What do you REALLY believe?

[Roo]

"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.

Oh, I agree. People ask it all the same.

Still, I think if you have something happen to you that doesn't make sense and can't be explained in any ordinary fashion...what do you do? How do you explain it to yourself?
It seems like there would be two possibilities. 1) it was a hallucination, brought on by stress/nerves/lack of sleep/whatever, or 2) God did it.
If God is a more socially acceptable answer than hallucinating, you might go with door number two. Or if it was so real that you can't accept the experience as a hallucination, you might choose #2.

I choose #3: your monkey brain is limited and not fully able to understand all of the natural processes of the universe. accept your limitations and move on without resorting to superstition.

well we can't all be perfect.

[East Coast Hustle]

no, but we CAN all be rational, if we choose to be.

[Roo]

I'm not so sure about that...

[Roo]

that old lady in the art store who asked me if I knew Jeeeezus...


she didn't really seem too rational.


see also: my sig quote

[Jasper]

We are only partly rational beings.

We can usually manage a sort of quaint mental torpor that makes us at least tolerable though.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think that with the exception of biological mental illness, we are all born with the ability to be rational beings. Almost all of us just choose not to be rational to some degree, whether actively or passively.

ETA: but a lifetime of choosing not to be rational does not mean that the decision to be more rational cannot be made.

[Jasper]

You've got to take into consideration that most people are never taught to be rational, so it only asserts itself when people feel like it.  People only come to feel like being rational by either being rewarded for it.  In religious societies, people are sometimes discouraged from it.

[Roo]

I think that with the exception of biological mental illness, we are all born with the ability to be rational beings. Almost all of us just choose not to be rational to some degree, whether actively or passively.

ETA: but a lifetime of choosing not to be rational does not mean that the decision to be more rational cannot be made.

Very true. Though for a long time, I believed I was incapable of being truly rational at any time. I assumed that was probably true for most other people too. I still tend to think that most people are not aware of how rational or irrational they are being at any given moment.

I've also observed that what a person thinks they believe, and what they actually do believe are frequently not the same. Logic and years of experience may lead a person to the conclusion that there is no god (for lack of proof), yet deep down they may still hold the belief that there is one, if they were raised within a theistic belief system.

Also, beliefs aren't always rational. Or even consciously chosen. I can choose to be rational, and still hold irrational beliefs. But if I do, I'll always be less rational than I think I am.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm an ass worshipper.

DONKEYS!??? For the love of sweet merciful pterodactyls, LMNO. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm an ancestor-worshipper.

I've recently considered this as i've been getting started in genealogy.
Do you seriously have some belief system or practice based on ancestor-worship, or were you just making funny? 

I really do. It's hereditary.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

my point

That was a pretty good book, but following up a nearly indecipherable post with an eye-roll emote and a Wikipedia link doesn't help make your point as much as it helps make me want to punch you in the face.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.

Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?

The fact that life is really amazing and interesting doesn't explain how it got here, or why each of us is alive at this moment. Even if we just say 'because it is/we are'...even if we just go by the clinical/scientific/purely logical answers, we're still missing an explanation for some experiences and certain feelings (near-death experiences come to mind).

"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.


I, THE RIGHT REVEREND CAINAD, SHALL NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE AGES

Q: "Why do we exist?"
A: Because if we didn't, we wouldn't.

Q: "Why are things the way they are?"
A: Because if things were different, things would be different. Then we'd still be asking why they were that way.

Q: "Why is there injustice in the world?"
A: Because our (very subjective) notions of justice happen to be at odds with things like bad luck, stupidity, and dickheads.

[Cain]

no, but we CAN all be rational, if we choose to be.

More rational, maybe.

I very much doubt there is a perfect rational state we can reach, at least without some serious bioengineering and changes in brain structure.  Being rational and thinking logically is fucking hard work (as I like to think I showed when I posted that basic logic test here a few months back).

I'm sort of trying to reject the Enlightenment premise that rationality is an instinctively available tool to everyone which can allow us to transcend all falsehoods and boundaries, while at the same time trying to reject the postmodernist response of rationality being impossible and a cover for the creation of totalitarian power structures with suspect metaphysical premises.  Not that I am saying you are claiming this, only that both tend to be deeply accepted arguments that exist freely in the current cultural zeitgeist, and being aware of both brands of idiocy allows one to avoid their pitfalls more freely.

Alot of this distinction underlies the now infamous Foucault/Habermas debate.  I'm having problems finding links I can access (most of the information seems to be on JSTOR), but this relates to what I am saying.  The primary empahsis is on power, but some of the themes do relate.  It also reminds me I need to read more Habermas.

Anyway, back on point.  I kind of view rationality like I do democracy.  Its never going to be perfect, because there are biological and psychological factors that look currently impossible to surmount.  On the other hand, that should not stop you from persuing it as hard as you can, because you might just get lucky, and its a very useful tool regardless.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think I said "more/mostly rational", but if not that's what I meant and I thank you for the clarification.

[Cain]

Yeah, I thought you may have meant that, since you don't often talk in absolutes.

I could just see the possibility a cliche'd argument forming as a result, so I wanted to up the probability of a good quality debate.