My question is: Are
some theological views inherently more rational than others?
Yes, unless one subscribes to a theory of universal (or near-universal, like Descartes' theories) fallibility. If one does this, then nothing is more rational than anything else. If not, however, then theological views which incorporate paradoxes, without making some sort of provision to explain them, are less rational than others. Similarly, theological views which claim to rely on material evidence are also less rational. However, views that take into account the non-empirical nature of deities while still remaining religious are not less (or more) rational than a total lack of belief.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Q&A 6, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Would it be possible to teach courses on theology without views from institutions, teachers, and authors of material leaking in?
I think it would be possible only to an extent. Due to the huge number of educational institutions in the world, it is probably inevitable that not all teachers would be proficient at (or even interested in) keeping their theological views out of their teaching (that is, not giving students the impression that one view is invalid), and some institutions would most likely go their own way and incorporate biased views into their teachings. However, in most cases, it might be possible to have a universal (by state, nation, continent, or even world) curriculum set up, which limited course materials to unbiased sources. It also might be possible to set in place stringent requirements for teaching, so that the teacher-generated bias could be minimal. Also, institutions going against these rules would probably be less common if institutions had to follow the rules in order to receive non-private funding.
I think it would be possible only to an extent. Due to the huge number of educational institutions in the world, it is probably inevitable that not all teachers would be proficient at (or even interested in) keeping their theological views out of their teaching (that is, not giving students the impression that one view is invalid), and some institutions would most likely go their own way and incorporate biased views into their teachings. However, in most cases, it might be possible to have a universal (by state, nation, continent, or even world) curriculum set up, which limited course materials to unbiased sources. It also might be possible to set in place stringent requirements for teaching, so that the teacher-generated bias could be minimal. Also, institutions going against these rules would probably be less common if institutions had to follow the rules in order to receive non-private funding.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Compensation
Several times over the past week, the subject of why people would choose to follow a religion has come up in class. While I think there are far too many answers to that question for me to address here, I thought I would bring up one particularly strong reason which may, in many cases, lead to the conclusion that religion is not only a valid option, but a better option.
This reason is that, in many traditions, religion provides the believer with a source of unconditional love. In many denominations of Christianity, this source is Jesus. According to the literature of these denominations, Jesus gave his life for all of humanity, sinners included. In a world where unconditional love is often spoken of but rarely actually present, such a figure might well appeal to many, particularly those who feel especially alone. I think that in such cases, religion might be a better option than atheism, because having a belief that a person (or rather, a deity) exists, who loves one despite all of the flaws one may possess, can be a powerful motivation to continue living in circumstances which might otherwise cause one to give up.
Clearly, such a belief tends to be inferior to unconditional love from another tangible human being, but it can be a form of compensation which will hopefully in time become unnecessary. This is not to say that people who are happy should not be religious; as I have stated in my earlier posts, as long as a person's faith causes no harm to anyone, and is not irrational (some may dispute that faith is always irrational, but I disagree; I brought up this issue in my earlier posts) then it is no less valid or good an option than atheism or agnosticism.
This reason is that, in many traditions, religion provides the believer with a source of unconditional love. In many denominations of Christianity, this source is Jesus. According to the literature of these denominations, Jesus gave his life for all of humanity, sinners included. In a world where unconditional love is often spoken of but rarely actually present, such a figure might well appeal to many, particularly those who feel especially alone. I think that in such cases, religion might be a better option than atheism, because having a belief that a person (or rather, a deity) exists, who loves one despite all of the flaws one may possess, can be a powerful motivation to continue living in circumstances which might otherwise cause one to give up.
Clearly, such a belief tends to be inferior to unconditional love from another tangible human being, but it can be a form of compensation which will hopefully in time become unnecessary. This is not to say that people who are happy should not be religious; as I have stated in my earlier posts, as long as a person's faith causes no harm to anyone, and is not irrational (some may dispute that faith is always irrational, but I disagree; I brought up this issue in my earlier posts) then it is no less valid or good an option than atheism or agnosticism.
Response: Fallibility of EVERYTHING
In response to Rachel Niddrie's post "Seeing is Believing?" (February 28, 2012):
I would agree that, for some people, religion is nothing more than a way to dispel fears about death and other difficult topics. However, making the jump from believing that this is true of some people to believing it is true of everyone does not, to me, seems reasonable. There are many reasons that people may choose to believe in a deity, from the aforementioned fear, to convention, to genuine, unselfishly motivated belief. It is easy to look at only Christianity and, from that religion's punishment-and-reward afterlife system, think that everyone following it - and, indeed, following any religion - is doing so only out of fear. However, there are many different divisions of Christianity, and many religions which are not Christianity. Some divisions of Christianity do not endorse the concept of hell. Some religions, such as Hinduism, have nonexistence (rather than eternal life) as their ultimate goal.
