Do people have a moral obligation to be rational?

People have a right to hold whatever opinions they want, no matter how unpopular they are, no matter how out of touch they are with what other people think.

You are obligated to accept that they believe that, and not be an ass about trying to change their mind.

You know, this is a great question. I’m actually going to have to think about this for a while before I can craft an answer…...

People should have the obligation and the presence of mind to ‘agree to disagree’ since there could be so many potentially differing opinions regarding your question and all of it’s details.

Very good question by the way and quite thought provoking!

I don’t really think there is a moral correlation between rationality.

But there is a social obligation to form rational thoughts, at least when you’re contributing input to the society as a whole through voting.

Do people have a moral obligation to be rational? No.
———————————————————————————————————————
Do people have a right to hold ridiculous and irrational opinions? Yes.

Are you obligated to accept such opinions as legitimate and valid? No.

Are all irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect? No.

Are all such beliefs worthy of belief? No.

Does faith excuse irrationality? Yes.

Should ridiculous opinions and beliefs be ridiculed? No.

Are religions above criticism? No.

So who defines what is “rational,” “irrational,” “ridiculous,” “serious,” “legitimate,” illegitimate,” and “religious”?

(For example, its =/= it’s=it is. That’s a rational belief I hold now, given the present state of English.)

@gailcalled,
Are you saying that normal people are incapble of making such detrminations, or that these are abitrary accidents of convention?

I can start by asking you to define what you mean by “normal” people, I guess. These particular words are tricky. “Arbitrary accidents of convention” has a lovely ring to it, but I am still not sure what you mean.

There are cultural, religious, class, caste, tribal, regional biases, aren’t they?|

Remember the 1980 movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? A tribe in the Kalahari desert has their rituals and belief systems upset when a guy drops an empty coke bottle into its midst from a little airplane flying overhead.

- Do people have a right to hold ridiculous and irrational opinions?

Certainly, rationality is nothing but a snapshot of common knowledge at a certain time. Most things considered “rational” thinking these days were certainly considered irrational at some point in time.
What??? The earth round?!?

- Are you obligated to accept such opinions as legitimate and valid?

I don’t think so. Human decency should command disagreement / disproval is being conveyed in respectful, non-degrading manner. Nevertheless, no one should be “obligated” to accept differing opinions.

- Are all irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect?

No, only the human being deserves respect, for being just that, human. Which includes a tendency to believe irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous things.
on a side note, is the Placebo worthy of any respect? It certainly works

- Are all such beliefs worthy of belief?
Entirely in the eye of the beholder. The minute a certain belief becomes so nonsensical that it is not worthy to be a “belief”, it usually has a very high “desertion” rate.

- Does faith excuse irrationality?

That is the whole purpose of it. Faith, per definition, is irrational

- Should ridiculous opinions and beliefs be ridiculed?

No, ridiculing a belief inherently ridicules the believer -> see human decency above

- Are religions above criticism?

To the believer they certainly are, they shouldn’t be to society as a whole

What TaoSan said.

@gailcalled,
“normal”

I.e., not suffering from mental derangement or cognitive deficiency.

“an arbitrary accident of convention”

Let’s say you live in a culture which has a theory that says that atoms exist, while another culture has no such concept. In the former culture it would seem normal, rational and legitimate to speak of atoms, but in the latter it would not. Hence, the convention that ascribes normality and legitimacy to the discussion of atoms is arbitrary and an accident of which culture you belong to.

“who defines what is “rational,” “irrational, [etc.]”

What I am trying to get at is that there are certain norms of rationality and legitimacy that nobody in particular defines but which, nonetheless, are available to most competent members of a language community. What I am reacting to in your answer is the implict suggestion that these standards are either unavailable, or so problematic that no one is competent to whether is rational, ridiculous, legitimate, or religious.

Do people have a right to hold ridiculous and irrational opinions?
Well based on the first amendment, US citizens have a right to freedom of expression without government interference. Since we have this right, then yes I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion no matter how irrational it may seem. Who would determine the irrationality of people’s personal opinions? Who controls what is rational? Does science determine rationality? Science attempts to find the truths through what one would call rational analyses but has many times resulted in the wrong “rational” solution. The wrong solution was rational at one point in time, but was proven or or assumed to be proven irrational at a later point in time. I think it irrational thinking (or out of the box thinking) has continued to drive the world towards finding rational solutions. That’s to say that irrational thinking (the world revolves around the sun not vice versa) has driven the world to find rational solutions (acceptance that the world revolves around the sun)

Are you obligated to accept such opinions as legitimate and valid?

Certainly not. Like I said earlier, everyone has the right to their own opinion rational or irrational. You are not required to conform to others beliefs just as they are not required to conform to yours.

Are all irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect?

Are all non-religious irrational, nonsensical beliefs worthy of respect? Nope. I don’t need to respect your particular belief, but I do need to respect your right to that belief.

Are all such beliefs worthy of belief?

All beliefs are worthy of belief. Your personal experiences are probably largely unique compared to my own. Therefore your vast knowledge is likely substantially different than my own. Based on your knowledge and personal experience, maybe you feel differently than me regarding the death penalty or abortion, but that doesn’t make either one of our opinions not worthy of the actual process of believing it.

For example: You saw something that you believed to be blue, and I saw it as gray. Who’s to say what the real color is? Just because you think its blue and I think it’s gray doesn’t make your belief any less or better than my own. Perhaps it is based on my past experiences with the color. Perhaps I am color blind and can only see in black and white and shades thereof. To you the color is blue. To me the color is gray. We happen to both be right but wrong in the eyes of the other.

Does faith excuse irrationality?
Faith does certainly not excuse irrationality but again how does one define rationality? You state that their are certain norms of rationality? What are these norms? Thou shalt not kill. Is that a norm of rationality?

I have issues with saying that their are norms of rationality, and based on this particular norm everyone needs to conform. I happen to know that based on other threads that you don’t believe this either. Just because the norm or most of the population believes something, does not make it rational. So I would ask you to further define how rationality can be defined?

Should ridiculous opinions and beliefs be ridiculed?

Probably not. There is typically a basis for people’s beliefs. Most people don’t believe something because its irrational to them. It’s probably better to understand somebody’s belief first. Upon fully understanding their belief and why or why not they believe it, it is more productive to discuss and argue your point rather than ridiculing them.

Are religions above criticism?

Nobody is above criticism, most people are above ridicule.

@critter

I think were drifting away from the actual sense of the question by getting distracted by an agnostic view of what “rational” is.

“an arbitrary accident of convention”

really takes care of the normative part.

