The latter: each human experience is subjective. You and I will see the world differently. For example, an "actual truth" might be you are Aegis, I am Mal, we live on Earth, there is a Moon, etc. I can say the ultimate goal of at least Hinduism is to realize the oneness of everything (a drop of water merging into the ocean) so in that case I wouldn't say you are Aegis or I am Mal but rather there is no difference between us. It's an extreme example but I hope you know what I am saying.
If you adhere to all-out epistemological subjectivism, this whole debate is rather pointless because anyone can legitimately dismiss any argument with a simple "No, I disagree with you." For example, if you say, "We should be religiously tolerant," someone else could say with full epistemological legitimacy that "No, let's persecute them."
It is true that all knowledge is born in the mind and we never see the world for what it truly is, but I don't think this implies that all knowledge is subjective. If the truth value of a proposition does not depend on the person thinking about it, its truth value is objective, when objectivity is understood in the context of Kantian metaphysics with subtle poststructuralist traits. You might argue that there's no absolute proof of whether something is objectively true, if you understand absolute proof in the strictest possible sense, but that applies to every fact.
Define "pure rationality." I actually see them as something that offers meaning behind the rationality of your world.
Pure rationality is the accurate examination of evidence that leads to the most accurate conclusions possible, after the effect of luck has been eliminated. The way I use the word should be understood in the context of Kantian metaphysics with subtle (but only subtle) poststructuralist traits.
You can have an entire range.
That's not what I was wondering about though. Which is better: being bound together by rational thought or blind acceptance of social norms? For instance, even though neither is perfectly rational, which is better: modern society with all its individual liberties, or a theocratic and xenophobic tribal society? Both are communities, but are they of equal moral value?
I have questioned Hinduism and found it acceptable and something whose philosophies over existence, meaning, and overall pathways of living are something that I can abide by. And I appreciate it because it is much more acceptable in you asking questions such as "why am I doing this" than other faiths that require you to have blind obedience.
But if you question all norms included in Hinduism, are you really a Hindu at all? If you truly question all its norms rationally, you have no faith in it and instead only believe the parts that reason says are true. Isn't that a textbook example of agnosticism/atheism? I can easily admit that even the Bible gets some things right, but it hardly makes me a Christian.
Y'all who are preaching on rationality, I have something to say.
We, as humans, are not a purely rational species. We think, this is certain, but largely, we are a social, hungry, horny, emotion animal. We love our inconsistencies. A million different things aren't necessarily rational, but they have huge followings and are largely benign.
People
are not completely rational, but they
should strive to be as rational as possible. There, problem solved.
Most of fiction isn't rational, we should all rationally know, for example, that Harry Potter is a fabrication, or that Pokemon aren't real, but we still immerse ourselves in these worlds where irrational things are commonplace. This is a Pokemon site, so y'all probably know at least a thing or three about Pokemon, even though immersing yourself in such a world is completely irrational.
EDIT: You need to clarify what you mean. Do you think these worlds are irrational because they violate our laws of physics, or because they are badly written? The first isn't really irrational because the universes have their own laws of physics.
Now, if you are arguing that Harry Potter and Pokemon are badly written fiction and therefore irrational, that's a different thing but really beside the point.
And we don't have a problem with this, why? It's because playing Pokemon is largely not harmful to oneself or others. Why can't we accept religion the same way? You may mock me, but I do believe in magick, and things unseen. Is that irrational? To you, I am certain it is, but it's not to me.
It's certainly true that it doesn't appear irrational to you. We can only try to debate about it rationally to try to see whose understanding of rationality is closer to the truth. There's no absolute proof, if you understand absolute proof in the strictest possible sense, but that applies to every fact.
As long as they don't use it as a reason to harm or discriminate against others, what is specifically wrong with religion except the fact that you personally disagree with it?
The moral obligation to help others live a better life. I'm sure that if someone was trying to jump off the cliff, you'd try to help him even if it was really his business, in a sense.
My druidic faith is big on empathy and caring for all life, be it plant or animal. I'm very big on non-harm. So even though some parts of my spiritual beliefs are irrational from your perspective, isn't the fact that I don't use my faith as a means of persecution acceptable? Go further and it's policing thought, which is always very dangerous territory.
Did you read what I wrote earlier?
Aegiscalibur said:
Oh, and a clarification for this thread: as I have said in a few other threads, I don't want to ban religon by law. That would be pointless. I simply think it's irrational and society would be better off if people rid themselves of it.
I'm just using my right of free speech to talk about why religion is irrational, much like all the religious people are talking about why their faiths are supposedly rational. I don't see how this qualifies as persecution.
A rainbow is a result of water droplets acting as prisms, and sunlight. We know this, scientifically. But can it not also be something else? What is wrong with it being a miracle of life as well?
It could be something else, but the burden of proof is on you. If there are millions of people lined up with different spiritual beliefs, each with no evidence, I am unable to make a distinction between them. Why should I believe that your spiritual belief in particular is right and all the beliefs in contradiction with yours are wrong?
There is a chance your conclusion is correct, but it is not very convincing if your argument is flawed due to lack of evidence. If you don't know, you should just admit that you don't know instead of claiming that you are right without any evidence. That's what having an open mind is all about.
