because many people believe in him. I simply said that believing in God does not equal irrationality.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Foibleful said:


> I think you're leaving something out. For you to believe that faith in God equals irrationality means that you have to discount the cumulative life experiences of millions and millions of people. And all those people have to be irrational, self-deluding people who can't stand up or think for themselves. Do you really, truly believe that that many people are cognitive weaklings? To me, that takes more faith than believing in God.


What about the millions and millions of people who are Atheist, Pagan, Buddhist, Shinto, or any non-Abrahamic religion? Who's the delusional one exactly? Every single one of the ancient Mayans believed that sacrificing virgins was what God wanted. The Egyptians believed that their pharaohs had divine authority, much as Catholics in the Middle Ages believed their kings had divine authority. Do you seriously not realize how utterly stupid and delusional most human beings have been historically? Nazis, witch trials, the flat earth society... Yes, I think a good many people are deluding themselves for many reasons, and thinking that God came down in human form and died to save us from imaginary sin is not remotely the most believable.


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

Foibleful said:


> You know, I can see your point. But you are quite rude.
> 
> However, I did not say that God is real because many people believe in him. I simply said that believing in God does not equal irrationality.


I never claimed to be nice love .


----------



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

Foibleful said:


> I think you're leaving something out. For you to believe that faith in God equals irrationality means that you have to discount the cumulative life experiences of millions and millions of people. And all those people have to be irrational, self-deluding people who can't stand up or think for themselves. Do you really, truly believe that that many people are cognitive weaklings? To me, that takes more faith than believing in God.


Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just noticed that someone else linked to this same page...lol


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

aizen said:


> Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I just noticed that someone else linked to this same page...lol


It was me. Your my new best friend :laughing:.


----------



## CaptainWildChild (Dec 26, 2012)

I really do not know if it can be done or not and to be honest I'm quite uninterested in the whole combine rational with religion. I do not say it is a boring thought but it is a really complex question and if I were to write all my thoughts around this questions it would proabably be very long and I would not come to an conclusion. 
I would like to share on why I am not christian. I do not judge people who are believers, to me it seems nice to have something to believe in so blindly but it also feels a bit too easy as religion provides you with many big answers (meeaning of life etc) and how you should live. I believe people must go their own way how hard it is no one nor religion should ever replace your own beliefs that you have gotten through life and alot of thinking process. "Religion is opium for the people" This almost sums up of what I think religion is. It dulls people own thinking process.
Though I know how important religion has been to help the society to improve thourghout history and that it kind of works like a moral book. 

Alot of religions have alot of blood on its hands and this is what I dispise and are one of the major reasons on why I'm not religious. I do not like that religon has it rules that you must follow or lifestyle, I think people forget the true meaning or maybe one of the most important thing in religion. Try to be a kind human. I like it how religon preaches about "treat people how you want to be treated" but the majority of religious people forgets that. 

I don't have alot of knowledge in religion but I think that if there is a God she/he would not send you to hell for being a kind atheist and he/she would not send you straightaway to heaven for being an hateful christian. 
If people only have faith but is judging unkind people e.g christian homphobes (the logic..) then I believe they have missed a major point in religion and that is to be as good as you can.


So to sum it up: If you are religious and a good person I wouldn't care but if you are a horrible religious person we will have problem.

Though right now at this point in my life I really dislike religion atleast christianity but I do not judge people who are religious. I myself just can't be religious (I don't feel the need either) because it feels like supporting a oppressing tool by people who think they have right. I am trying to keep an open mind but it is really hard.. In debates I have no trouble listening to other ideas and be objective but when it comes to religion I get really emotional because of my family history (family vs religion) so therefore I try to avoid that subject since I cannot be objective.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Rationality has far too many limits and constrictions, as is the very nature of rationality.

Religion is boundless and far stretching, as is the nature of religion.

These two cannot mix, unless you consider religion to be rational, in which, by frame of mind, religion is automatically rational.


----------



## Shapaha (May 11, 2013)

Hmm... I'm going to attempt this.

But first, I need an established definition of what it means to be rational.


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

@devoid

It can easily be done. Depending on your view on what a God is and the matter.

Is believing on faith a bad thing. Certainly can be, but needn't be. For instance there are many things that we do not understand and yet we take advantage of them working. We have faith that they will continue to do what they always have. Now that is simply a proof by induction, it isn't real proof, but it is more than religion can offer.

Another thing to think about is that at the very bottom of how the universe is made there is a set of things which forms the basis. These things simply exist and have certain properties and when it comes down to it there is no reason why they are one thing and not the other. Now this could simply be lack of understanding on our part and there is a reason. This idea has been incorporated into many multiverse theories that explain it as random seeding almost when each universe is created it has some set of factors that form the basis for the rest. It still does not answer a why, but there is always a deeper why to be found, unless you hit the bottom, if there is even one. 

The universe itself. We know it did not always exist, but something always had to exist in some form or another. Because there is no such thing as no space. I think, not a hundred percent sure on that, but it seems reasonable. Most theories on existence nowadays have either cyclical models or are multiverse based, both of which are ever present and have no beginning or end.

