Can rationalism live up to it's own standards?

Can a rationalist empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

Are all truths discerned through reason?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I think Reason is a good tool

In my own experience Reason asked how could a God be both a loving father and the God of wrath

Reason answered that would be quite absurd - either or but not both




Was quite correct

Since rationalism is a process, I'm not sure that the expression "own standards" is appropriate here.




Let's not use the words "proof" and "prove" here because the implications of those words is that there are absolute facts. In the scientific realm, we tend to use the word "evidence" far more often.

Even the word "believe" can be misleading, although I'm not opposed to using the term by any means. For example, there's a difference between saying "I believe I'll go to the football game tomorrow", while at the same time realizing that there are things that could hypothetically prevent me from actually getting there. Then there's the kind of belief whereas someone just assumes something even though there may be little or no evidence for support, such as a kid believing in the Tooth Fairy.




No. Truths are truths even if we're not aware they're truths. However, I will say that "truths" based on just emotions or feelings or hear-say should be considered at least somewhat suspect.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

If wishes were horses, then beggars might ride.

Perhaps "thought and action" should, in fact, be governed by reason.... but I have yet to see a really convincing example of it.


Well, Rationalist like to think they do....


A good question....never seen an answer that, really, relied on reason. And some rationalists (including some here), so-called, like to insult, harangue and browbeat anyone who disagrees with them. Which hardly seems all that "rational" when you get down to it.


I don't think so....

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

Nothing wrong with rationalism. It's a great tool for living in our world. It fuels science, medicine, business, and a variety of other mental/practical challenges we meet in everyday life. On the other hand, it doesn't help much in the things which prove to be of real importance in our lives: love, joy, peace, understanding, creativity, inovation, etc.

My question to rationalists would be: how does rationality satisfy? And, if some are satisfied by solving a new equation, fine! But why would they assume that the importance of their logic should translate to other human minds and hearts? Can't they accept that there are other points of view? Why not be open to all approaches?

No we cannot prove that mythical beliefs are wrong. All we can do is point out that that superstitions and myths are lacking in evidence and contrary to rational thinking. We do not order people to reject their myths and superstitions, but not allow them to be imposed on others. I do not care if people believe in one god, many gods, or no god (Jefferson.) However, for the sake of innocent children we should teach them critical thinking, reason, logic, and analytical thinking to develop a healthy SCEPTICAL FILTER.


Rationalism is in the definition of Neurocognition Science means that humans are best as solving problems with the use of reason and logic. Reason and Logic work on almost mathematical methodology. We have brain circuits the process input data. This complex network, govern analytical thinking and scepticism. The best and most reliable form of cognition and data processing is that use of the sceptical filter (in the frontal lobes). That means we analyse the data, subject it to analytical thinking based on the application of logic and more complex reasoning.

Can reason and logic sometimes fail? Of course it can. Nothing in the universe is perfect. Babe Ruth occasionally struck out. However, use of our rational, logical, analytical and sceptical network while not perfect is the best mechanism for solving problems.

I believe that affective input, emotion, intuition, care, compassion, love, altruism, and even fear are necessary adjuncts to the major thiinking mechanisms of reason and scepticism.

That is why our "moral compass" and "sceptical on-off centres" in the Pre-frontal is so essential. It combines the data from the reason and sceptical circuits (mostly Left Hemisphere) with the emotional and intuitive networks (mostly right hemisphere). That Frontal centre is the decision making part of the brain after it is supplied with data from reason-scepticism, and emotion-intuition.

We make a mistake if we reduce reason to a simple Aristotelian syllogism. The syllogism is only as good as the data in the premises.

Attacks on reason and scepticism have largely come from a large segment of Islamic and Christian fundamentalists who dismiss reason because they don't like the well founded conclusions.

