Rational vs. Empirical : Where does religion fall?

Question

Empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience

Rational: having reason or understanding

So, if you've never truly experienced a god, and there is no proof, or reason to believe that there is one, is there any REAL reason to believe in a deity?

This question has nothing to do with evolutionists, it has to do with RELIGION, "Lion of Judah."

Evolution is fabricated evidence? HA!

GOOD POINT, Dr. Socks!

You must become my contact...

Answer 1

Hence my position as a non-theist. I cannot prove one way or the other and refuse to take someone's word for what they experienced or how true the bible is even though it wasn't compiled until 400 years after jesus' supposed death.

With that in mind, there is no support for religion in any empirical way, mostly because religion relies on the supernatural, and science is limited in such a way as to only be able to test the natural physical world.

There are supernatural occurances that have no logical or empirical answer, like how people continually have premonitions or such, but until the realm of science or even a pseudoscience come into the realm of the supernatural, there will be no logical or empirical data. From the way the question was worded, I have a feeling you already knew that though. :)

Religion has always been a tool for the uneducated masses to have some kind of answer for the unexplained. Now, when so much information is available at the push of a button, it is hard to justify any kind of supernatural belief system, but it still happens. It must be more deeply ingrained into our individual cultures than I thought.

Answer 2

Bear with me.

Experiential: In deep meditation, I had the experience of my own ego embedded within a larger "individuation", with the added sense of the capacity to generate phenomena from within that larger field. It was intimate, and gave the affect of a larger mind coordinating all of the universe.

Empirical: To make this an empirical claim, I searched for similar claims in the texts of the meditative traditions worldwide, and did indeed find corroboration. Thus, based on the standards of soft objectivity, my experiential content was confirmed.

Rational (critical assessment): There was no actual generation of phenomena in a verifiable way. So, I have no criteria to suggest that my experience was anything other than an anomaly of a human nervous system being in the right state. In other words, I have no evidence to differentiate this from a mirage, though a mirage that many have experienced.

Now, if at some point I begin to demonstrate abilities that are supernormal and can be tested, then I have reason to reevaluate my current skeptical stance.

Answer 3

You don't need a "reason" to believe anything. For example, I used to believe that being a vegetarian was better and more healthy than being a meat eater. I don't believe that anymore, but I did at one time. I didn't need a reason for that. It was just something I assumed, I presumed, I found "evidence" for my beliefs at the time and talked and walked like a devoted, dedicated vegetarian. I eat whatever I want now, but the point is, nobody needs reasons for doing anything. "REASONS" are more plentiful than sand in an hour glass. We can make up as many reasons for something as we want. "Reason" doesn't mean intelligent, or true, or right, or correct or anything. REASON is whatever we want to make it mean. People don't need reasons to believe anything. A few people still believe that George W Bush is a good president; go figure that one out. Some people would even feel sorry for those who never "truly experienced a god...." Even native American Indians claim to experience god. Peyote eaters and mushroom eaters all claim that. So did Aldous Huxley, among others.

Answer 4

Rational and Empirical go hand in hand.

Empirical: I have experienced god, during a time of extreme stress, and never "experienced" god again when I was not stressed.

Rational: This is because your experience was a nervous breakdown induced by the church and insecurity. It wasn't god.

The Rational is unavoidably Empirical, since it originates in observation (ie scientific measurement) or experience of physical laws or social reactions. At it's most simple:

I think (Empirical) Therefore I am (Rational.)

Belief in god comes from a mistaken rational engine, which attributes a false pattern of "divine intervention" onto everyday random events. It's an evolutionary trait to look for patterns that's helped us survive, but is now slipping us up.

Answer 5

The self-authenticating, God-breathed Word contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible is the REAL reason to believe!

Answer 6

The arrogance of your question is blinding. Who are you to say that I have not experienced God? You do not know me or my experiences. You do not know what I have been through. In regards to rational, just because you do not understand the logic and reasoning does not mean it is not there, that is your fault.

Answer 7

Many non-profit religions are based upon the imagination (not reason).

One has to (temporarily) toss out reason to understand them.

Answer 8

Christians and the Bible claim there is a very good reason to believe. It is called Salvation or Damnation. This alone should be reason enough to study( and I mean study, not just read) the Bible and pray.

Answer 9

Why are you disclosing the proprietary AM handbook info? The answer is: Because my parents told me to.

Answer 10

let me finish Empirical for You 'originating in or based on observation or experiance based upon fabricated evidences.

Evolutionist will fabricate the Evidence and claim all sorts of credibility, and say it is "empirical" and people who do not want to believe in God, will be so ready to accept this nonsense.