It doesn’t seem to me to be possible to hold both rationality and religion in one’s head at the same time without compartmentalization, which is one of the things rationality seeks to destroy.
I can actually quite easily accept that it could be a good idea for rationalists to adopt some of the community-building practices of religious groups, but I also think that rationality is necessarily corrosive to religion.
If you’ve squared that circle, I’d be interested to hear how. Being somewhat religious for the social bit but having excised the supernaturalism is the only stable state I can think of.
And I can actually think of a few people who do that. :3 They’re not rationalists, but they still go to a church once in a while to hang out with their friends and the community that such an establishment engenders. (Not even my church, so don’t take this as an endorsement… x3)
Unfortunately, there is a datum that you are missing; the “missing link” between religion and rationality, and that is the “taste of the fruit” that calcsam spoke of above. Without personal experience it’s possible to show—and people have worked hard at doing it, and continue to hold their ground, including the oft-quoted-by-me Jeff Lindsay—that our religion “is not necessarily proven to be false”. Given enough study time, this might be enough to convince an unbiased person (given that there are no unbiased people, this is of course difficult to prove) that Mormonism is worth considering more closely as a hypothesis; it might make it stand out more in hypothesis-space. But in order to take that “possibility” into a “probability”, you need to experience the Spirit speaking to you for yourself, which means—in the simplest case—reading the Book of Mormon and taking Moroni’s Challenge (Moroni 10:4-5).
Religion and rationality are not compatible, because the specific claims of religion are false and rationality seeks to destroy false beliefs. There is no missing link; subjective experience is not compelling evidence of anything, let alone something so massively in need of high-quality evidence as a god.
Given enough study time, this might be enough to convince an unbiased person (given that there are no unbiased people, this is of course difficult to prove)...
You are rationalizing a position you didn’t reason yourself into. Stop it.
Reposted as requested:
And I can actually think of a few people who do that. :3 They’re not rationalists, but they still go to a church once in a while to hang out with their friends and the community that such an establishment engenders. (Not even my church, so don’t take this as an endorsement… x3)
Unfortunately, there is a datum that you are missing; the “missing link” between religion and rationality, and that is the “taste of the fruit” that calcsam spoke of above. Without personal experience it’s possible to show—and people have worked hard at doing it, and continue to hold their ground, including the oft-quoted-by-me Jeff Lindsay—that our religion “is not necessarily proven to be false”. Given enough study time, this might be enough to convince an unbiased person (given that there are no unbiased people, this is of course difficult to prove) that Mormonism is worth considering more closely as a hypothesis; it might make it stand out more in hypothesis-space. But in order to take that “possibility” into a “probability”, you need to experience the Spirit speaking to you for yourself, which means—in the simplest case—reading the Book of Mormon and taking Moroni’s Challenge (Moroni 10:4-5).
Religion and rationality are not compatible, because the specific claims of religion are false and rationality seeks to destroy false beliefs. There is no missing link; subjective experience is not compelling evidence of anything, let alone something so massively in need of high-quality evidence as a god.
You are rationalizing a position you didn’t reason yourself into. Stop it.
Tu quoque. Circular argument: Rationality is opposed to religion because religion is false. Religion is false because rationality opposes it.