In Defense Of Rationality

Lately I have been accused by a few people, in email and in person, of “attacking” Christians and suggesting they are all “stupid”. Perhaps I should clarify myself. I’ve been writing this out in email and saying it in person, so I thought I should include it here just in case more people are taking me the wrong way.

I don’t think I’ve intentionally made any personal attacks on people who disagree with my position and, if I have, please point them out to me so I can correct them. That said, I’m not being politically correct either and I understand that. I think it’s time that the human race had this discussion, openly, honestly, and in public. Too much is riding on the outcome of it.

And I really don’t think I’ve suggested that people who believe in god are necessarily ‘stupid’ (although I’m sure some are). In fact I’ve said many times that the people who amaze me the most are the ones that are intelligent and well educated and *still* feel the need to
subscribe to bronze age mythologies about supernatural beings. I can understand peasants in the middle ages buying it. I can even understand modern uneducated peasants in the middle east buying it. But well educated, middle class people in the West? It has me mystified and, quite honestly, more than a little scared.

What I have said is that people who believe in religion are irrational and that isn’t meant as an insult. It is just a statement of fact. And here’s my justification. Tell me where you think I am wrong.

Rationality is, by definition, based on logic and reason. And religion is not based on such things. It is based on faith: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” Because faith is not based on logic or reason, it is therefore, by definition, “irrational”.

As I said before, if you think I’m wrong about the “irrational” tag, tell me why. Or if you think I have attacked anyone, show me how and I will promptly apologize.

I’m certainly not suggesting that changing anyone’s perceptions by force is acceptable. Not at all. But changing them through argument and debate is fine. In fact, that’s probably the only way. Issues like this should get debated strongly and people will, in the end, decide what they want to decide. But I *hope* more and more people, when presented with the facts, will agree that religion is an inherently negative force that is holding back humanity. 200 years ago, most people believed slavery was acceptable. Most people believed “blacks” were inferior to whites. Most people believed blacks and women should not be allowed to vote. There were all ideas which had been around since recorded history, subscribed to by Christians and religious people of all denominations, and most people subscribed to them. And they were fundamentally wrong and immoral by today’s standards. A small few fought openly against them and, eventually, public
perception changed. I believe the same thing will happen with religion. How long it will take, I don’t know. But I feel compelled to do my part.

I do believe religious beliefs harm the rest of the world – directly and indirectly. Direct examples are obvious (justification for oppression, war, violence, segregation, preventing scientific
progress, human rights, AIDS, etc). Indirectly, all religious people subscribe to what I believe in an inherently negative view on humanity. We are all born bad (sinners) because the God of the Old
Testament didn’t want Adam to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. He didn’t want him to KNOW. That’s such an inherently negative view on the human race. And then Yahweh told “his people” to murder anyone who didn’t believe in him and he took care of millions himself (flood, brimstone, plague, etc). THEN Christians believe he sent his only son (or came himself depending on which Christian you ask) down to earth to be tortured and murdered for reasons which escape me. And Christians somehow think this is all okay. I think it horrifying and to teach this kind of stuff to kids and tell them it is somehow “holy” and honourable defies imagination.

The other indirect way I think religion harms the human race is that is teaches people that faith without evidence is not only acceptable but preferable to searching for solid evidence. And that viewpoint has to hold us back from understanding the true nature of the universe. It slows down scientific progress, if for no other reason than there are millions of kids who grow up without a solid appreciation for the scientific process. One of those kids might have been the next
Einstein or Darwin or Da Vinci. We need all hands on deck if we are going to survive on this planet. Bronze Age mythologies aren’t going to help us figure out global warming, or preventing an asteroid collision, or the next mega-volcano eruption. Yes I know that Darwin was raised a Christian. Remember though that pretty much EVERYONE in the West during the early part of the 19th century and earlier was a Christian. To be otherwise was to make yourself a social outcast and, until at least 1800, put your life in danger. And yes, of course, some great thinkers broke through and managed to hold both thoughts (faith and reason) in their minds. They straddled the fence. But surely our chances of finding new Darwins would be better if people weren’t told
“believe without evidence” as well as “search for evidence”. They are incongruous thoughts. There is a good reason that the vast majority of scientists in the West today are atheists.

