Knowledge of Other Beliefs

[Scumbag_Brain]

1. Did you know that there were other belief systems than Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Wicca?

Yes... Are there really people who don't?

2a. If you dont know what Abrahamic religions are or what the others are, please list below.
2b. Why do you dont know of these? (only if you answer 2a)

3. What do you think Pagans/Neopagans believe in? (if you arent one yourself)

They believe a variety of New Age concepts which stem from Gardner, Starhawk and other modern writers who co-opted and altered ancient polytheistic traditions to appeal to a largely western audience who had rejected their traditional beliefs but still required some religious shielding from the harsh reality of an impersonal and uncaring universe.

4. Paganism has nothing to do with Satanism. Do you disagree?

Christians labeled ancient European Pagan beliefs as Satanism which is why the modern image of the devil took on many attributes of the Green-Man or Pan of European pagan folklore. Modern Satanists vary from pagan polytheists to devout atheists and are only really unified in their conviction that man is man's own master and that selfishness is preferable to the masochism and prostration expected by most religions, Wicca included.

5. Do you believe your religion is better than others? Why? (I know this one could end bad, so please refrain from getting too heated up)

I have no formal religion. Religion is a form of ISM, a static belief which constrains and impedes the power of the human mind. I do suspect the world around me is conscious and that matter is an illusion sustained by this consciousness. Some call this animism. I call it my interpretation of quantum physics. Semantics.

6. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist or something in between?

I believe in evidence. There is little evidence for a creator so I am not a creationist. If there is evidence for such a thing I will change my mind, though chances are such a creator is more likely to be an alien than some physical realization of the God of an ancient desert dwelling people.

7. Of what belief systems do you know of?

I have studied all world religions fairly extensively except for Hinduism and Islam. I am most well versed in Wicca, Taoism, and Buddhism, however, since these are the three religions which I have at one time ascribed to.

8. Did you know there were other forms of creationism, some even very close to scientific theory?

There are no degrees of irrationality because the very concept of degrees is rational and therefore does not apply to the irrational realm. It is like saying of two mental patients, one of whom is marching around like Napoleon and the other of whom is painting the Mono Lisa with their feces, "that guy is crazier than the other." One is either rational and believes based on evidence or one is irrational and believes in spite of evidence. Since scientific theory is based on reason, one can not be close to it. One can not be almost rational. One is either scientific in their approach or one is not.

[Aniihya]

To number seven that is very narrow of you. Since there are some creationist beliefs that actually parallel evolution and the big bang theory except for some minor differences. You saying there are no degrees of irrationality or rationality is like saying that Darwins theory of evolution and the modern theory of evolution are the same. And that is a fallacy.

[dealing with it]

To Scumbag_Brain: Using mental patients as an example of irrationality is a big ol' can-o'-worms. What with the stigma and all, I barely want to touch it. However, I think your example was unfair; you picked as examples of mental illness two people with grandiose delusions (common to bipolar and schizophrenic patients, so literally the most extreme example of disordered thinking you ever see in hospitals). It's like holding up two very similar Golden Delicious apples as evidence that there are no grades of apples. On the contrary, I would think that someone suffering from unipolar depression, and on suicide watch, is still many degrees more rational than a man with schizophrenia who doesn't know he's in a hospital and who can't stop talking to all the voices he hears. I'm talking the difference in discharge time between three days and three months.

As a brief factoid, in best-case scenarios patients are provided with care from psychiatrists who have as similar as possible upbringing. If the patient is Christian, the doctor is preferentially Christian, etc.. It makes a huge difference in the interview room, where the doctor acquires all his evidence. As hard as it is to figure out the subjective mental state of someone just by talking to him, it's even harder to figure out the mental state of someone from a different culture. (Nevermind those unlucky patients who don't even speak the same language as their health-care workers!)

Anyway, I don't think rationality is as simple as a yes or a no. The criteria are flexible. The jury's still out on whether data can ever be purely objective.

