If religion is irrational, it is a bad thing.
Offline This is something I had to prove for my philosophy class.
First, some assumptions:
A1. Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is no rational basis to believe in God. What I mean by this is that we will assume that all of the rational arguments for God's existence fail (Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, Kalam's Cosmological Argument, etc.) I will not go into detail on why these fail, but I will assume it for the sake of argument.
* It follows from A1 that belief in God can only come through faith.
A2. Let us also assume that faith is not rational. We will assume that arguments to prove that faith is rational (Pascal's Wager, etc.) all fail, and that the Problem of Evil is a real problem. This shows that faith is not in one's self interest, or in line with reason. Again, I won't be proving these statements, but it is necessary to assume them for the sake of argument.
**It follows from A2 and A1 that belief in God is irrational.
Kierkegaard says this is a good thing. Nietzche says it is lamentable. Many theists revel in the irrationality of their belief, and claim it is good BECAUSE it is irrational. Many atheists are horrified by this.
Now for the argument:
1. Let us define an "irrational" belief as a belief not in line with reason, a belief which is not directly in one's self interest, or both. By A2, faith is irrational on both counts, and it is thus not in line with reason, and not directly in one's self interest.
1.1 Faith is therefore, by definition, without reason.
1.2 Any action that is done out of faith is therefore not done for a reason.
2. Let us define a "bad thing," as something which causes unethical behavior in people as a whole.
3. When we consider an action to be ethical, we must take into consideration both the action, and the intent. What I mean by this is that for someone to do something ethical, they must have the good will and intention of doing something in line with reason, and must actually attempt to carry out their intentions through ethical means. In other words, for someone to be ethical, they must "do the right thing for the right reasons." If Hitler, for instance, intended to take over the world and cause pain and suffering, but instead ended up curing cancer, we would not give him any credit for the action of curing cancer, because his intent was evil. On the same count, if Mother Teresa genuinely wanted to help starving people, but ended up setting off a nuclear war, we wouldn't label her actions as unethical. If a rock, without reason or direction, knocked an asteroid out of the way and saved the planet earth from collision, we would not praise the rock's actions as ethical or moral.
3.1 Therefore, in order for an action to be ethical, it must be done for a good reason.
4. But by 1.2, and 3.1, we can conclude that any actions done out of faith cannot possibly be ethical. Let me give some examples. If a Muslim believes that he will receive eternal bliss and seventy-two virgins in paradise out of faith, and then goes on to do good things for humanity simply to reap this reward, how could we possibly say that his actions were ethical, if his belief is based on nothing but fluff? If a Christian believes that his god will forgive him for actions both good and bad, if only he would have faith, how can we take any actions to be his own? How can he be held accountable for anything he does at all? Like the rock that knocks the asteroid off of a collision course with Earth, anyone's actions done out of faith are no more open to praise. They are done for no reason at all, at best, and done for the wrong reasons (selfish gain in heaven) at worst.
4.1 Therefore, actions done out of faith alone, without the support of real reasons, are unethical. Furthermore, those people who do actions merely out of faith are unethical people.
5. By 4.1, and 2, we can conclude that if faith is irrational, it is a bad thing.
6. By A1, A2, and 5, we can conclude that belief in god is a bad thing.
- Login to post comments
I see a flaw in either 2, or 4.1. Either you are defining 'a bad thing' as 'not specifically ethical behaviour', or you are equivocating on 'unethical'. To say that there is no ethical reason for an action is not to say that the action is specifically unethical by the common understanding of the word 'unethical', which means 'contrary to ethics'.
I think to show that 'doing things for no particularly good reason' leads to 'a bad thing', you would have to show how the those actions lead to doing things contrary to ethics (e.g. stealing when ethics would say you shouldn't steal), or to *not* doing ethical things (e.g. complacency in the face of danger, such as global warming, when ethics would say you should do something to fix the problem).
