# Where are the lines drawn on what is rational and what isn't? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164 "2012-08-21T14:35:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/61 "2012-08-22T15:51:03Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “Rational” means that you use logic and reason to make decisions. As opposed to faith, “gut instinct”, intuition, personal feelings, chicken bones or any other mystical nonsense. > > There is nothing “rational” about religeous beliefs. This claim is just incorrect, and I wish people would stop making it. There are plenty of people (scholars, theologians) who take a very logical, rational approach to religious dogma. You may disagree with some of their premises or find fault with their reasoning, but to claim that no one uses logic and reason in reaching their religious beliefs is just ignorance. > [@](#): > > By definition, if you are basing your beliefs in something that cannot be seen or measured empirically on faith or personal beleifs, it’s not reason. Now you’re changing your standard; that’s not the same thing. There is more to rationality than that which can be seen and measured—the truths of mathematics, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/62 "2012-08-22T16:00:31Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > This claim is just incorrect, and I wish people would stop making it. There are plenty of people (scholars, theologians) who take a very logical, rational approach to religious dogma. You may disagree with some of their premises or find fault with their reasoning, but to claim that no one uses logic and reason in reaching their religious beliefs is just ignorance. There is a world of difference between using logic to _reach_ a particular religious belief(_very_ rare, in my opinion), and attempting to use logic to justify an _already existing_ religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/63 "2012-08-22T17:52:57Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “Rational” means that you use logic and reason to make decisions. As opposed to faith, “gut instinct”, intuition, personal feelings, chicken bones or any other mystical nonsense. > > There is nothing “rational” about religeous beliefs. By definition, if you are basing your beliefs in something that cannot be seen or measured empirically on faith or personal beleifs, it’s not reason. > > And really, it applys to anything. Not just religeon. Do you want to visit a doctor who will operate on you based on “some good we can’t see yet”? No. You would want him to operate on you based on some specific medical need and using tested medical procedures. The problem is that nobody ever uses logic and reason to make decisions about anything. That’s what neuroscientists are discovering. Even something as simple as what kind of cereal to buy at the grocery store. We all first make a decision based on what our emotions are telling us, then we rationalize (that’s the perfect word) that decision by thinking of reasons why that choice makes good sense. It just happens too fast for us to notice it, so we think it’s the rational thought that occurs first. But by following the progress of the neural pathways in the brain, it has recently been determined that the emotional choice is always the decider. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/64 "2012-08-22T18:14:52Z")
“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” -Benjamin Franklin ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/65 "2012-08-22T18:35:38Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “Rational” means that you use logic and reason to make decisions. As opposed to faith, “gut instinct”, intuition, personal feelings, chicken bones or any other mystical nonsense. > > There is nothing “rational” about religious beliefs. By definition, if you are basing your beliefs in something that cannot be seen or measured empirically on faith or personal beleifs, it’s not reason. This oversimplification of the term rational is part of why I started this thread. for one thing , rational is not a one size fits all. different people and different cultures, education etc all provide different context to consider as we’ve discussed up thread. The generic “religious beliefs are not rational” is another inaccurate oversimplification that I see repeated too often. Rational isn’t just fact based cold logic. Every person’s belief system is made up of intellect and emotion. We are not Vulcans. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/66 "2012-08-22T19:18:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > This oversimplification of the term rational is part of why I started this thread. > > for one thing , rational is not a one size fits all. different people and different cultures, education etc all provide different context to consider as we’ve discussed up thread. > > The generic “religious beliefs are not rational” is another inaccurate oversimplification that I see repeated too often. Rational isn’t just fact based cold logic. Every person’s belief system is made up of intellect and emotion. We are not Vulcans. So what you’re saying is that we should expand the definition of the word rational to include believing in bronze age sky gods, so that people can stop pointing out the irrationality of said ridiculous beliefs. Got it. But no. I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/67 "2012-08-22T19:18:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > In another thread \*\*Kimstu \*\*made this point. > " > “However, arbitrary and unsupported hypotheses generally don’t qualify as “rational” just because they’re unfalsifiable.” > > which I agree with, but is it acceptable and rational to hold a presently unfalsifiable hypothesis until the evidence makes it clear one way or another? IMO , it’s irrational to hold hypothesis as hard fact when it hasn’t been or can’t be proven , but not necessarily irrational if you can acknowledge that it’s a theory in progress. > > IOW, “this is what I believe right now” , allowing for growth and changing beliefs, is not irrational. Of course it’s irrational to hold unfalsifiable unsupported hypotheses for true, or even true-ish, until conclusively falsified. For one thing, it’s tautologically oxymoronic. For another, it’s… well, silly. Let me give you a non-religious example: I hereby declare that Higgs bosons are not, in fact, elementary particles but made up of even tinier, weightless, invisible particles I dub Kobons. I have exactly zilch evidence for them, nor can point to anything that would suggest or support their existence - I just feel them in my heart, y’know ? And this is what I durn well believe and I expect you to respect my beliefs. You can’t disprove the kobons, either (even the Higgs is still sort of kind of iffy still, evidentially speaking, so…). Why should you respect this assertion of mine ? Is it rational at all ? No, of course not. It’s sheer made-up bogosity. Even if I say I’m “open to new interpretations” or “willing to change my beliefs if you disprove my hypothesis” or “this is my current hypothesis, but I have others” or whatever apparently magical set of weasel words you wish me to add as a postscript, it’s \*\*still \*\*not a justified or rational belief to hold. And you should jolly well call me an idiot, to believe in that “kobon” malarkey. