EvC Forum: Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

Straggler writes:

It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.

I don't see why the issue has to be so black and white. Logic, reason, and reality are quite helpful for human advancement and progress. That being said, I'm not quite sure how my individual and personal beliefs stifle progress...at least on an individual level.

Coyote writes:

Religion and the belief in an afterlife seems immune from "rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry."

Shamans (of all kinds) are selling immortality -- and who doesn't want that! -- but they are doing so with no evidence, just vast promises of future benefits that would make used car salesmen and politicians choke.

So no, I see no age of reason on the horizon.

How does having part of the population embracing illogical beliefs threaten an age of reason? Why must human beliefs or world views be entirely logical?

Frako writes:

I think we are on our first steps on the path to an age of reason...And with a bit of luck reason will have an easier road to their children's minds and blind faith will become a thing of the past.

Education is still the best cure for religion and education is on the rise children learn more and more with each generation...

A bit of luck? What logic have you been smoking?

Perhaps the whole appeal of blind faith is that it is blind. Kinda like a roll of the dice. Kinda like luck?

Straggler writes:

the natural inclination of humans to endow themselves a special place in reality and to embrace personally appealing unevidenced nonsense through self-justifying interpretations of evidence is just too innate for a true "age of reason to emerge".

And if so, I'm all for it. The very idea that humans are no more special in the grand scheme of things than is pond scum is, for me, very unsettling.

Taq writes:

For some, reality just isn't acceptable. They need hope for a better place, better than the reality that they live in.

Bingo!

Taq writes:

Perhaps you enjoy the roller coaster a bit more if you know that you will never get another ride?

Life is not just about thrills and good times, though. People die every day. People get sick. Loved ones are vulnerable. Perhaps I would enjoy the roller coaster more if I knew who the operator was. A life with no guarantees is just too frightening for me to accept. I can still be a believer and yet live for the moment. I'm not waiting on God to rescue me, but I sure would like to know that He is in charge.

AZPaul3 writes:

...we will not see nor should we expect to see a wholesale abandonment of the old superstitions in our societies. While the movement toward secular rationality and reason in the greater world society may never become a 100% success the movement is now underway and making significant progress today.

I see no problem with superstition, especially if I can hope that it is supernaturally real. Is it counterproductive for me to believe and hope that an intelligence far superior to humans is in control of destiny and of a universal grand plan? It just seems like a job that humans are ill equipped to handle.

Straggler,responding to Jon writes:

Can you explain why you think it is stupid to counter criticize and expose religion to rational argument?

Rational arguments are useful if the participants respect the rights of the opponent to differ in belief and philosophy.

Straggler writes:

The more I think about this stuff the more convinced I am that we need to understand that humans are innately irrational and that irrational beliefs, religious or otherwise, are here to stay.

This doesn't make them any more sensible. It just means that humans are going to believe lots of things that aren't correct and act in ways that don't really make any sense.

Do we humans know what is correct? What does it mean to think correctly?

hooah writes:

In my personal opinion, I don't think there would be the strong vocal atheist movement that you see if it weren't for religionists shoving their faith and belief into places where it affects people who don't hold the same faith or belief. Politics and the science classroom come to mind immediately. If they could keep their silly beliefs to themselves and to people who share the same beliefs, there wouldn't be a problem.

When someone calls my beliefs silly, I get this urge to oppose them. Nobody likes to be called names. My beliefs are logical to me though I admit that I need them to be favorable in the long run.

AZPaul3 writes:

If Christianity does not want to be sidelined into a painful memory for the future to ignore then the doctrine that all others are evil instruments of Satan has to be abandoned and replaced with the doctrine that all people are not just free but bound to follow their own conscience.

I agree that Christianity needs to change and embrace the belief of personal responsibility. I agree with jar in that we will be judged on what we do versus what we could have done. Of course, everyone will fail!

Straggler writes:

The universe could be theistically created but in such a way that only the abandonment of reason can lead to that conclusion.

Wouldn't that be a neat trick?

Bluejay writes:

The methodologies espoused by religious philosophies are notoriously arcane and unreliable. An Age of Reason cannot develop under incoherent and inconsistent systems of reasoning. Therefore, even if there is a God, an Age of Reason, by its very nature, will entail a large-scale abandonment of religious philosophies.

It will not necessarily entail a total rejection of God, but, since the God conclusion is usually inseparable from religious philosophies, it very well might.

And IF God exists, it wouldn't matter one whit to Her if nobody believed. In fact, She expected it!

(just sayin)

GDR writes:

I'm just saying that man, unless there is mental illness, has instilled in him a knowledge of good and evil. Put another way I contend that man has instilled in him the ability to live by loving selfishly or to live by loving unselfishly. I think that we are spring loaded to the former but we are able to override that and choose the latter, with all of us doing so imperfectly. It's all a matter of degree I suppose.

And also a matter of responsibility! we shouldn't blame a devil nor should we expect God to simply erase all of our mistakes.

Bluejay writes:

We don't call it an Age of Reason because we're getting the right answers to questions: we call it an Age of Reason because people are using functional reasoning, instead of arcane faith, to get answers.

Sure, accuracy will improve in an Age of Reason, no doubt. But, this is just a side effect of people turning to reason, instead of faith, to solve problems and answer questions, because reason is ultimately a superior method. So, while the accuracy will be there (in my opinion), it isn't the accuracy that defines the Age: it's the process of thinking that defines the Age.

Is it possible to have a rational thought process and still have an irrational faith? Or must our faith ultimately also be rational??

4 online now:	DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0