Can a nonsecular state be considered "rational"?

[Thorbal]

they are also not a religion that has a set of strict laws to dictate behavior.

while they have their guidelines, they do not call for your death when breaking them.

Hm... but they have a code of ethics, although they are not sanctioned from the outside, the rules are internalised ( karma ) . So they would be a bit less rational than catholic christianity, for example, but not irrational.

 

[JohnRM]

Depends on how you define rational - a religion forms a body of ethics, including set rules for behaviour and personal action. They are derived from non-secular sources, but in practice, they can be as rational as a set of laws.

Rules stating that one should be married before having sex or that marriage is for life do not seem rational, to me.

Rules stating that homosexuality is wrong and one is damned to "Hell" for it do not seem rational, to me.

The very existence of "Hell" does not seem rational, to me.

The idea that there is a God that exists that regards human kind above any other creature on this planet does not seem rational, to me.

There are so many things that all of these religions share that do not seem rational, to me.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Hm... but they have a code of ethics, although they are not sanctioned from the outside, the rules are internalised ( karma ) .

which i have no problem with, so long as there is no government looking out for my soul.

y'know, it's kinda my personal responsibility and things.

 

[MobBoss]

they are also not a religion that has a set of strict laws to dictate behavior.

while they have their guidelines, they do not call for your death when breaking them.

So? They were still a religious state that was in turn invaded by the SECULAR communist chinese!!!!

Who is the irrational party in that event?

Bottom line, you asked 'Can a nonsecular state be considered rational'.

I humbly submit that the Tibetian monks are a prime example of this. You making excuses here isnt going to change the fact that they were indeed a non-secular state and religion that indeed conducted themselves rationally.

Also, please realize that the number of religions that call for your death for breaking the rules are very, very few in number. Not really a good factoid for you to prove your point.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Rules stating that one should be married before having sex or that marriage is for life do not seem rational, to me.

Rules stating that homosexuality is wrong and one is damned to "Hell" for it do not seem rational, to me.

The very existence of "Hell" does not seem rational, to me.

The idea that there is a God that exists that regards human kind above any other creature on this planet does not seem rational, to me.

There are so many things that all of these religions share that do not seem rational, to me.

There is an enormous difference between "I disagree with it" and "it is irrational". To me, none of them seem irrational.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So? They were still a religious state that was in turn invaded by the SECULAR communist chinese!!!!

Who is the irrational party in that event?

Bottom line, you asked 'Can a nonsecular state be considered rational'.

I humbly submit that the Tibetian monks are a prime example of this. You making excuses here isnt going to change the fact that they were indeed a non-secular state and religion that indeed conducted themselves rationally.

Also, please realize that the number of religions that call for your death for breaking the rules are very, very few in number. Not really a good factoid for you to prove your point.

so you're saying that since i agree a nation should be secular that i support the communist chinese? who's really grasping for points now?

anyways, there's a difference between the theocracies i'm talking about and tibet. did tibet have strict laws that required it's citizens to adhere to buddhism? did it make laws that made breaking the eight-fold path illegal?

 

[Thorbal]

Rules stating that one should be married before having sex or that marriage is for life do not seem rational, to me.

Rules stating that homosexuality is wrong and one is damned to "Hell" for it do not seem rational, to me.

The very existence of "Hell" does not seem rational, to me.

The idea that there is a God that exists that regards human kind above any other creature on this planet does not seem rational, to me.

There are so many things that all of these religions share that do not seem rational, to me.

Not necessarily. We regulate these matters by an elected legislative body which sets up rules like "is homosexuality allowed" etc. But religious institutions can do that ( and did/do) as well. The difference is that the legislature is referring to the "will of the people" to legitimize its actions , while the other refers to... something else. But the outcome is the same, is it not?

 

[MobBoss]

Rules stating that one should be married before having sex or that marriage is for life do not seem rational, to me.

Having three kids who are indeed desireing to walk this path, it seems very rational to me.

Rules stating that homosexuality is wrong and one is damned to "Hell" for it do not seem rational, to me.

One is damned to hell for unforgiveness of sin, and ones seperation of God in the course of pusing said sin. As the information surrounding how this works is quite clear, I dont see it as irrational at all. In fact, in being able to see the benefit of such thinking I think it quite rational indeed.

The very existence of "Hell" does not seem rational, to me.

The concept of reward/punishment and free will is completely rational.

The idea that there is a God that exists that regards human kind above any other creature on this planet does not seem rational, to me.

It seems completely rational to me that our understanding of everything (spiritual and physical) is actually quite small and for us to state what is or is not possible as fact is irrational.

There are so many things that all of these religions share that do not seem rational, to me.

Perhaps its because your understanding of them is imperfect?

 

[JohnRM]

There is an enormous difference between "I disagree with it" and "it is irrational". To me, none of them seem irrational.

This brings us back to the original post question.

"Can a nonsecular state be considered 'rational'?"

This is all about opinion, and you have mine.

 

[MobBoss]

This brings us back to the original post question.

"Can a nonsecular state be considered 'rational'?"

This is all about opinion, and you have mine.

