DWill wrote:
Whether we share some of the beliefs of an established religion, or whether we go by a personally-tailored philosophy, does rationality ever have a large role? I mean, sure, we can repudiate the specific supernatural-based events and beliefs in Christianity, but does that mean that in the religion/philosophy that we adopt as an alternative, we are in the realm of rationality as opposed, I guess, to spirituality? I don't think I want to make rationality the gold standard for living, not quite. I'd like to keep the limitations of rationality in mind as well as the strengths.

(somehow I messed-up the quote box - oops)


I'm thinking that all religious and spiritual believes are by their very nature irrational. The whole point of religion and spiritual belief systems is to account for or at least try to answer the "why are we here" question. Since we can never really answer that question, it requires a leap of faith - which is irrational. And you know, I think we are better for making the leap, how ever we see fit to make it. According to Viktor Frankl, having meaning is what makes it possible to keep trudging through the hardest parts of our lives and it gives us a compass with which to navigate.

I am sure there are religions that are more rational, then say the fundamental or Catholic version of Christianity. Interestingly, the virgin birth was not always part of Christianity. It did not show up until about 300 years AD. It seems even Christianity had more rational moments.

I know I am veering a bit off of the question that began this discussion, but I think I am still in the spirit of trying to answer it. As near as I can figure, as tired as I am, I am trying to set out the argument that to some degree all religions are irrational but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it seems as if it is helpful and healthy for us to have hope or faith (irrational) in something larger than ourselves, it gives meaning to our lives.

In Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning he tells the story of the death of a friend from typhus while waiting to be liberated from a concentration camp. The friend had a dream they would be liberated on a specific date. The friend was filled with hope and optimism. When the date came and went, he was desolate. He soon after succumbed to a typhus infection. Frankl attributes his death to the loss of faith and hope for the future. This idea that the immune system becomes suppressed has been born a compass out by research. After a major disappointment, stress and emotional upset the immune system becomes depressed, consequently we are more susceptible to germs at these times. Frankl quotes Nietzche, "He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how."

I would posit that in times of great stress, people grasp tighter and more irrationally to anything that gives them hope and faith. Over the past 100 years the world has change at a disorienting pace. The human race currently faces some of the most difficult challenges imaginable. Might not any sane rational person be grasping at straws? Is it really any surprise that fundamentalism is in the for front. Why the USA and not Europe? Not really sure. Maybe they are not as stressed as us Americans? National health care maybe? Three to four week vacations? Ok, now I am off on a tangent.

Saffron wrote: I'm thinking that all religious and spiritual believes are by their very nature irrational. The whole point of religion and spiritual belief systems is to account for or at least try to answer the "why are we here" question. Since we can never really answer that question, it requires a leap of faith - which is irrational. And you know, I think we are better for making the leap, how ever we see fit to make it. According to Viktor Frankl, having meaning is what makes it possible to keep trudging through the hardest parts of our lives and it gives us a compass with which to navigate.

It might be the act of synthesis that puts us in a realm beyond scientific rationalism. I don't think science can show us that synthesis by which we arrive at the meaning you talk about. We have to do this ourselves, largely without the benefit of scientific method.

We all, including Susan Jacoby, seem to be hanging different meanings on these words "rational" and "irrational" or "anti-rational." Maybe this accounts for differences of outlook. I'm wanting to avoid calling the leap of faith you mention "irrational." Maybe "beyond rational" or "other than rational"?

DWill

I'm wanting to avoid calling the leap of faith you mention "irrational." Maybe "beyond rational" or "other than rational"?

Webster's definition:

3. Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish, fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man.

I said
.

The whole point of religion and spiritual belief systems is to account for or at least try to answer the "why are we here" question. Since we can never really answer that question, it requires a leap of faith - which is irrational.

Considering what I wrote in my post referencing Viktor Frankl and DWill's post has made me rethink my quoted statement above. I am inclined to agree with DWill. Rational and irrational do not seem sufficient to describe what is going on when we choose to make that leap of faith to engage in religion or our own spiritual seeking.

Hey Saffron,

Then I guess the question about this kind of spiritual (or whatever word works) thinking, is whether it is absolutely central to being human. Going over the chaper on Sartre in the other non-fiction book for the month, I note that atheistic existentialism doesn't care much about the speculative realm of metaphysics or ontology. But even it needs a base, which is why Sartre called his magnum opus Being and Nothingness. If I'm ever brave enough, I might look into that work, but more likely will be content to have somebody explain it to me.

