Irrational or Rational?

[JadeSpeedster17]

I've heard many big time youtubers who are atheist claim that belief in a high power is irrational and stupid. Yet when you read the comment,s people will defend this to be a lie, despite all the evidence against, to the their last breath. I have always wondered, 'Why'? When reading the comments, I couldn't wrap my head around people who are so willing to believe in something even when proven wrong.

I tried to image that it was just because of being indoctrinated as a child, while this is true for now, it doesn't explain away the start of it all. People created religion as a means to control the people, that much is true. It's a fact that has been proven time and time again. But, why are humans so willing to throw away it all and be controlled. We'd like to think we are higher being then to be controlled, yet, we are being controlled.

I'd say belief in a God is rational thinking. The idea of a higher power is very much reason and logic base, but not in the way you'd think. Lets that The Bible, because this is the religion most in the USA and other parts of the world were raised on. With so many contradictions, immoral ideas, and poorly written ideas, many wonder why would anyone bother with the thing. Why do people defend it? It's very simple as to why, fear. From the start that religion was made, fear of everything was around.

So the idea that a higher power controlled everything was comforting. In a life where you had little to nothing, everyone too comfort in knowing God existed and loved them. That this life may be horrible, but something more was waiting. While many Atheist claim that now this doesn't apply, I'd argue it does.

Humans still have their same fears, we're not any closer to curing Death, and because of the much rooted religion in our heads, it won't be any time soon. Because curing death means invoking the 'wrath of God', another fear. That this high being wants us to die, and to die means paradise. It's just a circle,

Humans are afraid of death --> Religion created to make Death paradise from this world, ---> Humans can cure death in time ---> Religion established wrath of God if it happened. ---> Humans fear death by God. AKA Humans fear Death ---> Religion created a loving God who can make Death paradise.

so on and so forth.

In short, religion is rational because of the fears we have, religion offers an escape from that reality. Thus humans will continue to believe despite the towering evidence they are wrong. It's why defend it, because fear is so deeply rooted into us we don't want to let go of the blanket. Humans want to feel safe, which is why Atheist are considered sinful, because in the religious persons mind we are Hell bound because God is a wrathful God. It may seem silly to us for them to think God is wrathful yet loving, but in the mind of someone who is afraid, it's very real.

And it's not as easy as Youtuber Atheist put, people just can't let go of their fear of dying and Gods wrath so easy. Because it's so deep in all of us, we like the comfort it brings us. TO feel special and that we are not doomed to this world much longer. It's a dream that many hold to reality because they think it can't get better and making it better invokes God's wrath.

Fear after Fear after Fear.

Fear and Hope is rational, and religion is based on fear and hope. Thus, Religion is rational back then and even now.

[brimstoneSalad]

Fear and Hope is rational

Why do you assume this?

http://www.epicurus.net/en/menoeceus.html

Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live. Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatever causes no annoyance when it is present, causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer.

Just because something is common or 'normal' doesn't mean it's rational. And just because something is natural or a result of evolution doesn't mean it's rational either.

ra·tion·al
ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious, shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent; More

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational
(the first definition there isn't really useful since it just refers to another word)

: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings
: having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

Here's a more extensive explanation of views on rationality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality#Quality

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A. C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". [...] such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.

You may want to read the whole article. You can skip the Max Weber stuff.

and religion is based on fear and hope.

Even if we regard those things as rational, rather than emotional/non-rational or even sometimes irrational (see the Epicurus quote), just because something is a reaction or response to those feelings doesn't mean it's a rational one. There are MANY ways to respond to a fear, not one single result.
We even have many world religions, with answers from promising paradise or hell, to reincarnation, to a peaceful oblivion. These responses can each be rational or irrational (or non-rational), and have different effects.

If you're afraid of spiders, you can scream and run away, or you can deal with your fear by channeling it into action to remove the threat or keep a cleaner house to prevent an infestation.

There are generally regarded to be rational and irrational fears and responses to those fears. In psychology, a fear or it's response that is causing problems for other aspects of life (as religion arguably does) is regarded as a phobia or irrational fear.
Of course one problem in psychology is that things that are overwhelmingly common are normalized and ignored (if everybody believed in leprechauns this would no longer be considered a delusion despite still not making it true) -- but that doesn't make them rational, it's more of an issue of clinical significance.