No, I submit its all about historical fact. Warpus put up a chart of all the non-secular states across the world. There is simply no way you can label all of them 'irrational'.

EDIT: Here is the chart:

Secular governments in green:

So...such states as Denmark, Greenland, Iceland are irrational? The UK? Norway?

No.

The answer is obvious.

 

[JohnRM]

Not necessarily. We regulate these matters by an elected legislative body which sets up rules like "is homosexuality allowed" etc. But religious institutions can do that ( and did/do) as well. The difference is that the legislature is referring to the "will of the people" to legitimize its actions , while the other refers to... something else. But the outcome is the same, is it not?

What is your point? Does any of this change whether the rules are rational or not? If you ask me, I don't think that our current form of government, in the U.S., is very rational, either.

 

[Cutlass]

When you put religious leaders in a place of secular power you can count on 2 bad things happening:

1 corrupt people will get to the top of the religious hierarchy

2 the religious leaders will change the doctrine and dogma and compel people to follow their lead, no matter how much it deviates from past doctrine.

 

[Thorbal]

What is your point? Does any of this change whether the rules are rational or not? If you ask me, I don't think that our current form of government, in the U.S., is very rational, either.

I wanted to say that the rules established by a parliament are as rational as the ones set up by religious ones, just the mode of legitimization is different. Perhaps we just have a different definition of rational.

 

[JohnRM]

Having three kids who are indeed desireing to walk this path, it seems very rational to me.

You are entitled to your opinion and to answer the OP by voting 'Yes'. I presume that you've already done so.

One is damned to hell for unforgiveness of sin, and ones seperation of God in the course of pusing said sin. As the information surrounding how this works is quite clear, I dont see it as irrational at all. In fact, in being able to see the benefit of such thinking I think it quite rational indeed.

See above post.

The concept of reward/punishment and free will is completely rational.

The concept of reward/punishment and free will is not exclusive to religion. This concept is also not what we are arguing here. What we are arguing is a particular kind of reward/punishment. You think that it exists, and you're entitled to that opinion as per -- 'See above post'.

It seems completely rational to me that our understanding of everything (spiritual and physical) is actually quite small and for us to state what is or is not possible as fact is irrational.

Our understanding of "everything (spiritual and physical)", or lack thereof, does not oblige us to refrain from forming theories and making our best guess. In fact, this is the only thing that has ever increased our knowledge of "everything (spiritual and physical)".

The problem that we seem to have here is that there is no proof whatsoever to support the existence of your God and the other building blocks of your religion other than a book that has been copied a trillion times over.

I can write a book about a flying hot dog and say that I unearthed it from my backyard, but that doesn't make it any less irrational to believe that the flying hot dog exists.

Of course, if I go to the ballpark and see the flying hot dog, then I have actual physical evidence and can form a hypothesis. Of course, mine would be something regarding a disgruntled fan who got angry and threw his hot dog at the field rather than that a God knew I was hungry and decided to rain down a hot dog to me, because he loves me so much.

How does this relate to our discussion? Well, I want to try to explain life and the world with science and fact. Others want to explain life and the world with manifestations of their mind with little or nothing to back it up.

But, again, see my first response.

Perhaps its because your understanding of them is imperfect?

I am going to say this just about as plain as I can, so I don't overstate it.

I have more than likely done more research and personal reflection regarding religion that yourself and ninety percent of the people on this planet. It has been a passion of mine since the age of 13. You can choose to believe this or not, but there is very little about religion that I don't understand. I know all of the rationalizations that people make about it all, but rationalizing does not make a given thing rational.

 

[JohnRM]

No, I submit its all about historical fact. Warpus put up a chart of all the non-secular states across the world. There is simply no way you can label all of them 'irrational'.

EDIT: Here is the chart:



So...such states as Denmark, Greenland, Iceland are irrational? The UK? Norway?

No.

The answer is obvious.

I am sure that many people would agree with. People used to think that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that it was flat, and that our Sun orbited us. Well, I am certainly in the minority, but I don't know a single nation on this planet that has shown itself to be very rational, either when discussing its core population or the government.

 

[downtown]

Of course they can, according to Weber

 

[Leonel]

It can! But like communism, it's VERY hard to achieve the desired result.

 

[JohnRM]

I wanted to say that the rules established by a parliament are as rational as the ones set up by religious ones, just the mode of legitimization is different. Perhaps we just have a different definition of rational.

We most certainly do.

However, do you honestly believe that the rules coming out of Islamic theocracy these days is just as rational as that coming out of the German or British Parliament?

 

[Thorbal]

We most certainly do.

However, do you honestly believe that the rules coming out of Islamic theocracy these days is just as rational as that coming out of the German or British Parliament?

Well... if I understood rational as "common sense" , then I would have difficulties calling them rational.
Using the sociological definition ( Weber ) , they are indeed rational.

 

[JohnRM]

Well... if I understood rational as "common sense" , then I would have difficulties calling them rational.
Using the sociological definition ( Weber ) , they are indeed rational.

I've never bothered to consult others to determine what is rational to me.