Rationalism and religion

by Narkissos 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  toreador

  There is just toooooo dang much to read and so little time!
• 

  myauntfanny

  narkissos
• 

  Abaddon

  We often oppose reason (ratio) and belief, as if those were mutually exclusive. I think they are not.

  Semantic minefield alert!

  My Aunty Betty believes she is of the annointed.

  I believe elephants are large and grey.

  Aunty Betty believes she is of the annointed because;

  1/ We are all wrong and she and 2 or 3 million people are right,

  or, more probably...

  2/ She has basically a genuine fervant belief in something as real as Santa Claus, that has been developed and nurtured over time to the point where it wharps her perceptions and makes her leap to delusions.

  I believe in elephants because;

  1/ I have seen them,

  2/ Other people see them too, and agree on their large greyness.

  3/ One can demonstrate (given a supply of elephants) that they are large and grey (using dictionary definitons of those words) in a repeatable fashion using whatever controls you like.

  Thus belief in an objectively non-demonstrable entities is different to a belief in objectively demonstrable entities.

  One form of belief is based upon facts, the other on suppositions.

  Reason always works from presuppositions.

  It does?

  Reason 1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
  2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind These are the data brought into our mind through language, by education, experience, influence, and so forth. Religious belief (as any kind of belief) may be initially part of them; we can bring it in or exclude it out later.

  Now, the reasoning in calculating an object 'a' distance above the surface of the planet massing 'b' and moving at 'c' velocity in a gravity field of 'g' will move in 'z' direction for 'y' time until hitting the surface of the planet at 'x' speed (if that's what the variable show) might hold some assumptions or presuppostions, but they will be based on well demonstrated things like the Gravtitational Constant, or on an assumption that the above mentioned factors are the only ones that are important in the calculation as other gravitational attractions are too small to produce a measurable difference and there is no atmosphere to make frictional allowance neccesary.

  Such presuppostions are of a different type to those a Calvanist's beliefs requires them to make.

  Having said that, obviously one major assumption is that perception is 'reality'; I might be a dream of a dog, or something.

  Now if we provisionally define rationalism as the logical, consistent, predictable way one thinks and acts out of a given set of presuppositions, we could conclude that some religious people are highly rational.

  I couldn't. The presuppostions made by a religious person arriving at a belief would normally be different in character to a presuppositons made in a scientific calculation.

  To me what you are talking about is internal logic. The JW's belief system is internally logical. Once one has accepted the basic set of beliefs and the presuppositions these are built upon, everything 'makes sense'.

  Kant and Nietzche have a lot to answer for.

  There seems to be a presuppostion there, namely, that National Socialism and Hitler's rise would not have happened had it not been for Kant and Nietzche.

  Both things arose in large part to German being screwed and subdued in the Treaty of Versailles. Wiley politicians used the growing discontent of the German people to move from democracy to a dictatorship, as this was presented as a 'solution'.

  Even if you're saying they contributed to Nazi philosophy, the accusation ranks with blaming the Beatles for Charles Manson's belief that 'Helterskelter' was a call to an apocalyptic race war. Or blaming Oppenhiemer (or Einstein, or Feynman) for the A-bomb.

  It removes all other factors that bought about a certain set of events and assumes a simple change would have diverted history.

  This is the sort of assumption that trashy sci-fi is based on; you know, go back in time, kill Hitler, no WWII.

  These are pretty big assumptions. Some individuals have wharped world events round them, but whether there would not have been someone very similar taking advantage of the same set of situations in the absense of infamous historical charcters is an unanswerable question.

  Fun thread, back to work now...
• 

  LittleToe

  Gyles:

  Such presuppostions are of a different type to those a Calvanist's beliefs requires them to make.

  Hey, why are you beating upon the Calvinists

  I couldn't. The presuppostions made by a religious person arriving at a belief would normally be different in character to a presuppositons made in a scientific calculation.

  Interesting observation, but not always borne out by the outcome.
  I've seen grey elephants, too...
• 

  ozziepost

  Hey, what's this about Calvin? Who's having a go at him? - some of my best friends are Calvinists!!
• 

  funkyderek

  Hey, why are you beating upon the Calvinists

  Probably because there are no Van Tillians here
• 

  ozziepost

  Ya never know!
• 

  Narkissos

  Calvinist philosophy (Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Van Til) is a very good example of religious rationalism (and here I mean the "-ism") -- which I personally would flee like the plague...
• 

  LittleToe

  Calvinist philosophy

  Yet, as with most things, there are extremes, as can be seen on the "Freedom to Choose God" thread.
  Sub-cultures within sub-cultures...
• 

  Terry

  I wore myself out posting so much the other day on these Philosophical musings!

  I'm going to lapse into the LittleToe mode and just pepper the board with pithy pointillist prattle.

  I'll make a smaller target

  Too much of anything isn't good for you. Especially rationalism vs mysticism.