So, if I am right, Monty asks, how far can your believes be outside the norms and rationales of your particular environment, before they become immoral / non-compliant / irrational

Strongly simplified of course.

…..yes?

What?!! No!!!

@Tao: Yes but I take issue with saying that rationality is normal. Rationality has “strictly”, an indirect relationship with normality. I would agree though, that many things which are rational happen to be normal, because most “things” are easily identifiable as logical and sensical, therefore making them normal among the general concensus.

I cannot answer the question ”how far can your believes be outside the norms and rationales of your particular environment, before they become immoral / non-compliant / irrational”, because it is strictly based on each unique situation. In some cases I would consider slightly outside of the norms to be irrational and in some cases I would agree that out of the norm beliefs would never be irrational.

Makes me think of Einstein’s relativity, perspective of the individual observer ‘n all

I think that there is an end-all Truth and Rationale, but that they are both unattainable.

I can never know that what I believe is true, because everyone thinks what they believe is true is true.

And I can never think that I am being rational because don’t people often think they’re being rational when they aren’t?

Therefor, how can I discredit what someone else believes is true, or what someone thinks is rational?

This leaves us all the responsibility to get as close as we can to truth and rationality, to and duke it out to make other people get as close as they can too.

Do people have a right to hold ridiculous and irrational opinions?
Sure. Did Galileo have a right to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun?

Are you obligated to accept such opinions as legitimate and valid?
No. Galileo’s theory was widely disputed.

Are all irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect?
I’ll defer to Tao San’s comments on basic human dignity and respect for others.

Are all such beliefs worthy of belief?
“All” is a big word here.

Does faith excuse irrationality?
No, but some people are simply not rational regardless of faith. What is the correlation you are trying to draw here?

Should ridiculous opinions and beliefs be ridiculed?
Not if you consider yourself a compassionate human being. It’s one thing to laugh at your friends for saying something stupid and another to attack strangers for something they believe which has nothing to do with you. If someone is physically stronger, should they simply go around knocking other people down?

Are religions above criticism?
No, but you want to be careful to identify what it is you are criticizing. When you rail against religion and then upon reflection realize that you have nothing against the vast majority of harmless believers, you are just devaluing your opinion. If you have a problem with Fundamentalists or Evangelicals, then identify it as that.

RATIONALITY—

Rationality is often defined in terms of logic, but its more than logic. It includes the ability to construct and deconstruct arguments in cooperative discourse, such as defining your terms, being mindful of the properties of words (i.e., ambiguity and vagueness), and being mindful of the proper and fallacious ways of constructing arguments. Rationality also includes a mindfulness of cognitive biases, which are the predictable sources of error that arise in decision-making, probability and quantitative estimation, attribution, and memory errors. There are also cognitive distortions that tend to accompany delusions and other mental pathologies. Rationality also includes the ability to recognize propaganda, the methodological errors that distinguish science from junk science, and the ability to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, evidence, and written sources.

@Monty

Don’t you think therein lies the crux? religious faith and rationality simply don’t go together in the same sentence, as both, by definition, are exclusive of each other IMHO. This is a very nice discussion thread, but even here, we will stumble over the “relativity of rationality” before we even start to scratch the surface of the metaphysical aspect.

In a discussion like this I’m sure particularly Christians will bring up beloved examples of Catholic quantum physicists, or Protestant brain surgeons to lend “credibility” to their believes. I believe, that the closest thing to a “rational believer” would be an agnostic theist.

In my opinion, the believes propagated by all the major world religions are exactly that:

- Fallacious argument construction
– Irrational cognitive bias
– Cognitive distortions
– Incapability / unwillingness to recognize propaganda
– Methodological errors in their use of witnesses, evidence and sources
:)

The fact that these shortcomings survived the better part of the last 5 Millennia or so however, lead me back to my Placebo analogy earlier in this thread.

Your line of questioning, as I understand it, really boils down to on how to deal with “irrational” beings, whom despite the fact that we split atoms and bundle light to energy amounts that only 200 years ago would have been believed to be God himself, still insist on believing in old men with long beards being “everything that was, that is, and ever will be”.

The “rational” approach, in my opinion, is since it lasted for thousands of years, and is still so prevalent, it must have some sort of function. Even though it is extremely “irrational” to “believe” into the concept that salvation/resurrection lies in a concept that , in the history of this planet, has viciously killed more human beings than any other venture, be it political power, wealth, oil, money what have you.

So to the first and foremost question, should people have a moral obligation to be rational, I can only say that if religious believes bend “rationality” to the extent they do, then why wouldn’t they bend “morality” just as well. After all, religious people base their set of “morals” on their religion.

The problem here is really this, from a rational standpoint, most world religions are humbug. To believe in an old (insert favorite religious icon here) presiding over the heavens is frankly, well, easy to ridicule.

So what appeared to be a simple line of questions (once the the definition of rationality was out of the way), would seemingly have a simple set of answers.

However, everything is put in perspective again if you consider the phenomenal power religious belief can exert over the believer. People, over hundreds of years, chose to burn on a stake for their set of believes. Waged long and cruel wars over their believes, so yes it is all very irrational. In my opinion, you may doubt/ridicule/discredit the believe / rationality / morals. However, one should not doubt / ridicule the power of the concept “irrational belief”.

On the lighter side of the discussion though, I’m fed up with all the make-believe apostle stories myself :) I strongly recommend Bill Maher’s “Religiulous”. :)

* RELIGULOUS

can’t remember that dang spelling :)

sorry for typos and misplaced commas too! Up since 4am

I think democracy is pretty irrational, but like the way it’s developing, for the most part.

@fireside

Life would be so easy if we all were Borg :)

The Borg life sounds good to me. How can I get myself assimilated into the collective? :o)

Just hang in there, THE BORG CUBE, coming to a Galaxy near you soon!!!!! I got pre-sale assimilation tickets, just send a $550 postal money order to my PO Box in Nigeria and you’ll get the best seats!

(Sorry for going off topic Monty)

By the way, just pondering, since we are more or less addressing the “irrationality” of religious beliefs, and religious people derive their morals from their religion, wouldn’t the first question “moral obligation to be rational” be an oxymoron, at least as long as we focus on religion?

Some people are just hardwired for faith.

^^Same Article^^:

The scientists emphasized that their findings in no way suggest that religion is simply a matter of brain chemistry.

“These studies do not in any way negate the validity of religious experience or God,” the team said. “They merely provide an explanation in terms of brain regions that may be involved.”

If I might rephrase your questions. One question seems to be: do people have a moral obligation to do what science suggests is best for themselves? The other question has to do with having respect for the person while disagreeing with their ideas. Can you respect a person whose ideas you disagree with?