Yes, some of the leaders of the fight against slavery, etc., were Christians. Again, EVERYONE was a Christian until the Enlightenment and even today, 90% of Americans claim to believe in a personal God. But of course that also means that there were far, far more Christians defending slavery and those other crimes than there were fighting against them. How is that justified by the Christian community? Isn’t it true that until the mid-20th century, “Love Thy Neighbour” really finished “… if they look like you. Persecute everyone else.”? Take the American South. They went to war over the defense of slavery. And today they think of themselves as the Bible Belt. Don’t you find that slightly ironical?

When the Christians from Europe invaded the Americas, Australasia, PNG, NZ, The Pacific Islands, they justified the wanton murder of the indigenous peoples because they were “heathens”. Again, religion was the justification for wide-scale genocide. I think it’s pretty easy to see that, over 2000 years, Christianity has been responsible for far, far more murder and bloodshed than it has good works.

But hey, if you disagree, tell me how and why and I’m always listening.

37 thoughts on “In Defense Of Rationality

  1. This is all very lovely and persuasive… to a non-Christian. The thing with Christianity is that it seems like a good idea at the time. Most people don’t turn around in the middle of mass one day and go “this is absolutely ridiculous! What am I doing here?”. They sort of wean themselves off it.

    I didn’t really think about how irrational the whole Christianity thing is until this week with all of your explaining how irrational Christianity is podcasts/posts and I haven’t been Catholic in over 3 years.

  2. I haven’t read this post but my point is this. Any chance of splitting the Religion Debate into a separate podcast and getting back to the Tech and other matters?

    Personally I am finding that the Religion debate is getting very tired.

    JMTC
    molly

  3. Hey Cam… no raging debate or anything ok. But I respect the fact that you have clarified your position. I don’t think that you have intended to be disrespectful in what you have said. However, I do think that you have been unfair at times and been pretty hard on people. As you know I can handle a debate, some people take things very personally. Sure that is their problem but the collateral damage can be reduced by being selective with the language that we use. Remember what your mother used to say (mine did anyway) “It is not what you say it is how you say it”.

    I do agree that you have implied by the language you have used that “Christians” are stupid or irrational. I have felt that this language has been used to broadly describe a group of people. Implied or unintended, the very use of the terms in this manner are irrational and illogical. John Dickson was far from this reality of being stupid or irrational. However you do view their thinking as irrational. This is a very different way of expressing the same thing that you have at times appeared to have aimed at the “person” rather than their “thinking” or “beliefs”. But that said there are individuals that fail to see the difference and that *IS* their problem. Ignore as necessary in my opinion, if they can’t handle the heat get out of the fire.

    I for one have not felt personally attacked. But I *could* have perceived this in our debate. But I am a rational human being and I knew what you were trying to say. You are a very matter of fact person. In real life I am the same and it gets me in trouble. You have the luxury that this is your space and you work for yourself and it’s your blog and podcast which gives you freedom.

    By the way I think that the way you spoke with John Dickson was excellent. It was a far cry from other conversations I have heard on the show. You listened and questioned as I would expect but it was with respect and without the rant. Plus I think John was well equipped to answer your questions and inferences – like the reference to fishermen. You were so transparent when I listened – but John saw it and brought it to the surface and you responded in a rational manner. I admire that. I respect the fact that you are willing to listen and speak as well. Great to see and I think something I would like to see more of. You are a very well read and educated person (degree or no degree I have no idea), I want to see more of that and calm rational conversation. We have all heard the “rant” before… this is better.

    For what it is worth Cam I respect and admire you, there are few that would express their views as openly and honestly as you do. Your dedication to your cause and want for open debate is appreciated. Thanks and thanks for the honesty of this post.

  4. @Molly – I disagree, I think this is the perfect place for this conversation. I don’t know what Cam thinks his show is about. But in my mind I see it as like a current affairs (not the show) podcast. Cam is so random but I like the development and I have not missed an episode since it started.

    I want more about things like this. What about talking about the history of the middle east conflict which believe it or not dates back to the time of Christ and before. What about talking about the YouTube videos that were yesterday removed due to their anti Australian (values) message. What about talking to some great modern philosophers about how we think and psychology as it relates to the human condition and the state of the world, politics and religion. That IS G’day World in many respects.

