Rational Christianity - A faith of reason?

You asked:

quote:

---

Could a Christian believe in a soul and still be considered rational in their understanding and acceptance of knowledge about the natural world?

---

My answer is yes, but not a universal yes for all Christians. It depends how they associate that belief in a soul to the natural world.

You asked:

quote:

---

Can you be a little irrational and still be considered "rational"? Maybe you can. You can lie a little bit and still be considered honest.

---

Here is how I worked out that first question. Do rational people have favorite sports teams, favorite foods, favorite colors, favorite books, etc? Yes, of course they do, and these choices fall outside labeling as rational or irrational, they are aesthetic choices, often made as a result of family or cultural influences. Someone does not sit down and decide on the basis of a checklist a favorite sports team.As to the second question, nearly everyone will lie a little if they think that is less harmful than the truth, and there are no great stakes attached to the truth being known. Often, they'll use language to disguise that lie to themselves as a dodge from answering a question directly. They can still be considered honest on the whole.

Science and the resurrection... I've already shown that Rational Christianity has allowed as possible that this event was not what we would call a 'real world' event. What about at the other end of the scale of possible valid beliefs?First of all, the theology that says the resurrection was a real world event does not claim it was the same Jesus that died simply returned to life. The resurrection was not just a return from the dead, it was a transformation of Jesus into a immortal divine being different from the Jesus of Nazareth that walked the Earth, as they put it:

quote:

---

Christ's Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.

---

Notice that word "implies" - that is the hedge that reveals this is not an absolute dogma or teaching, and that no specific claim is being made about the absolute physical nature, if any, of a risen Jesus. Nor was the glorification of the body a split second event that happened at the moment Jesus came back to life, by this theology it started with his death on the cross. The dead body of Jesus suffered no 'corruption', what we might today define as cellular death.And what about science in this scenario? It hasn't been forgotten. This statement also contains an indirect, gentle jab at the theology that says the resurrection wasn't a historical event:

quote:

---

First, the contention that the Resurrection of Christ cannot be proved historically is not in accord with science. Science does not know enough about the limitations and the properties of a body raised from the dead to immortal life to warrant the assertion that such a body cannot be perceived by the senses.

---

So, this theology says that science hasn't had a chance to see if it's possible to examine and measure the properties of - not just a dead body returned to life - but a dead body that has not suffered corruption enhanced to immortal life, a glorified body. Notice the language, "cannot be proved historically is not in accord with science" - but it could be in accord with theology.This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 01-24-2006 05:11 AM

quote:

---

Do rational people have favorite sports teams, favorite foods, favorite colors, favorite books, etc? Yes, of course they do, and these choices fall outside labeling as rational or irrational, they are aesthetic choices, often made as a result of family or cultural influences. Someone does not sit down and decide on the basis of a checklist a favorite sports team.

---

Why are true aesthetic choices outside of rational or irrational labeling?Aesthetics deal with the visual art or beauty; not foods, sports teams, or books (unless they are judging a book by its cover) and the psychological effects on people.Someone could sit down and choose a sports team based on stats. Of course people could also choose sports teams just to fit in with a group, which is still not a choice based on beauty or art.The resurrection is not visible. Accepting science and also believing that the resurrection was an actual happening as described, could be considered cultural choices. Just like picking a favorite sports team to fit in with the surrounding culture.A means to fit in to both worlds.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Why? Are you suggesting an absolutist view on the laws of nature?That in itself assumes there are no exceptions, or there won't be, or haven't been.Even light, that great absolute pure thing, can be bent by gravity.I think that people are rational naturalists because that's the only way they have experienced reality, in that, there are no confirmed exceptions.Is it really irrational to say that God, who made the rules, is probably capable of bending them, if gravity can bend light?

You can't build a case for an aesthetic choice. If you try, you just beg the question. My own view--just speculating--is that aesthetics intrudes on our beliefs more than we might think.Take the Christ story, for instance. Viewed strictly as literature, one person might think it a very powerful story and thus aesthetically superior. Another might find it disgusting as literature.There's no way to build a case either way. You might as well try to build an argument that one color is aesthetically superior to another color.I suppose we might define a "rational belief" as one for which we can build a case. By this definition, an aesthetic choice would be irrational.