I don’t think people have a moral obligation to maximize their happiness or utility. They can drive themselves into the gutters, or off a cliff, if they want. I might feel obligated to try to help them, but they don’t have to help themselves—except if others are depending on them.

I believe we have an obligation to other humans. I think it’s probably built into us, since it has survival value. I don’t think humans are privileged in the universe. If we all die out, the universe won’t care. We’re the only ones who care about ourselves, and care we do. So this obligation is one we put on ourselves.

The implications are that if one group of people is doing something that hurts the rest of us, what should we do? If they do it due to irrational beliefs, does that give us a right to try to intervene?

This gets us to the second question. Can we respect people but hate their ideas? If we have a right to intervene in order to protect ourselves, how should we intervene? Do we have to do it in a respectful way, because they are humans? Or can we justify wiping them out?

I think the intervention must happen respectfully. Partly, this is strategic. If you aren’t respectful, it will be so much harder to make change happen, and indeed, you may be left in the position where your only option is kill or be killed.

Part of it is self-protection. Maybe those people have talents that are important for our survival, and we just don’t understand them fully. Maybe we, as a people, need their energy. Maybe the actions they take due to their beliefs don’t actually affect the course of the world that much.

Finally, there is morality. In my mind, morality is practical, born out of years of human interactions, so I have already answered this question. I will say it, anyway. It is morally wrong to disrespect a person you disagree with, and it is worse to dehumanize them in order to give yourself permission to kill them.

I will add this: just because you should respect them, doesn’t mean you have to be friends with them.

@TaoSan,

”- Does faith excuse irrationality? That is the whole purpose of it. Faith, per definition, is irrational.”

“religious faith and rationality simply don’t go together in the same sentence, as both, by definition, are exclusive of each other”

I disagree. I don’t think there are any excuses for irrationality. And I don’t see any necessity that religion be irrational.

I think there are entirely reasonable and rational forms of faith. For example, there are all sorts of good faith beliefs, such as the belief that life is worth living; that if one does one’s best things will work out in the end; that if I lend you money, you will pay me back; that if I love my spouse, my spouse will love me back.

I think that one could look at Christ as a walking, talking Kantian categorical imperative, and obtain an entirely rational view of Christianity. Indeed, I see the moral message of Christianity as being totally rational in nature. Moreover, religions do not have to be theist or concerned with the supernatural. One could be a Taoist or a Deist.

Unfortunately, Much of modern Protestantism is founded on the premise that Faith Alone is necessary (and apparently sufficient) for salvation. I’ve seen people argue quite strenuously in forums like this that “good works” are not enough—and, in fact, that good works are even inconsequential—that what really matters is whether you acknowledge Jesus Christ by name as your “Lord and Savior.” In other words, it is this act of fealty and not the love in your heart that counts in the end.

But, for a True Believer, simply declaring one’s fealty is not enough. One must also believe in something that is patently impossible, in order to surrender and subordinate the one human capacity that makes us distinctly human and capable of free will—his reason. In this respect, “Faith” is not only an act of fealty to the kingdom to come, it is a renunciation of one’s membership in humanity. And the ridiculous irony of this is that the True Believer feels a sense of “liberation” in turning himself over to God. Having joined the army of God, he no longer has to be morally accountable to his fellow man, since he believes himself only accountable to God.

Its not for nothing that the Religious Right despises secularism, humanism, human-centered morality, and reason. Rationality demands pluralism, tolerance, diversity, and a respect for human dignity. In this respect they devalue everything that I value. And, accordingly, find it difficult to respect their beliefs—and when they act on their beliefs in ways that are deleterious to my basic rights, I find it very difficult to respect them as persons.

Ooh, good point, @laureth. In my neuroanatomy class just yesterday we watched a video about this guy who has temporal lobe seizures, and they cause him to feel like he’s having intense religious… euphoria.

Awesome I found the youtube video.

At one point his dad, who takes care of him, I guess, says “Indeed, a separate physical reality is every bit as real to him, although it is absolutely nothing like this reality is to us”

Seems relevant.

@Tao: ”religious faith and rationality simply don’t go together in the same sentence, as both, by definition, are exclusive of each other IMHO.”

Why do you assume that any belief based on a religion, is automatically irrational? Is it not irrational to assume that an ideology is irrational simply based on its association with
a religion? Your underlying basis for this statement is that religion makes things irrational, and that the rationality of ideologies is based on its correlation with religion. Unless of course you are referring to the actual thought process of the human being in that simply because my religion tells me something I believe it to be rational? This thought process could be considered irrational to some (obviously the non believers).

The problem with considerinng these people irrational is that you assume irrationality in faith. Faith by definition is the psychological acceptance or confidence in a claim to be the truth without conclusive proof to support the claim. Once you claim faith to be irrational you also integrate anything that can or cannot be 100% proven. You therefore include anybody who believes anything about how the world began, how humans began, how animals and plants originated into your category of irrationality. Anybody with any sort of faith not based on fact would be considered irrational. Parents believing their children could do well in college after doing poorly in high school would be considered irrational as they don’t have a 100% proof that their children will do well in school.

So is it irrational to have faith? Is it irrational to have faith in something that to the masses seems incorrect? Is it irrational to have faith in something out of the norm? Is it irrational to believe anything out of the norm? Is it irrational to have faith in something nobody truly understands? Is it irrational to to believe anything your human mind can conceive? I would say no. I think as long as their are basis to peoples beliefs they are rational.

This line from Monty’s definition above says a lot:
Rationality also includes a mindfulness of cognitive biases

I think that is key. You can’t relate to other people properly if you aren’t aware of those biases or mental models because you are unable to see outside your own thought box.

For example, I would say that Monty has to also take into account his lifestyle when railing against religion. It may or may not be effecting his rationality to think that most religious dogma would consider him to be abnormal. If I was told that I was fundamentally wrong with no questions asked, I would be more likely to ”find it very difficult to respect them as persons.”

But the choice to make is whether you are going to be accepting of “them” even when “they” can’t be accepting of you. However, if that cognitive bias was not self-evident to the person making the argument, then they might try to grab different explanations or reasons for their rejection of religion.

I’m not saying that holds true in this particular case, it was just the most ready example.

I’d love to respond now but gotta go to work!!!!

Be back in 4 hours….

to be continued!

I’m going to throw this out there. It may not be popular, but it’s worth a shot.

Concerning the question ”Does faith excuse irrationality?” ...

What would true faith be without irrationality? Faith is defined as “belief that is not based on proof” or “belief in anything.” Coming from a Christian standpoint, faith does indeed excuse “irrationality” because faith is, by nature, irrational. I think you will all agree (remember the aforementioned definition). For example, is it rational to believe that a man came back to life after 3 days of being dead in a dank tomb? No. Is it rational to believe that the same man literally turned water into wine? No.