    Cam might not have the same opinion and probably doesn’t but that’s what I am enjoying. There are heaps of Tech related programs here on TPN. (I know a good one…) But does G’day World have to be about tech?

    Cam, it would be good to hear your opinion on this.

    I like the evolution of the show. Sorry if this is contrary to everyone else that listens but it’s what I think.

  5. Mim – I don’t for a moment think I’m going to convince many dyed-in-the-wool Christians. I’m trying to provide rational arguments for the people sitting on the fence, who call themselves Christians because they’ve never really given it any thought. They’ve never read the bible, they don’t go to church, or give jesus any thought outside of Xmas Eve children’s hymns.

    Molly – no, expect a *lot* more of this interspersed with other stuff. Sorrry.

    Dave – thanks mate, yes for the moment GW is going to be debating this subject a lot, but not exclusively.

  6. after all, G’Day World has *always* been about whatever is on my mind and about changing the world. And right now there isn’t much interesting technology happening. Helping the majority of the human race to overcome major psychological and emotional problems is more interesting to me than talking about the latest web2.0 widget.

  7. Cam,

    Relax, relaaaaxxxxx, you are getting sleeeeeepy.
    *zzz*
    Repeat after me, you will give it a rest re religion, it’s getting booooring and hence detracts from your podcaaast.
    Ok, wake up now.

    Honestly, you’d think people have an irrational fear about being called irrational.

  8. I initially wasn’t going to say anything, because I don’t really have time for debates anymore and I doubted very seriously that you cared anyway. However, Dave Gray’s remarks helped me see that indeed you have been very open about this issue and so I offer this observation. You start off your post as a defense against the accusations that you are attacking Christians and then you proceed to talk about religion. You categorize the post as science vs. religion and then go one to talk about logic and reason. With all due respect, I believe you are mixing up your terms.

    First, I’ve been a Christian (by my definition) for almost 23 years, but I stopped being religious more than 3 years ago when I finally read the bible with fresh eyes and realized the only religion mentioned in the new testament was exactly what Jesus hated and fought against. So to the extent that you bash religion, I’m right there with you, in fact I’d even extend that to other religions as well, but I better stop there because that really is too politically incorrect. I agree that religion has probably been at the heart of every atrocity and the world might be a better place if it was stamped out completely. However, just because I claim to be a Christian, don’t group me with those whom you would bash.

    Second, you contrast faith and reason as if they are opposites. The bible defines faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” or in another place we are told “faith comes from a[n experiential] revelation of Christ.” To my way of thinking, faith is a logical reasoned response to unobservable experiential evidence. It’s not illogical or irrational. It may be unscientific in as much as science is based on observable evidence. However there are plenty of things that are unscientific that we don’t call irrational. Stock market trends, business decisions, taste in food, fashion, movies or hair styles, and possibly more parts of psychology and sociology than we would like to admit. Just because I disagree with the film critics doesn’t make either of us irrational. We just both experienced that same thing and drew different conclusions.

  9. Hey Sean. Interesting that you consider yourself not religious and yet a Christian. I’d love to know why you don’t consider yourself religious.

    Regarding your examples of irrational behaviour. I’m not sure why you don’t think that any conclusion someone comes to, without evidence to support it, isn’t irrational. That’s the very definition of irrational, whether the conclusion is that god exists or that Google’s share price is going down. If you don’t have evidence to support the conclusion, it is, by definition, irrational. Does that mean you may not be right? Of course not. It is possible that you might luck it in. But it doesn’t seem a very sensible way of making important decisions.

    Regarding the Bible’s definition of faith… “things hoped for”, and “a revelation of Christ”. It’s not the dictionary definition but okay. Hoping for something is lovely but, again, not a very rational way of determining truth. And I’m not exactly sure what a “revelation of Christ” actually means. He reveals himself to someone? I assume that doesn’t mean in physical form?

  10. There is more to life than Rationalists and Creationists. If you’re not Rational you’re not necessarily Irrational. There’s something in between. Let’s call it Sensible!!

    Science is just as faith based as Religion!!
    The first part of the Scientific Method is to Hypothesise. Come up with an idea or theory. That’s not a rational thing. You may set out to prove this hypothesis and make it rational, but your initial hypothesis is irrational, and faith based.