I do think people differ on their need to have firm answers to the metaphysical questions. Not knowing where they stand with the universe would cause some people extreme anxiety. I feel okay (and maybe better) not knowing.

For many, the question of what happens to us after brain function stops is the most pressing issue. I like Thoreau's response to a well-meaning visitor who asked him if he wasn't concerned about the next world (this was as Thoreau was dying): "One world at a time."

Will

DWill wrote:Hey Saffron, Then I guess the question about this kind of spiritual (or whatever word works) thinking, is whether it is absolutely central to being human. Going over the chaper on Sartre in the other non-fiction book for the month, I note that atheistic existentialism doesn't care much about the speculative realm of metaphysics or ontology. But even it needs a base, which is why Sartre called his magnum opus Being and Nothingness. If I'm ever brave enough, I might look into that work, but more likely will be content to have somebody explain it to me. I do think people differ on their need to have firm answers to the metaphysical questions. Not knowing where they stand with the universe would cause some people extreme anxiety. I feel okay (and maybe better) not knowing. For many, the question of what happens to us after brain function stops is the most pressing issue. I like Thoreau's response to a well-meaning visitor who asked him if he wasn't concerned about the next world (this was as Thoreau was dying): "One world at a time." Will

DWill, I wrote an undergrad essay in 1983 on Being and Nothingness, around the theme of how Sartre grounds ontology in nauseous anxiety and choice with his theory that existence precedes essence. My view in that paper was that essence precedes existence so ontology requires a framework of piety. Sartre studied Heidegger's Being and Time, whence he derived the systematic component of his existentialism. Heidegger does indeed focus on the link between atheistic existentialism and the speculative realm of metaphysics or ontology, through analysis of the phenomena of anxiety and care. Heidegger presents a useful way of thinking about rationality, spirituality and faith through his claim that mood opens us to being. He presents attunement, foundness and authenticity as three moodal modes of engagement with future, past and present respectively, grounding an existential psychology that has strongly influenced theology through his main idea of being in the world.

Regarding what happens after the brain stops functioning, Jesus Christ had a good line in Matthew 22:32 - He is not the God of the dead but of the living.

DWill wrote:

Saffron wrote: I'm thinking that all religious and spiritual believes are by their very nature irrational. The whole point of religion and spiritual belief systems is to account for or at least try to answer the "why are we here" question. Since we can never really answer that question, it requires a leap of faith - which is irrational. And you know, I think we are better for making the leap, how ever we see fit to make it. According to Viktor Frankl, having meaning is what makes it possible to keep trudging through the hardest parts of our lives and it gives us a compass with which to navigate.

It might be the act of synthesis that puts us in a realm beyond scientific rationalism. I don't think science can show us that synthesis by which we arrive at the meaning you talk about. We have to do this ourselves, largely without the benefit of scientific method. We all, including Susan Jacoby, seem to be hanging different meanings on these words "rational" and "irrational" or "anti-rational." Maybe this accounts for differences of outlook. I'm wanting to avoid calling the leap of faith you mention "irrational." Maybe "beyond rational" or "other than rational"?

Aristotle said poetry is more scientific than history because it requires us to put events in a coherent narrative. Hence meaning is scientific and synthetic. Part of the problem here is that 'rational' has acquired cultural meaning within empirical scientific method. A broader meaning of rational, equated as per Aristotle to 'logical understanding', can be re-established that will recognize claims as rational which are not simply derived from scientific observation alone, but include a reference to the poetic and mythic.

Robert Tulip:

A broader meaning of rational, equated as per Aristotle to 'logical understanding', can be re-established that will recognize claims as rational which are not simply derived from scientific observation alone, but include a reference to the poetic and mythic.

Thank you! I think that is what both DWill & I were trying to get to.

Now, come on, Saffron, you couldn't have been an undergrad in 1983 but just a small child! And there's no way you could remember an undergrad paper this well, anyway. I ask you to give me some time. It's almost midnight and I just got back from work, if you know what I mean. I'm gonna have to really noodle your great post later.

Yes, I agree that RobertTulip had a nifty perspective on the rationality problem, so thanks to him.
Will

Will,
The following is not me, but rather Robert Tulip.

DWill, I wrote an undergrad essay in 1983 on Being and Nothingness, around the theme of how Sartre grounds ontology in nauseous anxiety and choice with his theory that existence precedes essence

Easy enough to have gotten confused. The three of us have quoted one another several times each. And by the way, I was a 21 year old undergraduate in 1983.
Saffron
ps How old did you think I was?! I will take it as a compliment.