I know most people will just say those aren’t true because they have no proof. However, that same lack of proof is what makes the belief an act of faith and not just a rational belief.

The reason I asked this question is to find out just how much irrationality people are willing to take before they get fed up and say, “No more.” So far, it appears that its quite a lot. People seem to generally assume that being religious requires a more or less irrational leap of faith—and that there is no harm in this—since we all assume that religious people are somehow better and more moral than nonreligious persons.

As one can see from this and other similar threads, the more fundamentalist the Believer is, the more actively he denies rationality—and, also, the more irrational his arguments. The more irrational one’s faith, the more one sees irrationality as a virtue instead of a vice. One tends not to see one’s irrationality as a form of intellectual dishonesty, or as a fundamental lack of respect for the views of others. In other words, while True Believers may play lip-service to the notion that everyone has a right to his own opinion, they don’t actually recognize secular, scientific, or naturalistic perspectives as valid. In other words, if you don’t believe in the supernatural, you are demonized as an atheist.

They don’t see their proselytizing as in any way socially harmful, even though they propagate myths with dubious moral messages, superstitions, and irrational ideas. They see nothing harmful in using the law to force their beliefs on others. Some are fellow travellers who seem blithely unaware that they are waging cultural warfare against secular society. Others see themselves as engaged in an apocalyptic struggle between “good” and “evil.” Indeed, the rhetoric of war is pervasive in True Believer thinking.

In contrast, you have tolerant, rational, secular people who are not addicted to irrational belief, but who nonetheless seem to be genuinely unaware of the extent to which their society has been taken over by True Believers. For example, one of the most promising areas of medical research, stem cell research has been completely stymied out of deference to a groundless and absurd religious belief that a three-day old embryo, consisting of 150 cells, has a human soul. Every year that that stem cell research is delayed has a definite cost in human life and misery that far outweighs any potential suffering of these fetal cells. And yet we have allowed True Believers to place our lives at risk.

Religious fundamentalists have given us the War on Drugs in order to prevent people from having religious experiences of which they do not approve. As maroon and laureth have pointed out above, there are parts of the brain that are now known to be associated with with religious experience, which can be stimulated by drugs or temporal lobe epileptic seizures. The War on Drugs costs $50 billion per year, imprisons approximately 2 million people, disenfranchises another 2–3 million, and does nothing but emiserate, impoverish, and psychologically destroy people. Apart from being one of the most repressive aspects of American life in and of itself, the war on drugs has been an excuse to militarize the police and roll back civil liberties—i.e.constitutional protections against reasonable searches and seizure, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, proportionality of crime and punishment, the seizure of property without due process, or even cause, etc.

The War on Terror was also the brainchild of religious neocons, who convinced Bush that he was about to play a central role in the end-times championing the forces of “good” against “evil.” Our $3 trillion war in Iraq, the imperial presidency, the practice of torture, and close to a million dead can all be laid at the feet of a president who believed in his heart that he was God’s instrument on earth.

Religious fundamentalists have taken it upon themselves to pass a constitutional amendment denying gay people equal protection under the law in order to punish them for the sin of being themselves. True believers are also working to overturn Roe v Wade in order to force everyone to subscribe to their sectarian religious beliefs about the beginning of human life—a belief that no one held before 1960. This view is an arbitrary accident of convention, since for the previous two thousand years, abortion was permitted before the time of the “quickening.” Never mind that 15% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort, making God the biggest abortionist of all, if you believe in that sort of thing.

We also have the religious right agitating for prayer in the public schools, and for the teaching of Creationism, just as soon as they can get a political majority to ram it through in defiance of the constitution.

In my view, these Christian True Believers have long since violated any standard of mutual respect. In my view, they no longer respect the rights and dignity of others; they have actually injured us and so have forfeited their right to be treated with respect. In my view, ridiculing them isn’t sinking down to their level. They aren’t simply holding their beliefs in private; they are organizing politcally to deprive people of their rights—and they have succeeded. I am only proposing to ridicule the beliefs they use to justify their persecution of me—to ridicule the already ridiculous so that they think twice before expressing such beliefs in public. In my view, they should feel the same shame and trepidation in expressing their homophobia as racists do in expressing their racism.

Indeed, as long as everyone gives them safe harbor, they will see nothing wrong with openly advocating the imposition of their religious beliefs on others.

@chutterhanban,

“Coming from a Christian standpoint, faith does indeed excuse “irrationality” because faith is, by nature, irrational.”

I don’t agree. See my post 5 spaces before yours.

It is one thing to take a leap of faith to believe something in the face of incomplete information. It is quite another to believe something contrary to all available information. In the first instance you are acting in good faith—i.e., giving people the benefit of the doubt in the reasonable expectation that they will live up to your trust. In the second instance, you are simply disabling your bullshit detector and foreclosing on the possibility of maintaining your intellectual integrity. You open yourself to becoming the dupe or tool of another.

What is the purpose of believing that a Jesus rose from the dead or that he changed water into wine? Isn’t this just so that you will believe that he is God? Why not simply believe that Jesus is God and skip the bullshit? Or, ask yourself what difference would it make if Jesus was only human? It changes your whole reading of the New Testament. Viewing Christ’s message in human terms opens the door to a quieter, more voluntary and loving Christianity, which is just at least as valid as the one you have. It will also give you an insight into mainstream Christianity.

@ MontyZuma: You are not a Christian. I am. I live it every day. There are things that I cannot explain to someone who thinks I am wrong.

On another note, give this a thought:

If Jesus were human, he couldn’t have been “just a good person.” Think of all the things he claimed to be. Think of all the things he claimed he could do. Think of all the outrageous situations he made himself a part of. He could only have been one of two things…

…who he says he is or a complete psycho.
__________

Now, of course, I believe He is what He claimed to be. I know most of you don’t agree and that’s completely fine (half of this thread pertains to acceptance of beliefs!). It just seems that explaining how Jesus could have been “just a good guy” should be equally as tough as explaining how He could possibly be the Son of God.

Or then there’s Option C: It’s a story that’s been embellished by other people over the passage of time.

@chutterhanban,

“You are not a Christian. I am.”

You arrogant clueless twit. How dare you presume to know what I am and am not.

somebody please explain to him

@Monty: Are you a Christian? Based on the few threads I have seen you in, and based on your typical view of Christianity I assumed that you were not a Christian. It is likely he assumed you were not a Christian from other threads as well. Based on statements like this one, “If Christians are willing to deny me the dignity of being treated as an equal by forcing me to accept a lesser form of marriage on the basis of their beliefs, then I am no longer willing to respect the legitimacy of their beliefs”

You stated “their” beliefs and by this I would assume you happen to not be a Christian. Or this quote, “Christians have demonstrated that they are both immoral and un-American.”

