Rational

[Clementine]

Throughout history humans have had/believed superstitions.

Why do we believe in the unbelievable?

have they helped us adapt? Are they necessary now? Are they survival tactics?

[Jack]

Superstitions are the stories we tell ourselves (or allow others to tell us) that makes us feel better about what we don't understand. It's unsettling to say, "I don't know." It comforts us to make up stories to explain the unknown, even if we realize deep inside that they're just stories.

[Meleagar]

What one considers to be "rational" is based on their axiomatic belief structure. In all likelihood, most of what we believe in today will come to be regarded as quaint superstition at some point in the future.

[pssvr]

Superstitions are the stories we tell ourselves (or allow others to tell us) that makes us feel better about what we don't understand.

This is an over-simplification that ignores a number of other explanations, many of which are fairly prevalent. Consider:

1) That superstitions are simply left over stories from actual scientific theories to explain observed phenomena. This is the case with the cyclops and the dragon, who were originally real scientific theories to explain the existence of elephant skulls and dinosaur fossils, respectively.

2) That superstitions are remnants of old tales that were never meant to be taken seriously. This is most likely the case with many of the old Roman and Greek gods. They were often just hero-tales and battle legends no different than today's Star Wars.

3) That superstitions are manifestations of inherent guiding forces in the brain, giving us an instinctive moral code and a way of viewing difficult concepts like death and the conscious mind in ways that make sense.

[The Bacon Guy]

They exist because humans can't deal with randomness or unpredictability. Most superstitians deal with bad or good luck. Luck is unpredictable, unpredictability removes our ability to control the situation, and humans don't deal well with lack of control.

If something bad happens to someone, and we can invision a pattern, reason or meaning behind it, maybe we can stop it happening to us.

[Osborn F Enready]

To understand how the word "rational" fits into religion.... check out the definition of "agnostic" from Huxley.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889]

Being rational AND religious requires admitting that the truth is not yet known, therefore, to claim any scripture, fable, story or statements as "the pinnacle of truth" while not being able to prove it, is "unreasonable" at best, "irrational" at worst.

We all have our own beliefs, but OUR beliefs are OUR OWN, not somethig to be pushed, forced or used to indoctrinate others.

[Billingsley]

Throughout history humans have had/believed superstitions.

Why do we believe in the unbelievable?

have they helped us adapt? Are they necessary now? Are they survival tactics?

Doesn't this kind of make the assumption that humans are a rational species?


Billingsley.

[pssvr]

Doesn't this kind of make the assumption that humans are a rational species?


Billingsley.

No, it asks the question of whether we are rational and why or why not.

[Billingsley]

No, it asks the question of whether we are rational and why or why not.

Ahh, I misread the post...Anyways, I would argue that humans are not rational beings. We have the ability to be rational, but I don't think it's really in our nature. We date girls after we know they've cheated on people before, we play the stock market game, we trust politicians, and whole other slew of completely irrational behavior. We also rationalize (and everyone does) which is a defense of our irrationality. I want a fast-food meal, but I know it's bad for me, but I rationalize it by saying I don't have that much food at home to cook a meal. We're on whole far more ridiculous than rational.


Billingsley.

[pssvr]

We date girls after we know they've cheated on people before,

I have two points to note:

1) I am amused (but not offended) by your decision to assume that all people on the internet are heterosexual males.

2) Perhaps we perform a rational cost-benefit analysis and determine that this girl has qualities that make her worthwhile even with the understood risk that she may return to her old ways. Perhaps we have rational reasons to believe that she has changed.

we play the stock market game,

If we are intelligent enough, we have the potential to make a lot of money this way.

we trust politicians

You got me there.

