# 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:** 7
**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 24, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/121 "2012-08-24T23:11:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > We can say nothing **rationally** meaningful about it, true. Which means we can’t say _anything at all_ meaningful about it; including what you just said. You are trying to use rational arguments about something to which you claim rationality does not apply. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Tough shit. As honest debaters, we don’t get to reject a valid statement just because many people who make that statement secretly prefer to disregard it in favor of something much more illogical. Except this isn’t about honest debate; this is about them trying to beat down disagreement while being willing to lie to do it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > IOW , religious faith is not a separate and different mechanism from the kind of faith and trust agnostics and atheists have. Nonsense, and insulting. They are entirely different. Agnosticism and atheism do not require faith; they fit the facts, they hold together rationality. Religion does neither of those things, and therefore requires the denial of facts and rational thought, the baseless assertion of fantasy over reality; faith in other words. ---
**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 24, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/122 "2012-08-24T23:32:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You have a girlfriend??!! {I kid} > > The point I made early on is about the definition of rational being oversimplified by the popular atheist argument of believing something that can’t be falsified. Whether it’s a popular opinion among atheists or not, that’s not the definition of rational. You didn’t really address the point, you just made the same assertion I’m challenging. First, your standard religious person not only believes in something which can be falsified but believes in something which has been falsified. Second, the atheist belief can easily be falsified - a god just has to show up. I know many atheists say they wouldn’t believe even then, but we’d have to have this experience to know for sure. Those who believe in a deist type of god or god as the universe are the ones believing in something unfalsifiable. > [@](#): > > Reason, what is reasonable, has something to do with context. As I pointed out, all people have a belief system that consists of intellect and emotion. The plain facts, and how they interpret those facts through the lens of their experience and , knowledge base, etc. All people operate on some degree of faith, or trust. We obviously don’t verify every piece of information that comes our way. It’s necessarily irrational to believe information we receive from trusted sources or to believe what the majority of our social group believes. But when that thing becomes controversial, or doubt is cast on it, it is time to move from uncritical acceptance to analysis. Until I was about 16 I believed in God for exactly the reasons you give, but then I got new information and was able to change my mind. For most people there is no excuse to ignore the evidence against a god - lack of evidence in some cases, evidence in the unreliability of the Bible for another. I wouldn’t bother to walk someone feeble minded through arguments against god, but no one around here matches that description. > [@](#): > > If we are going to judge religious beliefs with the same standards we judge all beliefs {which is the correct thing to do} let’s also judge faith , or trust, and the belief systems of humans by one standard as well. IOW , religious faith is not a separate and different mechanism from the kind of faith and trust agnostics and atheists have. It simply has a different outcome. > Speaking of average people, not scientists, we all operate by assuming certain information we receive is true. It’s not an irrational act. My suggestion is that people who accept certain beliefs because they were taught them , and those beliefs are reinforced by their group, are not necessarily being irrational. OTOH, if they NEVER question any of those beliefs , or embrace them in spite of being exposed to serious factual challenges , then irrational can be an accurate term. > What is rational depends to some degree on the context of the individual and is not a one size fits all definition. I think most atheists treat claims of faith healing, quack medical cures, and astrology the same way we treat religious claims. What trust do atheists have again? When Godot does not show up, thinking he won’t is based on evidence, not trust. I for one, and most regulars here, are here to test our lack of belief. I’ve been testing mine for 40 years now. In that time I’ve seen pitifully few good arguments for God. I’ve seen beliefs in unfalsifiable deities, I’ve seen intelligent theists refuse to discuss the issue, and mostly I’ve seen utter nonsense - with the exception of **Liberal** who definitely tried and was looking for a rational defense of his faith. If all the irrational god belief - and the desire to act as if the gods they believe in were proven - were replaced by god belief that only goes as far as the evidence takes us, we’d have a much better country. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/123 "2012-08-24T23:33:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which means we can’t say _anything at all_ meaningful about it; including what you just said. You are trying to use rational arguments about something to which you claim rationality does not apply. Nope, I’m using rational arguments **about rationality**. Specifically, that rationality can’t be used to determine whether or not there exists something to which rationality does not apply. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Except this isn’t about honest debate; this is about them trying to beat down disagreement while being willing to lie to do it. [/quote] Abandoning honest debate is not a good way to counter browbeating and lying, IMO. ---
**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 24, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/124 "2012-08-24T23:45:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nope, I’m using rational arguments **about rationality**. Specifically, that rationality can’t be used to determine whether or not there exists something to which rationality does not apply. Seeing as there is no evidence for it, it is absurd to act as if something that goes against all our observations exists. Vampires are supernatural. I assume you don’t give that the benefit of the doubt? In fact, you probably live your life in exactly the same way as if you knew for a fact that vampires didn’t exist. In fact, if someone asked you if vampires existed, you’d say no. Asserting that _God goes against all our observations is a point that supports His existence_ is beyond absurd. And it surely isn’t rational. If God is magic, then He isn’t subject to rational debate. And if he can just say that the rules of logic don’t apply to him, that’s the biggest _special pleading_ fallacy in the history of the universe. > [@](#): > > Abandoning honest debate is not a good way to counter browbeating and lying, IMO. You consider asserting that God is supernatural, thus He doesn’t need to be logically consistent, to be honest debate? I can’t prove a God doesn’t exist. But I can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that a omnipotent and omnibenevolent one doesn’t. All I need to do is point to a nearby pediatric cancer ward. ---
**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 24, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/125 "2012-08-24T23:57:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nope, I’m using rational arguments **about rationality**. Specifically, that rationality can’t be used to determine whether or not there exists something to which rationality does not apply. If rationality does not apply to something, then it is something that has no meaning and cannot be conceived of. It is also nothing more than a strawman used by the religious, because people don’t actually worship any gods that are “beyond rationality”; that just a line they use to deflect criticism. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Abandoning honest debate is not a good way to counter browbeating and lying, IMO. Pointing out that the other side IS engaging in browbeating and lying rather than honest debate is, however. While ignoring the fact that they are doing so is essentially ceding the argument to them. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/126 "2012-08-25T00:37:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. I’m not capitulating to anything. I’m merely saying that a fairly common argument that has in some circles become accepted as sound, doesn’t really make sense. > [@](#): > > And as the being would be omnipotent, nothing it doesn’t explicitly want to happen would happen. or be allowed to happen , granted. > [@](#): > > What if someone throwing acid in your child’s face is actually necessary to God’s plan? What if the details of exactly what happened are not the point for an eternal universal being which might be God, and even us. > [@](#): > > 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. Who the hell is daydreaming? Keep it straight. At no time have I argued for the existence of God. Of course it’s what ifs. The argument I’m talking about that you brought up is a what if. Namely “If God exists and he/she can’t be omnibenevolent” That argument starts with “what if such a being exists” right? I’m simply saying that it’s not logical to imagine a universal all knowing perspective and then argue “needless” suffering from a strictly human perspective. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/127 "2012-08-25T00:42:29Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > 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. Are you reading the thread? I stated right away that belief systems are emotion and intellect. I just think you went to far when you said it’s all emotion, nobody uses reason. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/128 "2012-08-25T00:52:10Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > 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. A very large portion of how we all function is “somebody told you X was true” It isn’t that you can’t prove it. It’s recognizing what you don’t know. That cuts both ways. Believers or non believers that are to certain about things they can’t know are being irrational. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/129 "2012-08-25T01:02:43Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > Getting back to the OP, I’d draw the lines charitably, especially with popular or long-standing ideas. If millions of people say similar things, they may all be wrong, but they’re probably not stupidly wrong. Other people have minds too, and they may have caught something I missed. Of course, sometimes the irrationality is so outrageous it hits you in the face with a rubber chicken; but, barring that, I’d rather risk treating a few crazy notions with respect, than prematurely condemn possible good ideas, especially since people are prone to label ideas they disagree with as irrational, when really they just missed the point. That’s the point I’m trying to make. What is rational is not just a purely intellectual analyzing of facts. That’s not how belief systems work presenting it as such with the claim “all religious beliefs are irrational” is lazy and inaccurate. > [@](#): > > If intuition and instinct are based on experience, following them is more rational than the scientific approach. Now that’s interesting ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/130 "2012-08-25T01:17:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Almost all these arguments begin by restricting them to omnibenevolent deities, and they often end by saying they don’t apply to deities who are dicks. No one ever tried to demonstrate that the Greek gods don’t exist because of this argument. They never claimed to be all good. > > Many people think the Christian god is omnibenevolent, so the argument of natural evil does apply there. I understand the argument. I’m not saying omnibenevolant and natural evil, or unnecessary suffering doesn’t apply. I’m saying when we start the exercise in logic by saying "if a being that is , omni X, Y and Z exists, then we’ve created a universal perspective that we can’t possibly fathom. A being who sees how every moment fits together, which we can’t possibly do. As such, it’s illogical to judge suffering and evil from our limited perspective and declare it needless. It’s completely logical , rational and fair to say, there’s no evidence to support God belief. That’s a fact. It’s rational to say the existence of so much suffering is a factor in you not believing. It’s not strictly logical to say such a being cannot exist. What’s rational is recognizing the limits of our knowledge. Look at everything we have discovered that was beyond the imagination of previous generations. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/131 "2012-08-25T01:21:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve got a better idea - take the Romney from the Mass days and the anti-Romney of today. Put them in a collider. The power generated from their mutual annihilation would power the US for years. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/132 "2012-08-25T01:25:59Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > You may also be confusing the science with the media reports about the science. > > The science usually says something like “we thought X might be bad for you, so we followed this methodology to craft the following experiments, based on our examination of the results of those experiments, we observed the following, and our evidence suggests that there may be a connection where increasing X leads to poor outcomes”. Then the media reports “X is bad for you”, then someone else does more research, more experiments, more analysis, and has a similarly nuanced report that again gets mis-characterized/simplified by the media. > > In many cases, the conclusions as stated by both scientists are indeed consistent with the evidence and observations. I understand that. My comment was more about the nature of belief systems and why we accept things as true. Religion has changed it’s beliefs over time. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/133 "2012-08-25T01:31:32Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense, and insulting. They are entirely different. Agnosticism and atheism do not require faith; they fit the facts, they hold together rationality. Religion does neither of those things, and therefore requires the denial of facts and rational thought, the baseless assertion of fantasy over reality; faith in other words. Aren’t you the one constantly complaining about religion having a special status? Now here you are trying to create one for it. Atheists by their rejection of God have already defacto admitted that beliefs systems are the same internal mechanism for everyone. Every human being uses faith, in the sense that they accept certain things as true on trust rather than verify everything personally. It is a casually observable fact. ---
**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 25, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/134 "2012-08-25T01:39:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Aren’t you the one constantly complaining about religion having a special status? Now here you are trying to create one for it. Atheists by their rejection of God have already defacto admitted that beliefs systems are the same internal mechanism for everyone. Say what? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Atheists are the same as everyone else because they do the opposite of everyone else? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Every human being uses faith, in the sense that they accept certain things as true on trust rather than verify everything personally. Faith is _not_ trust. Faith is the holding of a baseless belief. If there’s a good reason to believe something, then that isn’t faith. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/135 "2012-08-25T01:42:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Seeing as there is no evidence for it, it is absurd to act as if something that goes against all our observations exists. Absurd, or in other words: not rational. Yes, I agree. I’ve agreed with this point several times in this thread already, in case you didn’t notice. E.g.: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Saying “Based on a rationalist-materialist epistemology, the default rational position is to assume in the absence of any contrary evidence that there are no gods” is indeed totally rational. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I entirely agree with you that these conditions make the concept of a supernatural being irrational. But if you need me to say it again: yes, it is not rational to assume the existence of an entity to which rationality doesn’t apply. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Vampires are supernatural. I assume you don’t give that the benefit of the doubt? In fact, you probably live your life in exactly the same way as if you knew for a fact that vampires didn’t exist. In fact, if someone asked you if vampires existed, you’d say no. I certainly don’t personally believe in vampires, any more than I believe in God. And I certainly am well aware that no empirical evidence exists for the existence of vampires or of God. And I’m also aware that scientific models of physical reality do not just passively fail to support, but actively contradict, claims typically made for the physical capabilities of vampires or of God. _But if somebody asked me whether I could indisputably **prove** that there don’t exist any vampires whose unexplained supernatural powers allow them to circumvent the constraints of empirical laws and rational thought and thus escape detection by science, **I would say no, I can’t**. Because I’m not dishonest and I’m not stupid._ > [@Lobohan](#): > > Asserting that _God goes against all our observations is a point that supports His existence_ is beyond absurd. And it surely isn’t rational. As far as I can tell, that first sentence makes no sense. What do you mean? > [@Lobohan](#): > > If God is magic, then He isn’t subject to rational debate. