Think about it, what is religion? The belief in something that cannot be proven, that has many, many things that as of yet we have found impossible, and in many people, it is unshakeable. Now I am not saying that all religious people are going to go kill someone or end up in an assylum, but think, in every religion, the basis is something that cannot be know, but is only faith. Faith in something that could turn out to be wrong, faith in something that you have absolutely no way of knowing. Also, think how many of these religions started, some person got a message from a "god" that told them what to do. Don't go crazy on me, I just want people to think about it.
So, as a result your brain is not primarily designed to be rational or to reason, but to survive.
If being rational improves our chances of survival which it would seem to. Then wouldn't the collection of molecules that we call our brain then come together to allow rational thinking since this would improve it's primary function of survival?
Actually, already disproven, I have contrary evidence:
Demographic studies have indicated that in humans, fertility and intelligence tend to be negatively correlated, that is to say, the more intelligent, as measured by IQ, exhibit a lower total fertility rate than the less intelligent. Other correlates of fertility include income, diet, and educational attainment.
1. Normally, nothing happens without a cause. As a result, all the molecules flying, neurons firing, everything the "brain" does is actually caused and thereby - determined. All those thoughts you think "YOU" are thinking, every time you think you are making a rational decision - you are actually just observing the universe doing its thing, and you can't do a thing about it. Therefore, you can't reason. Therefore, believing this is not rational.
It's the observation - the stimulii that we receive from our 5 senses that fire the neurons in question. It's why when you say, hear a familiar song you sometimes associate it with an event, or person that you used to know; because the neurons are attached. Similarly, how this would equate to rational thought and the thought process could easily be explained with memories of prior learning experiences, and prior observations.
How is this not rational? The creatures that have lived on this planet before me, the history of the world, all of the decisions of all of the people that ever lived in the world have lived to this point in time. I was born, raised by two parents & was raised in a manner specific to the set of circumstances that the universe has played out in, creating a very specific, and unique 'me' that exists at this point in time. If presented with a dilemma, I will, at this point, always react to it in the exact same manner, because with these sets of circumstances, I will have always turned out to have been me, according to the laws of our universe.
In a way, it's a strange idea of fate, but is described in a book by Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" as 'computational equivalence'. Good reading.
If it's a complaint about free will, chances are based on your circumstances, you will make the same decisions tomorrow that you would have 'always made' tomorrow, so free will is more... illusory. In this manner, I don't see an issue of rationality with naturalism.
as a result your brain is not primarily designed to be rational or to reason, but to survive.
Also; one small addition before I head to bed - logic and reasoning, and rationality are terms that we have specifically to describe those brain patterns & decisions, so in a physical or material world, those are the terms we use to describe those things.
It's the same as arguing that blue isn't really blue. We've come to define that particular colour as 'blue' - at least in english.
I'm not sure if you're arguing from a 'rational' philosophical standpoint or a practical one. Either way, I don't agree.
I was referring to believing in a God or gods in general. And even if I was just boiling it down to Christianity, I don't see myself as Protestant or Lutheran or anything. Maybe when I'm older and have decided many more points of my beliefs I will choose or create a new denomination, but right now I just see myself as Christian, as all denominations of Christianity share the same basic beliefs.
@magiKKell:
I think even from an atheists point of you, thought is rational. Living in itself is rational. If the brain was designed/evolved to WANT to die, that would defeat the purpose of life.
@314d1
I believe that God made other planets/things in the universe to just make it not boring. If a God really exists and he is immortal, I would get rather bored, thus using my powers to create new things and to make life for the people he created more interesting as well. Other species were created when God was creating the Earth, but he realized all these other animals and plants lacked something. So he made humans in His image, seeing as that was what the rest were missing. Most texts and stuff refer to heaven as being above the clouds/in the sky, so it is safe to assume heaven is somewhere off the Earth. I believe that heaven is in a dimension that transcends time and the regular 3 dimensions that we have. I've heard interesting theories about when people are in heaven, they will have new 'owers' if you will. God created flaws in the human race because he didn't want to make them perfect. If they were perfect, then that wouldn't be interesting at all would it? I believe that God created a race like humans before in His image and everything, but decided to make them perfect. He realized that they had massive amounts of pride and saw them as equal with Him, which is pretty much blasphemy, so he imploded the universe as a reset button, and we got the Big Bang from that.