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/68 "2012-08-22T19:25:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > This oversimplification of the term rational is part of why I started this thread. > > for one thing , rational is not a one size fits all. different people and different cultures, education etc all provide different context to consider as we’ve discussed up thread. > > The generic “religious beliefs are not rational” is another inaccurate oversimplification that I see repeated too often. Rational isn’t just fact based cold logic. Every person’s belief system is made up of intellect and emotion. We are not Vulcans. You can rationally act within a religious belief system. However, accepting one in the first place isn’t a rational act. I’ll grant that if a guy straps a bomb to your neck and tells you to go to church, it would be rational to go through the motions of belief. But it doesn’t mean that it is rational to take the final step and believe, “Odin is real.” That’s simply nonsense and you’re arguing for religion to be held to a special standard. \*Because it fails so utterly when approached neutrally. \* ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/69 "2012-08-23T00:07:50Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > So what you’re saying is that we should expand the definition of the word rational to include believing in bronze age sky gods, so that people can stop pointing out the irrationality of said ridiculous beliefs. > > Got it. But no. I don’t think so. No that’s not what I’m saying. Try reading the thread and the points I’m making in it before you respond. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/70 "2012-08-23T00:11:53Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > The problem is that nobody ever uses logic and reason to make decisions about anything. That’s what neuroscientists are discovering. Even something as simple as what kind of cereal to buy at the grocery store. We all first make a decision based on what our emotions are telling us, then we rationalize (that’s the perfect word) that decision by thinking of reasons why that choice makes good sense. It just happens too fast for us to notice it, so we think it’s the rational thought that occurs first. But by following the progress of the neural pathways in the brain, it has recently been determined that the emotional choice is always the decider. Certainly emotion is a big part of it and advertisers obviously know it. Politicians too. But I really doubt bobody ever uses logic and reason to make decisions. If I go to the store to buy cereal and I’m looking at cost, weight, nutritional content, then it seems it’s not all emotion. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/71 "2012-08-23T00:27:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because we as a society have at this point decided that those effects _are_ negative. While when it comes to religion most of us still tend to try desperately to handwave away the negative effects of religion. This is bullshit. It is especially bullshit in light of all the discussions you’ve had on this very board with people who are clearly willing to acknowledge the negative effects of religion. People who are willing to try and be onbjective aren’t saying there are few negative effects of religion. We’re just noting the fact that the topic, “Is religion more positive than negative for humanity” is so broad and has so many variables that it’s impossible to objectively measure. You think it far far more negative than positive. We freakin get it, honest!! Others agree with you, but until someone finds a way to objectively measure it, your opinion is still just your opinion and not a fact. Personally I’d react the same way to some religious fanatic claiming how great and wonderful religion has been to mankind. It is what is is, a man made construct with all the positive and negatives that humanity has to offer. It has been the vehicle for both good and bad. Nobody has ever measured it and chances are nobody ever will. Your continued efforts to present your opinion as objective fact are baffeling, and at this point boring. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/72 "2012-08-23T00:46:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The attributes are impossible to reconcile. You are free to throw your hands up and say, “Maybe it makes sense in some way we can’t tell.” but that isn’t being rational. > > We’re talking about rational thinking here. Accepting the existence of something that can have no limits to Its power and be unlimited in Its compassion and goodness, you can’t have needless suffering. Saying that somehow the suffering is needed, ignores the fact that the God is omnipotent. An omnipotent being has suffering in its universe because it decided to. > > Right now there are children going blind from parasites in their eyes. There are people in agony from cancer that’s choking their organs. There are people burning to death right this instant. Right now. > > Either God can’t stop it, or he doesn’t care to. You can’t just say, “Well, maybe there is another option that we’re too small to see!” and still be in the realm of rational thinking. > > Where does that end? Why not rape a child? It might actually be good, _in some way we can’t see_! Why not kill the next person who speaks to you? It might actually be good _in some way we can’t see_! You may not like the simplistic answer but it is essnetially correct. When you assume the existence of God you create a universal and timless perspective that we can’t possibly fathom. A being that , having created the universe, sees