    The trouble with much of science is it takes a dogmatic “Rational” stance which doesn’t let far out wacky ideas into it’s realm, so science destroys itself, or “Scientists” who occupy the main ideas do.

    A drug company will hypothesise a drug is safe until proven otherwise, so their drug trials will extend outwards to say months or a few years. But you could hypothesise a drug is unsafe until proven safe and assume it needs testing over decades first. Both are valid uses of the scientific method, but it just shows how different perspectives can alter how you start out.

    Big Bang? If ever there was a faith based hypothesis then that’s it. Everything goes back to a singularity, all matter in a pin head, which suddenly exploded. Sounds a bit God like to me!

  11. Tony, I’m glad you said this, because it’s hearing rubbish statements like “Science is just as faith based as Religion!!” which has forced me to become more vocal about this whole issue. If that’s the kind of nonsense that people still believe these days, then as a society we are in a pretty bad situation. The fact that some Christians run around telling each other these things is just another example of why I believe it is a negative force in the community.

    Science is the OPPOSITE to faith. The scientific process is all about finding evidence to prove or disprove a theory. Science is always moving forwards, trying to disprove earlier theories, searching for new theories, trying to gather better data.

    Faith and religion only survive by IGNORING evidence and by desperately clinging to bronze age ideas. They are completely opposite ways of looking at the universe.

    Developing a hypothesis in order to test it against the evidence is a completely rational approach. It has NOTHING to do with faith.

    The “Big Bang” theory, again, has NOTHING to do with faith. I’d love to know who is spreading this kind of meme and how they get away with it.

    The Nobel Prize in Physics last year was awarded to two Americans last year for precisely measuring the faint light that revealed the seeds of today’s galaxies and superclusters. Which, according to MSNBC “affirmed the big-bang theory to even the most stubborn skeptics.”
    (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15113168/)

    So it’s about as proven as scientific theories get. The fact that I come across so many people (usually Christians) who are still completely clueless about this is totally bewildering. I’ve been wondering lately if it’s their fault for not being better educated about science or if it’s the scientific communities fault for not doing a better job at communicating these things or if it’s the fault of the media for not getting the word out.

    The difference, of course, between the big bang “theory” and god is that the first has overwhelming hard evidence to support it and the second has none.

  12. Molly, I have to agree with Cam as this as a topic on the show, it’s his show he can do as he likes. If his mind is taking it down this path and it gives him passion and interest in doing the show regularly, great! Like yourself I don’t care for the topic so rather than listening to 3-4 out of 5 shows I might be listening to only one, but that’s my choice. I have known for a while I don’t agree with Cam on everything, okay probably alot of things, but I always keep looking to see what’s going on.

    Not relgious, don’t care about it, but still lurking about.

  13. Science is the New Religion. And science often sounds like a new religion with its shrill blasts. And we’re supposed to believe this drug is safe because it’s been “Scientifically Proven” safe!!

    A scientist has a bias when they initially hypothesise. That isn’t rational. They will use that bias to prove something statistically, and many others will follow down that path. I’d call that faith based, not rational. Most of the scientific method is rational, it’s just that little bit at the front, when it comes to choosing what you’re going to hypothesise, that’s just a wee bit irrational and faith based.

  14. Tony – sorry mate, that’s complete and utter rubbish.

    Wikipedia:

    Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life.

    Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organised body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

    Don’t confuse pharmaceutical marketing with science.

    Scientists may have a bias when making a hypothesis, they may hope that it will prove to be true. But they don’t CONSIDER it true until proven. So they are completely rational. Hoping for something to be true isn’t irrational. BELIEVING something to be true when the evidence negates it, is irrational.

    Thomas – sorry you don’t find this subject interesting mate, but you *should*. The future of the human race could well depend on it.

    Ben – sorry if I lumped you into the bunch mate.

  15. Err not just pharmaceutical marketing. Were you present at the pin head exploding into becoming the Universe? Can you show me gravity? You can show me the effects of gravity, but where is gravity in a body? Light. It’s a wave. No, it’s a particle. No it’s a wavy particle. Well that’s useful. Thanks science. All faith.

  16. No, I wasn’t present at the big bang, which is why it is called the Big Bang THEORY. But the rational view is to say “well we have a LOT of evidence that supports the theory, so unless something comes along to contradict it, it’s probably correct”. That’s isn’t faith. Faith, according to the dictionary, is “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

    And the Big Bang Theory is supported by OVERWHELMING evidence. Therefore it is not faith.

