The rationality of pantheism

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How can one describe a subjective view as rational or irrational? If someone reveres natural laws, then pantheism is rational. If someone else doesn't, then pantheism isn't rational for them.

If that belief is not based on and consistent with logic it is irrational.
If I believe there is something beautiful and spiritually significant in the law of gravity, I am irrational unless I have evidence or sound logic backing up that view.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe If that belief is not based on and consistent with logic it is irrational. If I believe there is something beautiful and spiritually significant in the law of gravity, I am irrational unless I have evidence or sound logic backing up that view.

And you'll never find evidence for something that is subjective.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And you'll never find evidence for something that is subjective.

No, it's possible to find evidence supporting something that can be viewed subjectively. Look at self-psychoanalysis, a method open to highly subjective interpretation. But, with new tools being used, certain claims once thought to just be ramble have been confirmed, such as claims linking thoughts and feeling to certain psychological conditions.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And you'll never find evidence for something that is subjective.

Then how can you call it rational?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe Then how can you call it rational?

I believe I said "how could you call it rational?"

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I believe I said "how could you call it rational?"

Ah, but you also inferred that it could not be called irrational.
Something is either backed by sound logic or it is not. It is either rational or irrational (though I suppose there are varying levels).

There is no "neutral" in such a question. A belief is either one or the other.

[Kamehameha34]

I was assuming that you were using "irrational" in the sense that it meant 'false', or in contradiction to evidence.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I was assuming that you were using "irrational" in the sense that it meant 'false', or in contradiction to evidence.

...... why assume that? Why not assume the dictionary definition like everyone else?

The world irrational, of all it's different definitions, does not have any that fall into the one you have just mentioned.

You are either trying to cover up by lieing, or working off one weird dictionary.

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe My question remains unanswered. Is pantheism, in the sense of worship or mystical awe of what is natural rational? And further: can ANY non-utilitarian world view be rational?

I think you may be framing the question slightly wrong. I do not think that a "sense of worship or mystical awe" is irrational. Neither is it, strictly speaking, rational. It is a completely appropriate emotional response. Whomever stands before a sunrise or the vastness of a star-strewn sky without any sense of wonder or awe is emotionally dead.

Such a response is totally natural, even if it is not strictly speaking, rational itself. Our emotions reflect our thoughts, so if the latter are rational, the former are not irrational, even if the response itself is visceral rather than strictly intellectual.

I think where the rationality or irrationality comes in is in your response to these feelings. If you take them as an inspiration to explore and to expand your understanding of the universe around you, that is a wholly rational reaction. If, on the other hand, you react by buying into a dogma peopled by a diety or dieties, controlled by ministers or priests insisting on explaining the will of and myriad rules laid down by your new imaginary friend, that is indeed irrational.

[LetThereBe]

So you are saying a natural, though irrational, belief is at least equally valid as a rational one?

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe So you are saying a natural, though irrational, belief is at least equally valid as a rational one?

Not at all. I am saying that an emotional response is not necessarily irrational. Most "religious experiences" are visceral and not strictly intellectual.

A "sense of worship or mystical awe" is an completely appropriate emotional response to the wonders of nature. It is how you respond to it that is rational or irrational.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp Not at all. I am saying that an emotional response is not necessarily irrational. Most "religious experiences" are visceral and not strictly intellectual. A "sense of worship or mystical awe" is an completely appropriate emotional response to the wonders of nature. It is how you respond to it that is rational or irrational.

But I am referring simply to the belief. One can hold an irrational belief without carrying out irratoinal action.

True, in practice it would be irrelevant, but I am interested in the principle as well.

[RickSp]

OK. If a belief is irrational so be it.

I am just suggesting that one need not be in awe of the wonder and magic of the universe and yet develop beliefs or actions that are irrational as a result of that awe. Adopting an irrational belief may be easier by default but is not absolutely necessary.