Irrationality

Is there a legitimate place, time, and role for it?


I am a religious person who believes that religion is totally irrational--and that's WHY I am a religious person. I choose to be one, because the irrational part of my brain craves it. And, having made that choice, I see no reason to regret it; it does me no harm and in fact inspires me to aspire higher.

The brain isn't all reason; there are also emotions and hallucinations and dreams and weird flashes of gods-know-what. I see no reason why those impulses shouldn't be honored just as much as deliberate critical cognition. Conscious thought is not the only thing that shapes us.

I have no place for irrationality in my life, but reason can't do everything.

Think of the difference between illiterate and non-literate. The former is a negative value judgment applied to members of communities where literacy is the norm. The latter is a neutral term describing a society where no one reads. No big deal--they've memorized what they need to know for survival, possibly with the aid of specialists in healing or history.

Because it's not about being unable to read or not thinking reading is important--it's just about recognizing that reading is not the only source of decision-making input.

It's entirely possible for a highly well-read professor of literature to recognize that her area of expertise is book-based--but happily accept and utilize her grandmother's oral traditions about the best ways and times to plant vegetables, even if they've never been written in any book.

I honestly don't mind the word "irrational" when it comes to spiritual things, because I think the spiritual realm is by definition "not rational," so irrational seems like a kind of neutral accurate term for that way of thinking. I know a lot of people use it as a pejorative. But the word doesn't have to be pejorative.

However, there will probably be nore than one that fills the bill for you on a strictly rational basis. That's where nonrationality comes in--the feeling that you just like one of the finalists the best.

And there never will be.


Spiritual beliefs really, really do not work that way.

However, that isn't sufficient to enable a direct sense of connection with it, nor to answer questions about why am I here, what is the best use of my life, etc.

You can be as irrational all you want. Just please, keep it to yourself and in your home or church and out of my life by not putting your irrationality out there as a reason to vote for you, or to make laws, or to teach our children in public schools, or.....well, you get my drift, right?

Which I know is an irrational faith. And I'm fine with that. I am NOT fine with the current state of the US, which is all about theocracy in a VERY limited sense: a set of religions based on one autocratic monotheist god that emerged from a single region of the Middle-east that is really fucking tiny when you look at a globe of the whole world.

Yes, the single Middle-eastern god who is taken as the sole authority of three religions just because he said so in three scriptures (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) holds a lot of sway, and a lot of godawful shit has been done in His name, and He needs to answer for all of that, just as much as any of his followers need to answer for their "sins."

But the concept of higher powers, and the need of the irrational part of the human mind to connect with the ancient and the cosmic, is way more diverse and interesting and important than the angry-abusive-man-in-the-sky paradigm.

Of any religion--including, and especially, my own.

I'm biracial, binational, bisexual, pagan, female, and free-health-clinic class, so of course theocratic Christianity is the biggest immediate threat to me. I grew up in a Bible Belt town; do you think I don't understand how hateful and dangerous "Christian soldiers" are? Trust me, I do.

That was the whole point of my post. The "irrationality" of religion is not a threat to anyone. The sense of militant holy righteousness that some religions can generate is a thread to everyone.

"I see no reason why those impulses shouldn't be honored just as much as deliberate critical cognition."

So the mother who thinks her child is possessed by Satan and tries to kill him/her should be taken seriously? She might be right you know. Who are you to tell her otherwise?

Just because I will stand up for my own irrationality doesn't mean I will stand up for the irrationality of anyone else. Especially those whose hallucinations "told" them it was OK to kill a baby.


If some woman wants to commit infanticide and pass it off on God......well, let it happen. A fetus is not a person.

"If some woman wants to commit infanticide and pass it off on God......well, let it happen. A fetus is not a person."

Would you like to clarify this statement? You do realize that an infant is not a fetus, right?

whatever strawman you're interested in fighting with, that ain't me babe.

I'd like to know, if you want every irrational impulse to regarded on the same level as reason, is it possible to draw a line? Where and how do you do it?

Our brains act heuristically, not logically. Similar irrational themes constantly pop up in human behavior and thought in all cultures, as shown by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Reasonable thought and discussion is a learned, cultural behavior, while mythology and legend seem to be inherent human behaviors, as shown by how little kids go around with imaginary friends.

That's my point. I choose to be religious, because that is a good place to put my overwhelmingly intense emotional energy. I have spent many years reading about various religions, because it interests me, so....

It would be irrational to think otherwise.

I'm actually looking for a serious answer, but I understand that if you find the question too difficult, you'll toss a one-liner.

If it is, I would reason it out.

If it isn't, I would look for another means of evaluation.

In other words, I would attempt to determine if the truth of the matter is knowable, conventionally, or not.

If it wasn't, I wouldn't waste any more time on semantics, mathematics or logic.

Yes, that's the problem. That's why I asked the question - and also why you didn't really answer it. What are these other "means of evaluation?" How do you use them? Will they yield consistent results? Will they yield the same results for different people? Why or why not?

Theology at its root is the application of reason to the irrational. That is, the study of a theos is the study of the irrational, a thing not susceptible to human reason. Since most religions are based on revelation, not deduction or induction, the question becomes, do the implications of that premise make sense?

