Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The fact is that it is generally irrational to believe who/what and in whatever. The relationship between faith and reason is one of the most important questions of any theology. Another thing is that not everything rational is true. Why did it take so long to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa? Because it is very difficult to overcome what is based on experience and common sense.
At the same time, most of the knowledge of any particular person is based on faith, since he simply does not have enough life to personally check and verify everything. A person tends to believe what comes from an authority (scientists, mostly). Therefore, the most common worldview is called “naive realism” wikipedia.org Although very often his followers describe themselves as materialists or subjective idealists.
If you believe in God and life after death you are comfortable-believe, if not comfortable-do not believe.
In general, this is called “Pascal's wager” – there was such a mathematician and philosopher. His concept was that, roughly speaking, if there is no God and you have lived your whole life as if there is One, then at best you have lost a little time and sense gratification. If you have lived as if there is no God, but He still exists – then for this belief you can catch hell forever. So from Pascal's point of view, it is more rational to believe, because it provides more options
The Higher can be incomprehensible, but it is never illogical. Therefore, even if a person believes in something, it does not mean that his belief can be illogical.
It is rational to believe in God simply because, on the one hand, there are a number of signs pointing to God, and on the other, there is no convincing evidence of His absence. And although the signs do not give us concrete certainty that the existence of God is proven strictly and concrete, but they indicate that the probability of His existence is higher than the probability of His absence. And for this reason, on the one hand, faith in God is still faith(the absence of strict concrete evidence gives room for faith), but on the other hand, this faith is quite rational, in some ways similar to faith in the past(memory), and faith in the reality of the world.
to each his own.
a biorobot with the problem of expectations for its mother invents a religion for itself.
a biorobot with a problem in its expectations for dad comes up with a science for itself.
a biorobot with a child's problem in itself invents esotericism.
and a person Creates Life, transforming himself by learning from everything.
It is more rational to believe in God, for one simple reason. Who can prove that there is no God? Nobody. And who can provide the whole society with indisputable evidence of the existence of God? Also, no one. Therefore, there are two options for an atheist and a believer. Believer: if there is a God, then after death and in life all will receive retribution for their deeds. Well, if we assume that It does not exist, then believers will still be fine, because after death they will cease to exist and will not have any problems. Well, atheists have to hope only for the second option, because if it turns out that they were wrong, and God still exists, then they will go to hell and go to eternal torment. Therefore, from the point of view of logic, rationality and common sense, you need to believe in God, because only in this way will there be a 100% chance of not getting into problems. But just believing in Him is not an option. We need to repent of our sins, if any, and begin to live a righteous life, keeping everything that God has given us through his word.
There is nothing more rational than the certainty of the truth,proven by facts. (Hebrews 11:1) And then it's up to everyone to look for evidence or not. I found for myself the facts, including scientific ones, that God exists and is the master of everything.
Faith in God has nothing to do with faith in life after death. The Bible speaks of only one form of life for humans on earth,the one we have now. And God will raise up all the dead after the judgment to live here on earth again. (Jn 5: 28,29) If someone is going to heaven,there are probably no more available tickets,since the number is limited to 144,000 people (Rev 14:1; 7:4). To help King Jesus, such as the Cabinet of Ministers
From my point of view, the most rational way is the path of knowledge that is free from conditioning. The very concept of faith is ambiguous. We can talk about two main meanings of this word. The first meaning is the uncritical recognition of certain facts and ideas. The second meaning better conveys the word trust, rather than faith. It indicates the quality of a person's internal state. At the same time, trust has nothing to do with credulity, credulity and naivety. Rather, it is like a “presumption of innocence” in dealing with people, the world, and information. Trust allows you to explore different aspects of reality, without making quick judgments based on your belief in a set of beliefs and beliefs.
We must divide this into two questions: life after death and God.
Well, because they are not very, in my opinion, interrelated, if we do not consider them in any particular context.
Let's put it this way: if there is no God, and accordingly there are no His laws, then… I don't care what happens after death. Well, life will continue there. No, not really.
Another thing is that if spiritual science is true, then for any decisions, you will receive certain consequences.
It is rational here to believe that after death there will be life and it will be what you deserve. Because if it's not, if there's nothing there, then that's fine, you're not there anymore anyway. And if there is? And you'll run into a lot of trouble if you don't live according to the laws of God. Therefore, it is more rational to recognize the possibility of the existence of God and follow His laws. You can't lose anything in any situation.
We have already answered about the “Pascal's wager” above, and what is surprising is that a religious person says:”….what we lose and what we gain.” Well, if you really believe in God on the basis of the fact that I “acquire” something, it becomes nonsense even more than usual.
I think it is rational to understand thatScientific Samsara is much more beautiful than it is artistically described by various religions. One state flows into another and it continues, literally – indefinitely.�
In order to understand this, it is worth going to school for physics, and not to church.
I daresay this question in itself means that believing in God is a reasonable idea for you, and therefore you are looking for rational justifications. An inveterate atheist will not ask such questions. This question can be restated. “What is more rational-to proceed in your life from the fact that there are indisputable laws, including moral ones, or from the fact that everything is allowed?”.
