50 years ago if you were Jewish they wouldn’t let you in.
– Terry Pratchett
Not just Christian vs non-Christian. In Shakespeare’s day lots of Catholics had to pretend to be Protestants or else. There is some speculation that Shakespeare was, at some time, Catholic.
I don’t have the time, or frankly, to wade into this thread, and I’m sensitive to threadshitting.
But I think it’s worth noting that no where else IRL do I see so often the words “irrational” (and rational), “illogical” (and logical), and “evidence”, and “proof”, so [apparently] misunderstood, and misapplied.
And I don’t say this as a theist. A full blown agnostic should be able to see it.
But both theism, and atheism are subjective belief systems (unlike dead centered unbiased agnosticism) and so the [constant] misuse of these words is the apparent merging of subjectivity with objectivity into something we consider to be “truth” or “reality.”
At least one side of this is comfortable calling it what it is: Faith.
And so while I have the greatest respect for some willing to put lipstick on an intellectual pig and call it Cinderella, words like *“pretty well established that Christianity is an irrational belief system. It does not use reason to arrive at its conclusions” *are so deeply incorrect, (and dare I say it, irrational?) that it’s hard to see a debate on the OP’s merits.
And I would ask the OP, ever heard of Blaise Pascal?
I agree entirely with the OP.
I don’t think my sect of Christianity makes any sense rationally, but honestly, if I could flip a switch and believe, I think I would. I already conform outwardly to a lot of things because the community and the experience of belonging to the community is something I can’t get anywhere else, and it’s worth it to me.
Actually, where my parents live, joining the golf club has provided them with more of a community than they find at church. Where I live – well, okay, I haven’t joined the golf club, but I’ve tried a couple of other social groups, and nowhere else have I found the kind of tight-knit looking-out-for-each-other welcoming love that I get from my church community. We watch each others’ kids, give each other wedding and baby showers, do favors for each other, bring meals to people who are sick, help people find jobs, organize charitable events, organize musical events (and boy, until I organized a major Christmas one last year I had no idea how much work and love and sacrifice and exchange goes into it) – the love and belonging and acceptance and doing things for each other is not something I know how to find anywhere else.
Also, I’d add to the OP: participating in church life actually does make me a better and happier person. When I go to church, for instance, I’m reminded that I should try to understand where people are coming from rather than just getting upset at them. Not that there aren’t other places to get that message, of course, and not that I haven’t imbibed some damaging things as well (…sometimes, you do just need to get angry), but all in all it makes me kinder and more patient and happier.
Since you announced that you haven’t the time to devote to the thread, I’ll treat this as a drive-by post and kindly refrain from addressing your points, lest you become embroiled in spite of yourself.
If you wish to engage in a proper discussion, let me know, and I’ll engage with you.
Peermission to cut, paste and use this post when appropriate?
Agnosticism isn’t dead center, it’s pro-religion. It’s granting religion a special status that we don’t grant to other baseless, irrational claims; people aren’t “agnostic” about fairies or Santa Claus or werewolves.
I see no reason to buy that religion can be of net benefit. That’s just one of those baseless things believers repeat over and over so often it gets taken for truth.
Fine by me. I could be wrong, but raindog’s post reeked of bad faith to me: starting with an escape clause, ending with a smug question (if Blaise Pascal is germaine to the discussion, just make the point you wish to make), and with some actual substance in between, that’d I be happy to address if raindog demonstrates the intent to engage in a debate in good faith.
Although you may ultimately disagree, I think Alain De Botton provides a decent case that religion has some very beneficial aspects to it. Whether it actually nets out is debatable, but I’m linking to the video in an effort to demonstrate that it’s not simply baseless.
I tried to cover that with “moral instruction for those who wouldn’t otherwise seek it out”, but you’ve fleshed that idea out. There are positive moral messages in the Bible that people can benefit from exposure to (as well as some awful ones).
The basis would be that (can) influence people to act in a way that benefits society. I think the power of this effect is fairly weak; people act the way they act and seek to rationalize it after the fact.
But, Christianity could provide:
- An external moral code for those that need one
- Psychic benefits: peace of mind, optimism
- Incentive to charity
Which could all be benefits to society.
It “could” do lots of things; I see little evidence it does, especially on the scale necessary to outweigh the damage that it does. Which is necessary if it’s to qualify as a “net benefit to society”. The damage done by religion is enormous; therefore, the benefits would have to be even more enormous, and I see no evidence they are even close.
Ok, before I attempt some sort of calculation, can you detail the damage done (to the United States specifically) as you see it?
No, I don’t think it is rational to be a Christian.
