Is religious certainty reasonable, rational and logical?

[Peter]

Obviously, I feel this is a rhetorical question, the only logical answer to which is a resounding NO.

For the purpose of discussion you can substitute religious faith for religious certainty because they are functionally identical.

We all utilize faith in our lives. I have faith the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. I have faith that my wife loves me. I have faith that when I hit the submit button this topic will appear in the Religion & Spirituality forum of Volconvo. You'll notice a common thread running through those statements of faith. They are all backed up by objective evidence. You might be tempted to argue that evidence my wife loves me is only subjectively in my mind but you could actually witness what I experience.

This is the crux of the difference between rational faith and irrational faith. Rational faith is based on objective evidence while irrational faith is based on strictly personal "evidence". I submit then that religious faith or certainty may be many things but it is not rational. It is based on wish-think not reason.

The impetus for this post is that the other day I heard someone at work who, I thought, was the epitome of logic and reason declare loudly and proudly that, "I know the bible is true!" and I almost threw up in my mouth.

[gospurs]

Great f-ing question, Peter!.
How bout we make a checklist n ask different peolple...
"Is Catholic certainty reasonable, rational, n logical?"
Is Islamic certainty reasonable, rational,....
...and so on with whatever stupid certainty any group of people "think" only they possess.

[Zeebadee]

Why does it need to be??

[Peter]

Why does it need to be??

That's a good question Zee. Some irrational beliefs just don't matter. For instance, I believe in Leprechauns but I'm very careful to separate my Leprechaunism from reality. In other words, my belief in Leprechauns has zero influence over any other beliefs or decisions in my life. Is the same true of religious certainty?

Convince us that your certainty in your god doesn't influence your life in any way and I will declare you rational and reasonable in all things but one trivial irrational belief.

It matters Zee because the world is going to hell in a hand-basket over religious certainty, the certainty that your magic book was written by the real ruler of the universe and everyone else has it wrong. If theists could just admit to a little religious uncertainty I think the world would be a better place for all of us.

[Peter]

Great f-ing question, Peter!.
How bout we make a checklist n ask different peolple...
"Is Catholic certainty reasonable, rational, n logical?"
Is Islamic certainty reasonable, rational,....
...and so on with whatever stupid certainty any group of people "think" only they possess.

I think that would be a very repetitive list with a check in the NO box for every religion.

[DragonFly]

'Rational faith' is a trust that a known repetitive happening will occur again, such as the sun 'rising', whereas religious faith concerns an unknown that cannot be said to have happened, so, while 'faith' is also a general term beyond its religious use, a word like 'trust' (or a better one) will prevent confusion from the overloaded word of 'faith', for a theist might mistakenly say to a non-theist, "See, you employ faith, too."

'God' has already been shown to be impossible in the 'God and Humanity' thread (a complexity cannot be first), and soon there will be another disproof there. Meanwhile, theists can't even show 'God' as a 'could be', much less beyond that, which isn't even a 'that' anyway.

[gospurs]

Yeah, but what if we ask theists who are certain of THEIR particular franchise to check off that imaginary list..? I bet there would be a whole lot of no's and one very confident yes. How can 99% of a 100 religion list be obviously wrong but 1 religion be so obviously right? Wouldnt some of the criteria used to doubt the 99% also apply to the 1%. At least atheists are consistent...

[Senor Hoint]

It seems to me that as a general rule certainty of any kind is rarely, if ever, rational.

[Jack]

I agree. Certainty is warranted in only a few, specific instances. Religious and scientific certainty are unwarranted and only serve to stifle further inquiry.

[DragonFly]

Positing the supernatural is just a larger question because it doesn’t really explain anything; it just pushes the answer off. Incomplete answers are invariably wrong, for answers must be complete. The proofs of the self-contradiction of the supernatural remain, as well as that we find only the natural everywhere, the exact place that the supernatural is supposed to be, theistically speaking. It is really just a pronouncement to say that the supernatural can be, one born of a wish. Zero proofs of the supernatural have been found, while there are all kinds of proofs of the natural. The error is then compounded by preaching it, and that is the real problem. Why can’t they say that it’s just a notion? Because then fewer would listen. Science proof is not an internal view like the supernatural is, but is there for all to observe and confirm; however, they may not want to, for then the wish begins to wither. Many will go through all kinds of contortions and distortions to avoid this.

[DragonFly]

''profound religious experience'

Emotions are complex, largely automated programs of actions concocted by evolution that are carried out in our bodies, such as facial expressions, postures, changes in organs, and changes in internal settings and environment.

Emotions are actions accompanied by ideas and certain modes of thinking, while feelings, from emotions, are mostly perceptions of what our bodies do during the emoting, along with perception of our own state of mind during that same period of time. So it is, that, as far as the body is concerned, that feelings are images of actions rather than the actions themselves.

Moods can be quite spurious, too, the ill effect of brain neurotransmitters out of whack, the serotonin and dopamine levels falling, due to lack of exercise and/or nutrition, or just of one’s base genetics toward depression, anxiety, and obsession.

Emotions or felt sensations don’t make ‘God’.

Neither love nor hate nor bias for an idea will be of any help, in the knowledge of the All, but even of much hindrance as to the full absorbency of the meaning inherent in the facts which are. Pronouncing all sorts of things about Gods and invisible realms can never amount even to the tiniest hill of beans.

Emotional decisions can make one happy, in everyday life as lived, even for such as what the TOE should be, but, there, they can get in the way of the light of truth.