Should Religion trump Reason?

[McCulloch]

Why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment [with regard to immunization of my children] on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Should Religion trump Reason?
Why do superstitions get special treatment?

[JoeyKnothead]

From my understanding of religion, reason is Satan. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that the intellectuals, the free thinkers, and knowledge itself is to be spurned like the plague.

I see your subject played out every time I see someone 'lying for Jesus'.

[Sjoerd]

Cmon Joey, you're a bit overreacting here. You've heard Cnorman talking about his religion and I don't think that he would call reason Satan, right? Myself, I feel that my own reason and conscience are from God and I wouldn't accept anything that goes solidly against them.
As for the immunization issue, I feel that they shouldn't have allowed any religious exempt at all. The general interest is the interest of all children. If it is against the general interest to vaccinate, no one should be vaccinated. If it in the general interest, everyone should be vaccinated. If there is a big fire and everyone is ordered into a bucket chain, are you allowed to refuse for religious reasons? And no parent should be so stubborn to say that he knows better than all the doctors, unless he is a doctor himself.

[JoeyKnothead]

I have a childhood friend who has cancer. She is a great person, but she has decided to pray her cancer away rather than allow doctors to treat her. The church she goes to is very much into the whole laying on of hands deal. She is convinced their prayers are going to cure her. Her church had her stop all contact with me because I begged her to see a doctor. They told her I was under the influence of Satan, and to never speak to me again. Fortunately she emails me with updates. I am no longer allowed to visit her house because she doesn't want her people to know she still has contact with me. This is a girl I've known since childhood. I attended her wedding, I have babysat her kids. This is what religion can do to folks.

[Sjoerd]

I have a childhood friend who has cancer. She is a great person, but she has decided to pray her cancer away rather than allow doctors to treat her. The church she goes to is very much into the whole laying on of hands deal. She is convinced their prayers are going to cure her. Her church had her stop all contact with me because I begged her to see a doctor. They told her I was under the influence of Satan, and to never speak to me again. Fortunately she emails me with updates. I am no longer allowed to visit her house because she doesn't want her people to know she still has contact with me. This is a girl I've known since childhood. I attended her wedding, I have babysat her kids. This is what religion can do to folks.

Oh my God!!! I can completely understand your anger now. I don't know about where you live, but in my country you simply call the police and they will put those church SOBs in JAIL for keeping her away from properly medical aid. Pretending that laying on hands cures cancer is IMMORAL and ILLEGAL!!
I don't believe in Hell, but at moments as this I wish for its existence, with a special corner for frauds like these.
Joey, I wish you a lot of strength to deal with this situation.

[micatala]

Cmon Joey, you're a bit overreacting here. You've heard Cnorman talking about his religion and I don't think that he would call reason Satan, right?

In fact, I would guess that many more theist members of this forum would disagree with identifying reason with Satan than would agree.

As for the immunization issue, I feel that they shouldn't have allowed any religious exempt at all. The general interest is the interest of all children. If it is against the general interest to vaccinate, no one should be vaccinated. If it in the general interest, everyone should be vaccinated.

I should probably address this in the other thread, but I would say I don't see that we have to judge every such instance as "all or nothing". This seems a bit extreme to me. It would arguably be in the general interest of everyone if no one drank, or no one smoked, or everyone exercised strenuously for 3 hours a week, or a hundred other things. I don't think this necessarily means we should require everyone to not do (or do) these things.

If there is a big fire and everyone is ordered into a bucket chain, are you allowed to refuse for religious reasons? And no parent should be so stubborn to say that he knows better than all the doctors, unless he is a doctor himself.

In my view, there is a big difference between dealing with a raging fire and immunizations.

[micatala]

Why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment [with regard to immunization of my children] on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Should Religion trump Reason?
Why do superstitions get special treatment?

I know your quote from otseng does allude to a particular context, but I would ask, since you are asking the question in more generality, is there any limit to the context of these questions? Are we talking only on a legal or governmental policy level? Are we talking in complete generality so that this even applies, for example, to decisions about who to marry or whether to have children?

My answer to these questions would depend on the context.

[C-Nub]

I think the general atheist answer here is probably pretty predictable, but I like to feel like I paricipated, and I like new threads, so I'm going to jump in anyways.


I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me that something, anything at all, is a bad idea because of superstitious or religious reasons. If someone walks up to me and says 'murder is bad because it says so in the bible,' I'd still have to say that they're at least in part wrong. First off, that's too much of a blanket statement. Murder isn't wrong if, for example, you're a soldier, at least, society doesn't think so. I'd never be a soldier because I just don't go to 'killing people' as a problem solving method. Mercy killing someone who's in a vegetative state is arguably ok, as is, once again arguably, abortion or even murder in self-defense. In some places, it's ok to shoot someone for being on your property uninvited or minning for gold where they shouldn't. I happen to disagree with killing someone for burglary or tresspassing, but that's just me.

Murder is, under some circumstances, alright, and when it is bad, which is probably most of the time, that's not because its in the bible. It was bad before there was a Bible, and it will still be bad after we've hopefully disposed of the stupid, wretched little book that's caused so much trouble already.

The same is true of anything. Even a good idea is unsupported if your reasons are religious. You, and by 'you' I mean everyone, and not, say, McCulluch, who I'll single out for fun, have to be able to support any decision you make or moral stance you have with more than mysticism and mythology, otherwise you're lacking the foundation to have 'acceptable' conviction. The best you can achieve is ignorant passion, and while that can be used to good work and improve the planet, I won't deny that, it isn't as good as informed conviction.

Because if can support your convictions with the shared (if not quite universal) moral code of human kind, and we do all have largely the same basic values, then you can convince people to aid you in your cause, where as if all you have is God, then you can only convince people with the same God to help you.

Kind of a long winded answer, I think, but the end is clearly 'no, religious reasoning should never be allowed to oppose logic or rational arguments, especially not when dealing with matters of moderate to great importance.'

[micatala]

Why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment [with regard to immunization of my children] on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Should Religion trump Reason?
Why do superstitions get special treatment?

Would it necessarily be a bad thing for a person to sacrifice his life for the benefit of his or her child or another person based on their religious beliefs, where reason would probably dictate otherwise.

[McCulloch]

Why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment [with regard to immunization of my children] on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Should Religion trump Reason?
Why do superstitions get special treatment?

I know your quote from otseng does allude to a particular context, but I would ask, since you are asking the question in more generality, is there any limit to the context of these questions? Are we talking only on a legal or governmental policy level? Are we talking in complete generality so that this even applies, for example, to decisions about who to marry or whether to have children?

My answer to these questions would depend on the context.

I was intending that the point be about one's legal standing. Otseng has expressed a certain level of astonishment that he be exempt from following the law due to his own religious beliefs but he cannot get a similar exemption based on what he calls rational grounds. Is that the way it should be? Should "I don't want to follow the law because my invisible friend tells me that it is a bad thing to do" have more merit under law than "I don't want to follow the law because I can show rational reasons that it is a bad thing" ?