Or this quote, “I commit myself to denouncing anti-gay Christians as both un-Christian and as enemies of our democratic society. I commit myself to exposing them as fascists, unworthy of our nation’s tolerance and respect. I commit myself to exposing their hostility to science, reason and reality. I commit myself to exposing their intellectual dishonesty, and the immorality of their irrational, divisive, superstitious, irresponsible and ridiculous beliefs. I further commit myself to driving them out of politics, defunding their political organizations, debunking their propaganda, publicizing their scandals, and generally protesting any public display or expression of their beliefs”

Do you deny saying any of this? Is it not clear from these statements that you have a clear agenda of debunking Christians and their faith? IMO this is who you are and he was accurate in assessing you as a non-Christian. Do you disagree?

@critter,

“You stated ‘their’ beliefs and by this I would assume you happen to not be a Christian.”

Well, then you assume wrong.

If you look back, you will find that I have consistently made a distinction between mainstream compassionate Christianity and the sort of mean, narrow-minded, fundamentalist, Born Again, True Believing, Biblical-literalist Phariseeism that you are trying to hawk as “true” Christianity. Indeed, if you read the whole post you quote, you will see that I am talking about “Born Again” “True Believer” bible-thumping “Christianity” and not compassionate mainstream Christianity. In fact, I was trying to share this vision of Christianity with chutterhanban when he so churlishly spurned my effort.

This may come as a shock to you, but most Christians are not Bible-thumping fundamentalists.

My “agenda,” just so we are clear, is to not to debunk mainstream Christianity, but to debunk the irrational Biblical literalism and the theocratic activism of the Religious Right. Specifically, I criticize self-described Christians, such as yourself, who see nothing unAmerican about using the political process to strip people they regard as “sinners” of their political rights. I also question what kind of Christian uses the political process to deny other Christians the sacrament of matrimony.

Not that its any of your business, but I have disclosed in other posts that I was raised a Catholic—which is a Christian tradition some 1,500 years older than yours. However, I am now a Deist in the Jeffersonian sense.

In my view, your brand of Christianity has no business in politics, and I am dedicated to driving it out of public policy. See my long post above, where I refer specifically to its influence on stem cell research, the war on drugs, the attack on women’s and gay rights, the attempts to institute prayer and the teaching of Creationism in public schools, and the religious beliefs that have gotten us into the war in Iraq. What I am saying is that it is time for mainstream Christians, agnostics, and atheists to speak up and step up against the assault on reason by folks like you.

Now you’re sounding like a rational debater.

——-
btw, don’t forget about corporate investment in the war on drugs.
almost everything 3M makes can be made cheaper using hemp.

You’re watering down something that I LIVE FOR. What you’re doing to me feels like this:

You don’t know how to be a real homosexual because I know how to do it better than you. I think that being a mainstream homosexual means you actually aren’t attracted to the same sex, you’re just supposed to like hanging out with them more than the other sex. That’s how the majority does it anyway. I can’t stand the fundamentalist homosexuals who are intimate with their “friends.” They have no place in my society and I’m going to make sure they go through hell because they’re wrong and I’m right.

Monty, you know I don’t believe any of that. But please just try to see where I’m coming from. I’m giving an opinion that is not flippant or ignorant. Just because that opinion doesn’t correspond with what our minds can handle doesn’t mean that faith can’t excuse irrationality. My faith is irrational. And it is real.

@chutterhanban,
Gee, I didn’t know you were homosexual. I guess your faith is irrational.

@Monty: Seems to me like your being irrational.

@critter
I think the word is “facetious.”

Haha. Yeah, but I’m a real one, remember? ;)

chutter,
What’s your point? Are you saying that its irrational to be a Christian? That only an irrational person can be a “real” Christian?

Why are you so offended at the suggestion that you can be rational and a Christian? Or is this just further evidence of your deep commitment to being crazy?

Do you think that being illogical makes you more “real”? Why should anyone pay you the slightest attention whatsoever? Aren’t you being ridiculous?

What was your point in asking the question in the first place? Do you think anything anyone has to say in here is actually going change, alter, or supplement any of your opinions? You rarely do anything but tell someone they’re wrong—and if for some reason, you’re agreeing with someone, you always make sure to show them that you actually know more about their view than they do.

Now to answer your questions to the best of my ability…

I do think that it is completely irrational to be a Christian—like I’ve said, it is that irrationality that allows someone to believe in something higher than themselves (in this case, God). To me, someone who forgoes the idea that faith can excuse irrationality is missing the point of Christianity. It doesn’t exist so its mysteries can be “solved” by the human mind or just to encourage people to be nice and tolerant. It exists so people can be in a relationship with their Creator. Much of its basis doesn’t make sense at all (like I talked about earlier in the thread).

And no, I am not committed to being crazy or riduculous. But I believe that God is not bound by logic or rationality and that’s what makes Him who He is.

You might just be accurate in calling me crazy. That’s actually kind of my point.

@Monty
It’s not as if chutter is the first person to ever say this. Case in point: Søren Kierkegaard.

@chutter,

“To me, someone who forgoes the idea that faith can excuse irrationality is missing the point of Christianity.”

So, what is the point of Christianity? Forcing your irrational beliefs on others because it is not enough for you that you believe them yourself?

@ Monty: I’m not forcing them on you or anyone else. You asked a question and I’m answering it to the best of my ability.

@chutter,
Then answer it.

@ MontyZuma: My simple “yes or no” answers are in the fifth response of this thread. The supplements to those answers are in the rest of my responses. I feel like I’ve done a pretty good job of displaying my opinion. I’m not sure what you want from me.

chutter,
The unanswered question is, “What is the point of Christianity?”
(see 4 spaces up)

The trouble with abstractions is that they are abstract. Without concrete examples, one could just as well ask “Do people have a rational obligation to be moral?” I live in a rural community with an influx of NYC people (second and summer homes.) There are different views on sex-before-marriage, choice, faith, hunting, driving while drunk, fertilizing lawns, eating meat, zoning, and planting non-native/ invasive plants.

The only thing that is safe to talk about in public is the weather.

(see 8 spaces up)

chutter,

“To me, someone who forgoes the idea that faith can excuse irrationality is missing the point of Christianity.”

Which is…? That the whole point of Christianity is irrational? And/or without basis for belief?

@Monty
Just read the next two sentences:

It doesn’t exist so its mysteries can be “solved” by the human mind or just to encourage people to be nice and tolerant. It exists so people can be in a relationship with their Creator.

