tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post4634412974284049222..comments2023-11-05T03:06:30.977-08:00Comments on Mormon Midrashim: Three Irrational Things I Believe InJames Goldberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-52202625452775219502012-06-12T08:54:00.831-07:002012-06-12T08:54:00.831-07:00Human choice isn't just unproven, though...it ...Human choice isn't just unproven, though...it goes against our most basic assumptions about how to prove things. And the existence of inalienable human rights isn't just unproven...if taken literally, it's demonstrably false. And there are plenty of people today who say that religion (particularly our religion) is not just unproven, but disproven by this or that piece of evidence that goes against our story of how things went. <br /><br />And I believe in all three anyway--partly as things that go beyond evidence, but also as things in active tension with our scientific/rational ways of knowing.James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-78482282729900007812012-06-12T08:21:57.115-07:002012-06-12T08:21:57.115-07:00Belief in the unproven is perfectly rational. What...Belief in the unproven is perfectly rational. What determines rationality is the basis for belief, not the verdict of belief or disbelief.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05939611000895652754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-20462617149989493772012-06-07T14:10:09.143-07:002012-06-07T14:10:09.143-07:00Now I'm curious to know if there are languages...Now I'm curious to know if there are languages that do have a term for "extra-rational"-- or ways of knowing that are recognized to be both unscientific *and* legitimate.Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-28282788665036947482012-06-07T11:18:41.737-07:002012-06-07T11:18:41.737-07:00Yeah, something like "extra-rational" is...Yeah, something like "extra-rational" is better at describing something that is outside the scope of rationality as opposed to something that is attempting to be rational and fails. <br /><br />That said, I think it's telling that English doesn't have a standard, everyday term for that sort of thing. <br /><br />What tends to happen, honestly, is that my religion is labelled irrational by people who agree with me on the first two things--but don't realize that they have an "extra-rational" basis.James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-81453635662630006062012-06-06T22:06:24.039-07:002012-06-06T22:06:24.039-07:00Great post. Rationality isn't the end-all and...Great post. Rationality isn't the end-all and be-all of truth. Still, I prefer the term "extra-rational" to describe the things your post calls irrational. "Extra-rational" means that there are some things outside the purview of rationality. When we enter the realm of faith, rationality doesn't have the final say, but we don't abandon it either. We study it out in our minds, we seek learning by study, etc. We don't ever just jettison reason, but we know that what we call rationality has it's limits. The classic statement is Pascal's: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows not at all."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-56926133850799863232012-06-06T10:14:58.439-07:002012-06-06T10:14:58.439-07:00This reminded me so much of what Marilynne Robinso...This reminded me so much of what Marilynne Robinson says in one of her essays that I decided to share it with you. <br /><br />She's talking about how Jefferson used religious rhetoric to develop the idea of inherent human rights. She says, "In what nonreligious terms is human equality self-evident? As animals, some of us are smarter or stronger than others, as Jefferson was certainly in a position to know. What would be the nonreligious equivalent for the assertion that individual rights are sacrosanct in every case? Every civilization, including this one, has always been able to reason its way to ignoring or denying the most minimal claims to justice in any form that deserves the name. The temptation is always present and powerful because the rationalizations are always ready to hand. One group is congenially inferior, another is alien or shiftless, or they are enemies of the people or of the state. Yet others are carriers of intellectual or spiritual contagion. Jefferson makes the human person sacred, once by creation and again by endowment, and thereby sets individual rights outside the reach of rationalization." <br /><br />Boy, James, are you ever in good company.Makayla Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04762705881026755184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-70235587564471375432012-06-06T07:20:16.298-07:002012-06-06T07:20:16.298-07:00I'm irrational enough to think that I'd lo...I'm irrational enough to think that I'd love to have the "Moses experience" of being in the presence of the Creator as He reveals what He's organized in the universe and in the earth itself. It makes my heart beat faster to think of it. I love my irrationality!Sandra and Brenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15646331957418568279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-83976382987355323382012-06-05T10:51:50.819-07:002012-06-05T10:51:50.819-07:00I've thought a lot about the topic of irration...I've thought a lot about the topic of irrationality and faith (I even wrote a post about it, which I will shamelessly promote <a href="http://mepickett.com/blog/irrational-faith" rel="nofollow">here</a>). <br /><br />I think that it is very healthy for us to accept that just having faith in God is irrational, and to accept that irrationality. It's when we try to support our faith with reason that we tend to run into trouble.