Can Religion and Rational thought coexist?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I want to say yes because I've met very reasonable religious people. But then, on the same token, I've encountered very unreasonable religious people too, which makes me think both can't coexist.

In other words, I rather say that it depends on the people and where, but there's a tendency towards yes.

[Asterdan]

I want to say yes because I've met very reasonable religious people. But then, on the same token, I've encountered very unreasonable religious people too, which makes me think both can't coexist.

In other words, I rather say that it depends on the people and where, but there's a tendency towards yes.

By the same line of thought... I've met some reasonable non-religious people, and some very unreasonable non-religious people. You're correct when you say it depends on the person.

[Desperate Measures]

Kind of like making a gourmet meal with an ez-bake oven. Yeah, you CAN do it that way....

[Vazdaria]

My question in plain English.
Religion usually requires one to have faith, to believe in things that are not proven. To have it proven and believe requires no faith, and thus the proven requires no faith, and faith is a cornerstone to almost all religious practices. Rational thought requires one to have proof to state something is true or false, and on a lack of proof, a thing can only be referred to as probable or improbable, specifically that it may or may not be true.

So, can they both coexist in the same mind? If you say it can or cannot, how likely would you say it does exist, or not exist? And bonus question, is there a benefit or detriment to both existing at the same time, and why?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
My answer.
So, can they both coexist in the same mind?
Yes.
If you say it can or cannot, how likely would you say it does exist, or not exist?
It is not very common for people to have both qualities without one or the other being suppressed, whether a rational person rejecting faith or a faithful person rejecting rationality.
Is there a benefit or detriment to both existing at the same time, and why?
Yes there is a benefit. Being rational keeps one grounded in reality, and ensures one makes hopefully well informed decisions based on critical thinking skills. Faith may seem detrimental, but gives one clear advantage in my opinion. It can give one hope. When rational thought tells one that a situation is hopeless, faith, or hope, can be utilized to keep on moving and trying.

//////////////////
What say you? This is not an effort to attack or criticize, even though I am a profound critic of the religious right in politics, but a discussion on peoples thoughts on whether these two qualities can coexists in a person at one time.

Try Judaism!

[Aelex]

Yes it can. It's the princip of humanism.

[Othelos]

Faith and rational thought can definitely coexist. In fact, its required. we all assume that logic is not going to change in the middle of this conversation even though purely rational thinking has no provable or irrevocable method to say so. We all believe in something that we cannot see with our eyes, hold in our hands or verify using any extra-sensory extension of any kind, though its different for all of us. Faith is the glasses through which we see the world and interpret what we observe. Think of different beliefs and religions as different lenses.

The point of rational, logical thinking is to look at things objectively, not through the lens of beliefs or religion, which skew things.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Faith and rational thought can definitely coexist. In fact, its required. we all assume that logic is not going to change in the middle of this conversation even though purely rational thinking has no provable or irrevocable method to say so. We all believe in something that we cannot see with our eyes, hold in our hands or verify using any extra-sensory extension of any kind, though its different for all of us. Faith is the glasses through which we see the world and interpret what we observe. Think of different beliefs and religions as different lenses.

You're conflating faith with the acceptance of properly basic beliefs.

Some beliefs, like the idea that the future is based on the past and the laws of logic, have to be accepted because we need a working mental model of the world on which to base our actions. If we were to accept the opposite, that the world is not logical or comprehensible, then all actions are equal and in that frame of mind acting as if the world is comprehensible is just as beneficial as not.

We accept these assumptions not on faith, but because we lack anything comprehensible with which to replace them.

[Kaoiluja]

You're conflating faith with the acceptance of properly basic beliefs.

Some beliefs, like the idea that the future is based on the past and the laws of logic, have to be accepted because we need a working mental model of the world on which to base our actions. If we were to accept the opposite, that the world is not logical or comprehensible, then all actions are equal and in that frame of mind acting as if the world is comprehensible is just as beneficial as not.

We accept these assumptions not on faith, but because we lack anything comprehensible with which to replace them.[/quote]


You've misunderstood what I meant, though I appolag for being unclear. The laws of logic were simply an example that we could all relate to. Yes we have no other alternative than to accept the laws of logic as truth and constant for sake of avoiding insanity. We do however have to go out on a limb( I guess it's a small limb) and take this stand even though we do not know it "for sure". What I'm saying is that a person cannot simply be entirely "rational". In the way that we have defined it here. Eventually we use our background assumptions and form an opinion. Whether these assumptions be "There is a God", "There is no God" , "Vishnu is God" or "There is a place beyond death" depends on the person, but they are there all the same, and everyone has them.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

You've misunderstood what I meant, though I appolag for being unclear. The laws of logic were simply an example that we could all relate to. Yes we have no other alternative than to accept the laws of logic as truth and constant for sake of avoiding insanity. We do however have to go out on a limb( I guess it's a small limb) and take this stand even though we do not know it "for sure". What I'm saying is that a person cannot simply be entirely "rational". In the way that we have defined it here. Eventually we use our background assumptions and form an opinion. Whether these assumptions be "There is a God", "There is no God" , "Vishnu is God" or "There is a place beyond death" depends on the person, but they are there all the same, and everyone has them.

