# 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:** 5
**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 23, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/81 "2012-08-23T12:01:02Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > 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. And what’s wrong with just not believing until more evidence comes in? ---
**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, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/82 "2012-08-23T12:54:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > 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. Before I respond more fully, have you read the thread or at least perrused my posts? ---
**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, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/83 "2012-08-23T13:03:53Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Straw man , I never said we can’t judge religion. I said we can’t realisitically measure all religion, throughout all history, including every person who lives, and ever has lived, their every act, and assign some measureable value of good or bad. Let’s make this easy. I’m not interested in hearing your opinion on the subject again. If and when you can find some reputible source who claims to have actually done such a study I’ll be happy to look at it. Until then there’s zero need to hear from you about it. ---
**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, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/84 "2012-08-23T13:09:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. When someone is making a claim about logic about such a being then they are because that supposed being is included. I’ve seen the argument about unnessecary evil quite a bit. Never made sense, still doesn’t. ---
**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, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/85 "2012-08-23T13:10:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And what’s wrong with just not believing until more evidence comes in? Nothing at all. Also rational. ---
**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, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/86 "2012-08-23T13:14:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. People believe a study that says X is bad for you, and that becomes common knowledge until another study a few years later says , no X isn’t really bad for you and actually has some benefits. Is that rational? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/87 "2012-08-23T13:25:59Z")
> [@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. Yes, I suppose one can take a very logical and rational approach to an absurd, hypothetical or incorrect premise. People once reasoned that the sun moved around the Earth based on the empirical evidence they had at the time. The Unibomber reasoned that he needed to start blowing people up to save the Earth. > [@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? What would such a being care about any particular individual’s suffering any more than we might care about the suffering of an amoebae? What could an amoebae possibly comprehend about it’s “purpose” under a microscope? Why is it important for people to feel it is possible for them to have a “relationship” with God any more than it is possible for the amoebae to have a relationship with the lab techniciam? > [@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. I think you are confusing rational with rationale. Buying Frosted Flakes over Corn Flakes because I like the taste is a rationale. Buying Corn Flakes cereal because it is healthier than Frosted Flakes is rational. You are correct. Different people will reason differently. They have different motives, drivers, experiences and information available to them. > [@suranyi](#): > > The problem is that nobody ever uses logic and reason to make decisions about anything. “Nobody” and “ever” are probably incorrect. People will make decisions based on emotion. Hwever that is very different from saying no one ever takes a logical and reasoned approach to decision making. ---
**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, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/88 "2012-08-23T13:57:13Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Before I respond more fully, have you read the thread or at least perrused my posts? Yes. But I was a little drunk when I posted that and got carried away - if you want the same point made eloquently and without the contentious crap, head to\*\* Little Nemo\*\*'s > [@](#): > > People believe a study that says X is bad for you, and that becomes common knowledge until another study a few years later says , no X isn’t really bad for you and actually has some benefits. > > Is that rational? What does “that” refer to ? ---
**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, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/89 "2012-08-23T14:01:39Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > What does “that” refer to ? That, is believeing a study that X is bad for you because it got repeated and spread around as true, only to discover a few years later it was incorrect, or perhaps the 2nd study is incorrect. ---
**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, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/90 "2012-08-23T14:19:49Z")
As a general rule, I wouldn’t say accepting something as true because “everybody knows it is” is rational, no. Common knowledge is more often than not up it’s arse, even more so when it comes to science and fact-based assertions. Hence this very forum. Did you know there’s actually not all that much iron in spinach, and the source of the myth is a 140 year old misplaced decimal point ? The rational measure of the truthiness of a given study is _the contents of that study_ (methodology, interpretation of the results, etc…), not how far it got carried on the wings of rumour, misunderstanding, false advertising, miscommunication and so forth. ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/91 "2012-08-23T14:23:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And what’s wrong with just not believing until more evidence comes in? Who said there’s anything wrong with that? ---
**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 23, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/92 "2012-08-23T14:38:59Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > Who said there’s anything wrong with that? Seems to me that it can be a better choice than the two you presented, and thus conspicuous in its absence. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/93 "2012-08-23T14:51:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Seems to me that it can be a better choice than the two you presented, and thus conspicuous in its absence. It is probably the most rational choice so long as we are careful to operate as if X does not exist in our other pursuits. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/94 "2012-08-23T14:52:50Z")
> [@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. What feelings were the neuroscientists having that led them to believe that? ---
