galiel

I disagree that humans are fundamentally irrational creatures.

Making sweeping statements about fundamental (I assume this implies genetic) human nature, based on our response to less than 150 years since the development of modern scientific methodology and the limited practice and teaching of critical thought, as opposed to several thousand years of organized, institutionalized religion, is not particularly rigorous or defensible.

People are currently poorly informed and poorly taught. Surveys show that less than 7% of the U.S. population is capable of answering the most basic scientific questions, such as what is DNA or what is the theory of evolution (let alone important principles such as what is a theory in the scientific sense, or how to interpret statistics, or how to determine the credibility of a source).

People have not had a chance to grow up in a rational world. They have largely not been taught to think rationally, nor have they been provided with the tools to make rational determinations about the world. By contrast, most people in the entire world are bombarded with a constant barrage of unreason, dogma and authoritarian teaching, every waking hour of every day.

Given this reality, it is hard to make sweeping statements about the natural rationality or irrationality of humanity. I can only provide anecdotal evidence that, having been raised with relatively less of the personal bombardment of unreason, and having been exposed from the very beginning to the virtues of reason, to examples of people who live rational lives, and having been provided with the tools to analyze reality and determine rational responses to it, I have never felt the pull of irrational beliefs. I have never for a moment been tempted by any religion, ideological dogma. I have never worshiped an authority, religious, cultural or political. I have examined in turn, and rejected upon rational analysis, many beliefs systems, both conventional and unconventional, many religions, both mainstream and dissident, many political doctrines, etc., etc. I have never been a wild-eyed fanatic anything.

Now, I do not believe for even the tiniest moment that I am in any way genetically unique. In fact, given that I am doing my best to make sure that we raise our children in the same way, and witnessing similar immunity to worship in them, from their lack of swooning at the feet of some rock star to their skepticism about religion to their engagement in politics but without strong ideological dogma, I conclude that rational lives are taught not inherent.

In fact, that is the only thing that keeps me going in this largely irrational, hostile, intolerant, hateful and ignorant world in which we live: the belief that rational life is possible, teachable, and learnable.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Point taken. However, if humans have to be taught to be rational, doesn't that imply that their natural state is irrational? A dog can be taught to beg, but that behavior is certainly not a part of its original makeup.

Which brings up a couple questions, I suppose. First, is "natural state" relevant? Does it matter what a human's natural state may or may not be if it has been determined that humans can learn and grow beyond it?
Second, given the natural state assumption (which may or may not be true, but humor me), is it ethical to force humanity to rise out of such a state, largely against its collective will, for a greater good? Or would it be merely acceptable to guide their natural irrationality into paths that don't screw with anyone else's life but otherwise let them retain it? Would that even be possible in a non-ideal world? And how would one force humanity to rise to rationality if it didn't, collectively, want to?

I had a third one when I started typing, but I've lost it and I need to get to class. I'll try to come up with it again later.

[Edit: I remember! If the capacity to learn rationality is a part of our original makeup, in spite of our natural state being irrationality, what does that say about our alleged (by me) natural state? Could we really have the capability to learn a set of behaviors contrary to what we instinctively do originally? It was really a critique of my own posited position.]

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Living Dead Chipmunk ]</p>

galiel

By the way, in case it isn't clear, I believe that truly rational people cannot "find God", and that people who believe in a deity are, by definition, irrational, regardless of how many advanced degrees they have plastered on their walls.

As I have said elsewhere, there is a critical distinction between information and understanding. We have an overdose of information floating all around us, but as of yet little understanding. We are taught facts, not thought processes.

In fact, there seems to be a curious inverse relationship between access to raw information and the ability to assimilate, discern, analyze, conclude, and gain understanding based upon that information. I theorize that this is a temporary, cultural adjustment, that, for the moment, the information explosion has swamped our relatively limited processing capabilities, and that many people are reacting by literally shutting off their minds to the raw info-flow and retreating to simplistic, non-ambiguous doctrines that allow one to go through life without every really needing to think.

It is not easy being rational and non-dogmatic. I do honestly believe that it is an advanced form of existence, and I do honestly believe that adherence to religious dogma, whether it is Christianity or State Communism, is a less developed form of consciousness.

Someone on this thread asked how anyone would dare to suggest that believers are inferior. I would answer simply: the results.

Religions all claim that following their tenets will make the world a better place. I would assert that historical evidence suggest exactly the opposite.

