Is there such a thing as rational Christianity?

[Tnerb]

Snakelord.

Again Kierkegaard would disagree with you. A lot of great thinkers would as well. I'm not saying this for myself, I am saying this and thats all. What is the leap of faith he talked about? Is that not rational? If it isn't rational, then why are there christians who think that they are rational christians? If there is no rational christians, then ... LOL

 

[superluminal]

There are many christians who are rational in their every day life, who apply reason and skepticism in their personal and professional lives. I know many very bright and savvy christians. However, when it comes to god, they compartmentalize their reason and toss all pretense at rationality. No evedince, proof, or verification required for god. This is an observable fact of christianity.

 

[(Q)]

why are there christians who think that they are rational christians?

They have to tell themselves something in order to justify their fantasies.

 

[Tnerb]

That is a good arguement. Is this threads arguement like Nietzsches Antichrist? lol That there is no such thing as christianity that is rational even the slightest? If we establish it isn't rational, then we establish it is irrational? But that still makes it rational.

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord.

Again Kierkegaard would disagree with you.

Certainly, that's the beauty of being an individual and being free to have an opinion. I simply provided mine

I know quite a few people, that to all intents and purposes would be considered rational, that believe not saluting a lone magpie is bad luck. They also undoubtedly believe it is a rational belief. That is their opinion - and while I consider it ludicrously irrational, I can't stop them believing whatever they want to.

Funnily in both instances, they fail at providing any substantial evidence. That is where the problem lies, and that is why I said "no".

 

[TruthSeeker]

Interesting technique. Reword your opponent's statements into a strawman that you can easily tear down. And then throw in some ad hominem attack. Well done!

I actually didn't reqord what you said. I used the same words.
And I didn't use an ad hominem attack. I was just being silly...

Anyway, I clearly did not say I could observe god,

Really?

The christian/muslim/hebrew god as presented conventionally is 100% ruled out by observational evidence.

but that observational evidence (which can also be a complete lack of observation where someone claims something will be) rules out the god of heaven and hell.

Sounds convenient.

And heaven and hell are metaphors? What kind of christian are you?

Rational...

Every christian I've ever debated with fully believes in a physical heaven and hell. These are fundamental postulates of the christian religion.

Not really. Think about it. It could very well be just a metaphor. In fact, Jesus actually say that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is within you. In the same way, "hell", is within you. For example, someone that drinks heavely and goes into prostitution has hell within him/herself.

What say you?

I say it is easy to dismiss the idea of a god just because you haven't been able to find evidence for it. You can always be an agnostic, and that is a more neutral and unbiased position then an atheist. Simply dismissing the notion of god is trying to avoid hard work...

 

[Dreama]

I would offer that what is 'rational' is conditional and malleable as it requires the validation of a majority concensus. Majority concensus is formed based on what is most commonly accepted in a given area or time period. After all, it was once 'rational' that the earth was the center of the solar system. Now, what causes a change in what is commonly accepted? New information, education, and, voila! concensus reforms.... but the thing is, that the 'majority' never comes up with anything new, that is the job of the few.

 

[geeser]

lack of education, is just ignorance, not irrationality.
the majority concensus, in the past was based on ignorance.
but now on our small planet, we are more educated, and to deny the facts is irrational.

 

[atthisaddress]

There are many christians who are rational in their every day life, who apply reason and skepticism in their personal and professional lives. I know many very bright and savvy christians. However, when it comes to god, they compartmentalize their reason and toss all pretense at rationality. No evedince, proof, or verification required for god. This is an observable fact of christianity.

Well... I would say that Rational Christians have that ability to separate their faith, Irrational Christians lack or don't use that ability, as witnessed by the attacks on the scientific method since the acceptance of an ancient Earth and the Theory of Natural Selection.

 

[atthisaddress]

Therefore, by your own account, it is perfectly rational to admit the possibility that anything which can be conjured from the imagination could exist?

I don't get presents...

And god provided you with what exactly?

I'd put it this way: Anything that can be conjured from the imagination can exist to the person having the experience as authentic, a consequence of the ability to do that. As long as they do not insist that experience is something that can be measured, examined, or proven in the real world, or that it exists in the real world, rationality has not been abused.

 

[qwerty mob]

I separate the Christian faith into two branches, the Irrational, [...] and the Rational branch [...]

Would you separate Orio Cookies into "Chocolate Wafers" and "Creme Filling" categories?

 

[atthisaddress]

I know quite a few people, that to all intents and purposes would be considered rational, that believe not saluting a lone magpie is bad luck. They also undoubtedly believe it is a rational belief.

Have you asked them about that? I suspect the reason may lie elsewhere, that they do that because of feelings - they would feel uncomfortable if they did not salute that magpie.

Funnily in both instances, they fail at providing any substantial evidence. That is where the problem lies, and that is why I said "no".

There is no evidence to justify such a quirk as a measurable, actual cause and effect event in the real world. That's the whole point to me, this is learned behavior, no doubt re-enforced by cultural approval, that has a practical effect for those that do it - it provides a measure of security.

Do they insist that this is a real property of the real world, something that could be proven by rational means, like science? Probably not, I would hope.