What those points bring is that at some point things just are. There might be a reason for things(by reason I mean scientific reason), but there doesn't have to be. I would hope that all things have an answer, but you would just keep finding whys to those questions as well.

A God does not have to exist, but could. Why it would create us might not even make sense to us. Nor does it need to.

On the issue of evil, evil is only what you call it. Duality is invoked when something is considered good or bad, both are relative terms and when we define something as good or bad we are either setting it as the basis for the set, or we are comparing it to the basis.

Well there is my thinking on the matter, it is by no means fact, merely based on observations and reading and thought and discussion. Take from it what you will.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Takadox said:


> @devoid
> 
> It can easily be done. Depending on your view on what a God is and the matter.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you that this is how I would incorporate faith. But what you said really has nothing to do with religion...


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

devoid said:


> I completely agree with you that this is how I would incorporate faith. But what you said really has nothing to do with religion...


What did you expect from an entp, to stay on topic. Nah, we are topic adjacent. .

In all seriousness it depends on the freedom that the religion gives.
Well it was meant to be much longer of a proof or thought experiment, that's how my writing works nowadays, but I was never going to write it all out, if I was I might have to publish it XD.


----------



## lightwing (Feb 17, 2013)

@devoid I hope that you do not abandon what you have stumbled upon in your OP. Speaking from experience, having a relationship with the one true God isn't something for the faint of heart, but it is also the best decision you could ever make. I can't tell you what to do, but I can say that a lot of what is understood about Christianity these days is based on half truths and outright falsehoods. The reason you have stumbled upon what you did is because you have taken the time to read the Bible and try to understand it for yourself. When you go straight to the source for your information, you tend to understand much better what is meant to be passed along.

I hope that I can be what your friend was. I have no desire to stir up trouble, but I also believe that it takes even more faith to believe in the nonexistence of God than it does to believe that he exists and that is a rewarder of those that earnestly seek him. In speaking to rationality, people who speak of a God that is irrational don't truly know or understand him. If we go from the stance that God exists and is the creator, not only does he need to be rational, but true science will never contradict what is revealed about him because he is the ultimate scientist as science is one of his creations.


----------



## Carsomyr Khan (Apr 29, 2013)

I think something to keep in mind is that the God you describe isn't necessarily a being, supernatural or otherwise. I recently found this video series from another section of the PerC forums, and I think this particular description of God fits very well with what you experienced.

I tried have it set to start near the time it gets relevant to this discussion, but the forum is ignoring me. Start around 8:40 for the most relevant part. Anyways, if you have some free time I'd suggest trying to watch the entire series, it's pretty interesting.


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

lightwing said:


> I also believe that it takes even more faith to believe in the nonexistence of God than it does to believe that he exists and that is a rewarder of those that earnestly seek him.


Explain further...



lightwing said:


> If we go from the stance that God exists and is the creator, not only does he need to be rational, but true science will never contradict what is revealed about him because he is the ultimate scientist as science is one of his creations.


Except science does contradict him. Evolution, Big Bang and all that nonsense. And, don't give me that "The Bible is allegorical in the Genesis story" that's a load of nonsense. We both know that's people not being able to deny it anymore and then saying "It's not meant to be taken literal." Also Jesus, a dead man rising, after 3 days. That's in direct opposition to science as well and being the basis of christianity can't say it's allegorical.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

You can be rational and believe in god, it just requires:

A: Blind faith. 
B: Compartmentalization.


----------



## Nirel (Oct 21, 2012)

everything can be done if you want it enough. The real question is _*should*_ it be done? that's what you should ask yourself.
the answer for me is a resounding no, religious views strip you of your objectivity which leads you to a false perception of the world, which leads you into making wrong decisions.
I have art that replaces my need for religion.


----------



## Nirel (Oct 21, 2012)

I just couldn't help my self on this one, I don't like to offend but it's too hard not to do it. Its greater than me.



> I have no desire to stir up trouble, but I also believe that it takes even more faith to believe in the nonexistence of *The monster under my bed* than it does to believe that he exists and that is a rewarder of those that earnestly seek him. In speaking to rationality, people who speak of a *The monster under my bed* that is irrational don't truly know or understand him. If we go from the stance that *The monster under my bed* exists and is the creator, not only does he need to be rational, but true science will never contradict what is revealed about him because he is the ultimate scientist as science is one of his creations.


I know the monster under my bed personally, and I can vouch for the fact that he's the creator of the universe. ​


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

Nirel said:


> I just couldn't help my self on this one, I don't like to offend but it's too hard not to do it. Its greater than me.
> ​I know the monster under my bed personally, and I can vouch for the fact that he's the creator of the universe. ​


You take that back. The monster under my bed is the one true monster and all things are possible through his most ogreness.


----------



## Nirel (Oct 21, 2012)

judowrestler1 said:


> You take that back. The monster under my bed is the one true monster and all things are possible through his most ogreness.


You clearly haven't read my post, its stated there clearly that the monster under MY bed is the creator of all things, and therefor the creator of the monster under your bed.