I want a fast-food meal, but I know it's bad for me, but I rationalize it by saying I don't have that much food at home to cook a meal

This is a very interesting aspect of decision-making, and, while I agree that it has a level of irrationality to it, I don't think the irrationality is quite as deep as you portray. Allow me to clarify:

Consider the number of variables present in making a decision about whether to buy fast food or not. There's the nutritional cost-benefit analysis, the level of difficulty involved in obtaining food by a different method, the amount of pleasure derived from eating various different kinds of food, the extent of the severity of one's current hunger, the schedule on which one must operate, et cetera. And each of these things is in fact a function of many other variables. It is very difficult, for example, to precisely quantify how much your health will be affected by this burger. If humans were to truly analyze situations like these, ordinary life would be utterly impossible, as the time involved would be ridiculous. Indeed, you would most likely starve while trying to figure out if you should eat or not. As such, we must in fact perform a cost-benefit analysis on a cost-benefit analysis. What we find is that it is to our advantage to make quick decisions, condensing millions of variables into these vague guidelines we call 'values' or 'interests'. As such, we are behaving rationally in our irrationality. We make the wrong decisions sometimes, but we over-all have a very effective system of judgment. Therefore, I claim that this process which sometimes superficially yields irrational results is fundamentally rational.

[Billingsley]

I have two points to note:

1) I am amused (but not offended) by your decision to assume that all people on the internet are heterosexual males.

Just making a point. I realize there are a wide array of orientations, but I think all are subject to dating someone who we know has cheated before.

2) Perhaps we perform a rational cost-benefit analysis and determine that this girl has qualities that make her worthwhile even with the understood risk that she may return to her old ways. Perhaps we have rational reasons to believe that she has changed.

How are you defining rational?

I don't really know how it works for you, but any qualities I would find worthwhile in someone I date is based on an extended time with them and if they do cheat, you're emotionally invested in the person. Now I'm not only single again, but hurt by someone I thought worthwhile. I would see it as it's best just to avoid dating somebody who has a history of cheating. It's just pure logic and reason to do so.

If we are intelligent enough, we have the potential to make a lot of money this way

Well yeah, but it's incredibly risky and not based on your intelligence. There are much safer ways to make a lot of money, but people irrationally believe (well, believed at one point) that if you put money into the stock market, you don't have to do any work, and you get money.

Consider the number of variables present in making a decision about whether to buy fast food or not. There's the nutritional cost-benefit analysis, the level of difficulty involved in obtaining food by a different method, the amount of pleasure derived from eating various different kinds of food, the extent of the severity of one's current hunger, the schedule on which one must operate, et cetera. And each of these things is in fact a function of many other variables. It is very difficult, for example, to precisely quantify how much your health will be affected by this burger. If humans were to truly analyze situations like these, ordinary life would be utterly impossible, as the time involved would be ridiculous. Indeed, you would most likely starve while trying to figure out if you should eat or not. As such, we must in fact perform a cost-benefit analysis on a cost-benefit analysis. What we find is that it is to our advantage to make quick decisions, condensing millions of variables into these vague guidelines we call 'values' or 'interests'. As such, we are behaving rationally in our irrationality. We make the wrong decisions sometimes, but we over-all have a very effective system of judgment. Therefore, I claim that this process which sometimes superficially yields irrational results is fundamentally rational.

What you've just described is post-facto rationalization. We definitely do compute some of the variables into the scenario, but the rational mind would think: "I will cook my own food as it will satisfy my hunger for a longer amount of time and it's healthier for me." It doesn't matter how much pleasure you get from it; if it were, someone could rationalize some pretty horrible things. Nor does it matter HOW much it negatively effects you, it still negatively effects. All of these things are internal rationalizations benefitting you at that point in time.

Think about the Iraq War...How was that rationalized? The American public was told, they have WMD's, Saddam helped pull off 9/11, etc. People were swayed and rationalized attacking someone because they did so on internal rationalizations so they decided at that point in time it was best decision. A couple years later, a lot of people kind of woke up and realized it wasn't a rational action.

I hope that kind of made sense.


Billingsley.

[pssvr]

How are you defining rational?

