Hacker News Reader

Comment by hotcrossbunny | Hacker News Reader

I think I could use a little help expanding no 19. "Be firm and constant in the exercise of rational religion. Considering he was a clergyman, whatever did he mean?

View on HN

The description of Reverend Sydney Smith in the article seem to indicate that he was an intellectual during the enlightenment period. Given that, I would presume that the phrase "rational religion" would mean religion interpretations that would not be in conflict with science and rationality as understood at the time.

I'm highly doubtful if he's referring to 'elements of religion that don't conflict with science'. That would be not until late 20th-century concern.

Englightenment values would have been familiar to many, but I don't think this would have been a big schism among even the elite at the time, with respect to their own faith.

My guess is that 'rational' could be replaced with 'rigorous'. Or possibly, 'rational' meant to include commonly accepted norms and practices (prayer, attendance) and not a lot of the more hyperbolic stuff that was gaining favor at the time (Spiritualism, the Occult) and other non-doctrine and pagan flavors of practice.

Is that like "Intelligent Design"? Where you apologize for religion by trying to explain away the contradictions with shaky logic?

It's more the opposite, "Intelligent Design" seems to be faith dressed up as science. While this would be more faith that doesn't contradict science.

So, you just freely abandon the parts of faith that contradict science? Then why call it 'faith'? Its just 'hunches'.

Are you implying that it is an important part of faith to cling to beliefs for which all observable evidence points to the contrary? It seems a bit hard to understand why one would want to pursue such a practice, so I wonder if I'm misunderstanding your point.

What a neat, concise definition of faith! Despite a cruel and unfeeling universe, to believe in a just God is exactly as you describe.

Yes, that is faith in a nutshell. Every attempt to 'reconcile' faith with science, compromises both and does no service to either.

I'm not a person of faith (not in a dogma anyway). But I can understand that to mean anything at all, faith has to mean a different thing than 'observable confirmation of nature'.

Interesting. I am also not a "person of faith", but I don't use that definition of faith. Most people I've known who value faith, do so in areas where they are not sure one way or another. Generally speaking, faith is something that provides comfort because it gives them certainty for things that are uncertain to the person -- especially for things that can not be proved or disproven. Sometimes I've seen people have a "crisis in faith" because they discover that something they believed to be uncertain (and hence a good candidate for faith based belief) turns out to be quite certain and not what they believe. Usually this is quite uncomfortable for them. Sometimes they are able to continue with their faith by shifting their interpretation of the thing they believe onto something that is still uncertain to them. Sometimes they struggle to find something that will throw doubt on the situation so that they can continue their faith. Sometimes they they abandon their faith. I've really yet to meet anyone who walks into walls because they have faith that they don't exist (or other equivalent situations). I'm absolutely sure that they exist, but I don't think they are very common to be honest.

Well, everybody that believes in truth, justice (and the American Way) is "walking into walls " every day. Its faith that some thinks you believe because they should be true. How does that figure into this?

"Yes, that is faith in a nutshell."

Perhaps it is for many, but it isn't for others.

The materialist view inherent in the antagonist's comments isn't necessarily the only rational view.

Materialism, for example, cannot even explain Life, or rather it seems to promote a mechanical basis for it, wherein a more metaphysical view i.e. that 'life is what is expressed through the material, not the material itself' is a pretty obvious opportunity for explenation.

To make the argument: "There is a God" as the basis for Religion, and then "There is only observable material" as the basis for 'Science' is I think wrong on both fronts.

There's quite a lot in between.

My own, personal view is that Spirituality is utterly rational, at least as rational as a materialist who wants to believe that you and I are merely random bags of particles, bouncing through the Universe, and that we're not really having a conversation, that we're two blobs of particles bouncing our 'fingers' of other blobs of particles, in a completely haphazard, random fashion.

I don't even think the Priest was referring to 'rational' in the sense that we might.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com