I expand the definition of aesthetics past the appreciation of just visual images or beauty. The definition you refer to, while valid, is part of the jargon of art appreciation.The aesthetic experience is an internal human one. When I talk about picking a team to root for, or favorite color, I think that is an unconscious choice. I think we select these choices because they provide a human appreciation, a human expression, a value that is natural for people to assign. I don't think this expression is available in rationality or irrationality, but these too can be appreciated on the level of aesthetics. The specific choice is a result of an interplay of culture, memory, group dynamics, education, positive peer approval and the cause and effect of how we feel when we think about our choice.You mentioned cultural choices. While there are converts to and from various denominations and religions, the overwhelming majority of adherents have the same beliefs as their family. The overwhelming majority of converts stay within the basic religious umbrella as their culture at large. I believe those choices, particularly in the case of a family, is an unconscious choice. For that reason, I think religious belief as it exists and is experienced in the mind, is an aesthetic experience. I don't claim it is aesthetic alone, I don't claim this is an absolute fact. Part of the reason I am in these threads is to see where this idea has holes, problems, and if can work through or gain insight into this contention.What made me conceive of religious belief as an aesthetic value was thinking about my own philosophy. My view of existence is that I, and everything in existence, is part and parcel of the universe in and of itself. Consciousness, as expressed by my consciousness, the consciousness of people, animals, plants - any animated matter - is in fact a form of self-awareness on the part of the universe, with all the limitations and opportunties imposed by the life form one finds oneself occupying.I like this philosophy. It is heavily influenced by, but not a direct conclusion of the scientific method. It is an aesthetic judgement.This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 01-24-2006 09:47 AM

Brain check, I forgot about literary aesthetics (which is not good in my case)

quote:

---

You can't build a case for an aesthetic choice.

---

I don't understand why one can't build a case for why something is their favorite. It is a rational personal choice based on the fact that that item makes the person happy. Choosing something that makes you happy is not unreasonable. Choosing something that makes you unhappy would be unreasonable or an irrational choice.So I feel that aesthetic choices can be deemed rational or irrational.

quote:

---

Take the Christ story, for instance. Viewed strictly as literature, one person might think it a very powerful story and thus aesthetically superior. Another might find it disgusting as literature.

---

Which would account for why someone either likes the story or doesn't, but doesn't account for taking the story as an actual happening.The words in a book can cause us to create a visual in our minds, but that visual is not tangible in reality. The paper containing the words is tangible. Which goes back to aesthetics being visual.I don't feel that choosing to believe the resurrection event was a factual happening would be considered an aesthetic choice, because then the decision is on whether the story is fact or fiction, not how the story makes you feel.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

A philosophy might be beautiful, but that doesn't mean it's true.Aesthetics as such has no truth-value.

Oh, sure, you can do that. I was speaking of an objective aesthetic judgement. An aesthetic bias might creep into our judgement about its truth.I try to be on my guard about that as regards my own beliefs. Let's say I read a statement in some book that I reacted negatively to in an aesthetic sense. Suppose I found it rottenly trite. The aesthetic quality of a statement being rottenly trite has in itself nothing to do with its truth-value. So when judging its truth-value, I must wipe out of my mind my aesthetic judgement. I myself find that operation difficult.

quote:

---

Can a Christian accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real event, yet still be considered rational in the secular sense in their understanding of the natural world?

---

We are limited to what our senses allow. Believing that Christ can lay down his life and can also take it up again, does not fall within our limits. Believing things that do not make sense according to those who say they know, does not make me irrational, in my opinion and since I function quite well. Doubting is as natural as is downright unbelief. The tag 'irrational' is placed by people with a need to tag based on their opinion (combined, of course) as to what rational is.John 10:17
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.Christ gave his life for his friends. It's done all the time. Only his was/is the power to take it up again.
As Phoenix rises from the ashes....a favorite story.

quote:

---

A philosophy might be beautiful, but that doesn't mean it's true.

​

Aesthetics as such has no truth-value.

---

My statement has no way to be demonstrated in the real world as a fact, or as a truth. It doesn't apply, as you note, it has no truth/value in the real world.But for me, it enhances my internal perspective. As an enhancement, it brought satisfying feelings when I mused about that aspect of life, an aspect from a perspective that doesn't exist in the rational world. The creation of that aesthetic judgement and the perception it comes from is that I am human, and my brain is capable of combining elements, culture and a myriad of influences and creating what feels like authentic insight. It isn't something that can be proven true or false. I don't insist it applies anywhere outside of my head. I still hold to it as an aesthetic judgement, appreciate it as an aesthetic experience. I call it a philosophy, but perhaps a thought is the correct definition.

quote:

---

I expand the definition of aesthetics past the appreciation of just visual images or beauty. The definition you refer to, while valid, is part of the jargon of art appreciation.

---

At the most, aesthetics deals with what we perceive through our senses.

quote:

---

The specific choice is a result of an interplay of culture, memory, group dynamics, education, positive peer approval and the cause and effect of how we feel when we think about our choice.