Everyone has presuppositions, but those are distinct from beliefs 'taken on faith.'

I am an atheist, but I do not assume 'there is no God.'

I've come to the conclusion that there probably aren't any gods through a rational exploration of the world around me.

[Kaoiluja]

Are you a lifetime atheist or convert?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Are you a lifetime atheist or convert?

I guess a convert at a very young age? My mother is theoretically Catholic and my father is agnostic, and I got dragged into mass quite a few times.
I never became an official member of the church or anything, and when I was like 13-14 I started to discover logic and reason, and I put a lot of thought and research into whether a lot of the things I was told as a child were true. I found that most of them were baseless.

From there I've become a pretty staunch Atheist, and made a point of giving presentations on the separation of church and state in my classes when I could fit it to the assignment.

[Monarchist Greece]

I was genuinely surprised that this wasn't another "smashing deism" thread, props to you OP.

As to the question, Yes they can, and I like to think they do.

[The Sons of Adam]

Humans are rational creatures by nature. They can innovate, and They already conquered the world. They are also tending to be religious. This OP does not make sense, since all humans that aren't mentally incapacitated are able to have rational thought, and a large majority are religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[Shaggai]

Humans are rational creatures by nature. They can innovate, and They already conquered the world. They are also tending to be religious. This OP does not make sense, since all humans that aren't mentally incapacitated are able to have rational thought, and a large majority are religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Humans are massively irrational. Human brains were created by making random changes to a basic set of neurons, then throwing out the ones that provided a noticeable disadvantage. They come with a whole host of cognitive biases and failure modes.

[New Werpland]

If your a Kantian, I think yes you could be Religious and Rational.

[The Sons of Adam]

Humans are rational creatures by nature. They can innovate, and They already conquered the world. They are also tending to be religious. This OP does not make sense, since all humans that aren't mentally incapacitated are able to have rational thought, and a large majority are religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Humans are massively irrational. Human brains were created by making random changes to a basic set of neurons, then throwing out the ones that provided a noticeable disadvantage. They come with a whole host of cognitive biases and failure modes.

Meh... I disagree, however, I don't want to start a debate on the specifics of human evolution

[Czechanada]

The existence of a god is not based on rational thought, therefore they cannot be fully reconciled.

[Mavorpen]

Humans are massively irrational. Human brains were created by making random changes to a basic set of neurons, then throwing out the ones that provided a noticeable disadvantage. They come with a whole host of cognitive biases and failure modes.

Meh... I disagree, however, I don't want to start a debate on the specifics of human evolution

You can disagree all you want, but he's talking about basic psychology. The human brain is notoriously irrational. And that's because we take shortcuts. Humans don't actually like thinking too hard, and it's actually better from an evolutionary standpoint that we engage in mostly automatic thinking rather than conscious thinking. It's beneficial for us to develop schemas. The problem is that it doesn't always work.

[Kaoiluja]

I would attribute most of he human brains flaws to the corruption of sin overtime. If you read the bible enough you see that sin is treated like a legitimate disease, and can actually effect you physically overtime( this meaning over generations).

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I would attribute most of he human brains flaws to the corruption of sin overtime. If you read the bible enough you see that sin is treated like a legitimate disease, and can actually effect you physically overtime( this meaning over generations).

Sure. And we should attribute mental illnesses to demons.

Or maybe we should look at actual evidence.

[Mavorpen]

I would attribute most of he human brains flaws to the corruption of sin overtime. If you read the bible enough you see that sin is treated like a legitimate disease, and can actually effect you physically overtime( this meaning over generations).

Human "brain flaws" isn't due to any disease.

Like I said, the core reason for these flaws are actually beneficial to us. It would be INCREDIBLY annoying (understatement of the century) if we engaged in solely conscious thinking. We would never be able to get anything done.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would attribute most of he human brains flaws to the corruption of sin overtime. If you read the bible enough you see that sin is treated like a legitimate disease, and can actually effect you physically overtime( this meaning over generations).

Nope.

Sin's got nothing to do with it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would attribute most of he human brains flaws to the corruption of sin overtime. If you read the bible enough you see that sin is treated like a legitimate disease, and can actually effect you physically overtime( this meaning over generations).

Sure. And we should attribute mental illnesses to demons.

Or maybe we should look at actual evidence.

Shit, he's onto us.

[Wolfenia]

but don't actually follow their religious texts, or they just don't apply their rational thought to their religion.

To your belief of how a peice of text must be interpreted.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The point of rational, logical thinking is to look at things objectively, not through the lens of beliefs or religion, which skew things.

Wrong.

Logical thinking can also lead you to the conclusion that eugenics is a good idea and in fact there are rational explanations as to why eugenics is a good thing. Logical, rational thought and critical analysis is a tool, not an end in itself.

Just because it is seemingly rational or logical doesn't mean you're correct in your thinking either. In fact your conclusions might be nothing but fantastical shit pulled out of your ass no matter how logical and sound your process to arrive at the conclusion seem.