Is it more rational to be a liberal or libertarian, a Christian or a Muslim, a businessman or a scientist, a rationalist or an empiricist, pro gay marriage or against, a naturalist or a pluralist? It's a tough call. Two people with identical sets of evidence can come to entirely different conclusions. And this is fine. I believe it was Nietzsche (adopting Schopenhauer's fascination with Eastern philosophy) who said, "there are no facts, only interpretations".

Thus, I hold that rationality must be incredibly relative: saying that there are degrees of rationality only scratches the surface of the varieties of reason. Holding to one ultimate paradigm of reason is like saying that English is the best language, with no exceptions. Rationality depends on culture, gender, and upbringing. It depends on age, intelligence, education, and experience. It depends on religious, political, and philosophical perspective. It depends on the language you speak: for instance, the law of identity, one of the first discoveries of Western philosophy, took a couple thousand years to appear in Chinese philosophy, since the Chinese language lacked the verb "to be". Also, it depends not only on the information you have, but how this information is phrased, how well you can understand the information, and even how you prioritize all this information according to your values. And yes, it does depend on how much serotonin you've got floating around your brain.

Then again, I believe that non-human animals can be rational. But, again, it's a matter of degree.

tl;dr: What is rational for me may not be rational for you, and visa versa.

[Aniihya]

dealing with it: Nietzsche quote ^^. I often agree with Nietzsche although I am rather an existentialist than a nihilist. By the way (excuse me if this might seem like an ad hominem attack towards Scumbag Brain), I have the feeling that Scumbag Brain is in the angsty teen phase where people think they are always right and say it in a rather rude way. It is like Nietzsche said, a matter of interpretation. We might disagree on some points but might agree on others. I often see people misinterpret rationality. But I can say that you, dealing_with_it are one of the most rational people on the forum.

[Rulke]

Here is a short catalogue of questions for me for a short study of mine. Debate on perspectives is allowed.

1. Did you know that there were other belief systems than Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Wicca?

2a. If you dont know what Abrahamic religions are or what the others are, please list below.
2b. Why do you dont know of these? (only if you answer 2a)

3. What do you think Pagans/Neopagans believe in? (if you arent one yourself)

4. Paganism has nothing to do with Satanism. Do you disagree?

5. Do you believe your religion is better than others? Why? (I know this one could end bad, so please refrain from getting too heated up)

6. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist or something in between?

7. Of what belief systems do you know of?

8. Did you know there were other forms of creationism, some even very close to scientific theory?

1. Yep, those are what known as Monotheistic Religion, not only that but many argue Buddhism and Taosism are more philosphies than religions, this as evidenced by one of the main figureheads of the group, Buddha who was only a man.

2. Know what they are, but man did you phrase that question awkwardly, pretty much all religions associated and from the family of Abraham.

3.Pagan technically is an insult invented by Rome to attack the beliefs of lesser nations. I think as long as they don't shove dogma down my throat, I'm a-okay. See Original Wickerman for this.

4. Satanism could be argued has less to do with image of Satanism, as Satan is a Christian creation, LaVey Satanists for instance don't worship anyone, just a lot about self-preservation and respect.

5. I'll answer with a quote instead, "In a world without God, man would feel need to create one.". If that's not clear, pretty much I don't think anyone religion wrong, misguided perhaps, dogmatic definitely, ignorant most assuredly.



Just a little laugh.

6 It's absurd to think that if you believe in Evolution you therefore are Evolutionist -- the term is laughable and shouldn't be taken seriously. As for Creationism, that a can of worms i ain't touching, not if I value my sanity. To put this in perspective I believe in Ghosts more than I believe Creationism.