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

Nirel said:


> You clearly haven't read my post, its stated there clearly that the monster under MY bed is the creator of all things, and therefor the creator of the monster under your bed.


It's seems we are at an impass. The only way to solve this is like grown rational men. So either dance off or monster battle. And here's the monster under my bed.


----------



## HamsterSamurai (Jun 28, 2012)

lightwing said:


> I can't tell you what to do, but I can say that a lot of what is understood about Christianity these days is based on half truths and outright falsehoods. The reason you have stumbled upon what you did is because you have taken the time to read the Bible and *try to understand it for yourself*. When you go straight to the source for your information, you tend to understand much better what is meant to be passed along.


And ditto. Part of the reason I don't usually get involved in discussions such as these is because most people have their rehearsed arguments that they like to throw out, like "oh well if God is so loving then why is there hell? Huh? Huh? Yeah! DEBUNK!" Whereas a literal interpretation of the Bible= no burning in hell, so the question is moo.

Much of the "faith" required is just the faith that it is worth your time to examine the sources and to really think about it in a, yes, rational way. I come from the opposite side of having been raised in a "You _will_ believe, and that's it" household and I never really felt that connected. Even going to church and stuff it was like yeah whatever. Not until I began seriously examining both scriptural and secular sources did I even seriously consider some of the questions my mom tried to get me to take for granted. So I would say that not only can reason and religion go together, but that reason and rational examination is essential for genuine spirituality.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Nirel said:


> everything can be done if you want it enough. The real question is _*should*_ it be done? that's what you should ask yourself.
> the answer for me is a resounding no, religious views strip you of your objectivity which leads you to a false perception of the world, which leads you into making wrong decisions.
> I have art that replaces my need for religion.


Interesting. In what ways does art replace religion for you?


----------



## lightwing (Feb 17, 2013)

judowrestler1 said:


> Explain further...


If you see a car driving down the road, you don't automatically assume that one day there was an earthquake and all of a sudden there was a car! Or, over millions and millions of years, cars came into being through the various changes in so that they are able to fit the environment they need to work.

The truth is that you can believe in evolution, the non-existence of God and all that other stuff if you want, but when the rubber meets the road, what you have are beliefs based on unprovable theories. Can I prove the existence of God? No, but I'm not trying to either. I'm merely observing the evidence and deciding for myself that the most plausible conclusion is that I am here because of something greater than myself. What consistently confounds me is how, people who insist God doesn't exist, get so militant and angry when someone challenges their beliefs. If you choose to believe that he doesn't, I'm not going to hold a gun to your head and tell you to change your ways or you'll burn in hell. I don't have to because I'm just like you. The big thing we'll have to wrestle with is whether or not we made the right decision for once we're dead. If I'm wrong. Great. I've missed out on some great times that could have been had. If I'm not though, well, you won't have any excuse that you weren't warned.

I hope that makes a little more sense.



> Except science does contradict him. Evolution, Big Bang and all that nonsense. And, don't give me that "The Bible is allegorical in the Genesis story" that's a load of nonsense. We both know that's people not being able to deny it anymore and then saying "It's not meant to be taken literal." Also Jesus, a dead man rising, after 3 days. That's in direct opposition to science as well and being the basis of christianity can't say it's allegorical.


Does it? Or is it bad science that contradicts him? Science operates within what can be seen and observed. Since God is outside that, there's no way that it can contradict him since science can't explain what it can't observe. Same problem exists with evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis theories and such. None of those things are observable to the extent they need to be in order to assure them as a firm foundation for the rest of science that is being built off them. The result being that what we have today is science built off myths. You might be familiar with the term "God of the gaps." Well, many things in science today are guilty of essentially the same thing... "science of the gaps." Essentially, science is set up as god, and when something hasn't yet been proven by science, the just make the assumption that it will and go with it anyway.


I don't believe the Bible is allegorical so you won't have to worry about any of that "nonsense" from me.  No doubt you'll pull out all the reasons now why the Bible can't and shouldn't be taken literally (similar to your earlier post). The thing about the Bible is, so much of it has been distorted and misused or misunderstood that it's difficult to have any conversations about things from it without people's presuppositions blinding them to any rational explanations. One example is the passage you posted from 1 Peter. Of course it's logical to assume it's absurd to have to bear unjust employers and if you look at only that verse, I would agree with you. However, what you've done is pulled something from the context and thus you lose any understanding as to why it's saying what it's saying. When you read it in context you can see why it says what it says. It also helps to have a little knowledge about what's in the rest of the book to help understand some of the things you read. For instance, going along with 1 Peter 2:18, it's a good idea to read and understand Ephesians 6:5-9 as well. That's just one example.

All that said, I do have trouble with people who take the Bible sooo literally that they can't see the true meaning of the words on the page. So many Christians are guilty of that these days... In reading it we should be trusting like children, but at the same time approach it as rational, responsible adults. Language has rules and purposes and they need to be followed to properly understand. It's not about blind faith. It's about honest weighing of the evidence provided.

I hope this helps some?

I apologize if my sentence structure and/or grammar is bad. Sometimes it's hard for me to get things out to be understood just the way it is in my head.


----------