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. > [@Lobohan](#): > > And if he can just say that the rules of logic don’t apply to him, that’s the biggest _special pleading_ fallacy in the history of the universe. No, claiming that the rules of logic don’t apply to a particular claim is by definition not a logical fallacy. Fallacies are failures to apply the rules of logic consistently in a situation where they are presumed to be valid. Asserting that the rules of logic are not valid for a particular subject disqualifies the subject from logical analysis altogether, but it is not a fallacy _per se_. > [@Lobohan](#): > > You consider asserting that God is supernatural, thus He doesn’t need to be logically consistent, to be honest debate? It is not debate at all. Rather, it is an arbitrary denial of the possibility of debate, based on an irrational assumption. However, _ **IT IS BY DEFINITION NOT SUBJECT TO RATIONAL DISPROOF.** _ > [@Lobohan](#): > > I can’t prove a God doesn’t exist. That’s what I’ve been saying. > [@Lobohan](#): > > But I can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that a omnipotent and omnibenevolent one doesn’t. All I need to do is point to a nearby pediatric cancer ward. Nope, that’s not an adequate demonstration. Because your human conceptions of “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” and their necessary consequences can never be adequately shown to be equivalent to those of an omnipotent supernatural being. Look, I don’t like the fact that children get cancer any more than you do, and I don’t believe in God any more than you do, and I don’t think that the assumption of God’s existence is any more rational than you do. _I just don’t have such an aching hard-on for winning debates with theists that I’m willing to try to evade the basic fact that they are technically within their rights to call off the fight whenever they please, on the grounds that the subject is intrinsically disqualified from rational argument._ If a theist believes that God is beyond rational understanding, then since it’s impossible for me to prove that he isn’t, that’s when we agree to disagree and just walk away. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/136 "2012-08-25T01:45:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If rationality does not apply to something, then it is something that has no meaning and cannot be conceived of. Yup, it has no rational meaning and it is impossible to form any rational conception of it. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > It is also nothing more than a strawman used by the religious, because people don’t actually worship any gods that are “beyond rationality”; that just a line they use to deflect criticism. Like I said: tough shit. I’m talking about the argument itself in the abstract, not about the ways people misuse it in practice. ---
**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 25, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/137 "2012-08-25T02:07:37Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You have a girlfriend??!! {I kid} For my sins 🙂 > [@](#): > > The point I made early on is about the definition of rational being oversimplified by the popular atheist argument of believing something that can’t be falsified. Whether it’s a popular opinion among atheists or not, that’s not the definition of rational. You didn’t really address the point, you just made the same assertion I’m challenging. > > Reason, what is reasonable, has something to do with context. As I pointed out, all people have a belief system that consists of intellect and emotion. The plain facts, and how they interpret those facts through the lens of their experience and , knowledge base, etc. All people operate on some degree of faith, or trust. We obviously don’t verify every piece of information that comes our way. It’s necessarily irrational to believe information we receive from trusted sources or to believe what the majority of our social group believes. On this we can agree - we are all “irrational” in the sense that we daily accept information and assertions on flimsy premises or based on prejudiced, subjective judgement. > [@](#): > > That is especially true if we hold certain unproven beliefs as merely possible , or our current belief, acknowledging that our belief system is a work in progress. > Holding things we can’t possibly know with certainty as absolute truths can be considered irrational, as can holding things as true once we’ve been made aware of strong contradictory evidence. Again, agreed - but you seem to go one step further and say “well, since we’re all doing irrational things every day, might as well do that one too” or “why criticize this one more irrational thing people do ?” > [@](#): > > If we are going to judge religious beliefs with the same standards we judge all beliefs {which is the correct thing to do} let’s also judge faith , or trust, and the belief systems of humans by one standard as well. IOW , religious faith is not a separate and different mechanism from the kind of faith and trust agnostics and atheists have. It simply has a different outcome. Aaaand here comes the double standard. No, the religious and atheist positions are not equivalent, and they do have different mechanisms. On the whole, agnosticism might be more rational, or more intellectually honest I suppose ; but the idea that inventing gods and rejecting gods are on the same level is spurious. And the idea that trusting there is a god and life after death is on the same level as trusting my girlfriend that there wasn’t any peanut butter left at the store is either disingenuous or aggressively silly. > [@](#): > > Speaking of average people, not scientists, we all operate by assuming certain information we receive is true. It’s not an irrational act. You… just said it was earlier. here, lemme re-quote it for you: “All people operate on some degree of faith, or trust. We obviously don’t verify every piece of information that comes our