7. Monotheistic, Atheist/Agnostic, Cult, Polytheism, Wiccan, Pantheist, Klingon/Elves/Scientology and Philosophies

8. Yep but if you ever can make talking snake scientific without claiming Eve was on drugs, then ring me.

[Aniihya]

Rulke; Hinduism isn't monotheistic but polytheistic since they believe in more than one god. And pretty much all religions are associated with Abraham? Uh no. A few are which are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mandaeism, Sikhism and Baha'i (actually only influenced by it). Then the majority outweighs Abrahamic religions with Hinduism, Kemetism, Wicca, Druidism, Romova, Shamanism, Tengri, Animism, Discordianism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Asatru, Odinism, Dievturiba, Stregheria, Urglaawe, Rodzimowierstwo, Am Ha'Aretz, Taarausk and Ukonusko. This is a small exempt of which many are folk religions.

[Rulke]

Rulke; Hinduism isn't monotheistic but polytheistic since they believe in more than one god. And pretty much all religions are associated with Abraham? Uh no. A few are which are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mandaeism, Sikhism and Baha'i (actually only influenced by it). Then the majority outweighs Abrahamic religions with Hinduism, Kemetism, Wicca, Druidism, Romova, Shamanism, Tengri, Animism, Discordianism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Asatru, Odinism, Dievturiba, Stregheria, Urglaawe, Rodzimowierstwo, Am Ha'Aretz, Taarausk and Ukonusko. This is a small exempt of which many are folk religions.

It's lovely how you only addressed one of my answers. I know Hinduism isn't Monotheistic, but majority of religions taken seriously nowadays are in actual fact monotheistic.

[Aniihya]

It is more like the world religions or religions that had taken root in the world while persecuting other religions majorly until about 300 years ago.

[Nannyhap]

1. Did you know that there were other belief systems than Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Wicca?\

Of course. I was raised in an agnostic household, and practice a pretty eclectic, esoteric, non-Wiccan form of Paganism myself.

2a. If you dont know what Abrahamic religions are or what the others are, please list below.
2b. Why do you dont know of these? (only if you answer 2a)

3. What do you think Pagans/Neopagans believe in? (if you arent one yourself)

I guess I shouldn't answer this since I am one, hmm? :P

4. Paganism has nothing to do with Satanism. Do you disagree?

Eh. Disagree, but not because I believe that all pagans are Satanists. It just so happens that the word "pagan" has always been used to describe those who don't follow the Abrahamic religions, and if you're not worshipping the "one true god" (they're still calling him that, right?), then you fall into the technical definition of pagan.

5. Do you believe your religion is better than others? Why? (I know this one could end bad, so please refrain from getting too heated up)

Yes. Not necessarily better than all of them, but I believe it is better than some. Not because it is more correct, but because it allows me more freedom to explore without forcing me to question my faith.

6. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist or something in between?

Probably something in between. I definitely believe that the theory of evolution is scientifically sound, and seeing as there is empirical evidence to support its accuracy in smaller circuits, it's not such a leap to believe the pattern extends into larger scenarios. However, I'm also inclined to believe that there has to be some kind of active, intentional force behind most marvels. Whatever that force is, I figure it's not unreasonable for it to have had a hand in that.

7. Of what belief systems do you know of?

Aside from those mentioned above? Rastafarianism, Taoism, several subcategories of paganism, things like that. I also know that the sheer amounts of differing traditional beliefs that still exist in the world would be really hard to keep record of.

8. Did you know there were other forms of creationism, some even very close to scientific theory?

I was aware of that, although I couldn't tell you which accounts were which.

[Scumbag_Brain]

To number seven that is very narrow of you. Since there are some creationist beliefs that actually parallel evolution and the big bang theory except for some minor differences. You saying there are no degrees of irrationality or rationality is like saying that Darwins theory of evolution and the modern theory of evolution are the same. And that is a fallacy.

All creationists come at biology with an expectation that there is a creator. A scientist who approaches a subject with such expectations is a poor scientist. Now creationists may fulfill a good function by pointing out holes in evolutionary theory and thus forcing the theory to 'evolve' but that alone does not make creationism science.