---

I agree that our choices in life are influenced by our knowledge and experiences, but an aesthetic choice is due to something specific that we have encountered. I'm probably saying this very poorly.Example: If I choose "Lord of the Flies" as my favorite book, but I have never read or seen the book. I haven't heard it on tape. I couldn't tell you what it is about. Friends have read the book and feel it is a good book. My choice is irrational and their's is rational.I don't feel that the actual religious belief is based on aesthetics.The stories, music, sermons, and rituals may cause various good feelings within us; but those feelings do not tell the individual whether the doctrines are true or false. Some people may equate good feelings with truth. That's why advertisements like to appeal to our emotions and not our reason.You have divided the very large and diverse group of Christianity into two groups. I'm going to restate these in like terms.Irrational - Who feel there is a conflict between science and faith, with no separation between the natural and supernatural worldsRational - Who feel there is no conflict between science and faith, with separation between the natural and supernatural worlds.Nothing in your definition shows that the Rational group believes the Bible is any less true in its teachings than the Irrational group.Nothing in your definition shows that the Irrational group considers the scientific method to be any less reasonable than the Rational group. Their problem with science only arises when they feel it conflicts with their faith.One group has the supernatural and natural together, the other feels they are separate.The resurrection story is a religious story, it is not science. The story deals with the supernatural, but neither of your groups denied the supernatural.So within the Christian Faith System, yes, a Rational Christian can believe the resurrection is an actual event.Your question:

quote:

---

Can a Christian accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real event, yet still be considered rational in the secular sense in their understanding of the natural world?

---

You didn't really define the Rational Christian by secular terms, IMO.Rational in the secular sense isn't based on your definition or grouping. So in a secular sense a Christian can be considered rational on many levels, but irrational on others as most humans are.I don't know of anyone who is absolutely one or the other.A secular person would probably consider a Christian's belief in the resurrection as an actual event to be irrational by secular standards.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I'd like to comment on one specific comment in your reply before I post a more general reply. You said:

quote:

---

Nothing in your definition shows that the Irrational group considers the scientific method to be any less reasonable than the Rational group. Their problem with science only arises when they feel it conflicts with their faith.

---

The Irrational branch of Christianity does not recognize the scientific method as a valid methodology or system of advancing knowledge. You are correct that I did not state that in my definition. My intent in this thread was not to discuss Irrational Christianity, but I feel compelled to address one specific observation on your part, that they only have a problem with science when it conflicts with their faith. I don't think this demonstrates an awareness on your part just how deep and complete their rejection of the scientific method is.
The media has created a shallow caricature of the objection of Irrational Christians to evolution. This really isn't the issue, just the tip of the iceberg. There are challenges to nearly every field of knowledge, as demonstrated by objections and challenges to the information included when teaching subjects like Geology and Astrophysics in states like Arkansas, objections that have gone unreported or underreported by media.When so-called debates have taken place between Irrational Christians and people defending evolution and the scientific method, naturally the 'side' representing evolution presents evidence. Let's take an example - the age of rocks, and how that is determined.There are many ways, in different fields of study, to show how an age of a rock can be demonstrated, and these different methods independently converge to a unified conclusion. That is one of the strengths of the scientific method. For example, it can be shown that a particular chemical process takes a specific length of time for a an atom in that molecule to lose an electron.For that same rock, it can be demonstrated that based on the stratia above and below it, and it's location on Earth, and our knowledge of movement of land masses containing that rock, that a time of generation of that rock can be calculated that is consistent with a specific age of rocks having those same characteristics.In field after field after field, all these calculations are denied and denounced by Irrational Christians. They deny basic Chemistry. They deny basic Geology. They deny basic Atomic Theory. They have gone so far as to set up their own version of science, complete with annual meetings of Irrational Christian 'scientists' to present the 'correct' methodology of these basic fields of study to determine conclusions consistent with literal Bible verse. The stated goal is to someday allow those Irrational Christian 'scientists' that today use the scientific method to withdraw from that methodology, and replace that methodology with their Biblical version, both for their own work and in schools, and society in general.I've presented a very short version of this dispute with the example above. I could go on with pages and pages of examples. I don't really want to do that, I imagine you wouldn't want me to do that either. However, I do submit your contention that Irrational Christians only reject part of science falls well short of the mark.

No, only that the term for a person who proposes supernatural explanations for phenomena is not "epistimological naturalist." It's something else. By definition, there can't be exceptions to the laws of physics; if something happens that contradicts how we understand the laws, that's simply an exposure of a flaw in our understanding.