Religion is rational back then and even now.

We can understand the reasons that religion formed without calling it rational in itself, just as we can understand why somebody with a phobia of spiders screams and runs away -- even off a cliff to his or her death -- while understanding that those reasons can be predicated on irrational thinking or emotion driven behavior rather than careful contemplation, reason, and logic.

[JadeSpeedster17]

Rational by definition is based upon reason and logic. It is logical to have fear and hope, there is reason we do. have these terms and/or feel them. It's logical to fear something, and it's logical or hope for something. In the world we live in it's hard to say it's not.

All i'm saying is it's logical for someone afraid would believe in religion as their hope. It's not illogical to someone not to have some sort of comfort in the face of death, world polices, and bad things happening to good people without the idea of a divine power. Humans have done this for centuries.

Irrational is a term over used by Atheist in my personal opinion, lots of Atheist claim that Religion is Irrational, when the term of it means NOT based upon reason and logic. And yes Religious texts is not reason or logic base, the reason why people believe them is.

In short, religion has irrational believes yet rational reasons to believe in it.

[JadeSpeedster17]

I guess you can say as an Agnostic Atheist myself, I find people who claim Religion is Irrational, or be people who just conform to what they hear everyone say.

Once in the circle, it's not easy to break it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Rational by definition is based upon reason and logic. It is logical to have fear and hope, there is reason we do.

You're not using these words correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

None of this is done in most religions. There ARE exceptions, like Jainism, with more robust philosophical underpinnings (and I see we just got a Gnostic on the forum). But this is not how most Western religion (particularly mainstream Christianity, Islam, Judaism) typically functions, which is based on faith and unquestioning dogma. It is not rational, but rationalizing, using ad hoc explanations and logical fallacies to distract from fundamental contradictions.

We can discuss how and why these beliefs contain logical contradictions if you're interested in that. Nothing founded upon belief in true contradictions is rational.

What you should say is that religion is understandable, and we should empathize with humans adopting it out of fear. That doesn't make the religion itself rational, or the beliefs that make it up logical.

Also see logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Particularly formal logic.

It's logical to fear something, and it's logical or hope for something. In the world we live in it's hard to say it's not.

You aren't using the word correctly.
It is not logically necessary that these things always occur, and that's doesn't make any belief that occurs in response to them logically consistent with reality. Read my prior post where I explained that there are many responses to these feelings, and that the feelings themselves are questionable and often not rational. That's OK, emotion is frequently or arguably always non-rational in nature, Not everything has to be purely rational. It's nice to avoid the irrational, but our primitive emotional drives that define our motivations can't really be 100% rational (which doesn't necessarily mean it's irrational, that might be a false dichotomy).

All i'm saying is it's logical for someone afraid would believe in religion as their hope.

The words you're looking for are normal, or understandable, or probable based on human psychology.

Irrational is a term over used by Atheist in my personal opinion,

It can be, particularly because they often make poor arguments for why religion is irrational and not fully understand the theology they're talking about. We can discuss this if you're interested in it.

lots of Atheist claim that Religion is Irrational, when the term of it means NOT based upon reason and logic.

It isn't based on reason and logic, or at least MOST religion isn't. And religion as most people practice it.

And yes Religious texts is not reason or logic base, the reason why people believe them is.

That doesn't make them rational. And believing in something that contains a logical contradiction can not be rational. That said, you won't find a human who is 100% rational 100% of the time. It's understandable. Focus on empathy for the person, not defending the belief on grounds where it's indefensible.

[skeptic4009]

I find the belief in a "god" defined by people who don't anything about the exact nature of very existence of our universe unsatisfying.
I consider myself an igtheist. Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
I take another step beyond agnosticism, since agnostics usually cite the lack of evidence for or against God . . . and, without evidence, there is no basis for knowledge (factual certainty). Ignostics, on the other hand, claim that God is inconceivable as a coherent concept and is, therefore, meaningless. The unknown is undefinable so I can't make a judgment on something that is ambiguous.

[JadeSpeedster17]

I guess you all are right about all that. Given me alot to think about.