A degree is a rational concept and it does not apply to the irrational realm. One is either rational or non rational. As for theory, rationality does not equate to perfection. Both those different theories were rational when one takes into account the evidence available. Darwin for example did not know genes from M&Ms.

dealing with it: Nietzsche quote ^^. I often agree with Nietzsche although I am rather an existentialist than a nihilist. By the way (excuse me if this might seem like an ad hominem attack towards Scumbag Brain), I have the feeling that Scumbag Brain is in the angsty teen phase where people think they are always right and say it in a rather rude way. It is like Nietzsche said, a matter of interpretation. We might disagree on some points but might agree on others. I often see people misinterpret rationality. But I can say that you, dealing_with_it are one of the most rational people on the forum.

It is true that I am sometimes offensive, do not assume I lack self awareness to such an extent that I fail to realize this. My views, particularly that all forms of dogmas are mental viruses which infect and impede the power of the human mind, are automatically offensive to anyone holding dogmatic beliefs. I can do nothing about this apart from refusing to speak openly about my views and since dogmatic believers do not censor themselves, I see no reason why I should.

You are wrong about my age and I have changed my mind a great many times. I have encountered many brilliant people who have out-argued me and forced me to alter my opinions. Do not assume that since I have encountered no such people on this particular thread, I am idealogically inflexible.

[Scumbag_Brain]

To Scumbag_Brain: Using mental patients as an example of irrationality is a big ol' can-o'-worms. What with the stigma and all, I barely want to touch it. However, I think your example was unfair; you picked as examples of mental illness two people with grandiose delusions (common to bipolar and schizophrenic patients, so literally the most extreme example of disordered thinking you ever see in hospitals). It's like holding up two very similar Golden Delicious apples as evidence that there are no grades of apples. On the contrary, I would think that someone suffering from unipolar depression, and on suicide watch, is still many degrees more rational than a man with schizophrenia who doesn't know he's in a hospital and who can't stop talking to all the voices he hears. I'm talking the difference in discharge time between three days and three months.

As a brief factoid, in best-case scenarios patients are provided with care from psychiatrists who have as similar as possible upbringing. If the patient is Christian, the doctor is preferentially Christian, etc.. It makes a huge difference in the interview room, where the doctor acquires all his evidence. As hard as it is to figure out the subjective mental state of someone just by talking to him, it's even harder to figure out the mental state of someone from a different culture. (Nevermind those unlucky patients who don't even speak the same language as their health-care workers!)

Anyway, I don't think rationality is as simple as a yes or a no. The criteria are flexible. The jury's still out on whether data can ever be purely objective.

Is it more rational to be a liberal or libertarian, a Christian or a Muslim, a businessman or a scientist, a rationalist or an empiricist, pro gay marriage or against, a naturalist or a pluralist? It's a tough call. Two people with identical sets of evidence can come to entirely different conclusions. And this is fine. I believe it was Nietzsche (adopting Schopenhauer's fascination with Eastern philosophy) who said, "there are no facts, only interpretations".

Thus, I hold that rationality must be incredibly relative: saying that there are degrees of rationality only scratches the surface of the varieties of reason. Holding to one ultimate paradigm of reason is like saying that English is the best language, with no exceptions. Rationality depends on culture, gender, and upbringing. It depends on age, intelligence, education, and experience. It depends on religious, political, and philosophical perspective. It depends on the language you speak: for instance, the law of identity, one of the first discoveries of Western philosophy, took a couple thousand years to appear in Chinese philosophy, since the Chinese language lacked the verb "to be". Also, it depends not only on the information you have, but how this information is phrased, how well you can understand the information, and even how you prioritize all this information according to your values. And yes, it does depend on how much serotonin you've got floating around your brain.

Then again, I believe that non-human animals can be rational. But, again, it's a matter of degree.

tl;dr: What is rational for me may not be rational for you, and visa versa.