    Gravity isn’t *in* a body. In 1915, in his General theory or relativity, Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter, and that free-falling objects are following the geodesics of the spacetime. Since then, we have gathered a lot of evidence to support his theory. According to WIkipedia:

    General relativity is currently the most successful gravitational theory, being almost universally accepted and well confirmed by observations.

    Light? Well I think you are referring to photons. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties; it exhibits wave–particle duality. I’m sorry if you don’t find such scientific facts “useful”, even though I know you live with the benefits of them every day. But even if you cannot appreciate why such facts are important, you still should not confuse them with “faith”.

    One more time for the slow people up the back of the class:

    Faith, according to the dictionary, is “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

    Scientific facts, such as the big bang, gravity and photons, are supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

    I don’t know why you still find this so confusing.

  17. So that’s it then. Science has discovered and rationalised everything, except Kurzweil working on a new brain and body for you.
    The issue is, if everything has been rationalised and proven, then who is going to disprove something.
    If it’s all Big Bang, then that’s that then.
    If breast X-Rays are scientifically proven to be safe, there’s no reason to change or improve the situation.

    Erm, I think you might need to do some more Wikipedia reading on Einstein. After his General Theory of Relativity he spent the rest of his life on a Unified Field theory, with the Graviton, “particle that mediates the force of gravity”. So don’t try blinding me with your blinding knowledge of science.

    Who is going to disprove any of this? Certainly not rational scientists, because it’s nice and neat and done. A dogma sets in which doesn’t allow or enable anyone (mainly by lack of funds) from going against what’s proven. A bit like Religion really!!

    You have to think far wider than rationalism to get new ideas and challenge current thinking, because if something is “scientifically” proven why would you challenge it.

  18. Actually after his General Theory of reletivity Einstein spent the rest of his life making a bit of an arse of himself amoungst the scientific community because he refused to accept quantum mechanics on the basis that God wouldn’t play dice. Which goes to show, even the wisest of men can make a fool of themselves by following faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.

  19. Tony – lack of funding might prevent all of the scientific research that should be happening at any one time, but don’t try to change the subject, which was your ludicrous statement that “Science is just as faith based as Religion”. Whether or not people CAN or DO challenge current scientific theories has nothing to do with whether or not science is based on faith.

    Mim, I think QM is pretty hard for ANYONE to understand and accept and Einstein struggled with it. As I understand it, even people working in the field of QM find it impossible to comprehend. But the mathematics just WORKS so they go with it. And from my reading of Einstein (and Dawkins goes to some lengths in God Delusion to point this out), the “God wouldn’t play dice” quote isn’t actually reflective of Einstein’s philosophy. He didn’t believe in god in any kind of personal, religious sense.

  20. Ok, I was going to let it go, but since you’ve brought up the faith thing yet again, I’m going to keep trolling.

    When you hypothesise that’s done from a belief, that belief is unproven, so what keeps you going, what drives you, is faith in your unproven hypothesis.

    That gap between hypothesis and rational proof is faith.
    And whilst we’re on Dawkins and Einstein, it was interesting to hear Dawkins backtrack on spirituality, when Einstein’s belief in spirituality was brought up, so not even Dawkins is quite as atheist as he makes out, when asked how he compares with Einstein’s spiritual beliefs.

  21. I disagree Tony. When you develop a hypothesis, it is merely an idea. A scientist doesn’t necessarily believe it to be true. It *may* be true but any good scientist will wait to see what the evidence looks like before ascribing a value on the idea. What keeps them going is the SEARCH FOR TRUTH. Faith has nothing to do with the rational search for truth.

    Not sure what you mean by Dawkins backtracking on spirituality.

  22. I disagree Cameron. A hypothesis may be merely an idea, but where do you go from there, and what drives the actions? And if every scientist just waited to see, then you’d give up after the first set of results proved negative. It doesn’t work that way does it. You keep trying until what you believe to be true can be proven. Oh there we go again….faith……which drives motivation to persist with something.