Lastly, to a point, any worldview incorporates some sort of faith. Even believing only what you detect with your senses requires faith that your senses are not deceiving you; which, even independent of the notion of fallibility, can happen (hallucinations, mirages, etc.) If you do consider the idea of fallibility, you may find (like Descartes) that essentially everything is fallible. As such, in order to make any sort of conclusions about the world around you, you must have faith in something - even if that something is as seemingly basic as the existence of the world.
I would agree that, for some people, religion is nothing more than a way to dispel fears about death and other difficult topics. However, making the jump from believing that this is true of some people to believing it is true of everyone does not, to me, seems reasonable. There are many reasons that people may choose to believe in a deity, from the aforementioned fear, to convention, to genuine, unselfishly motivated belief. It is easy to look at only Christianity and, from that religion's punishment-and-reward afterlife system, think that everyone following it - and, indeed, following any religion - is doing so only out of fear. However, there are many different divisions of Christianity, and many religions which are not Christianity. Some divisions of Christianity do not endorse the concept of hell. Some religions, such as Hinduism, have nonexistence (rather than eternal life) as their ultimate goal.
Lastly, to a point, any worldview incorporates some sort of faith. Even believing only what you detect with your senses requires faith that your senses are not deceiving you; which, even independent of the notion of fallibility, can happen (hallucinations, mirages, etc.) If you do consider the idea of fallibility, you may find (like Descartes) that essentially everything is fallible. As such, in order to make any sort of conclusions about the world around you, you must have faith in something - even if that something is as seemingly basic as the existence of the world.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Not a Bad Thing
In the essay we read this week, the author appeared to imply that all religious belief was irrational and bad. Apparently, an ideal world would not include religion. While I am not religious myself (I am an agnostic), I do not agree with this view at all.
While it is true that some religious beliefs stretch the boundaries of credibility, many do not. Some deities have by their very definitions the quality of being unknowable. Thus, the lack of evidence for their existence is in itself not evidence at all for their nonexistence. As these deities are inherently beyond human comprehension, belief in them is not irrational, any more than belief in the infinite nature of numbers is irrational simply because humans cannot accurately imagine infinity in any manner which is not merely representational. Belief in these sorts of deities is not more rational than atheism, but neither is it less rational.
Nor are religious beliefs necessarily bad. While on many occasions religion has been used as justification for annoying, bad, or even atrocious actions, not all religions endorse this sort of behaviour, and even those which have directly inspired the behaviour may not be bad in themselves - the person who performs the bad acts may have warped the beliefs to fit their own ends.
In fact, religion can on occasion be a good, rather than merely neutral, thing. In the cases of people who are stuck in a bad situation, belief can be comforting. If a person is lonely and has no close friends, they may find it reassuring to imagine the existence of a supernatural being who loves them unconditionally. There is of course a negative flipside to this feature of religion - faith can sometimes lessen people's will to act - but as long as a religion contains no encouragement to sit back and let events continue as they will, there is not a problem with using it to help in difficult situations.
While it is true that some religious beliefs stretch the boundaries of credibility, many do not. Some deities have by their very definitions the quality of being unknowable. Thus, the lack of evidence for their existence is in itself not evidence at all for their nonexistence. As these deities are inherently beyond human comprehension, belief in them is not irrational, any more than belief in the infinite nature of numbers is irrational simply because humans cannot accurately imagine infinity in any manner which is not merely representational. Belief in these sorts of deities is not more rational than atheism, but neither is it less rational.
Nor are religious beliefs necessarily bad. While on many occasions religion has been used as justification for annoying, bad, or even atrocious actions, not all religions endorse this sort of behaviour, and even those which have directly inspired the behaviour may not be bad in themselves - the person who performs the bad acts may have warped the beliefs to fit their own ends.
In fact, religion can on occasion be a good, rather than merely neutral, thing. In the cases of people who are stuck in a bad situation, belief can be comforting. If a person is lonely and has no close friends, they may find it reassuring to imagine the existence of a supernatural being who loves them unconditionally. There is of course a negative flipside to this feature of religion - faith can sometimes lessen people's will to act - but as long as a religion contains no encouragement to sit back and let events continue as they will, there is not a problem with using it to help in difficult situations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)