way. **It’s necessarily irrational to believe information we receive from trusted sources** or to believe what the majority of our social group believes.” > [@](#): > > My suggestion is that people who accept certain beliefs because they were taught them , and those beliefs are reinforced by their group, are not necessarily being irrational. Of course they are, assuming they espouse those beliefs \*because \*of groupthink or they were taught these beliefs by people they have an emotional investment in. It’s neither “good” nor “bad” - like you say, we all do it in some regards. But why want to call it rational ? > [@](#): > > OTOH, if they NEVER question any of those beliefs , or embrace them in spite of being exposed to serious factual challenges , then irrational can be an accurate term. I don’t think the act of questioning one’s beliefs is, in itself, enough to be called “rational”. It’s a step in the right direction to be sure, but if you’re questioning them using dismal logic or in that informal, rationalized way we humans have to actively reinforce our own beliefs by essentially straw-manning ourselves, well… Besides, in the specific case of religion, doesn’t it face serious factual challenges from the get go ? Whether you’re told about The Jeebus, the wheel of reincarnation, Odin’s resurrection come the day of Ragnärok or kami protecting the trees, there has to be some point where you ask yourself “how do these people know about all these invisible/post-mortem/future things ?”. > [@](#): > > What is rational depends to some degree on the context of the individual and is not a one size fits all definition. Well, there we’ll have to disagree - as a stick-up-the-bum prescriptivist I get all twitchy when people try and fuzzy up the basic definition of words on me 😃 ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/138 "2012-08-25T02:42:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Every human being uses faith, in the sense that they accept certain things as true on trust rather than verify everything personally. It is a casually observable fact. You’re equivocating between two definitions of faith. “Faith” as a synonym for “trust” isn’t the kind of faith religious people are talking about when they’re asked a question such as “Why do you believe in a book when you have no evidence it’s true?” and they answer “Faith.” In that example, the religious person is using the following definition of ffaith: 1. belief that is not based on proof: \*He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. \* Faith that is synonymous with trust is the first definition: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability. I have the first kind of faith _when I have evidence for it_. I have faith that certain people will pay me back when I give them a loan because I have evidence that they are trustworthy people and they are likely to pay me back. I have zero faith that a stranger would, and if I did, it would take the second kind of faith as it would be sans evidence. I have zero of the second kind of faith in anything. Religious people generally do. This isn’t the first time I’ve witnessed the “atheists have faith just like us believers do” argument and it almost always uses equivocation. ---
**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 25, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/139 "2012-08-25T03:28:45Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I understand the argument. I’m not saying omnibenevolant and natural evil, or unnecessary suffering doesn’t apply. I’m saying when we start the exercise in logic by saying "if a being that is , omni X, Y and Z exists, then we’ve created a universal perspective that we can’t possibly fathom. A being who sees how every moment fits together, which we can’t possibly do. As such, it’s illogical to judge suffering and evil from our limited perspective and declare it needless. This is called the “best of all possible worlds” argument. By definition, if we have an omnibenevolent god then our world is the best there can be, for reasons we cannot fathom. But this is an excellent example of special pleading, in that any baby who dies of disease or in a natural disaster would have the made the world worse if she survived. And there is nothing to back this up except by assertion. Now, every disaster in the past, before we were born, is good to us viewed selfishly. I wouldn’t be here if WW II hadn’t happened, since my parents would have no doubt had a baby long before me, and the circumstances around my conception would not have happened. But it would be the height of arrogance to claim that the world with me would have been better than the world in which millions would not have died. Multiply a billion-fold, and you have your argument. > [@](#): > > It’s completely logical , rational and fair to say, there’s no evidence to support God belief. That’s a fact. It’s rational to say the existence of so much suffering is a factor in you not believing. It’s not strictly logical to say such a being cannot exist. > What’s rational is recognizing the limits of our knowledge. > Look at everything we have discovered that was beyond the imagination of previous generations. Well, I only assert that a subset of gods cannot exist, tri-omni ones for example, since they are inconsistent and because their existence involves logical contradictions. Other gods could exist. As far as we can tell, they do not. We have plenty of evidence that no god of earth ever existed, gods of other planets I’ll consider when we visit. ---
**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 25, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164/140 "2012-08-25T03:30:01Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I understand that. My comment was more about the nature of belief systems and why we accept things as true. Religion has changed it’s beliefs over time. But if any religion were really in contact with god they would not change their belief system. This is an excellent argument that no human religion is true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-are-the-lines-drawn-on-what-is-rational-and-what-isnt/632164.md?page=8)