For instance, if the premise, unknowable and hence irrational, is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all merciful, etc., would the implications of that premise lead you to a God who demands war, ruthless obedience, and eternal damnation? My conclusion is no. In that sense, it's the application of reason to an irrational premise. If it leads to a place inconsistent with the premise, then either the premise or the person is wrong.

That's why I can freely reject Camping's numerological prediction but not the concept of God.

As to why people reach different results, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

"...the study of a theos is the study of the irrational, a thing not susceptible to human reason."

Just curious why you get to arbitrarily declare such a thing. What is the basis? Secondly, in this question:

"Since most religions are based on revelation, not deduction or induction, the question becomes, do the implications of that premise make sense?"

You are implying here (using the terminology of "make sense") that you are using rational analysis. But you just said you can't.

"If it leads to a place inconsistent with the premise, then either the premise or the person is wrong."

Or a new concept is introduced to try and gloss over the inconsistency. How can god be all-knowing and all-merciful but allow evil? Because of free will! In no other endeavor to increase human knowledge is it acceptable to just pull something out of your ass with no justification whatsoever simply because you think it can resolve a problem. Slap a capital letter onto it and it becomes Mystery - you won't understand the answer, so just accept that there isn't one!

"As to why people reach different results, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

C'est la vie, and if some people need to blow themselves up and take out innocent others in the process, there's nothing we can do?

The analysis of your god may not be rationally possible, but your methodology isn't even internally consistent.

Here asre various perspectives.

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/reasonvfaith.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Regarding your second point, "sensible" is not literally or actually the same as "rational".

Regarding your third point, free will is itself a premise that has to be played out - and in turn compared to the concept of God. The two premises need to be reconciled to be accepted.This process is much more than a gloss.

Finally, I have to go to work right now. Since you enjoy my shakespare reference so much, I'll leave you with another. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

I'll talk to you later.

But you haven't answered them either. Free will is indeed a gloss - what about the free will of a rape victim?

Enjoy your work. I'll be waiting if you can come up with a real answer.

Ok, it's clear you disagree with me.

Rather than go back and forth for a few hours, tell me your position.

Do you believe, given enough time and effort, that human reason is capable of answering all?

Obviously there are corollaries to that, but it's a start.

to shirk your duty to defend your discipline's many weaknesses by begging the question. Namely, that should there be limits to human reason, theology necessarily fills the gaps. But that is exactly what's on trial here. So far, you haven't even established how truth claims are evaluated in theology. The farthest you (or any theologian for that matter) has gotten is to say that good theology, "true" theology passes some kind of Potter Stewart-esque sniff test: you know it when you see it. And as best as I can figure, what that really means is that "true" theology is what you've already decided you want to believe.

So if there are limits to human discovery, investigation, and reason (and of course you do realize that particular line in the sand has been inexorably and consistently retreating throughout history - see "god of the gaps"), the first thing you must do is demonstrate how exactly theology can take over should rational inquiry fail.

That's a pretty tall task, rug. Not one theologian has yet accomplished it. Are you up to the challenge?

I don't know. But given all of human history, I think the person who bets against reason is generally going to lose their money.

I don't know either. But from what we do know, I'd hazard a guess that human reasoning is limited, certainly in contrast to the enormous (l/c)mysteries of the universe.

If I'm right, that doesn't necessarily lead to the god of the gaps or any other intellectually lazy concept.

It leaves, certainly, at least two distinct possibilities: a) there are things that will forever remain unknowable; or b) there must be other, additional, means of knowing what human reason cannot decipher.

I am content to consider that human reason is more finite than the universe of which it is a part and to consider what it means to be surrounded by unkowable things. While it leads me personally to examine religious concepts, I find that ultimately more fruitful than stretching human reason beyond its natural breaking point.

However, I'm not up to a long drawn out discussion tonight. For another day. Thanks for a reasonably civil discussion.

You're saying that if there are things that are unknowable, there are "other" ways to know them. This does not follow. It seems contrived to create the gap where you want to place your god. Quite convenient!

"While it leads me personally to examine religious concepts, I find that ultimately more fruitful than stretching human reason beyond its natural breaking point."

Assuming there is a breaking point, that is. You haven't demonstrated that. I'd prefer we see just how far reason can get us before we give up. I'm not as willing to wave the white flag as you are.

The god of the gaps concept does flow, but not necessaril, from b). There may be other means that are not simply substituting the word god for unexplained thingd.

Haven't seen you do that yet. Good luck finding gaps where your god might just survive.

Can't blame you - the other one was a dead end.

Especially #6.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x79532

Still waiting for you to defend the original which you (wisely?) abandoned. Or admit you abandoned it.

If you believe there is no other means of knowledge other than human reason, do you believe there are things that will remain forever unknowable?

is the attempt to make the irrational pass as sensible for people who need it to be so, and for the cruel and harsh to pass as reasonable for the same folk.

by theologians trying to make the Trinity seem sensible (without success). Or trying to explain how that bread and wine turns into actual flesh and blood, even though it looks, tastes and smells just the same. Or trying to rationalize why unbaptized babies don't go to hell. Or inventing and justifying the notion of "purgatory". Or any of a thousand other things that religion needs people to be OK with in order to keep control and keep the money flowing. Those running the churches know that people need to convince themselves that they are being rational, so they give them what they need.

