Rationalism
While at Sarann’s this week, I got involved in a long conversation about religion and rationalism with Kat, Sarann and Joanna.
I am a Rationalist, I belive in what I can prove. I do not believe in a god because I can define no experiment that can prove their existence independently. This means that I cannot consider myself Christian and live according to the Bible. At this stage Sarann pipes up with “Am I a girl?”, an interesting question as how can I belive Sarann is a girl without any evidence? After some debate on definition, I decided the only way to prove Sarann was a girl was by testing her chromosones. However, I act as if she were a girl without this evidence, so – as Joanna asked – why can I not believe in God existing and live my life according to the Bible without the proof? An interesting point.
I decided that, ultimately, the answer lies in the methodology of the proof process. I can define an experiment that can prove that Sarann is a female, this experiment would have repeatable outcomes that could be verified by any number of witnesses. I cannot say the same for proving the existence of a god. I think, in the end that rationalism is determined by the definitions one applies to a situation. I am rationalist and define my rationalism by saying I choose to belive that a god does not exist because there is no evidence to the contrary and that Sarann is a girl becasue there is no evidence to the contrary. Would it be wrong for the opposite to be true? I.e. could it be rational to believe that a god exists until their is proof to the contrary and that Sarann is a boy until there is proof to the contrary? I think not.
This conclusion has led me to the belief that you can be rational and religious.
Well, duh!
We used to ‘ave rationalism, after t’War.
It were ‘orrible.
‘Eh, them’s were days!
I remember when you could go out at neet and leave your door wide open wi’ gold on t’mantle n’ ney fear of rationalism sneakin’ in like t’ gypsy n’ tekin’ it like
Aye but as t’sayin’ goes there’s nowt as queer as folk. Happen rationalism’s just a bit queerer.
I disagree there is no evidence to suggest Sarann is a girl. While it’s not conclusive, in science nothing is. And while most of the evidence can be explained away, it’s a far more likely outcome that she is simply a girl.
The fact she has breasts, she claims to be straight and attracted to men, she dresses in women’s clothing, all her records / official information say female, she claims to be a girl, and so on.
While there are more than likely some men who also fit this profile, 999,999 times in a million they are women. Balance of probability is Sarann is a girl.
I would also question whether there is no evidence to disprove God. I have yet to hear satisfactory answers to the logical paradoxes against God. It’s also worth noting that as any sensible society, we just non-existent until proven existent.
Yes, you are right. In all probability Sarann is a girl and god does not exist.
All I am suggesting is that the logic of rationalism does not exclude religion as a possibility, only makes it improbable. Improbable does not mean impossible, however small the odds.
I will never discount the possibility that god may exist, I only maintain that I would need irrefutable proof to his existance. There would have to be a repeatable test (like the chromosone test for proving Sarann’s femininity) that would have definite results.
So, if Sarann is in fact a man does that mean God actually exists?
A test to prove someone’s femininity is not going to prove that they are a girl. What is considered to be feminine is a social construction. Let’s face it you can have men with what are considered feminine traits and women with masculine traits. From my poor science knowledge I think you just need to find her two X chromosomes. Stop making it so complicated!
It’s not overly complicated. I take it on faith that Sarann is a girl as I cannot prove it without carrying out a chromosone test. I cannot prove a god exists without some other test. Can you think of a test that definitively proves the existence of a god? I cannot, nor can anyone who belives that one exists. Rationally that means it isn’t true. How can something exist that we cannot test for?
If it cannot be proven can it be said to exist? I think not. Sarann’s gender can be determined absolutely, a god cannot.
Then there is a matter of statistics, all of the evidence points to Sarann being female, she looks, acts, speaks, argues and is late like one. I realise that this is not definitive, it is cicrumstantion – like the evidence of a god. It is far more likely that Sarann is a girl that a god existing. Hence why I belive it is rational for me to belive Sarann is a girl and that a god does not exist.
The point of the post however was to show that you can belive in god and be rational. Wrong, but rational.