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Ok, you've got a problem here in that there is a difference between the two. First, you're looking at an act or belief not being in line with 'Reason', which falls under Webster's definition 2a (1):
In specific, the practice of orderly rational thought.
Then you're looking at 'done for a reason', which is Webster's definition 1a:
The problem is, not all 'reasons' are 'reasonable'. Emotional cues, for example, are not in line with reasonable behavior, but emotional factors often provide reasons for our actions. So you've conflated 'Reason' with 'a reason', and that's a false equivalency. It's a shell game of semantics, and harms your larger argument.
And this is where that harm manifests. Many different emotional cues, including faith (which is, ultimately, an internal yearning for comfort and protection, the search for a spiritual parent who'll guide and provide for us), can inform a 'good reason' for an action. Mother Theresa, to use your example, was initially motivated to ease the suffering of the poor because her ethical system, which was predicated on her faith, told her that it is wrong to ignore the suffering of others.
And again, this is built on false assumptions. If a Believer believes in X reward, and does Y out of a desire for that reward, then this is self-interest, which is not inherently unethical, it is simply not inherently ethical. On the other hand, if a Believer believes in X reward, and takes Y action because his faith tells him that it is right and proper to do so in order to help others, then his awareness of the potential for X reward does not make that action unethical, any more than an awareness of a potential reward would make an atheist's actions unethical.
Example:
A Soviet Air Defense Lt. Col, who has a critical yes/no position in the launch decision tree receives information from the USSR's nuclear launch detection satellites telling him the USA has launched 5 nuclear missiles. All indications are that the launch is genuine, but the officer knows that if he chooses to recommend a retaliatory strike, the odds are very good that life as he knows it is over. The officer chooses to state that the launch detection is a false alarm, and recommends against a counterstrike. The launch is demonstrated to be a false alarm, and the world continues to not suffer a massive nuclear exchange for at least another quarter century.
This officer has reason to believe that he will be 'rewarded' for his forbearance, even if the reward is that he gets to live another day and maintain the status quo. Would you say his actions are unethical?
In addition, you say that ethical actions must be in line with reason. If a man has a good, productive, happy life, is it a reasonable action for him to risk his life to save that of a child? Or another man? One who has a less productive life?
Would you then say his action is unethical?
Unfortunately, it's not so simple when you start moving beyond black-and-white scenarios.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I agree. I suppose what I mean to say is that a "good reason" is a justification that is reasonable.
But if her ethical system were merely predicated on her faith, then it would indeed be unethical. Any system predicated on faith is totally arbitrary and irrational. Her ultimate intent is to please God, and the oblique effect of this ultimate intent is that she helps people who are suffering. If she believed that pleasing God involved blowing up buildings, she would have done that, too. The point is, any ethical system based on faith is arbitrary, and actions taken out of faith can't be seen as ethical, because the person taking the action is merely obeying a command, and not performing the action for the good itself.
Alright. I will give you that. I suppose I should say that the faith itself, by its arbitrary nature, makes it impossible for an action to be ethical. It doesn't matter what self-interest or rewards are offered.
Of course not. His actions are based on the reasonable assumption that if he retaliated, terrible things would happen. It was more advantageous for him to believe it was a false alarm. I agree that the existence of the reward is not important in this factorization. However, if the officer did not retaliate merely out of consideration for his own status, and didn't care for the well-being of his fellow men, then his actions would be unethical. If the officer did not retaliate, and the alarm was true, it would make no difference on whether or not his action was ethical. The results are not important, only his will.
Who is he to judge who has a "more productive" or "less productive" life? It isn't an equation that one can optimize. He must respect the dignity of his fellow rational beings, and do what would be in line with that respect. To be "in line with reason" in this case means to respect other people, and to do the best he can to save them; for by the mere fact that they are rational beings, they deserve to be saved.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I am conflating "unethical" with "non-ethical". My argument sucks. This is why I got a 75 on this. I should have picked "If religion is irrational, it is not a good thing", which is a weaker argument and easier to prove.