Rationality is a dual-concept which can be said to involve an element of logic and an element of game theory. On the one hand, it refers to a logical progression of reason, of the form 'A implies B'. On the other, it is the game-theoretical (or, if you prefer, microeconomical) decision-making paradigm of optimizing the value of a situation to oneself, of the form, 'X is worth more to me than Y, I will choose X'.

From the questionable source known as Wikipedia:

A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational. A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,

I am cold
I don't want to be cold
If I close the window I will not be cold...

Therefore, I will close the window

To summarize, an action or a thought is rational if it is justified by its consequences, i.e., if the best value to a person is obtained through it.

but any qualities I would find worthwhile in someone I date is based on an extended time with them and if they do cheat, you're emotionally invested in the person. Now I'm not only single again, but hurt by someone I thought worthwhile. I would see it as it's best just to avoid dating somebody who has a history of cheating. It's just pure logic and reason to do so.

That's probably true in a lot of situations. But, like I said, it's also conceivable that a person could have a legitimate reason to believe that the girl has changed, and, as such, the benefits of dating her may outweigh the costs.

Well yeah, but it's incredibly risky and not based on your intelligence.

That claim needs justification. I was under the impression that the rise and fall of stocks is non-random, and, therefore, predictable. Now, it may be the case that our economic models and knowledge of public demands is insufficient to make predictions, but an intelligent and educated person surely is capable of having some certainty in his expectations for the market. If not, then why is any entrepreneurial endeavor ever under-taken? Are all business decisions that involve a level of risk irrational to you?

What you've just described is post-facto rationalization

No, it isn't. People do think before they make decisions; they don't invariably decide to do something and then kid themselves into believing it was the right thing to do.

the rational mind would think: "I will cook my own food as it will satisfy my hunger for a longer amount of time and it's healthier for me." It doesn't matter how much pleasure you get from it

No, the stoic mind would think that. Rational minds consider pleasure to be a benefit and factor it in to their game-theoretical analysis. They may value pleasure to different degrees (and clearly, people do), but that does not make pleasure inconsequential in a rational consideration. If you do not consider pleasure to have rational value, then why do you consider health to have rational value? Why do you consider eating itself to have rational value?

Nor does it matter HOW much it negatively effects you, it still negatively effects.

This is an obviously flawed claim. We can easily follow this logic to say that no person should ever buy any food at all, since that loss of money is a negative effect. Clearly, a cost-benefit analysis usually does involve some of both costs and benefits. We choose the best option with the understanding that there are pros and cons to all choices.

Think about the Iraq War...How was that rationalized? The American public was told, they have WMD's, Saddam helped pull off 9/11, etc. People were swayed and rationalized attacking someone because they did so on internal rationalizations so they decided at that point in time it was best decision. A couple years later, a lot of people kind of woke up and realized it wasn't a rational action.

Now it is you who is making the post-facto rationalization. You are taking any decision that a person makes and deciding that it is a rationalization, only later to go back and invent ways that it was such. I refer you to the following site:

Logic and Fallacies

Where I quote:

An argument is also not the same as an explanation. Suppose that you are trying to argue that Albert Einstein believed in God, and say:

"Einstein made his famous statement 'God does not play dice' because of his belief in God."

That may look like a relevant argument, but it's not; it's an explanation of Einstein's statement. To see this, remember that a statement of the form "X because Y" can be rephrased as an equivalent statement, of the form "Y therefore X." Doing so gives us:

"Einstein believed in God, therefore he made his famous statement 'God does not play dice.'"

Now it's clear that the statement, which looked like an argument, is actually assuming the result which it is supposed to be proving, in order to explain the Einstein quote.

What you have done is simply show that your explanation can account for how people make decisions. What you have not done is show that how people make decisions implies the truth of your explanation. Much like circumstantial evidence does not convict a criminal, so the fact that your explanation is able to account for something does not mean your explanation is the correct one.