Yes, there are benefits, but there are also drawbacks. For example, getting creationism taught in schools, and opposing gay marriage.
There are things that give the same benefits as Christianity, but without the drawbacks, for example, Unitarian Universalism. It would be more rational to choose one of those options.
this is complete rubish, there is NO evidence for anything in any religion at any point in human history, none, nothing, nada, zip, zero, not a particle, not a shred, not a drop, not a hanging chad. belief in the supernatural is 100% based on the believers belief in the people who told them this nonsense in the first place. calling the lack of belief in things with no evidence a “subjective belief system” means you are also agnostic about dragons, trolls, ewoks, unicorns, flying carpets, light sabers, and every other myth/fantasy/sci-fi contraption ever put down on paper or made available online. do you honestly mean to say you are not sure about Jar Jar Binks, I mean he could be real right? what about Raven, he could have created the world as we know it, he could have put both the sun and the moon in the sky right? he could have caused the tides (note the sun/moon bits were actually separate from the tides) there are some 6000 religions that exist/ed in human history that we know of, are you really agnostic about every last one of them? or just you know the one about Jesus?
(note I am not raging at raindog so much as the whole concept of agnostics in general. saying we cant know for sure about god really does mean we cant be sure about that other planet 498743294832 billion light years away that also just grounded their entire fleet of dream liners for having hot batteries)
It’s been my experience that being clever for the sake of being clever often severely diminishes the effectiveness of your argument.
Oh, and punctuation and paragraph breaks are your friend. We’re all geniuses at SDMB (at least that what we keep telling each other) and I don’t want to work at reading your post to reply.
My point remains: The OP stared with a “well established” premise that was hardly well established (save for the true believers (with an emphasis on believer) for whom it is 'well established) and I think there is a valid discussion to be had if it was restructured. But it is a terminally flawed premise.
And thanks for the witness…
My opinion is that it can be rational to actually believe, not just practice, Christianity. Here’s my thinking:
- We all believe something that wouldn’t stand up to rational scrutiny; e.g. my* (parent/brother/uncle/priest/boss/best friend/etc.) is a better person than a careful, rational examination would warrant.
- This belief gives us comfort and benefit, somehow, in our lives.
- Therefore, it’s not irrational to avoid examining that belief with too much rational scrutiny, as long as the belief doesn’t create a greater discomfort than the comfort it provides.
The same sort of thing applies to religion, whatever one you might believe. As long as the benefits outweigh the costs, it’s rational to believe in the tenets, and not examine them too closely for “truth” content. Once the costs start to outweigh the benefits, that’s when it becomes irrational to not examine your beliefs. That’s how I went from Catholic -> generic Christian -> Apatheist.
*My personal example: My best friend from roughly the ages of 19 to 37 (rough guestimate, I can’t remember the circumstances at the beginning, or the date at the end) was really a total asshole if you got right down to it and looked at him rationally. I always thought enough better of him than he deserved to continue to hang out with him, until his assholishness around '99 or '00 blew up in everyone’s faces, and caused me (and everyone else) far more shit than any of us was willing to accept. I haven’t spoken to him since (and I’m not the only one), and if I ever do again, it will only be to tell him to go crawl back under the rock he’s been hiding under since I last spoke to him. I wouldn’t actually be bothered at all to find out he died. It would, instead, relieve me to know that that conversation can never take place.
Not as rational as he thought he was. [url=]Pascal’s Wager seems to assume that atheism and Catholicism are the only options; it offers no grounds to choose between Catholicism and Protestantism, or even between Christianity and Islam. Furthermore . . .
– Hogfather, Terry Pratchett
Atheism is a lack of belief system. Since theists have not been very good at defining the set of gods they believe in (even Christianity has dozens of versions) it is hard specifically believe that a god you have never heard of does not exist. Not believing in that God is a different matter. If you would care to define a god, then we could talk about reasons for believing it does not exist.
Faith is just a word to justify believing in absurdities without having to examine them.
There have been volumes written on this. But by bringing up the need for faith, you pretty much acknowledge it. I don’t have faith in evolution, I don’t have faith in semiconductor physics, and I don’t have faith in Maxwell’s Equations.
And bringing up Pascal’s Wager in an SDMB religious discussion is about the biggest fail there is - as we’ve already seen.
I know God and Lord Jesus personally (the one on the throne of all eternity and ruler over spacetime) and I can vouch that even He is not christian nor will ever share His glory with christianity. That said the christian viewpoint is just about equal to the atheist viewpoint, both are illusions allowed by God and His child for a greater purpose, but yes both are equally irrational to me.
Peace