It's known worldwide due to the fact that the majority is practicing it. People tend to follow the majority, because they believe that is right, since the majority of the people are doing it. But is that really true? Are the minority ignored simply because their numbers are far lesser? People believe in it because the numbers of believers made it reality. Not that it is reality, it is because they made it, so it became reality. The world is shaped by our believes, people live bound to what they believe, that's how they define " reality ".
[quote]If being rational improves our chances of survival which it would seem to
Evidence Please[/quote]
Any situation in which thinking through a problem rather then simply acting on impulse was a better option for survival would be an example.
For instance cure illness requires rational thinking to develop the medicine.
Of course acting on impulse without rational thought can be an effective method of survival, the cockroach is proof of that. But in human with out limited physical abilities in comparison to other animals we needed to develop a different edge.
Actually, already disproven, I have contrary evidence:
There's more to human survival then fertility rates.
It does have to do with religion, the fact that if a god created earth, he whould have had to creat everything else in the universe, and in the religions I know of, he is said to have created the human race first, witch is a lie. And if your theary is correct,silent, then instead of bieng a holly bieng that it says in your "magic books" he is just a board guy playing around with lives he created just to have somthing to do, witch is not holly, selfless, ect
In Genesis, God first created the other, then all the other creatures and plants THEN human. So not all religions say that humans were first, even though a large amount of them do. And 'holy' simply means 'set apart.' I think if he created the Earth and is simply watching how the Earth develops and frequently interacts with it for the better of the people when he KNOWS they aren't going to follow His ways (pretty much the whole of Old Testament >.>, that seems pretty selfless to me. And since we're created in God's image and we have the ability to be bored, don't you think God could too after just doing nothing for hundreds of millions of years?
Actually, your argument about rationality and medicine is completely bogus. Modern medicine has been around maybe 200 years. Please tell me how much evolution did you think took place in 8 generations? For the longest time, medical survival was based on one thing: Fit immune system. If the plague didn't kill your ancestors in the 13th century, big chances are it wasn't because they were smarter, but because their white blood cells worked better.
Now, also to respond to BioWare.
I will, at this point, always react to it in the exact same manner, because with these sets of circumstances,
So you have absolutely 0% reason to believe that anything you ever come to believe is actually true. It is only predetermined. You are not really "thinking through" the issue, you are just following a path to a determined end. Nothing about you is "smart" or "rational." If you believe something that is true, than this is completely accidental to your mental process, as it does not have truth as its end.
Again, evolution puts no cash value in forming reliable truth forming mechanisms in our brains. All that is selected for is fitness for survival. In that sense, being a philosopher without kids is actually "unnatural," or better, "unfit" and the fact that intellectuals have less kids does make them less fit for survival.
One more
Also; one small addition before I head to bed - logic and reasoning, and rationality are terms that we have specifically to describe those brain patterns & decisions, so in a physical or material world, those are the terms we use to describe those things.
Ok, when I use the term "Rationality" I mean by that "reasoning with the goal of arriving at truth" - and that is precisely what you are denying can happen. If you agree that it is just a description of some brain pattern, than you are not talking about the same thing.
Again, my view is that humans are created by God with a real mind to really think and reason about the world and the ability to know truth. That is part of the purpose of the mind, so when I think, and when I reason, I have very good reason to believe that I can know truth as a result of using the mind God gave me.
What you are saying is that our brains are going through patterns that were basically predetermined at the big bang and that we, just as necessarily, have come to describe this as "reason." However, we can in no sense "use" this reason, as it is "happening to us." We don't really "think" we are just so-happening to be conscious observers of predetermined results of chemical states in our brain. But in no sense are we ever "deciding" or "concluding" or "reasoning." To use the word "reason" if you believe in determinism is an abuse of the concept.
Actually, your argument about rationality and medicine is completely bogus. Modern medicine has been around maybe 200 years. Please tell me how much evolution did you think took place in 8 generations? For the longest time, medical survival was based on one thing: Fit immune system. If the plague didn't kill your ancestors in the 13th century, big chances are it wasn't because they were smarter, but because their white blood cells worked better.
Mage knows this. He is saying riligios people have thought things that we know are wrong today. People of old thought that demons took over your body when you get sick (thus the term "bless you" with sarcasm.
Again, evolution puts no cash value in forming reliable truth forming mechanisms in our brains. All that is selected for is fitness for survival. In that sense, being a philosopher without kids is actually "unnatural," or better, "unfit" and the fact that intellectuals have less kids does make them less fit for survival.
To the without kids thing, the fact that the human race is extreamly intellegent allows us to do things we whoulden't do nateraly. As for the intellectuals have less kids, they help others survive by inventing, finding answers, and such. Such as some animals are said to yell out a warning if they spot a preditor, often making them easy targets. It doesen't help them survive, but it helps the species.
Again, my view is that humans are created by God with a real mind to really think and reason about the world and the ability to know truth. That is part of the purpose of the mind, so when I think, and when I reason, I have very good reason to believe that I can know truth as a result of using the mind God gave me.
If that is true, then "the all powerfull loving god" is even worse then I thought. He whould only let the humans that he choses go to heaven, and yes, only humans becase nothing else has enough thought to be able to do anything that whould let them go to heaven. Plus, those who seek the thouth are statisticaly aithiest or doupters. Ex Einstine, Galilaio, ect (yes those are my two favorite examples)
Note: I did not touch on any of the pholosiphy issues, I don't know what I think affects the future. There is no way of nowing and no proof or anything rational I can come up with. But, "time is relivant" so it may be possible in the far futer to find out...
Mage knows this. He is saying riligios people have thought things that we know are wrong today. People of old thought that demons took over your body when you get sick (thus the term "bless you" with sarcasm.
He was saying this:
For instance cure illness requires rational thinking to develop the medicine.
As a defense that rationality improves survivability. Sounded like an honest attempt to make an argument to me. If you are right, he did not make an argument and my claim still stands unrefuted. But don't just listen to me, listen to the Atheist scholars. Here, from Atheist Philosopher Richard Rorty:
âThe idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own uncreated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compassâ"a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck.â âUntruth and Consequences,â The New Republic, 31 July 1995: 32-36.
As for the intellectuals have less kids, they help others survive by inventing, finding answers, and such.
That is not natural selection though. If the intellectual does not survive, he does not pass on his genes, and does not produce more intellectuals. We should be getting stupider.
If that is true, then "the all powerfull loving god" is even worse then I thought. He whould only let the humans that he choses go to heaven, and yes, only humans becase nothing else has enough thought to be able to do anything that whould let them go to heaven. Plus, those who seek the thouth are statisticaly aithiest or doupters. Ex Einstine, Galilaio, ect (yes those are my two favorite examples)
I'm not sure where you are going with your first sentence, from what you are concluding the next, and on what you are basing the third. Let me explain:
I really do not understand your concern. I would think that you thought humans were rational beings, and that if Christians claimed God created people, that they would claim that he created them how they are now: Rational beings. So how my statement changes any of this I do not understand.
Secondly, of course only humans go to haven. But only humans are created in God's image and have the ability to have a relationship with God. Animals just die and that's it, just like in the atheist's view. They are not everlasting. Humans are created, but then exist forever, even after death. But although we die, we can have hope for a future resurrection, because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
For your last "statistical claim" I can not follow your argument. You throw out two arbitrary names, one of whom was a sort of theist believing in some sort of divine (Einstein) and the other a believing Catholic who replaced a pagan idea of the world (Ptolemeic and Aristotelian Earth-Centeredness) with a better scientific model. I don't quite get the point. Furthermore, I am fully convinced that if you follow the evidence and seek the truth, then you will have to concede that Christianity is true. Please remember the topic of the thread, too.
If you concede the point that, in the Christian view, man is rational, but on naturalism man is not rational but merely determined, than please, who is the reasonable one?
