Re: Have we become alt.atheism?

On Jan 24, 2:50 pm, eerok <krke...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Jan 24, 2:56 am, eerok <krke...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]



Certainly when rationality is called for, nothing else will
do, but is every problem we might encounter and every question
we might ask amenable to rational analysis? For example, what
is life for? How many rational answers are there to that
question? If there's more than one, then which is the *most*
rational? Is there even a sliding scale? Should we aspire to
find the single most rational answer to even the most personal
question? If so, then what is the rational reason to elevate
rationality itself above the host of possible subjective and
emotional answers? IMO, it's really a can of worms.

On a good day we can be rational enough to deal with what's in
front of us, but our neurological gear, for better or for
worse, is a mare's nest of impulses and intuitions. We don't
just think -- we also feel. I don't see the point in
pretending that at certain times and in certain contexts this
is never the larger part of our experience.

I see religion as a cultural-specific scratch to an itch that
is not necessarily shared by all. Nothing wrong with it if
it's handled well. Nothing wrong with skipping it, either,
which is my personal choice.

That being said, attacks on science motivated by polemical
stubbornness are of course misguided: when the point is to be
objective (as with science), you need to be as rational as
possible. But there are also times when objectivity is not to
the point at all, when one must choose what's of personal
value amongst somewhat fuzzy and shifting possibilities, and
in this context I have no problem with other-minded people
when they are adequately safe and sane.

That's what VBM is getting at I think: respect in the face of
difference. There's an arbitrary aspect to our lives that we
get to determine for ourselves. In fact I *demand* it for
myself ... and I'd be a sad hypocrite not to honor the same
for others.

I think that's what this is about.
why do you think religion is in any way equipped to answer
the question "what is life for?"

That's the kind of question that religion was always meant to
answer. It works adequately well for some people -- a simple
matter of observation.

What's the objective answer to that question?

Once you put a value on something, you've stepped away from
objectivity, don't you think?

religion has always given objective answers to the question, so that
right there should indicate to you that religion aint the tool for the
job.


--
"It is not enough to conquer; one must learn to seduce."
-- Voltaire

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Was the US founded as a Christian Nation?
    ... It doesn't make my life futile, ... Your "religion" gives you comfort. ... universe, such as NEOs and GRBs, exist to remind us that we're a mere ... rationally argue against rationality. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Australia day
    ... And Michelangelo was clearly a deep thinker. ... Dawkins believes in extraterrestrial life. ... My view is that religion and rationality have little ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... MOST SOCIAL SPECIES, ... To account for ego/self-worth related emotion (e.g., ... The species in which rationality is most ... (valuative objectivity), but then another one of the myriads ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Unconsciousness Regained
    ... To account for ego/self-worth related emotion (e.g., ... Rationality is antagonistic to psychocentric ... Normalcy and Disorder (consciousness studies): ... (valuative objectivity), but then another one of the myriads ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Have we become alt.atheism?
    ... worldview, whether you are a theist and accept the ... interjected religion into this discussion. ... rationality in one domain, ... question "what is life for?" ...
    (talk.origins)