By comparison, a mere couple of lifetimes of science and reason have brought more benefit to humanity than all the prayers of all the paryerful in all the prayerhouses in all the world since the beginning of time.

For me, accepting personal responsibility is the ultimate form of human behavior. Along with this approach to living, the logical correlates are a respect for the principle of self-determination, that is the right of every human to decide "what they are" for themselves. Finally, since the only purpose to congregate into societies--which involve an inevitable relinquishment of individual freedom--is to gain the benefits of cooperative existence (in other words, embrace the necessary compromise (and the tradeoffs entailed) between absolute freedom and absolute security), it seems simply logical to behave at all times in the way that benefits society most.

All three principles:
1) Acceptance of complete self-reponsibility for one's actions;
2) Acknowledging the fundamental right of self-determination;
3) Understanding the value and logic of altruistic behavior;
are completely and utterly antithetical to the conduct of true believers (whether doctinres preach them or not, the prrof is in the pudding, in whether religious people behave better because of their faith or not). All three principles, in contrast, are not only cimpatible with the scientific rational approach to the world, they actually emerge from it. For example, no organized system of faith respects the right of others to reject its tenets. All organized systems of faith require certain behaviors of its adherents, and demonizes certain behaviors of its opponents. Similarly, while many faiths profess to preach tolerance and social conscience, they also divide the world into "us" and "them", true believers and indifels, and they tend to be much less charitable to the latter group than to the former. By contrast, a rational view of the world shows us that, all people being fundamentally the same, there is no logical reason to favor one group over another, nor to treat people more or less well merely based upon their beliefs. And so on.

Atheism is rational and progressive. Faith is irrational and regressive. If that offends you, I am truly sorry, but that is what I conclude based on history and current reality.

babelfish

galiel, that was great!

I especially liked this:

and this:

But believers in magic take offense to statements such as these, so I usually keep it to myself.

I also like this:

Also, anywhere you go on the planet, scientists of different religious persuasions can agree upon certain "theories" regarding medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. It's a common language based on facts, not an ephemeral set of beliefs.

galiel

Not necessarily. As I pointed out, we don't live in a vaccuum. Most humans are subjected, from birth to a steady, constant, ubiquitous barrage of unreason. As I also pointed out, at least anecdotal evidence suggests that people who are merely exposed to a relatively minor dose of reason, and who are shielded from the most personal and intimate forms of constant dogmatic indoctrination (i.e., family & church), grow up relatively free of vulnerability to irrational arguments. On another thread, there is a discussion about the Fox Moon hoax special, and how many people were ready to believe in it. The argument was made that it was well presented and that one could not fault the average person for believing it. I could not disagree more.

People like me who have been raised reasonable find nothing convincing or compelling about such program, regardless of our previous knowledge about the subject.

I believe that the reason so many people fall for such nonsense is that they are not taught how to think.

Starboy

Hi AbbyNormal:

IMO it boils down to this; in the age of science and technology we do not explain things using spirits, demons, gods, souls, sin and all of the other 1st century terms used to understand the surroundings of that age. Such explanations are not considered to be rational, they are in fact considered to be ignorant superstitious explanations. In this day and age when something occurs, it is natural scientific explanations that are considered rational. People who hold to 1st century beliefs are living in the past and are out of sync with existence as we know it. Christianity is an anachronism.

Starboy

Heathen Dawn

Atheism is progressive, yeah right... it is indeed "progressive" to know that there is no purpose to our existence, that we are just disposable vessels for our genes, that we end this whole scam with death... progressive my foot! Atheism has plunged humanity into a nihilistic depth.

A universe of blind, pitiless indifference is a nightmare come true. It mustn't be so! Surely we can do better than that!

Abacus

Well, you can always believe in Santa Claus if it makes you feel better.

Starboy

Heathen Dawn:

Atheism is progressive in the sense that it is a clean slate. It is time to forget all the old superstitions and allow the synthesis of an ethos that will better serve mankind into the next millenium. The understandings of the universe from two millenia ago is just not going to cut it. What rational person could take such beliefs seriously?

Starboy

Heathen Dawn

What feeling person could take rationality so seriously? Why is rationality the be-all and end-all of mankind? The truly rational person wouldn't do anything but the life-sustaining works: food, drink and sex. What's rational about reading a book or painting a picture? You see, life isn't all about rationality, and I can still believe in gods no matter what the scientists say.