First I am not politically correct so your entire first paragraph is about as relevant to me as a mouse fart. My crazy examples were meant to be ludicrous not a statement on mental illness which is the reason I made them so silly. By all means interpret them that way if it makes you feel more enlightened, however.

Most of the example ideologies you use are taken from complex areas where there exists evidence for both positions. In such areas one can be rational and believe either depending upon the evidence you are exposed to and how much you weight it. This is why in those areas people are so influenced by the news programs they view. Some ideologies you mention are more clear. Christianity and Islam for example are both irrational beliefs because they are not based on evidence. One is not more rational than the other because there are no degrees of irrationality. Being prejudiced against gays is entirely irrational and usually derived from other irrational beliefs like Christianity or Islam.

So rationality is relative, eh. Tell me in what culture does 2+2=5? In what culture do the laws of aerodynamics allow pigs to fly? In what culture does ignoring evidence lead to correct conclusions? One of the things I love about reason and the physical world is it is always ready to pwn arrogant humans who think it is all relative. When, your speed is approaching 186000 miles a second, come back to me and we will talk about relativity.

I should add that I think your point about brain chemistry is an excellent one. I agree that humans are imperfect biological beings. We make mistakes. But reason is not derived from us. It exists in the world which follows mathematical laws and obeys basic rational laws (such as the principle that A=A). Or, put another way, though seratonin and other chemicals may cause us to act irrationally, their action within our brain remains founded on chemical laws which are mathematical and rational.

Humans can use reason, we can misuse it, or we can ignore it, but none of these vagaries make reason itself relative for it exists independently from us.

[dealing with it]

@Scumbag_Brain: You've agreed that rationality is complex, but then you try to shift examples on me to simplify it down to simple mathematics. I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you recognize that people can think and behave rationally in many different ways, or you try to restrict rationality to pure objectivity (aka. God's perspective) and deny that rationality plays any substantial role in deciding between, for instance, two conflicting moral views.

When it boils down to the essence of the matter, we are only ever able to be subjective beings; the possibility that the world is all an illusion, like in the Matrix, is not something that we can completely rule out. Radical skepticism is far from a trivial possibility, and casts severe doubt onto the very possibility of objectivity. As such, it is not "arrogant" to be a relativist (or, in my case, a pluralist, where even the phrasing of a belief matters when we decide to accept or reject it.) It's a recognition of the limits of knowledge (and the biases inherent in every knowledge claim), not the "arrogant" claim that we have perfect indubitable knowledge.

Three questions:
1. can a non-human animal behave rationally?
2. were humans rational prior to the invention of mathematics?
and
3. were there any conditions where inventing religion was the rational option?


And yes, I do think political correctness matters. A simple example from feminist epistemology is the claim "a sperm fertilizes the egg." This implies that the male principle (the sperm) is the active agent, the most important part. To make the claim an acceptable truth-claim might require a rephrasing to something like "a sperm and an egg interact in a uterine environment." When it comes to knowledge, "who" is often as important as "what". Your claims about mental illness were, frankly, mistaken.

[Sheoul]

Here is a short catalogue of questions for me for a short study of mine. Debate on perspectives is allowed.

1. Did you know that there were other belief systems than Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Wicca?
Yeah.

2a. If you dont know what Abrahamic religions are or what the others are, please list below.
2b. Why do you dont know of these? (only if you answer 2a)

3. What do you think Pagans/Neopagans believe in? (if you arent one yourself)
That's difficult to say given that there is no real historic basis for the beliefs many of them would claim to believe in. By that I mean, we can't prove that originally a lot of their ideas were shared by their ancient cousins.

4. Paganism has nothing to do with Satanism. Do you disagree?
Nope.

5. Do you believe your religion is better than others? Why? (I know this one could end bad, so please refrain from getting too heated up)
I don't have one.

6. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist or something in between?
Evolutionist. I fear the question is a little silly, though. A creationist can believe in evolution if they believe God created it.

