• Jjnan1
    8
    Some people opt to be non-religious for the following reason: different religions make different and contradictory claims. Those non-religious people probably have the following argument in mind for why they do not subscribe to a religion:

    1. If religion X and religion Y claim that p and not-q or that q and not-p respectively, then it is unclear which set of religious claims are correct.
    2. If it is unclear which set of religious claims are correct, then one should refrain from assenting belief to either set of claims.
    3. Therefore, if religion X and Y claim that p and not-q or that q and not-p respectively, then one should refrain from assenting belief to either set of claims.

    One problem with this argument revolves around premise two. For the sake of the argument, let’s say that the antecedent is true. If so, it seems that the consequent does not follow since as long as one is able to develop the belief in a justified matter than one is, at the very least, rational in believing one set of claims or the other. One could, though not only, utilize a Plantingian understanding of warrant in this case. If an individual has developed their belief in one certain set of religious claims in a congenial environment with well-designed faculties that were made to aim at truth and work properly, then, all things considered, that belief is rational. If that belief is rational than an individual has reason to assent to that belief, even when it is unclear whether it or the other is correct.

    The non-religious person could object that this is not really helpful since another person could just as well be rational in assenting to the opposing set of religious claims. If so, then it seems that the original problem is still unresolved since why should one assent to one set of religious beliefs over another when it is unclear which is correct given that one could rationally hold one or the other? In response, one could argue that the obtainment of rationality, even if two opposing sides have it, is an achievement that gives people the green light to assent belief. The existence of an equally rational opposite, at most, diminishes the degree of confidence in their warrant, but it does not mean that one should just give up belief in some set of religious claims since one still has some reason that appeals to a particular person in such a way that it makes a particular claim the case for that person. Hence, the original argument seems to not succeed.
  • Pro Hominem
    218

    I agree that the existence of differing religions does not, by itself, logically require that they are all false. However, the multitude of mutually exclusive belief systems does provide a good reason to approach each of them with considerable skepticism.

    If one begins from the condition of skepticism, then the burden of proof is flipped. It is not the task of the rational person to explain why not religion, it is the task of the religious person to provide grounds for the rational person to entertain their ideas in the first place. Since virtually all religions stem from and are supported by "pre-rational" (historically) world views, they have all been unsuccessful at providing these grounds. Eventually, they all demand that one cede their rationality somewhere along the way in favor of "faith". In that moment, the belief ceases to be a rational one.
  • JerseyFlight
    782


    Surely there are more important things in the world than these kind of abstractions? What's the point of this? Let's not do anything "for the sake of argument" and see where this leads us.
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    Surely there are more important things in the world than these kind of abstractions? What's the point of this? Let's not do anything "for the sake of argument" and see where this leads us.JerseyFlight

    If you try for a moment to stop using your quasi-religious pseudo-philosophical doctrines and had a sincere discussion with the OP, you would probably have fewer answers like this that I'm posting right now. Even if you don't like what you are reading, try to be more tolerant and less "polemic" - everyone already knows your tactics; they don't work anymore.

    A sincere tip from a egoist philosopher - that means much coming from an egoist -
  • freewhirl
    7
    Although I generally agree with your post, one thing I am curious on is the epistemology of memory and how it can affect an individual’s claims, whether the individual is a person of faith or not. How can one argue to be rational when their argument stems from memory (which can be falsely recalled). When breaking down memories: Remembering requires believing, justification and non-accidental truth. Andrew Moon (2013) claims that it is important to know that remembering requires justified belief. But what if the premises of an individual's memory is misconstrued which leads to a certain belief that is being used in an argument? If memories are not exact replicas of one’s experiences or truth, are both parties subject to being irrational in their argument?
  • Kenosha Kid
    3.2k
    Some people opt to be non-religious for the following reason: different religions make different and contradictory claimsJjnan1

    Unlikely. More likely this is given as one of a great many explanations as to why they do not adopt a religion henceforth. The overwhelming reason why non-religious people are non-religious is that they were not indoctrinated as children. The second largest reason is that no amount of indoctrination could shield them from evidence and reason. No one "opts" to be non-religious: it is the equilibrium state.

    The existence of an equally rational opposite, at most, diminishes the degree of confidence in their warrant, but it does not mean that one should just give up belief in some set of religious claims since one still has some reason that appeals to a particular person in such a way that it makes a particular claim the case for that person. Hence, the original argument seems to not succeed.Jjnan1

    Except that this not a justification for opting to believe in a particular religion, but one for maintaining belief in one you already believe in. It does not collapse the equivalence of each religion, so you have not in fact shown that the argument against adopting a particular religion is unsuccessful. You did a switcheroo from one argument to another and back again. Was that conscious?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.