I think so. My grandmother was a devout Christian woman that made everyone smile. She would share her faith if asked, but never clubbed anyone over the head with it. She lived a full life and was someone I was glad to grow up around.
Your grandma sounded like a wonderful lady, but how does that relate to being rational minded?
This post was edited by Paynuts at October 22, 2016 3:16 PM MDT
Even if you're a "very" religious person, having rational is something we can lose anytime, and vice versa. Perhaps we feel badly later, but rational is not always easy to control.
My first instinct is to say no ... The reason being this. Rationality is a form of being logical which relies on known facts to make predictions about unknown concepts ... Being religious in the western Christian tradition relies on believing a story with no proof to back up it's central tenant ... At this point I thought they were my ideas and definitions ... I don't know how universal those festivities are ... So I'm still cogitating ... That's my word of the day
I thought you might ... Sometimes the nails move and it's hard to hit them straight :) PS .. As your rational mind probably gathered, festivities in the second last or penultimate line is not supposed to be there ... We'll take it on faith that it really says definition
It depends on what's meant by "very religious". There's a point at which religious conviction competes with and supersedes rationality in some people. Can you be a devout believer and be rational minded? Of course. Can you be the type of religious person who believes knowledge and science are evil and be rational minded? I would say not. This is when religious fervor becomes irrationality; it becomes a substitute for thought, at which point rationality is out the door.
I realize that this not much of an answer, because it's veering into tautology: No you can not be rational if you are irrationally religious. Duh. The issue then is that not everyone who is "very religious" is irrationally religious.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 22, 2016 9:19 PM MDT
We are all both religious and rational at the same time. It is a matter of how much and in which situations.
I cannot imagine anyone, no matter how religious, who would take his car to church and ask the priest to exorcise the demon causing "an odd knocking sound when it reaches 60 MpH" ;-))
Correct. 'Religion' is a funny thing. It can encompass a broad range of disciplines having nothing to do with what most consider as belonging in a religious context. For example, there are climatologists who believe there is sufficient evidence to state that human beings are contributing negatively to climate change, and then there are the Warmists who, while having done none of the research themselves, take the word of the aforementioned scientists on faith. The former are rational whereas the latter are just another bunch of zealous believers.
How about the in-betweeners? Who are not scientists but do understand the principles of independent verification and who thoroughly read all the reports and the data upon which they are based -- would you count them as having faith or being rational?
What, you mean people like me? :-) I subscribe to AGW theory (not quite the same as believing, but close enough), but I'm not a conventional adherent. I differ with Warmists (those who do not question the 'science') over degrees and data reliability, but I accept that humanity is mucking up the environment. That's no big ethical sacrifice. :-)
"Who are not scientists but do understand the principles of independent verification and who thoroughly read all the reports and the data upon which they are based -- would you count them as having faith or being rational? "
The problem is that, no matter how well-read we may be, at some point each of us not directly involved in climate research must take the word of those who are on faith. Our faith may be more studied/informed than others, but it's still faith. Everything we do in this life HINGES on faith.
This post was edited by Transquesta at October 23, 2016 2:57 PM MDT
Rational usually means in accordance with reason or logic - it means that someone carefully examines the premises and conclusions to see if they are true. In the history of philosophy, no one has yet proven that God exists without some subsequent thinker finding an unavoidable flaw in the logic. Over the last four centuries, every argument for God has failed. So in this sense, it is not (yet) possible to be both religious and rational.
There are arguments against the existence of God which have not been disproven. The god in question is the one defined by theology in the Old and New Testaments. Similar arguments cannot be applied in the case of the non-Semitic religions because they do not share the same premises.
But the psychological meaning of rational puts the whole question in a different light.
There are millions of believers who are clearly intelligent, functional and responsible people. They do not show any evidence of being irrational (outside the context of their faith.) If their religion makes it easier for them to be loving, compassionate and ethical people, they are likely to succeed in life and to have a general sense of happiness and security. And this is one proof of sanity.
In psychology, to be rational means to be sane (ie, being aware of the difference between fantasy and reality as it is perceived through the senses.) Most religious people are clear that what they believe is a choice of faith. They hold a mental separation between this world and the non-material -- and because they know the difference, they are regarded as sane and hence rational.
If someone is irrational, they will distort their thoughts in support of their destructive behaviour no matter what their beliefs are. Conversely, if someone is emotionally rational, they will behave kindly and appropriately irrespective of their beliefs.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 23, 2016 10:45 PM MDT
PeaPod is just popping by 