Compare the number of things like this (and I'm sure even you could come up with lots of others, if you were being honest) to the number of things that theology has actually discovered (as opposed to just declared by fiat), then form your own opinion. And share.

I really think that irrational statements vary from each other wildly.

If someone has an irrational statement that is, basically "God tells me to feed the hungry," and that person goes on to feed hungry people, well, that is one kind of irrational statement, but its effects are not harmful.

If a different person has an irrational statement that is, basically, "God tells me to beat up gay people," and that person goes on to beat up gay people, well, obviously its effects are very harmful.

There is no "truth value" to irrational statements. What matters is what kind of actions result from those irrational beliefs. That's how non-believers ought to judge the results, IMO.

...and I would not call them unnecessary. Indeed, human existence would be meaningless without them. Nevertheless, in ascertaining facts, one needs to employ a certain rational discipline. Merely feeling that something is true does not make it so. The existence of a diety is a question of fact: there either is at least one god or else there isn't. At present there is no known evidence consistent with existence and many counter-indications. A complete lack of evidence, of course, does NOT get you to a 50/50 chance of being true. Zero evidence gets you to zero. And the simple fact is we do not need gods to explain all the positive, creative, emotional impulses that you are talking about.

"I see no reason why those impulses shouldn't be honored just as much as deliberate critical cognition."

Me neither. I am just convinced that such things are entirely human in origin.

Is the emotion of fear necessarily irrational? Or can it be an appropriate and necessary response to danger? Is a feeling of protectiveness towards one's children irrational? Or a way to be sure our genes get passed on?

Maybe that instinctive response was prompted by a real, rationally appreciated threat, but the emotion itself is irrational. Irrational does not mean wrong necessarily, it just means it is not a result of deliberate thought. I know people generally equate them, however.

Here's a problem I ran into in law school. To use violence for self defense, one must be in actual fear of imminent harm. Well, suppose the defendant sees the danger, understands the danger and deliberately responds to it with a violent response to prevent injury to himself or herself. Yet, at no time did the defendant experience the emotion of fear, or not until it was over. Under a strict reading of the law, the defendant is guilty of assault because he was not in fear. "I want you to do something." Is that an instruction or just a statement of subjective (emotional) desire? Most people would assume it means the same thing. Being kind of literal in my thinking, I see the distinction. The point is, our rational appreciation of danger and the emotion of fear are two different things even though most people think they are synonymous.

Irrational does not mean "not a result of deliberate thought". People reach irrational conclusions all the time after thinking about things deliberately. How do you think May 21st got picked for Rapture Day, for pity's sake?

And where in the world did you go to law school? Someone does not have to feel the emotion of "fear" in order to justify the use of force in self-defense. Not remotely. A person has to have a reasonable belief that the use of force is immediately necessary. Did you just pull that out of your ass to try to win the point, hoping I wouldn't know better? I certainly hope you never practiced criminal law using that notion.

What I am trying to say in my defense of irrationality is that I believe in Dieties in a way that is not subject to proof.


I have no interest in converting others to my way of thinking. I have no interest in trying to convince anyone that my belief will stand up to empirical standards of proof, because I know damn well that it won't.

That is not why I value it.

The distinction I make is this:

"Irrational" means contrary to, in direct conflict with rational analysis.

"Nonrational" merely means not based on, or not derivable from, rational analysis. That which is irrational is nonrational, but that which is nonrational certainly doesn't have to be irrational.

Rationality is not a sufficient basis for human behavior because rationality has no inherent drives or motivations. Even the desire to be rational is itself nonrational. It is a value choice external to rationality that leads one to one seek rationality. There is an emotional satisfaction in seeking consistent and verifiable truth.

Rationality is the most powerful tool we have for managing our various, sometimes conflicting emotional impulses. You might feel, say, an emotional desire to indulge your children with the things they want. You're also likely to have, however, an emotional desire for their long-term well being. Your rational mind is there to assess the pros and cons that help you reach a balance between stinginess and overindulgence, trying to maximize your nonrational desire to do well for your children.

I can't see how any of this leads to deciding it's a good idea to believe in deities or tarot cards, however. If you indulge in these sorts things while knowingly judging them to be irrational -- by the contrary to rationality sense I'm talking about -- how can it be anything other than a sort of play acting, going through to motions with an internal nod-and-a-wink knowing that what you're doing probably doesn't have a sensible basis in reality?

Excellent post.

second that

No question about it . . . especially if one considers "legitimate" the real but irrational
numbers in mathematics . . . Phi and Pi, for instance.

http://www.vashti.net/mceinc/golden.htm

http://www.mathsisfun.com/irrational-numbers.html










:kick:

...confusing or blurring the line between "irrational" as it pertains to logic and reason and "irrational" as it pertains to numbers like pi and the square root of 2.

Irrational numbers are called that because they cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers, not because they are somehow contrary to rational thought.