Chutter had even italicized that second sentence, which is the one in which he gives the answer that you’re insisting he is not giving.

@aidje,
I’m sorry aidje, I just don’t see an answer here. What I get is that the whole point is not to make sense (i.e. mysteries solved), or to make people more ethical (i.e., nice and tolerant). But to be in a relationship with their Creator?

Aren’t people theoretically already in a relationship with their Creator simply by having been created? What more is required than to be the creature you were created to be?
What precisely is the nature of this relationship?

Creator – created?
Robot – operator?
Puppy dog – master?
Insignificant nothing – the be all and end all?
I – thou?
Man – person in need?
Self – other?
Here – there?

What is the purpose/benefit/point of this relationship? According to someone who is a “real” Christian.

@Monty: Are you really asking what the purpose of Christianity is, or whether Christianity is rational?

@critter,
I am asking chutterhanban, who claims to know who is and who isn’t a “real” Christian, to tell me what the point of Christianity is.

He says: “To me, someone who forgoes the idea that faith can excuse irrationality is missing the point of Christianity.”

To me, that rather implies he knows what the point is. So far, he’s told us what it is not: “It doesn’t exist so its mysteries can be “solved” by the human mind or just to encourage people to be nice and tolerant.” Which I interpret to mean that the point of Christianity is not to explain anything, or to morally improve people.

I had always assumed that the point and purpose of any religion was to provide a basis for moral action.

@Monty
It sounds to me like you would like Chutter to further explain his answer. Instead, you’re insisting that he has not answered at all, which seems counterproductive. Anyway, I could probably take a shot at it, but I’ll let Chutter speak for himself. I will say that the relationship in question is many-faceted, and no single analogy is going to be anywhere near perfect.

@aidje,
If you want to PM me, that would be fine. I would prefer to hear from chutter himself, since it was he who made the boast of knowing what the point is.

Perhaps it is impolite of me to regard a vague and incomplete answer as evasive and non-responsive. If it is, then I apologize for that.

Monty, I just don’t see this going anywhere. I’m going to let some other people try to carry on a conversation with you. Good day.

@chutter,
Of course this isn’t going anywhere. You’re all hat and no cattle.

@Monty: Perhaps Chutter felt it was going no where because he knew that no matter what he said, you would feel different. You would likely belittle his statements in an attempt to prove his lack of “rational”, based on your particular opinion of “irrationality”. You are not simply asking for his opinion so that you can chew on it, but for his opinion so that you can chew it up, spit it out, and stomp on it. I’ve been in a few discussions with you in which you happen to be extremely intolerant of others opinions. You attempt to attack the person “You’re all hat and no cattle”, rather than their arguments. You exclaim you are attacking “born again” Christians and not mainstream Christianity because of their beliefs? Mainstream Christianity is the same thing as born again Christianity. We all believe in the Holy Trinity and that the way into heaven is through our Savior Jesus Christ.

Your arguments regarding Bush and neocons and the Iraq war holds very little proof of what the beginning of the war was truly about (9/11 (true or false), Nuclear weapons (exist or nonexistent), terrorism). Your argument regarding the right wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade is flawed. Just because something happened 1500 years ago doesn’t make it right or rational today. Just because 15% of pregnancies “spontaneously abort” doesn’t make abortion by choice right either. People die of old age all the time is this not God allowing death to occur as well. Should we go along and start murdering our grandparents because the have become inconvenient? Your argument regarding stem cell research is obviously acceptable in your eyes, but if we were to believe people had souls like many do, wouldn’t this soul likely exist from the conception of that being and not once the child pops out of the womb? The amount of money we spend on controlling drugs in my opinion is worth every penny. According to the office of national drug control policy 30% of the murders that took place in the US in 2006 were done so while the murderer was on drugs. Whether you believe it or not, trafficking in illicit drugs tends to be associated with a large commission of violent crimes. Personally I don’t believe anything I stated above to be irrational. So when people like you “insert whoever you are because I don’t want you to be offended by some of my assumptions”, state that people like me are irrational and you won’t stop until you have driven me out of governmental policy I take offense. Trust me, you alone will not drive me out of American governmental policy as you will have to take my life before you would take away that right.

re: soul

Lots of different religions have different ideas about when a soul enters a body. Many Christians believe it enters at conception. Some Jews believe life begins at 40 days when the lungs have formed, since God “breathed” life into Adam – thus, the Talmud states that before then, what is in the womb is akin to water, not a life.

Asatrúers often look to the Icelandic sagas and other documented lore from that era when searching for guidance. “Both legal ‘personhood’ and spiritual rights were conferred by the ausa vatni. While unnamed and unsprinkled children could legally be set out to die, …it was murder to kill children after they had been sprinkled with water” (Gundarsson). In other words, a newborn was not considered a person until all the required rites and rituals had taken place. Although modern Asatrúers will obey the laws of their land, clearly there is room for stem cell research in their worldview.

And Atheists may not even believe there is a soul at all.

With so many different beliefs, why is it that one religion must prevail in these debates, especially in a civil setting? Would it not be simpler to not have a civil ruling on the subject at all, and let each person behave within the confines of their own conscience when the situation affects him or her? (In this context, it would be to decline to partake in the benefits of stem cell research, if ever in a position to want or need them, while leaving the possibility open to others of different belief.)

Of course, you may bring up “why don’t we just murder children at any age” and other such straw men, but I don’t think society is debating that point, nor do I believe that any major religion in the U.S. (or atheists) would condone such a thing. We’re not a theocracy, and we were founded on, if anything, freedom from the prevailing religion’s tyranny, and freedom from religion as well. Should not each person be as free as possible to follow their religious beliefs, Christian and non-Christian alike? That is not possible when the views of Christendom are made the civil law of the land.

@Laureth: I appreciate your answer but my intention was to not delve into a discussion about Christian theology nor stem cell research. My purpose was to demonstrate to Monty that as he stated “born again Christian” thought is not impervious to a reasonable and rational argument.

I understand your statements regarding stem cell research but I would like to ask you one question. If perhaps we somehow discovered that human beings do possess a soul at conception, would you still believe that stem cell research is humanistic and dignified in its approach to improving medicine? If no, would you still accept your theory in that you wouldn’t care if somebody else was doing it, as long as you were not part of it?

@critter: Here where I live in Michigan, we recently had a vote about the stem cell issue. On the ballot was a measure that would allow the unused fertilized embryos from fertility clinics to be used as subjects in stem cell research.