exactly how every piece of the puzzle, every individual, every monet and act, fits together and the end game as well. Assuming that kind of perspective exists, how can we , lacking that perspective, declare any suffering "needless’ with absolute certainty? We could say that for such a being , ANY suffering at all is needless, but then we are declaring that ANY suffering is contrary to the term benevolent? Is it? What is the purpose of creation? Why are we here at all? Were we sent here? Created here? Or did we volunteer to spend one small speck of our eternity here? If we are eternal souls, then what does the “time” we spend here mean? What if duality, the chance to experience and percieve choice, good and evil, joy and suffering is the point of this brief life experience? if that’s the purpose , could it be deemed benevolent for us to be here , no matter what our experience? If we are eternal souls who are in no real danger from anything that happens here, why can’t the experience, only momentarily, from our limited perspective percieved as suffereing, actually be benevolent? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/73 "2012-08-23T00:50:08Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Of course it’s irrational to hold unfalsifiable unsupported hypotheses for true, or even true-ish, until conclusively falsified. For one thing, it’s tautologically oxymoronic. For another, it’s… well, silly. Speaking of faith as trust, it’s clear that people believe things every day they they have not personally tested and verified, right? Is it rational to believe what you get from sources you trust without testing it for yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/74 "2012-08-23T01:10:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Speaking of faith as trust, it’s clear that people believe things every day they they have not personally tested and verified, right? > > Is it rational to believe what you get from sources you trust without testing it for yourself? Not enough data to answer the question/question too vague. (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore, (F)ail ? I’d believe my girl if she told me the reason she didn’t bring back peanut putter from the store is that they were out of peanut butter. She might be bullshitting me, but it’s a credible, sensible line. I’ve experienced that before. OTOH I wouldn’t believe her if she told me she couldn’t get to the peanut butter shelf because there was an evil flaming unicorn in the way (or rather, I _might_ believe her, but I wouldn’t believe there really was one. My GF can be a little… odd at times :)) Now, you might be angling for “ah AH ! But you haven’t experienced the Higgs boson before !”. And you’re right, I haven’t. But then again, the eggheads who’re excited about it don’t want me to change my life around because of the Higgs fukken boson, or to give them money, nor do they prattle on about how their life was saved by the Higgs boson and I should really accept it as my personal fundamental particle and saviour, either. Besides, I’m confident that, should I actually _ask_ them to show me the Higgs boson, they could whip out a large collider and let me have a butcher’s. Just like, should I doubt my girlfriend, I could always go to the store to check the peanut butter aisle. But the defining point of articles of faith is that you _can’t_ see them, nobody can or has ! Some jokers even go on about how it’s even better and more marvelous _because_ you can’t see or prove it and it transcends the whatchamacallit, supercedes the thingamabob and so forth (and you sound like a loony when you talk about it). I ain’t been impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/75 "2012-08-23T01:13:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You think it far far more negative than positive. We freakin get it, honest!! Others agree with you, but until someone finds a way to objectively measure it, your opinion is still just your opinion and not a fact. > > Personally I’d react the same way to some religious fanatic claiming how great and wonderful religion has been to mankind. It is what is is, a man made construct with all the positive and negatives that humanity has to offer. It has been the vehicle for both good and bad. Nobody has ever measured it and chances are nobody ever will. Your continued efforts to present your opinion as objective fact are baffeling, and at this point boring. In other words, you are still demanding that a special standard be applied to religion and completely ignoring the fact that if we can’t judge religion, then there isn’t much we can judge. Sexism? Racism? Slavery? Genocide? Nazism? Communism? We can’t judge any of those as bad or good, if we actually take your reasoning seriously. I can’t prove scientifically that Nazism was bad, after all. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > You may not like the simplistic answer but it is essnetially correct. When you assume the existence of God you create a universal and timless perspective that we can’t possibly fathom. A being that , having created the universe, sees exactly how every piece of the puzzle, every individual, every monet and act, fits together and the end game as well. > Assuming that kind of perspective exists, how can we , lacking that perspective, declare any suffering "needless’ with absolute certainty? > We could say that for such a being , ANY suffering at all is needless, but then we are declaring that ANY suffering is contrary to the term benevolent? Is it? > What is the purpose of creation? Why are we here at all? Were we sent here? Created here? Or did we volunteer to spend one small speck of our eternity here? If we are eternal souls, then what does the “time” we spend here mean? > What if duality, the chance to experience and percieve choice, good and evil, joy and suffering is the point of this brief life experience? if that’s the purpose , could it be deemed benevolent for us to be here , no matter what our experience? > If we are eternal souls who are in no real danger from anything that happens here, why can’t the experience, only momentarily, from our limited perspective percieved as suffereing, actually be benevolent? An argument that makes a good, indifferent or evil god utterly indistinguishable from each other; and an argument that almost no one actually believes. This is just an argument people bring up to defend God from criticism; but as soon as the skeptics stop talking, suddenly every knows just what God likes, just what he wants, and whether or not what he wants is good. It’s also a viewpoint that lends itself to the most psychopathic of behavior, as **Lobohan** points out. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Speaking of faith as trust, it’s clear that people believe things every day they they have not personally tested and verified, right? > > Is it rational to believe what you get from sources you trust without testing it for yourself? Yes. And that’s not “faith as trust”, that’s not faith at all. Faith is by definition baseless. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/76 "2012-08-23T01:27:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Speaking of faith as trust, it’s clear that people believe things every day they they have not personally tested and verified, right? > > Is it rational to believe what you get from sources you trust without testing it for yourself? The testability standard does set a limit even when most people take the information on trust. First, because some people will test it - while I might not have the science background to test some fact, I know that other scientists in the same field will testing the fact as part of their research and unless you believe in conspiracies, you can count on those other scientists expose any errors. Second, the more extreme a claim, the more likely people are to test it. Look how many people began testing the supposed cold fusion system as soon as it was publicized - dozens of other labs began trying to reproduce the results and their inability to do so quickly discredited the claim. So if somebody states a fact that it testable and nobody steps forward to challenge that fact, it’s rational to assume that fact has stood up to testing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/77 "2012-08-23T04:29:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not sure you’re really understanding it. Let me try again. Oh, I understand it alright. In college I took a Theory of Knowledge class, which was made considerably less interesting by a few students who were extreme skeptics. In fact I did my paper on Keynes’ first book, which used probability to address the “we can’t know for sure” problem. So I’m very sensitive about the improper use of “proof.” > [@](#): > > Indeed, the empirical worldview (or “scientific method”, or “rationalist materialism”, or whatever we want to call it) does work very well. The fact that it ultimately rests on an unproven axiom doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t trust the results it produces. But everything considered by science rests on unproven axioms. When we make observations we are assuming that they mean something. When we communicate with other people we are assuming that the image they build from our writing or speech matches our image in some way. All unproven. So, while I agree that empiricism is unproven, I say that this observation isn’t very interesting, and not just because empiricism seems to work. > [@](#): > > It just means that **if** there exist any **other** truths about reality that the empirical worldview **can’t** determine (and that’s a hell of a big “if”, and one that I personally am very skeptical about), we will never be able to detect that by using the empirical method. I can think of a few - is this what you mean? For instance, that the universe is one big perfect simulation can’t be determined empirically. That there is a god who makes every sparrow fall, but does it invisibly and seemingly according to natural law is another example. But by definition neither of these things can make any difference at all. And, since we’re talking rationality here, I’d contend that living ones life as if one of these things was true is irrational. Religions, by the way, do think god visibly interferes, so they are not covered by my second example. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/78 "2012-08-23T04:46:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > False analogy. Sexism and racism are much more narrowly circumscribed cultural phenomena which are essentially **defined** by their negative effects. > > Trying to infer comparisons from sexism and racism to the whole monumental immemorial sociocultural complex of human existence that goes by the vague designation of “religion” is comparing apples and solar systems. When I was growing up in the '50s and early '60s sexism had a far more pervasive influence on society than religion did. And if I had lived in the south, racism would have also. Sure, today we see these things as purely negative, but back then some men actually believed it was a positive not to stress women with too much knowledge, and that wives staying at home made society run better. Even today the arguments against the new atheists in respectable publications seem to center around the supposed good effects of religion (and that our type of believer isn’t a fundamentalist) than around trying to demonstrate that any type of god exists. That is like a sexist refusing to consider arguments that women are as good as (or better than) men in various ways, and concentrating instead on the benefits to society of pretending that they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/79 "2012-08-23T04:48:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I reject that particular example as a bad example. It never made sense to me to posit that such a being exists and then proceed to judge that being by human standards and say “See it can’t exist” > It just doesn’t follow. We don’t posit that such a being exists - the believers do. Trying to get believers to nail down the characteristics of their deity is usually pretty tricky, at least for liberal believers. It is easy for those believing in Biblical inerrancy. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/80 "2012-08-23T09:02:31Z")
I think in the absence of data, it’s fine and rational to believe whatever you want, whether it’s a best guess (logic) or best wish (optimism) as long as you aren’t hurting yourself or others. You may be technically agnostic to whatever the undetermined issue is, but you still have to act upon some sort of mental test model. It’s when you believe something despite overwhelming contradictory data that you are irrational. So it’s fine to believe in the ephemeral aspects of your religion, but silly to believe in the parts that contradict clearly established physical facts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164.md?page=5)