Sarah Palin shows this extremism and distrust of reason and logic, analytical thinking and processing of evidence. She wants modern science based on reason and logic in public schools watered down by teaching Biblical Mythology along side it. Your students are 25th in the World testing of 12 graders in science and math testing. Much of that is the failkure to promote science. Many teachers of sciece lack education in science. PE teachers and English teachers are trying to explain Brownian effect, the dopler effect, or basic priinciples of biology. This deterioration in American Education will have a long time effect in reducing American and removing it from serious economic competition in the world. Sarah wants to further cruch science by teaching Biblical Magic Creation which is irration and contrary to physical evidence. this impairs students and makes them weak in reason and ignorant of basic scientific laws.

St. Paul began the crusade against intellectuals, science, and rationalist philosophers of his time. He presented those who act on faith, hearsay, and overlooking contradictions in scripture as superior to reason and logic. Modern Fundamentalists are the modern extension of this backwardness and superstitious thinking of those who have been trained to distrust reason. Thus their brain loses its rational network circuits conections and actual number of synapses.


No, reason can be incorrect if there is a fault in the data. Occasionally the rational circuits can fail to work on a strictly logical basis. It is difficult to define truth. Thnks thought of truth have later been falsifiec.

Using rational circuits to people in 600 BCE, that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Without modern technology, this thinking was rational given the limited data and the Sun does appear to simple view as moving across the Sky while the Earth appears still. That was truth until the Ancient Greeks from 500-300 BCE posted ideas based on methodological analysis measured the arc of the Earth and found it to be spherical not Flat as Jews believed. An ancient Greek postulated that Earth was not centre of the universe but revolved around the Sun in the 2nd Century BCE. That was proven true but the Christian Church clung to the flat Earth and Geocentric Solar system for another millennium. That was because they rejected reason in favour of mythology.

Reason is the best method of arriving at truth, not perfect but vastly superior to mythology, superstition, legend, and claims of revelation.

Amergin

__________________
Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you. There is no evidence of God so belief is optional.

It's nice to hear from anyone who favors a rational approach that it's also possible to recognize the influences of emotion and intuition. Thanks for that.


To be fair, I don't think you can link the sliding standard of education in the US with Christianity. The relaxed standards are seen not only in science, but English, math and history as well as other subjects.

(Just as an aside: I don't care whether Intelligent Design is taught in school. I have enough faith in the next generation to figure things out for themselves. Why get all worked up about theories pro or con, if they're all just theories?)




Who's to say that in the future, people won't shake their heads at our "rational" thinking? As an artist, I know for a fact that when I start to think "rationally" about a painting, I've lost the creative input I need to paint. I think athletes probably have a similar approach - i.e.: one knows when they're in the "zone." Infact, I think we all have these kinds of experiences, when rational thinking only interfers and delays a response. Rational thinking is great for balancing your checkbook, but not so helpful in creativity, love, or spiritual/inner truth.

(Also, what data can you present regarding Christian fundamentalists losing an "actual number of synapses?" This is a new one on me.....)


Your assumption, that religion is "mythology, superstition, and legend," which also assumes that personal revelation falls into the same category, also assumes that "reason" is vastly superior. To me, this statement isn't very rational at all, as discovery and creative solutions often come from "leaps of insight" - in other words, the rational mind is NOT the only aspect of consciousness. Science doesn't address it because they can't measure it. But it's truly "irrational" to dismiss a wealth of experience (religious, spiritual and paranormal), simply because it doesn't fit into the current paradigm science has decided on.

My question: Are rationalists willing to throw all mystery out the window? If so, Why?

As long as they are taught as being just theories and not taught as being fact or the last word on the matter, then fine.
That is my rationale.

I have problems with intelligent design if it's taught as being a scientific hypothesis or theory, which it's not.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

A scientific "theory" is different from a theory you or I might come up with. A scientific theory is not just a "best guess" but rather is based on a great deal of research and evidence. Creationism is most definitely NOT a scientific theory and should not be taught as such in our schools. It would be a grave disservice to our children to teach something that, to the best of our knowledge, isn't true such as ID being a scientific theory.