How can we be sure that rational ideas are better than irrational ones?

Question

How can we be sure that the theists aren't right after all? I would argue that rational thought (as opposed to 'faith') is validated by its results - basically, all of science and technology and medicine and so on... but a theist (I suspect) would argue that their faith will be validated after they're dead. Is that a justifiable point of view? Is there any other kind of argument for faith being valid?

Answer 1

Logic would override all of their claims, even with the comments about an "afterlife", through observation and analytical study of philosophy, combined with observation of the way things work in the material world, etc.

_()_

Answer 2

I'm a theist, but not a Christian. I don't believe that one need be irrational to believe in a higher power, or spiritual things. Being irrational comes about when one claims absolute proof of their position. It isnt' irrational to look at the world, and such things as the evidence for reincarnation, and to come to the conclusion that there is something that exists beyond and after death.

It's like philosophy. Philosophy is what defines reason for us. There are many different philosophies and different definitions of what actually is "rational thought".

If it could be proved that a god or deity were impossible, then it would be irrational to believe in such. On the other hand, if there were sufficient evidence to show that an afterlife is possible, then to categorically deny this is equally irrational.

To pass off evidence of past lives as "junk science" without investigating it is also irrational. That's called "contempt without prior investigation", and is also faulty logic.

Answer 3

Rational thought is clearly more beneficial for progress in this life. Arguing about what will happen after we die is itself irrational. Irregardless of whether you are arguing for or against an afterlife, there is no way to gather data, so there is no way for either side to make an informed argument.

Faith can be seen as beneficial in one light... if you proceed from the assumption that there is no supernatural being watching or directing lives, people who assign their progress or achievements to the existence of such a being are actually accessing a positive portion of themselves (albeit through self-delusion), they might not normally access. Atheists usually call this "inner strength", or "believing in ones self." Sadly, most people require "something" to believe in outside themselves to do this.

It is an odd human characteristic indeed, where clinging to an irrational belief like god can result in benefits to the believer, although it makes one wonder what that person would be capable of if they believed as strongly in themselves (even though that is all they are REALLY doing anyway.)

Answer 4

This is a very deep question! In Sophocles play "Oedipus Tyrannus", Oedipus is successful so long as his understanding of his origins and circumstances is false. When he learns the truth he is utterly ruined and defeated.

The American philosopher Walter Kaufmann thinks this text is the most powerful and terrifying argument against philosophy ever made.

Answer 5

Rational vs faith :?
rationalize emotions ?
rationalize wind?
rationalize life and death -- a complete living body one
instant later a dead one -- what's the difference ? - rational ?
rationalize free will ?
rationalize morality over survival of the fittest ?
rationalize enternity without salvation ?
rationalize me, I have faith.

Answer 6

Religious belief and faith must be able to withstand the rational analysis of our mind. Otherwise it is just superstition.

Answer 7

We can apply utilitarian principles. Whatever is of most benefit to the greatest number of people is rational.

Answer 8

You can't!

And I do not have an argument for it other than those things already given ...

Answer 9

Jesus said believe in him and we will recieve anything we ask for in His name. Does this happen? "Jesus give me a million dollars."

.....

Nope still broke.