But then, how to describe to others what is an internal, authentic cause and effect event to them? Many people would be reduced to using the simple answer to prevent other uncomfortable feelings, "Because". Seal it off, because they know it isn't rational, they (I would guess) don't proclaim it as rational, and I would say without any impact or demand to have the rational world accept it, falls outside of definition of rational or irrational. Perhaps the best definition is "human".

 

[atthisaddress]

I agree with this in part, but I do not believe that communion is the core aspect of this. Yes, it is natural to feel more grounded in a belief when others share it, but I think that most people are deeply searching for a personal truth in life and have a desire, at their core, to find it for themselves - completely apart from community. For example, the person may question the belief system that they were brought up into and reject it. They may come upon something that seems better/more rational to them, and on those grounds change their beliefs - only changing because they had come across something new on their individual search for truth. Their core beliefs had changed, more a result of innately desiring personal truth than innately desiring communion.

Fair enough, conversion to a different belief is common enough. Man is a thinking animal. However, for many of us, the group identity gives enough rewards , and the rejection of a group so many potential negatives that any consideration of an alternative isn't a real option - as though such thinking was a betrayal of the group, and often of a family. Attacks on the beliefs of a group as having negative effects on individuals or society or any reason can make beliefs even more impervious to self-examination, a protective posture in defense of the group.

To answer this innate calling is to NEED the belief system itself that satisfies the core of the individual's search for personal truth.

I cannot claim that this isn't the case for some people. I don't say it's an absolute fact either. Interestingly, there are evolutionary biologists that say religious belief is an evolutionary adaptation, with individuals unable to replace factual truth with practical, religious "truth" that increases their chance to survive and pass on their genes within a group, as being selected against.

 

[atthisaddress]

Would you separate Orio Cookies into "Chocolate Wafers" and "Creme Filling" categories?

Not a valid analogy. Even if you expanded it to Fig Newtons, Lady Fingers, etc.

What we are discussing is the relationship of religious beliefs to the real world around us, the secular, scientific, rational realm. Does belief always have enough of an impact to dismiss those that hold a belief outside of our shared reality from being able to authentically function as rational?

Besides, if you were to ask Irrational Christians about Rational Christians, many, many of them would tell you Rational Christians aren't Christians at all.

 

[atthisaddress]

And heaven and hell are metaphors? What kind of christian are you? Every christian I've ever debated with fully believes in a physical heaven and hell. These are fundamental postulates of the christian religion.

What say you?

You might consider that Christians that don't believe in an absolute physical heaven and hell don't feel the need to debate you. A physical heaven and hell are not absolute postulates in the majority of mainstream Christian denominations, nor are they simple metaphors, per se.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Well... I would say that Rational Christians have that ability to separate their faith, Irrational Christians lack or don't use that ability, as witnessed by the attacks on the scientific method since the acceptance of an ancient Earth and the Theory of Natural Selection.

Good comment....

 

[qwerty mob]

The point was that one's polarization of Xianity based on behavioural characteristics of its followers doesn't serve any practical purpose; no judgement does.

 

[atthisaddress]

The point was that one's polarization of Xianity based on behavioural characteristics of its followers doesn't serve any practical purpose; no judgement does.

I'll admit that my choice of definition - Rational and Irrational - is open to charges that it assigns a value judgement to each group. However, I think it is also the most accurate and specific to the actual schism. As I apply it, it describes the stance of each group to that most rational of all human creations - the scientific method.

The polarization of these groups to one another has been a long time coming. Media coverage of 'issues' like the attacks on the theory of evolution has been incredibly shallow, it presents one side with an advocate that says they represent faith and Christianity, the other side is always represented by someone that is defending science, not faith that accepts the scientific method.
I think it is high time to change the public perception of the debate, all is not sweetness and light in what I call the Irrational camp. If we had a steady stream of Rational Christian Clergy defending science in these 'debates', attacks would be sure to follow on their denomination - as George Will has noted, Fundamentalists just can't help themselves. Many people don't really understand the issue or their religions stance, without that knowledge they can develop a defensive posture that science is an attack on all faith. Once they see an attack on their denomination, that will tip them to instinctively defend their own faith, and drop their own perception that science and evolution are a denial of their faith. Maybe - I'm not clairvoyant.

 

[qwerty mob]

Good points. We might diverge on labels, but I find myself in agreement with you.

 

[geeser]

Well... I would say that Rational Christians have that ability to separate their faith, Irrational Christians lack or don't use that ability, as witnessed by the attacks on the scientific method since the acceptance of an ancient Earth and the Theory of Natural Selection.

does'nt that also mean that the Aledged rational christian, could never mention that he was a christian, for fear of showing that, irrationality to the world.

I'd put it this way: Anything that can be conjured from the imagination can exist to the person having the experience as authentic, a consequence of the ability to do that. As long as they do not insist that experience is something that can be measured, examined, or proven in the real world, or that it exists in the real world, rationality has not been abused.

again does'nt that also mean that the Aledged rational christian, could never mention that he was a christian, for fear of showing that, irrationality to the world.
so we can then say that part of this rationale, is not being, acting, or saying your christian, therefore it still remains there is no such thing as a rational christian.