<br /><br />Thanks for the post.Michael Picketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17706502687693810724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-82740164020680322052012-06-05T09:12:06.215-07:002012-06-05T09:12:06.215-07:00I think scientists are well over the science-will-...I think scientists are well over the science-will-teach-us-everything idea. You don't even need quantum physics to reach that conclusion--we also know that we don't even have close to the computational power to figure out whether white or black is the winner in an omniscient, flawless game of chess. <br /><br />But yeah, there are still non-scientists who grossly underestimate the amount of possible knowledge and think we're going to make it there. <br /><br />I'd say something like this to them: I'm way too interested in the Big Mysteries to ever be fully satisfied by our little human answers.James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-74599022204640631952012-06-05T09:02:57.884-07:002012-06-05T09:02:57.884-07:00This is a really well-written article. I'll a...This is a really well-written article. I'll add, though, that it doesn't take into account some of the faith-based aspects of science which are within the scientific community itself, and which require scrutiny the other way around.<br /><br />For instance, there is the belief that science will eventually tell us everything there is to know. This statement is not remotely scientific. There is no rational reason to believe that we will ever get anything more than the most superficial view of how things "really" work. There is no reason not to believe that, given our world, some regimes might be beyond our reach. We *might* never understand the big bang and get off our planet. Despite this, you get people who claim that science has solved almost everything, and will finish in the near future---and you always have. And yet the actual evidence in favor of that notion is currently weaker than it has been since Newton.<br /><br />Another is the belief that progress is both inevitably good and inevitable. Large amounts of progress have been very good indeed, no mistake, but each new bit should be taken on its own merits, in accordance with our preexisting and primarily irrational values.<br /><br />Just my $0.02.happymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12842971903101348022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-16451777276480802452012-06-05T08:40:39.268-07:002012-06-05T08:40:39.268-07:00Sadly, BYU's library search is down at the mom...Sadly, BYU's library search is down at the moment. But thanks for the recommendation. Eight pages I can probably handle. ;)James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-38029132640915406652012-06-05T08:30:37.732-07:002012-06-05T08:30:37.732-07:00One thing I decided not to get into in the post is...One thing I decided not to get into in the post is that reason and evidence help us know how A effects B, not which B we should be tracking. For something like childbirth, you're not just up against tradition (and we do have some weird childbirth care traditions in this country), you're also up against competing values. Should we focus, for example, on which procedure is best for a woman when performed correctly, or which procedure is hardest for a doctor to screw up? How do we decide whether a test is "worth it" when we're weighing probability of benefit, chance of complication, and expense? <br />How much we value a child's health, a doctor's time, a mother's wishes, or a financial expense is actually beyond the scope of rationality as well. We start with values and then reason helps us figure out whether our actions are likely to give us our values or not.James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-651282387501650012012-06-05T08:07:25.360-07:002012-06-05T08:07:25.360-07:00For a really good academic argument on human choic...For a really good academic argument on human choice, look at:<br /><br />The human context of agency.<br />Williams, Richard N.<br />American Psychologist, Vol 47(6), Jun 1992, 752-760.Annie Japanniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597462471442823536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127231318556758701.post-88727430675270003222012-06-05T03:57:14.851-07:002012-06-05T03:57:14.851-07:00OOh, I just took a summer course on this very topi...OOh, I just took a summer course on this very topic, Science v. Pseudoscience. It was a very good course and brought to light some really interesting dichotomies that I have within myself as well. I too believe firmly in religious life and the very cool unscientific ways I have to prove it. But I'm also extremely active in a group that promotes evidence based prenatal and labor care, (whereas most of our obstetric care in the US is not evidence based). I find that in the dichotomies in life we find the greatest fulfillment and truth.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13394967015021716717noreply@blogger.com