The practice at such clinics had been to throw the unused embryos away once the couple had decided that they were finished. In other words, if fertilized embryos had souls, many people were being thrown in a dumpster at the end of each fertility treatment. It’s hard to not see it as a waste of some sort, although it was guaranteed that none of these embryos would be born and grow up.

Still, there were people that voted this proposal down because the use of embryos in research was an affront to human life. I assert that it was more of an affront to these tiny souls (if they indeed had them) to be thrown in a dumpster, rather than to be used to potentially save lives and cure diseases. I mean, think about it: if you went from having no purpose in life to being able to save millions, would you take it? I would. And I voted for the embryos to have a larger purpose, whether or not they have human souls.

As such, and to answer your question, I would still think of it as being worth more than being thrown away and amounting to nothing. And there are so many, many “unnecessary embryos” being tossed away that we wouldn’t need to create new ones exclusively for the purpose of research, which is what I believe you are implying is immoral.

Let me now ask you: if embryos have souls, would you ban fertility clinics because they throw them away like so much trash at the end of the day?

FWIW, the measure passed, and it is now legal in Michigan to conduct the research.

@critter,
Let me remind you that chutter had the arrogance to tell me that I am no Christian, and that he was—and, moreover, that he knew what the point of Christianity was, and that he got it and I didn’t. After evading my every attempt to get him to tell me what this point was, he decides he wants to leave the discussion in a fit of pique. And I remark, to the effect that he is all talk and no substance. And now you accuse me of not responding to his “arguments.” I’ve got to tell you that your fallacious reasoning is utterly breath-taking.

By the way, simply calling my arguments “flawed” is by no means answering them on their merits. If you follow the links in the long post above, you will find ample evidence in support of what I am talking about.

“Mainstream Christianity is the same thing as born again Christianity.”

No, it most definitely is not. The vast majority of Christians are not Evangelical. They do not believe in the necessity of a second baptism, the literal inerrancy of the Bible, the doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, or in having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ whom they declare their Lord and Savior. This is a distinctly 20th Century American Protestant movement which goes back to the religion of the white slave holders in the Old Confederate South. But don’t take my word for it, check out the conservative historian Kevin Philips who ties this all back to the Neo-cons and our adventures in Iraq. You might also want to check out Greg Palast for a second confirmatory source.

“Your argument regarding stem cell research is obviously acceptable in your eyes, but if we were to believe people had souls like many do, wouldn’t this soul likely exist from the conception of that being and not once the child pops out of the womb.”

What we are talking about here is a 3-day old embryo which consists of a mere 150 cells. To put that into perspective, the brain of a fly has 150,000 cells. So, every time you swat a fly, you cause over 1,000 times more damage. But, somehow you find it logical to assume that this nearly invisible speck of goo has a human “soul,” and should therefore count as a full living human being.

Never mind the fact that there is no way to know if or when an embryo acquires a soul. This is purely a matter of religious conjecture. Indeed, before 1960, nobody believed that human life began at conception. For millenia before then, people believed that life began at the quickening—i.e., the point in time where one can first hear an embryo’s heartbeat.

Nonetheless, you obviously think that your religious beliefs take precedence over everyone else’s. Indeed, you are willing to deny people the fruits of stem cell research even though it condemn them to death—because you think you have a right to force national policy to conform to your religious beliefs. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans find this sort of religious meddling in conflict with their interests, and are taking every opportunity to say so.

“According to the office of national drug control policy 30% of the murders that took place in the US in 2006 were done so while the murderer was on drugs.”

The percentage is even higher for people on alcohol. Does this mean that we should take away everyone’s alcohol just because some people can’t hold their liquor? Do drugs or alcohol cause people to commit murder? Of course not. The vast majority of murders are committed at home by people who are related to their victims. Sure, drugs and alcohol can exacerbate people’s conflicts, but is not a rational reason for taking them away from everyone.

“The amount of money we spend on controlling drugs in my opinion is worth every penny.”

You have got to be kidding. We spend over $50 billion per year on drug Prohibition, and it has absolutely no effect on levels of drug use or on drug prices. You can’t even say that the 2 million people in prison on drug charges are prevented from taking drugs. Drug prohibition is widely recognized by anyone familiar with it as a completely failed policy. Drugs are now purer, more available and more profitable than they ever were, thanks to black markets created by Prohibition. Prohibition overloads our courts, corrupts our police and out justice system, and creates virtually irresistable opportunities for organized crime.

In California, the University of California and State College systems have just announced that they will be admitting 10% fewer students this year because the prisons are jammed to the rafters with drug offenders, and they have taken the money.

” Personally I don’t believe anything I stated above to be irrational.”

And that’s exactly the problem.

Do people have a right to hold ridiculous and irrational opinions?

Yes, but the answer changes depending on whether those opinions manifest themselves into action (eg. circumcision, child brides, bigotry, caste systems, etc..).

Are you obligated to accept such opinions as legitimate and valid?

They may be valid as opinions (they are an opinion) but invalid in regards to accurately representing the world as we know it. So it depends on what is the thing being considered as valid.

Are all irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect?

If one argues that people have a right to their opnion, then that goes for the holder of the opinon, as well as the person judging those views. So the answer to the question is no, respect is a judgement that all of us are free to give or withhold on our choosing. I respect people’s right to believe nonsense, but I won’t respect the nonsense.

Are all such beliefs worthy of belief?

I don’t think so, but I’m in the minority. I don’t fathom why people seem to be more certain about some things that they have no evidence for, and deny other things that have overwhelming evidence (eg. young earth creationism).

Does faith excuse irrationality?

Faith is irrational.

Should ridiculous opinions and beliefs be ridiculed?

Great question. The easy answer is no, but I think that’s incorrect.

I think of this as a continuum with the ideal situation one in which all ideas are challenged openly as politely as possible without watering down the message.

If I hold a view that someone thinks is ridiculous, then several possibilities exist. Either my views are justifiable, or they have misinterpreted my views, or their interpretation is correct and my views are unjustifiable (perhaps a better word than ridiculous). In everyone of these cases both of us gain by having a discussion far more than keeping quiet.

So the ideal situation is conversation in which no subject is taboo and all ideas can be challenged. If they are valid they will survive and if not, bye bye.

So is silence better than ridicule. I don’t think so. Ridicule is an unpleasant and often unsuccessful way of challenging a view. Perhaps in some cases it is better than silence, but only if it leads to discussion.

Of course this answer is entirely context dependent and i can think of cases whether silence triumphs over ridicule or when ridicule triumphs over silence. For instance, in the book Freakonomics the authors highlight how Stetson Kennedy used the radio show for Superman to parody the practices of the KKK. This was pure ridicule and it worked a wonder if you believe the authors at disempowering the KKK.