At one time, Pascal, a French mathematician and philosopher, especially for doubting people, gave an answer to this question, which went down in history under the name “Pascal's Bet”. His argument, for all its outward jocularity, is hard to refute. Since we don't know for sure whether there is a God or not, it is reasonable to assume a 50% probability of His existence. Now let's weigh what we lose and what we gain if we build our lives based on the fact that It still exists. Of course, we will lose some time and, perhaps, deprive ourselves of some pleasures, but we will gain immeasurably more in the case of its real existence (each religion describes this reward in its own way, but all promise bliss or at least deliverance from suffering). If we build our lives on the opposite hypothesis of “There is no God” and it is not confirmed, then we will lose a lot, and we will gain only ephemeral memories of dubious pleasures. In short, it's better to believe just in case, otherwise who knows…
Unfortunately, this answer can only convince a person who has an intuitive inclination to build their life in accordance with the rules of the scriptures, even if just in case. But if we take seriously and impartially the restrictions that any religion imposes on a person, we will understand that living in accordance with these rules will make us better, cleaner, healthier. All these precepts are beneficial even from the material point of view. Even an atheist, if he wants to live a happy, healthy, productive life, will follow the same rules. They are just the most rational basis for life, because they take into account the laws of this world. Of course, as is typical of all playful children, we can try to break them, but this will only make it worse for ourselves and our loved ones.
First of all, faith and religion are not very different things. Religion makes a man a slave. But faith, on the contrary, can encourage some kind of initiative and study. I don't think God cares if you believe in him or not, he doesn't care what you wear, what you eat, who you love, who you sleep with. Religion was invented by humans. You need to be a good person first and foremost.
The problem is that people often confuse Religion and God. And that is why such questions arise. The fact that religions have a lot of contradictions, distortions and other things that are incompatible with the understanding of the all-good God. Therefore, it is more rational to believe primarily in God, and not in religion. And if we really believe in the almighty God, and believe in his help, what is not rational here? It is much more effective to believe in God's unlimited possibilities than in your own limited ones.
There is no death. Only the material body dies. And it dies from the moment we are born. Take your childhood photo and you will see a completely different body, which has nothing to do with the one you have now. However, you know that in this body, you were once there. Obviously, there is something that does not change and does not disappear with the body. This is the soul i.e. You are a soul and you will never die. When the real body is completely worn out, we will get a new one, and so on. Everything is simple.
Believing is not very rational in itself. It is rational to know exactly. But there are no objective facts (recognized by science). So you can believe, but it has nothing to do with rationality
Good question. But the point is not whether to believe or not, but what kind of lifestyle to choose. If a person believes in the existence of God, he must also live in accordance with what is written in revelation about Him. At least try.
By the way, modern science originated in Christian Europe. Descartes Pascal Newton they were all believers and the list goes on. Moreover, think about this. Atheism is a Christian invention, because only Christianity implies a choice (to believe or not) .If you live in accordance with the fact that It does not exist, then what standards should you follow? In my subjective opinion, this led to the tragedies of the 20th century. Especially if you look at what gave rise to the philosophical thought of the 19th century. The same Nietzsche. How many atheist communists have lost their lives? Which state called itself the most humane? Sorry, but no crusades or inquisitions can compare to the gas chambers of the Nazis. Because there is no God. The highest value is a person! And some people are more valuable than others. Exaggerating ? Perhaps. But the history of the 20th century gives reason to think about it.
It seems to us that believing in God is stupid, but it has a deep rational meaning.
The words “rational” and” believe ” cannot stand side by side with each other. These are opposite concepts.
“There are two ways to perceive the world. Through the prism of faith and superstition, or through strict logic, observation and evidence, with the help of reason” (R. Dawkins)
You can believe, but you can understand. Everything that people ever called god was an attempt to explain the inexplicable at a particular moment in time. Humanity, like a small child, learns the world gradually, and many questions that were not answered, the answer “magic” was born. But humanity is developing, finding answers to questions that refute the idea of another god and other numerous superstitions and misconceptions.
There is a common argument — how can we refute what we don't know? The answer is that you can't prove it either, but you can come up with something that you like. As it happened throughout history and is still happening today.
Pascal's argument mentioned above is not entirely justified. Suppose there is a God. There are many religions. What kind of God is there? For believing in the wrong god, most religions portend no less, and even much more terrible torments after death than for atheism.
Now science (the cool thing that gave us electricity, sent humans into space, increased life expectancy, created a supercomputer that processes 60 trillion operations per second) explains a lot. For example, where do subjective feelings of the presence of the supernatural come from? That what we used to call the soul is just a collection of processes in the brain, and that there can be no consciousness/soul outside the body, as well as an afterlife, respectively. After life, most likely, it will be about the same as before. What is it, do you remember?
It is convenient and pleasant to believe in God and life after death, which somewhat relieves the fear of death that is so inherent in a person, as well as from the painful search for answers to questions such as “who am I and why?”, “what is the meaning of life?”, “how to live correctly” and the like. But there is nothing rational about it.
Here is an excerpt from one interesting article:
Faith is ignorance
You can't believe what you know for sure. For example, in the fact that twice two is four. But you can believe in things that you don't have the faintest idea about.
God is a side effect of evolution
“God exists because we have an idea of him in our head.”
But it seems to us that this argument works quite well in the opposite direction: the presence of God in our head is a reason to doubt his existence, especially considering that SpongeBob and the Little Mermaid live next door to him.
I recommend you to read it. vk.com
Cool phrased question!
If we talk about the “rationality” of this case, then it is more rational not to believe. This is as clear as day: religions will impose all sorts of moral restrictions on you, threatening you with horrors after death, and you, for example, dream of becoming rich and happy. And how to combine it? “nothing. That's why, I think, all sorts of Rockefellers and Morgans become irrepressible benefactors in old age-they try to “atone for the sins” that made them Rockefellers and Morgans in the course of their lives.