**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 23, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/95 "2012-08-23T14:53:17Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > It is probably the most rational choice so long as we are careful to operate as if X does not exist in our other pursuits. Agreed. ---
**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 23, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/96 "2012-08-23T15:24:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You may not like the simplistic answer but it is essnetially correct. It’s not essentially correct. It’s a meaningless capitulation to fantasy. You are essentially saying, “what if, in some way we can’t understand 2+2=107?” That’s not rational, it’s deciding to pretend that i_n this one instance_, nonsense makes sense. > [@](#): > > 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. And as the being would be omnipotent, nothing it doesn’t explicitly want to happen would happen. > [@](#): > > 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? The universe could certainly exist with negative motivation without the possibility of gangrape, coke-fueled child solders and brain cancer. > [@](#): > > 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? What if someone throwing acid in your child’s face is actually necessary to God’s plan? Surely you can see that everything you wrote in that previous paragraph is simply nonsense what-ifs? That’s not being rational. A rational person looks at reality for cues to action. Not picks an idea (that God exists) and spend time daydreaming about excuses to make the concept sound reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/97 "2012-08-23T16:42:31Z")
Rationality, I think, is the ability to reason within the confines defined by your logical framework. If my framework is, for example, personal utility, then it is rational for me to choose the $4 platter over the $5 one, all else equal. I am making a rational choice because I am optimizing my utility based on the framework defined by the situation at hand. When it comes to epistemology, inductive reasoning is what we largely use as our underpinning. Inductive reasoning is largely probabilistic. Some things we’re extremely confident about because it’s worked 100% of the time, and it’s predictive, supported by tons of evidence, etc. However, it _could_ be wrong. Many years ago, inductive reasoning would have suggested that it was rational/reasonable to think that God created complex things or that we were alone in the universe. Of course, as evidence rolled in and expanded our logical frameworks, we changed our opinions to arrive at more rational conclusions. We don’t need God to explain anything. You can be rational within a theistic framework, but I do not think it is rational to adopt the theistic framework in the first place. I draw the line at the 50/50 mark. In this case, the evidence is overwhelmingly against theistic frameworks, as they’ve now been revealed to be God of the Gaps arguments, argument from ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to utility, confirmation bias, etc, which are all problems we’re well aware of and how they work. Could it be wrong? Maybe there is a God? Sure. But God is very improbable based on what we now know. He’s not necessary to explain our universe just like pixies are not necessary to explain how water boils. Is it rational to believe in something that hasn’t been proven or contradicted? An unfalsifiable God? If your aim is to feel better and enjoy life more, it could be. If your goal is truth, then absolutely not. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/98 "2012-08-23T17:54:31Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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. There has been a lot of recent [research](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision_making) into the role that emotion plays in decision-making. What scientists have found is that it has a surprisingly large place. In the example of buying cereal that you give, what they have found is that in many cases, people who are simply asked to choose a cereal give a different answer than the one they give if they are asked specifically to weigh cost, weight, nutritional content, etc., and then choose. Even though they think they are making a rational decision in both cases, in the first case they are making an emotional decision which is immediately rationalized. Not only that, but scientists can actually follow the progress of thoughts through the neurons in the brain, from the emotion center first and then to the frontal lobes where rational thought occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/99 "2012-08-23T18:14:37Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > It becomes two entirely different arguments, depending on where you start. “I won’t believe in your god, until you provide evidence” is a _far_ different argument than “Your god _doesn’t exist_, unless you provide evidence that he does”. The first is rational, the second just… isn’t. And **DT** is incapable of distinguishing the two arguments. I don’t entirely agree with this, given that I think I understand where DT is coming from. all religion is derived from one single source of evidence. Someone told you so. that is the entirety of religion other than the part where the person told believes the teller. the invisible pink unicorn and the FSM are both perfect examples of this. no one really thinks either of these things exist because they were created to poke fun at believers (among other reasons) yet they have exactly the same level of proof of existence as every other god who has been believed in at every point in human history. there is no god is a perfectly rational stand point if you hold this view. just like there is no invisible pink unicorn standing over your shoulder, the one who is also incorporeal, does not breathe or radiate heat or any other type of energy. if you believe god exists because we cannot prove he doesn’t or can’t then you also believe in the ipu, the fsm, and that tomorrow morning fairies will have built an invisible bridge that allows you (and only you, it will not stop airflow or birds or anything else from passing through that space) to walk off the top floor of a parking garage to the nearest tall building. Wait, that last one could be proven one way or the other, but only if you are willing to take that first step. Believers require that their faith be rational to them, they require the “you can’t prove he doesn’t exist” argument to seem valid. it is not, and never has been. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/100 "2012-08-23T19:46:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > People believe a study that says X is bad for you, and that becomes common knowledge until another study a few years later says , no X isn’t really bad for you and actually has some benefits. > > Is that rational? Yes it is. When new evidence is found, it expands your knowledge and you adjust your beliefs accordingly. This is the essence of rationality - you go where the evidence takes you. To put it in perspective, do you think millions of people converted from Christianity to Islam in the eight century because new evidence was discovered that proved Allah was more real than God? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164.md?page=6)