Ridicule is powerful (think of Stephen Colbert’s White House Correspondent’s dinner speech to Bush) and such power can be used for good or for bad…so it’s context dependent.

So I certainly think there are cases for ridiculing ideas.

Are religions above criticism?

They are in some societies, and they used to be in most societies. And I woudl find it a nightmare to live in any such world.

Anything above criticism is bloody dangerous because criticism is what enables people to challenge power structures. Absolute power quickly accumulates anywhere certain ideas are held to be beyond reproach. Church authority on issues of morality for instance.

Challenge everything.

@Critter38 – The most recent prophet of God would agree with some of what you are saying.

The heaven of divine wisdom is illumined with the two luminaries of consultation and compassion and the canopy of world order is upraised upon the two pillars of reward and punishment.
(Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 126)

Take ye counsel together in all matters, inasmuch as consultation is the lamp of guidance which leadeth the way, and is the bestower of understanding.
(Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 168)

and I thought Michael Potay was the most recent prophet…, or was it perhaps Oyasama, or perhaps Ellen G. White, or Thomas S. Monson, or maybe it was Joseph Smith, Jr.

So how do you actually know when someone is or is not actually a prophet?

For instance, you sound quite certain with regards to Bahaullah being in communication with a supernatural being.

Is it true that he thought that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is between a man and a women? Is it true that women are not allowed to serve on the highest Bahai religious court?

If so, then do we assume that these are an accurate reflection of god’s views, and god is a sexist, homosexual bigot.

Or perhaps an alternative explanation might be that Bahullah was just another philosopher with delusions of supernatural grandeur, who despite his advancements on Islam, couldn’t quite shake the cultural and historical shackles of prejudice.

On Women

For Baha’is, the achievement of full equality between the sexes is one of the most important though least acknowledged prerequisites of peace.

The emancipation of women is viewed by Baha’is as an evolutionary process, requiring sufficient time to shed long-held traditional attitudes and adopt more unifying patterns of life. Baha’i communities at all levels—local, national and international—encourage this process through programmes and activities to advance the status of women.

Baha’i institutions encourage the full participation of women in every aspect of community life, including development planning and decision making; promote equal education for girls and boys, as well as social and economic development projects to meet the needs of women; and foster sexual equality both within the Baha’i community and in society at large through communications media and through a wide range of activities, including conferences, women’s consultative groups, seminars and workshops.

—

“With regard to your question whether mothers should work outside the home, it is helpful to consider the matter from the perspective of the concept of a Bahá’í family. This concept is based on the principle that the man has primary responsibility for the financial support of the family, and the woman is the chief and primary educator of the children. This by no means implies that these functions are inflexibly fixed and cannot be changed and adjusted to suit particular family situations, nor does it mean that the place of the woman is confined to the home. Rather, while primary responsibility is assigned, it is anticipated that fathers would play a significant role in the education of the children and women could also be breadwinners. As you rightly indicated, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá encouraged women to ‘participate fully and equally in the affairs of the world’.”

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, August 9, 1984: Ibid)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 626)

—
In regards to homosexuality, yes it is prohibited in the Bahai dispensation, as is Alcohol, congregational prayer (except for the dead), Preisthood, Idleness, sloth, etc… That said, I know of gay Bahai’s and have a good friend who is gay. The progression of humanity is slow moving and I think the recognition of the equality between man and woman is a huge step that is still being realized across the world today.

For 150 years ago, Baha’u’llah was pretty advanced in his thinking considering the society at the time. Prejudice is something that has built up over a long time and has helped to provide a counterpoint to true unity and acceptance, so maybe it can only be erased a little at a time.

But to say that the prophets’ messages are an accurate reflection on God’s views is an attempt at putting God into a simple box. There are timeless spiritual truths that have been reflected though the words of the prophets for thousands of years and then there are cultural messages intended to help move humanity towards those spiritual truths.

Don’t assume that this is the last message from God and don’t assume that humanity has reached a point where we could be accepting of the spiritual truths without the cultural messages.

As for the people you mentioned above:
Oyasama had her revelations in 1838, Baha’u’llah declared his mission in 1844
Joseph Smith died the year Baha’u’llah declared his mission
Ellen G White never called herself a prophet
Thomas S. Monson seems to be referred to as an apostle, but not a prophet

However there are greater and lesser manifestations that spread God’s message. The greater ones are the 9 prophets around whom the world’s major religions have been formed. The lesser manifestation appear from time to time, but what they do is to reinforce the messages of the prophets.

I think of it along the lines of a collective subconscious in which we are all wading. The prophets are fully submerged in that stream and are able to share their revelations. Others are also in the same stream and every soul’s goal is to be submerged in the oneness. So it would be perfectly natural to find other souls who are also able to connect with that deeper knowledge, though maybe not to the extent of the prophets.

If you have to be religious, you can certainly do worse than the Bahai faith. It’s just seems so fundamentally counterproductive to put anyone on an unassailable pedestal. Instead of readily dismissing those parts of his views which were obviously flawed and merely the product of passing on the homophobia prevalent in his day (as we do with any other philosopher or social reformer), his claims of prophet status result in the placement of unnecessary and often timeless authority on his every utterance, no matter how banal or bigoted. Hence the unecessary perpetuation of these views within the Bahai faith.

Unfortunately we both know that some homosexual teenager right now is trying to reconcile perfectly natural feelings for his or her own sex with those teachings.

Bigotry maims and it kills, and I think the world can only benefit if we label it honestly wherever we find it and condemn it without qualification. There is no excuse for the Bahai religion to perpetuate such prejudice among their members, or for the members of this religion to allow such prejudice to continue within their faith.

Actually, it was my gay best friend who introduced me to the Bahai faith 15 years ago and reminded me of it again this past year.

But i know what you mean.

Do people have a moral obligation to be rational? No.
———————————————————————————————————————
Do people have a right to hold ridiculous and irrational opinions? Yes.

Are you obligated to accept such opinions as legitimate and valid? No.

Are all irrational, nonsensical and ridiculous religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect? No.

Are all such beliefs worthy of belief? No.

Does faith excuse irrationality? Yes.

Should ridiculous opinions and beliefs be ridiculed? Absolutely.

Are religions above criticism? No.

This question reminds me of The End of Faith by Sam Harris. He pretty much asks the same things you just asked, and he posits a resounding NO as his answer. I question all religious activity. Tradition is no excuse for harming someone else in any way, shape, or form.

@jaketulane
I just took a look at the reviews on the book you mentioned at Amazon.com and I got the impression that Harris would agree that we have a moral obligation to be rational, and that faith does not excuse irrationality, etc.

Sounds interesting, thanks.