I’m an atheist, of the sort that’s never been religious or spiritual at all. I live in a heavily Protestant area of Central Kentucky.
In the above thread, (and elsewhere, of course) it has been pretty well established that Christianity is an irrational belief system. It does not use reason to arrive at its conclusions.
However, I posit that in spite of this, being a Christian can be be entirely rational. Why? Because, at least where I live, it can provide:
A close-knit community of fellow believers
A hub for charitable activity
A (somewhat) comforting explanation for death and loss, and the promise of heaven and perfect justice in the afterlife
Moral instruction for those who wouldn’t otherwise seek it out
Material aid in trying times
Social capital
The protection of being in the majority
Now, I was not raised in a religious home. The idea has always been foreign to me, I don’t think I could be a believer no matter how hard I tried, I’m simply not wired that way, whether from nature or nurture or both.
But if you were a believer, mightn’t it be entirely rational to remain so, whether or not you genuinely subscribed to the beliefs of Christianity?
(I’m sure this applies equally well to other religions, but I’m not in a position to know the extent to which this is the case, hence the focus on Christianity.)
Is being authentic to your true beliefs more important than the benefits I listed? It’s easy for me to say yes, because I never had the benefits to start with. I’d love to hear from theists and atheists who are former theists on this matter.
In many times and places it’s very much in ones’ self interest to be a Christian, so no it isn’t irrational as long as you are properly hypocritical* about it. Dishonest and often evil, but not irrational. Turning your neighbor in to the Inquisition was safer than standing up to them.
*Christianity is stupid; wrong on all sorts of levels. So being a sincere, consistent Christian is dangerous. It works better the worse of a person you are.
As a theist -> deist -> atheist convert - (it takes time to shed theism when ingrained at an early age) I can say that while “being” a christian can seem entirely rational for the points you’ve mentioned, it seems that the a good portion of “practicing Christians”** are inherently irrational people.
** folks that ‘really’ believe the bible - not your “suit and tie” variety that really only go there for the benefits described in the OP
Illogical beliefs and practices can become the basis for useful public service organizations, for example The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have chapters in many cities that raise money for, and awareness of, many good causes.
I agree with everyone else - looking like you are a Christian might be rational, but actually being one isn’t. I can see a guy whose livelihood depends on social interactions (like an insurance salesman or real estate broker) joining a church. Many politicians do. George Washington went to church but never took communion, so his actual level of belief is unclear. And some times in history not being a Christian could be hazardous to your health.
Doesn’t have to be a Christian. When I was a kid I more or less believed, but even if I didn’t I would have gone to Hebrew school, because getting bar mitzvahed got you a big party, and as Sam Levinson said on a 78 my mother had, you get presents.
Where I live now it would be no use at all.
I guess it’s debatable whether to call it irrational to have a belief that one was indoctrinated into believing., even if it’s a quite silly belief when analyzed rationally. That’s just semantics of course.
Doing unto others as you’d have them do to you is completely rational. Enjoying community is also very rational.
Believing that a dude was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned it into wine, was tortured and killed only to rise again, was lifted up to heaven… well, that’s all pretty irrational.
I suppose there is something to the social club aspect of it. You know, knowing all the right handshakes. When to stand, when to sit. When to chime in with the amen. It gives a sense of belonging and that’s comforting to many/most. So in that context, it’s rational.
One might ask, why not just join the golf club? Those have common rules and familiar rituals too. Sure. But how many people would want to spend eternity with their lousy golf score?
Just taking what you put forward at face value, I agree with you - being a Christian could be rational.
Where I disagree is that I don’t think that Christianity is, necessarily, irrational. When I examine the evidence, the reasons, the logic, etc, I deem it irrational. That said, it could be the case that someone has better evidence than I or an air tight argument that I haven’t heard of. I’ve often noted that some God arguments are rational if one accepts their premises (which I generally disagree with).
I would have thought that not genuinely subscribing to the beliefs would constitute you as not a believer. But do you mean it might be rational to pretend to be a believer?
Martin Luther for one, you know, the father of the Protestant reformation. Many quotes of him stating such. Just a couple from wiki but there are a great deal more that can be found on the internet:
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but–more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”—Martin Luther
“But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.”–Martin Luther
Why in your god’s name do you think the NT has to stress faith hundreds of times instead of reason? Hell, “faith” is only used twice in the OT (KJV). Paul said “We are fools for Christs sake” and “it pleased god by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” I’m sure all this is rationale to you.
That was part of the contention I tried to argue in the thread I linked to the OP, that Christianity was consistent with the world we live in if if one accepts the premise that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God, whose nature is imperfectly captured in the Bible. Other posters made some very good arguments that cast this into doubt, I had to attempt some pretty radical approaches and twists of logic.
Point being, that premise must be accepted on faith alone, as it cannot be demonstrated to be true through reason. This leads me to conclude that while holding to the doctrine can be rational, the doctrine itself is irrational.
You’re right, sloppy phrasing on my part. Substitute “nominal believer” or better yet “practitioner”.
I think I was in on that thread in the beginning. At least in the beginning of the thread (the parts I read), I did not think that a good case was made for Christianity being consistent. I did get out of that thread prior to your arrival though, so I may have missed further argumentation.
I suppose what it boils down to is this: I don’t know quite a lot and there have been Christians who have impressed me with their reasoning. So at the moment I do not find Christianity rational, however I do concede it could be and I do concede that there could be Christians out there who make a great case for it.
A jump of faith? As long as it’s not shown to be completely unreasonable and the benefits out way the consequences I think a pragmatic case could be made that it would be reasonable to adopt. I think our positions on this are similar.
First, there is a LARGE portion of Christendom that regards Luther as an anti-authority on the Faith, and that portion has taken great lengths to demonstrate the rationality of Christianity. Thomas Aquinas, no slouch in the thinking department, belonged to that portion.
Second, even a lot of us Protties would say Luther could have some bad days & be off on some things- like his views on Reason… and Jews.
Third, if where he uses ‘Reason’, we replace it with 'Rationalism", what he says makes more sense.
I came in late, I think page 4. I think I did a better job of explaining why a benevolent God might allow suffering than pchaos did, though I’m sure others could do better. If you want to read some Devil’s advocacy for an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Christian God, then dig into that thread, there’s plenty.
I think so. As I said in the other thread, to pchaos:
I’m not nearly so hostile to religion as a concept as some other folks around here, since it’s here to stay (for my lifetime, at least) and it can be a net benefit to society.