7. Of what belief systems do you know of?
Too many to list.

8. Did you know there were other forms of creationism, some even very close to scientific theory?
Yes.

I wanna take the time to answer the post above mine, too.

Three questions:
1. can a non-human animal behave rationally?
Depends how you define 'rationally.' I'd say yes, though.
2. were humans rational prior to the invention of mathematics?
That's a ridiculous question. Of course they were. It's not like we evolved into a species that just knew maths.
3. were there any conditions where inventing religion was the rational option?
Hahaha, since when is it ever the rational option?


And yes, I do think political correctness matters. A simple example from feminist epistemology is the claim "a sperm fertilizes the egg." This implies that the male principle (the sperm) is the active agent, the most important part. Only if you read it that way. Look for sexism and you'll find it. Look for scientific accuracy and you'll find that, too. To make the claim an acceptable truth-claim might require a rephrasing to something like "a sperm and an egg interact in a uterine environment." This doesn't change the fact that the sperm does fertilise the egg, though. Does it.

[dealing with it]

Sheoul, that was the most basic and clear example of gendered knowledge I could think of, one that highlights the fact that knowledge is knower-dependent without making it messy. I didn't talk about the complex issues of, say, how social norms set up gender roles that change how we perceive certain kinds of knowledge.

You can probably imagine that there are many cases of this type of claim. This is due in part to the fact that philosophy and science (in particular, biology) were male-dominated for a long time: this problem isn't accidentally everywhere. In medicine, for instance, it was a long time before women's health was treated with the same seriousness as the health of men. (With the obvious exception of the recent GOP debate where abortion was deemed, by conservative men, to be an issue of religious freedom, and not an issue of woman's health.)

Saying that a claim is only gendered "if you read it that way" suggests that it's ungendered. I think, in this case, the sex of the nouns is blatant. The male sperm is acting. The female egg is doing nothing but passively accepting the male. It's a clear-cut case. In fact, since I provided an alternative phrasing that respects both genders, there is sufficient reason to reject one phrasing and accept another. In fact, one phrasing is flat-out not true to a female's way of knowing. Her egg is active.

(There is a "gender roles" thread which may be more appropriate for this debate. As far as irrationality goes, since this tangent arose after mentally ill people were dubbed irrational, men used to -- and misogynists still do -- call women irrational. Just in case you think that the tool can't also be used as a weapon.)

[Sheoul]

I'd like to say this:

Biology doesn't care for being fair to genders. The sperm fertilises the egg. That. Is. How. It Happens. Plus, I think your determinism to look at it a different way betrays your inherent sexism or bias against men in general.

[dealing with it]

The biologist who first defines the event as "sperm fertilizing egg", rather than "sperm and egg interacting", is making a claim from a perspective. In particular, a male perspective. It's of the order of a Baptist, when called to describe the character of a person of another faith, begins his description with "unbaptised", and ends there. Sure, it's technically correct to the Baptist, but it also undeniably comes from a particular perspective, and some may find it offensively biased. And besides, since I don't believe baptism has any real significance, from my perspective, it's actually not something I'd mark with the stamp of "true". In a world without Jews, none of us would have Bar Mitzvahs, but nobody would care about whether or not that's true. Truth is inescapably relative.

Anyway, notice that I didn't say, "the egg consumes and digests the sperm". I chose a neutral point where both nouns had agency. I'm not biased against men. That's ridiculous. I don't even know where you get that from.

[Sheoul]

If a person moves into position to operate a vehicle you say "they got into the car." Not "he and the car interacted."

[dealing with it]

I don't think I could have proven my point about the significance of your choice of agency better than you just did.

[Sheoul]

[dealing with it]

In a different world, a female biologist might have said the egg does all the work, and isn't simply a fancy car for the well-to-do upper-middle class sperm to drive. The fact of the matter is, you've got two mindless gametes combining, and you're only willing to say that one has agency. This is the tip of the iceberg.