I would find that difficult, because in my understanding, religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first...
I mean, most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago, when people knew practically nothing about the world, because the scientific method didn’t exist, and “a high-status person made it up” was a likely source of any statement that couldn’t be immediately verified… that this book contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond. The obvious rational answer is: “why should we even take this hypothesis seriously?” (And the traditional answers mostly reduce to: “because someone powerful will hurt you if you don’t”.)
Now this is different from the fact that religion as a social process has accumulated some wisdom over the years. Like, smart people were thinking about things, figured out something, and sometimes added “because god wanted it this way” on the top of it. Or people were motivated by the religion to do something, and during the real work they discovered something; for example the religion wants you to build big churches, so you invent architecture.
But then you have the problem of how to separate the true knowledge from the religious justifications. Also, to separate the true knowledge from things that also have a religious justification but aren’t true. And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.
(My pet peeve: we already have fans of Buddhism here, who in my opinion fail to separate the wheat from the chaff, fail to consider alternative explanations, dismiss evidence by “if it fails for you, you must be doing something wrong”. That’s what you get when you become emotionally attached to the source you take the information from.)
Note: I will be referencing Protestant Christianity, as this is the only religion I can provide informed conjectures about, and I am not comfortable speaking when I am ill-informed. I will assume the same is true for other religions.
Thank you for your comment! You make some good points, so I will amend my framework accordingly, but there is ultimately no reason why we shouldn’t try to introduce theists to rationalism or why rationality cannot be applied to religious scripture in some contexts.
...religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first.
These are things that everyone does. Best to recognize that nobody is a perfect rationalist. I will concede that religions which prioritize faith require privileging a hypothesis, which is inherently antithetical to rationalism. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot be rational about topics that do not involve that specific point of faith, or apply rationalism to topics that involve religion but do not involve the specific point of faith. (Alternatively, a point of faith may be taken as an axiom.)
Most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago … contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond.
Most Christians, at least in the United States, know that the Bible is a collection of historical documents are written and translated by humans, who have biases and flaws; the notion that the Lord personally took a pen to paper, wrote each scripture Himself in American English, and distributed the result to hotels and dollar stores nationwide is a minority position, to put it lightly. (In regards to the linked survey: The difference between “God-inspired but not to be taken literally all the time” and “fables/moral precepts recorded by man” is not relevant and probably would not be of much interest; if you care, feel free to reply.)
And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.
At least in regard to Christianity, this is what precisely religious discourse does. Every time you see a Christian eating shellfish (forbidden in the Old Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded before Jesus’s birth, but allowed in the post-Gospel New Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded after Jesus’s ascension) or wearing clothes without tassels (forbidden in the Old Testament, implicitly allowed in the New Testament; for a simple explanation, see here), they have already “thrown away the rest” without issue. While I cannot speak definitively, as I am ill-informed, many members of other religions do the same; I have known Hindus who are vegetarian and Hindus who only abstain from red meat as well as Muslim women who wear the hijab and Muslim women who do not, and I assume they all have some religious justification (other than apathy) for doing so.
Like, smart people were thinking about things
So would it not behoove rationalists to invite such to discussion? Would it not behoove those discussing religious topics to use a successful framework (rationalism) to do so?
I would find that difficult, because in my understanding, religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first...
I mean, most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago, when people knew practically nothing about the world, because the scientific method didn’t exist, and “a high-status person made it up” was a likely source of any statement that couldn’t be immediately verified… that this book contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond. The obvious rational answer is: “why should we even take this hypothesis seriously?” (And the traditional answers mostly reduce to: “because someone powerful will hurt you if you don’t”.)
Now this is different from the fact that religion as a social process has accumulated some wisdom over the years. Like, smart people were thinking about things, figured out something, and sometimes added “because god wanted it this way” on the top of it. Or people were motivated by the religion to do something, and during the real work they discovered something; for example the religion wants you to build big churches, so you invent architecture.
But then you have the problem of how to separate the true knowledge from the religious justifications. Also, to separate the true knowledge from things that also have a religious justification but aren’t true. And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.
(My pet peeve: we already have fans of Buddhism here, who in my opinion fail to separate the wheat from the chaff, fail to consider alternative explanations, dismiss evidence by “if it fails for you, you must be doing something wrong”. That’s what you get when you become emotionally attached to the source you take the information from.)
Note: I will be referencing Protestant Christianity, as this is the only religion I can provide informed conjectures about, and I am not comfortable speaking when I am ill-informed. I will assume the same is true for other religions.
Thank you for your comment! You make some good points, so I will amend my framework accordingly, but there is ultimately no reason why we shouldn’t try to introduce theists to rationalism or why rationality cannot be applied to religious scripture in some contexts.
These are things that everyone does. Best to recognize that nobody is a perfect rationalist. I will concede that religions which prioritize faith require privileging a hypothesis, which is inherently antithetical to rationalism. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot be rational about topics that do not involve that specific point of faith, or apply rationalism to topics that involve religion but do not involve the specific point of faith. (Alternatively, a point of faith may be taken as an axiom.)
Most Christians, at least in the United States, know that the Bible is a collection of historical documents are written and translated by humans, who have biases and flaws; the notion that the Lord personally took a pen to paper, wrote each scripture Himself in American English, and distributed the result to hotels and dollar stores nationwide is a minority position, to put it lightly. (In regards to the linked survey: The difference between “God-inspired but not to be taken literally all the time” and “fables/moral precepts recorded by man” is not relevant and probably would not be of much interest; if you care, feel free to reply.)
At least in regard to Christianity, this is what precisely religious discourse does. Every time you see a Christian eating shellfish (forbidden in the Old Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded before Jesus’s birth, but allowed in the post-Gospel New Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded after Jesus’s ascension) or wearing clothes without tassels (forbidden in the Old Testament, implicitly allowed in the New Testament; for a simple explanation, see here), they have already “thrown away the rest” without issue. While I cannot speak definitively, as I am ill-informed, many members of other religions do the same; I have known Hindus who are vegetarian and Hindus who only abstain from red meat as well as Muslim women who wear the hijab and Muslim women who do not, and I assume they all have some religious justification (other than apathy) for doing so.
So would it not behoove rationalists to invite such to discussion? Would it not behoove those discussing religious topics to use a successful framework (rationalism) to do so?