    I think we’re coming to the crux of where we disagree. You think a scientist doesn’t necessarily believe a hypothesis to be true (or false if that’s what they’ve set). I happen to think a scientist does believe their hypothesis to be true, and they use their faith to drive through on the research and work required to prove the hypothesis. Other scientists may look on the hypothesis and wait for the research results, but the scientist hypothesising, I believe to be biased and acting on faith , simply because the hypothesis is unproven.

    I’m now starting to repeat myself.

  23. The point though is that even if the scientist *does* think or hope that his or her theory is correct, they still don’t BELIEVE it to be correct until the evidence supports it. Religion, on the other hand, treats their mythology as true DESPITE evidence to the contrary.

  24. Big Bang accepted? The expansion bit maybe, but Big Bang states time and space started with the bang. Nothing was before. People do dispute that (eg brane cosmology/brane inflation). But I digress.

    So Cam, you have a theory that removing religion from the world will make it a better place. What will your scientific process be, in proving your theory? How are you going to test it? I don’t think you can test it (but I am all ears). So without the ability to test, isn’t your belief in your hypothesis irrational?

    You might say … hold on, my theory is perfectly rational. It is based on observations of the past and my process of reason. But then I say … hold on its not, I counter that removing religion will not change a thing, and that is based on observations of the past and my process of reason.

    But, its your hypothesis and scientific process demands you test or in the absence of, withdraw from the science forum and go back to school debating. So, if your theory is unscientific, aren’t you being irrational?

  25. ROFL! Nice one Simon. My theory isn’t that “removing religion from the world will make it a better place” – although that is certainly what I expect the outcome would be.

    My proposition is that rational thinking is superior to irrational thinking. I believe that is what philosophers would call a “self-evident proposition”. To argue against it, you would have to assert that irrational thinking is somehow more rational than rational thinking and that argument is self-defeating.

    The dismantling of the religious mythology of the human race would be just one of the beneficial outcomes of avoiding irrational thinking. It isn’t a theory that I am submitting. It would just be an outcome.

  26. What? Rational thinking is superior to irrational thinking? It ain’t that black and white. The two complement each other. Theres incredible power in irrational thought. Thats the type of thought that moves people/ideas forward in huge leaps.

    You oppose mediocrity, but I would say eliminating irrational thought is a path straight to it!

  27. ummm .. conceiving of a shell like structure for the Sydney Opera House, when no engineering discipline of the time knew how to build it? I gather it took them over 4 years to work out how to do it.

    4 years earlier (at the drawing board), I reckon some might have considered their efforts irrational.

  28. Ralph Sarich, trying to bring a revolutionary engine to an industry dominated by multinational incumbents? Is that rational? Leaving a well paid, secure job to pursue an entrepreneurial dream? Is that entirely rational?

  29. Sorry Simon, I don’t think either of those examples qualifies as “irrational” behaviour. As someone who left a well paid job to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, I can assure you the decision was made rationally, not irrationally. I cant speak for Sarich.

    So I think you might be mistaking taking calculated risks for being irrational. When someone takes a calculated risk, they do so after weighing up the evidence available and making an intelligent decision. That is entirely rational behaviour. No psychiatrist on the planet would classify you are irrational for making a calculated risk.

  30. I wouldn’t meld thought into behaviour. Having a thought doesn’t necessarily cast your behaviour.

    Karl Jung theorises on the duality in phsycology. He considers the rational/irrational balance. Irrational is thought not based on reason, but notes it shouldn’t be construed as illogical, or inferior.

    Wolfgang Pauli (Nobel Prize, Physics ’45) speaks of science coming to terms with the ‘irrational in matter’. He talked of quantum chance in atomic decay. An atom can decay in one day or 10,000 years. The particle’s behaviour is irrational. There is no reason why it would behave either way.

    My point is that irrational isn’t a dirty word. Its with us from the quantum level to the pshycological. Irrational thought has its place next to rational thought. Balanced of course, but its there.

  31. ROFL again. We’re discussing rational v irrational thinking and you try to throw QUANTUM PHYSICS into the mix? Cmon Simon!!!! For a start, sub-atomic particles don’t (AFAIK) think. Oh and they aren’t human. Again… AFAIK.

    Without reading exactly in what context Jung wrote about irrational thought I can’t comment except to say that, for the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about searching for truth. On one hand, we have science, reason, logic, facts. On the other hand, we have mythology, faith, belief without evidence, superstition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *