All belief is irrational by definition. Any idea can have some amount of rational basis, but to believe it you need to be irrational.
The big problem with politics all around the world is that every single party is based on beliefs and priciples, which obstruct rational decision making.
Sadly, to be a "man of principle" is still considered to be a positive property.
This comment mischaracterizes the nature of typical beliefs. We all have beliefs, and most of our beliefs are trivial, unavoidable, rational, and true. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. For that matter, I believe it rose today, though Tropical Storm Cindy has occluded it, from my point of view, behind wall-to-wall clouds. Someone might be supplying light above the clouds, but I don't believe it. I believe most of the time that there is money in my wallet, though a few times I have been grievously mistaken.
It is only a few highly select beliefs that are merely a matter of opinion, where evidence plays no part whatsoever. Beliefs about life after death and the existence of various gods fit in here, and I for one neither accept nor reject them. But this regime of thought is not confined to metaphysics. I believe (as a consequence of the law of the excluded middle) that there either is life on Jupiter or there isn't. But with no evidence, I neither believe that there is, nor do I believe that there isn't.
I respectfully disagree. So you worship Science and believe that this god 'Science' created the universe in the 'big bang'? Sounds alot like you think that your viewpoint should steer public policy.....especially what kids are learning in school. I personally spent the first 21 years of my life thinking the EXACT same way that you do. I found a better explaination. Jesus the Christ (just hearing His name used to make me cringe). Just because my evidence is mainly experiential and (arguably) not empirical, doesn't mean its not valid.
I am with the opinion that the main cause of resentment and anger for most people simply comes from the act of believing in something (the same can also be said for 'not believing' in something – which is to say one 'believes' that some things are 'unbelievable').
I think it's more a question of HAVING beliefs vs. NOT HAVING beliefs.
Now the catch is, if you HAVE beliefs (or HAVE 'not beliefs'), you make yourself susceptible to manipulation (by the bureaucracy, other people, etc.). Whereas, NOT HAVING beliefs – if that is at all possible – well, no anger, no manipulation. But i just can't imagine...
I'm reluctant to get into a protracted debate over the proper scope of matters of faith in society. But, yes, I think public policy should be guided by a study of empirical evidence. If for no other reason, then simply because that position does not require such policy to favor, or even acknowledge, any particular position on matters that are not subject to empirical analysis.
There is something very amusing about people attempting to apply logic and reason to explain why someone else's reliance on logic and reason is deeply flawed.
"You should believe me when I tell you that beliefs are arbitrary."
Sure.
Some cultural-difference-feedback. In the Netherlands, there is a pretty good separation between state and religion. It is also much less openly christian than the USA. Everyone can believe all he wants as everything is the same anyway. Except if you're christian, as that is just Not Done. Because if you're christian you tend to exclude the rest. Ah well, consistency...
I can't say I agree with the stereotypical 6x24-hours-creation Bush-voting guys and galls on your side of the big pont, but I'm equally amazed at the vehemence which comes ones way if one mentions that the possibility that hard-core-type evolution took place is soooo small that it would be regarded as zero in any other scientific field.... Man, just mentioning that gets you a reaction worthy of the Spanish Inquisition.
Anyway, good luck dealing with Bush and his evangelical agenda. Make sure Bush gets his rightful place in the history books that come out in 10 years time [evil grin]. But please do leave a bit of respectful room for people who don't believe 100% in the High Church of Evolution.
Regards,
Reinout
Sorry to hear about the anger, sounds not-good. Wish I could suggest something useful.
Regarding your beliefs - I share them, all bar three:
2. Humans (often with the aid of tools) are extremely good at predicting the future compared to other species. Can you imagine a cat bungee jumping? Voluntarily?
3. MRI scans can be useful.
6. Who's death? Who's life? *
15. I suck goats ;-)
* I probably agree. I also believe those apostrophes are required.
Good at predicting the very near-term future, perhaps, but over what units of time? Seconds? Minutes? Electromagnetism is phenomenally useful, but an MRI doesn't actual heal anything. Fair point on life after death, though speaking only of my own, I still don't believe it. And on the whole chupacabra thing, Danny, that's just way more than I wanted to know :-)
A few observations:
First, I thought I went out of my way to make it clear that I didn't hold my beliefs in greater respect than anone else's. I certainly don't expect anyone to modulate their own beliefs on the basis of mine.
Second, I didn't mention evolution. I even resisted taking a pot shot at the Kansas Board of Education. That said, one would have to willfully ignore an overwhelming preponderence of evidence to conclude that evolution is, in any reasonable, practical sense, unproven. There might be a better explanation, but it's going to have to do a better job of explaining and predicting an enormous number of real world observations before it can be taken seriously. A critical distinction between science and faith is that such an explanation, if it comes along, will displace the current explanation.
And finally, on the separation of church and state, are none of its opponents concerned about their own welfare, about protecting themselves from religious persecution? Suppose they're successful. Suppose the federal government mandates prayer in school, requires that religious texts be posted in public spaces, manipulates public policy to favor a particular religious dogma, and withholds financial aid from organizations and individuals that do not espouse the "right" religious beliefs. Does it not concern them that, as a consequence of simply electing a different few hundred men and women to the legislature, their own children could be required to recite the prayers of a faith antithetical to their own? That they could see their own access to public funds withdrawn, their rights abridged, their own religious beliefs mocked and blasphemed?
I don't support a clear separation of church and state out of some personal, anti-religious sentiment. I support it because it offers clear protection against religious discrimination for all, not only for myself (and, yes, I consider my own atheism a religious belief that should have equal protection). Eroding that separation is not in the long-term best interests of anyone.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anger
found this to be useful reading whilst researching one day on the physical definition of anger....