There are entirely rational reasons to be a good and moral person. I contend it is better to base your morality on rationality than on religion, simply because rationality means being thoughtful and attentive to the current situation, while religion implies following someone else's thinking without question. Blindly relgious folk could do with a good dose of rationality, methinks.
I would agree, and frankly go a bit further. Religion can lead directly to immoral behaviour. I can think of two cases off the top of my head where Bibilical figures commit what I would consider gravely immoral acts, as "men of god" - Abraham's near-slaughter of his son at god's behest, and the time the prophet Elijah murdered 42 children (by god-invoked bear attack, no less) for making fun of him. These acts are not condemned at all in the text, they are actually meant to be instructive. It's a bit sick.
You should read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling before condemning Abraham.
I doubt anyone can convince me it's okay to butcher your kid.
He doesn't try to, and I'm not trying to. But maybe someone can convince you that even a faulty religion can lead to positive results.
Understood. However, I'm really not interested in looking up apologists for religion. If you have an argument, go ahead and make one; but I won't be researching this just on your say-so, sorry. No offense intended.
In spite of what I said, I did just read the wikipedia entry on "fear and trembling". Didn't see anything terribly interesting there. If you hear god's voice telling you to kill, I'm putting my money on schizophrenia.
That's fine. It's very easy to write off religion from a rational point of view and it's very easy to write off science from a religious perspective. And it's none of my business if you staunchly refuse to admit that there might be reason in faith and there might be faith in reason.
You are putting words in my mouth, but it is true that I disdain faith. Faith and reason are not, in my mind, comparable things, at all. Finding one in the other is a nonsensical idea to me.
Great. The next time you scoff at a young earth creationist or someone against stem cell research, realize that you are the exact same thing but on the opposite side.
Not at all. I don't have faith in Feynman, as much as you may wish it so. Faith means I believe it with no justification (or because god says so). I have trust in Feynman, which is based on the fact that I have read a couple of his books and seen some of his lectures, and I know of his reputation. On the evidence of those things, I trust that he is not a charlatan. I may be wrong, but my belief is not one of faith.
Right, and people don't have faith in God. They've read his book, seen a few of the things he's done, and his reputation precedes him.
God hasn't written a book. No one has seen anything he's done. He does have a rep, though. So does Santa.
And if you can demonstrate something that god has done, I'll bet you could collect a million dollars from the Randi Foundation.
Because they are, for the most part, untestable.Why can’t I submit a religious or spiritual claim?
untestable claims are pretty much useless in terms of determining their truth. That's fine if you are claiming something as a subjective opinion or truth i.e. " I don't feel well." or " Lady Gaga sucks"...However, if you're making an assertion about something being a fact, if we can't test the truth of your claim, then, sorry, we feel no need to believe you.
Blindly rational folks could do with a bit of religion, as well. Besides, this book doesn't mind if there are reasons to be good and moral. It's not about whether religion is worth it or not. It's about the legal standing of non-religious beliefs. And what is your rationale that it's better to trust yourself over others? If you know you've met someone smarter than yourself, isn't the most rational thing to do to accept what they say as correct?
Right. But where do you get the idea that it's better to have proof than accept an argument from authority? If you know someone is more intelligent than you and less likely to make mistakes, I don't know if there's a rational reason to not take their arguments at face value.
They only need to be wrong this one time to mess me up. Why do you think that accepting the word of someone that you think is smarter than you is a form of evidence? It's not. Evidence is evidence. Richard Feinman could tell me that the moon's a balloon just to play with my head. Geniuses are quirky that way.
Feynman told you that matter can and does exist in all of its possible positions simultaneously, and you believed it. I don't mean to offend you, but I highly doubt that you have studied physics to the point where you could prove his findings to yourself mathematically, and I also doubt that you have the equipment and wherewithal to reproduce the experiment. So you have no evidence that Feynman is correct besides a lot of other, more knowledgeable people in the same field telling you that he's correct. Beginning to sound less and less like reason!
Feynman does not argue from authority. People may trust him as an authority, and I certainly do, but the point is that his peers do not.
Hmm. Sounds an awful lot like
following someone else's thinking without question
to me. But, hey, if you say that it's reason then I guess you just need a new definition of religion.
I didn't say it was reason. I said Feynman does not argue from authority.
What? Maybe I'm not phrasing this well enough. Here's what I'm asking:
There is someone whom you know, empirically, or through whatever means you find convincing, is smarter than you.
That someone is also less likely to make mistakes than you.
Why would you trust yourself over that person rationally?
Because I know my own motivations, and I do not know theirs.Why would you trust yourself over that person rationally?