Common Misconceptions About Rationality

Common Misconceptions About Rationality
1. Supernatural Claims are Irrational
2. If something does not have evidence, it is irrational
3. Subjective Morality is Wrong
4. There has to be one source

1. Supernatural Claims are Irrational

Premise: An idiot told me this

Counter Example: If I make a simulation, and make the characters have life, the characters in the game themselves cannot see me, unless I make an interface with them. But a world beyond theirs exists.

Explanation:

2. If something does not have evidence, it is irrational

Premise: I found this on reddit, an it is similar to Case 1

Counter Example: One can see dreams, and they won't be able to prove that they saw it to anyone. Also, one can feel pain in their body, and not be able to prove it to anyone. Also, one can be slapped by a person, and they may not be able to prove it to someone else.

Explanation: One can hold a belief that is unreasonable without having to explain it in terms of known parameters. If one has a supernatural experience, or even personal experience, for example, a dream, it is in one's personal space. The claims only become irrational if someone claims that it should be applicable to someone else who does not subscribe to this idea, or if it violates any known rational principles.

Lack of evidence is not a violation of an established rational principle. The most important principle here is that the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. So if someone says that they think there is an invisible dragon, but they do not say that you should believe it, they do not have to prove it to you. But if you wish to call them a fool by saying that there is no dragon, the burden of proof lies on your end.

3. Subjective Morality is Wrong

Premise:

Counter Example: If people with a mental disorder believe in some things, I do not have to believe the same things they do.

Explanation: In order to say that morality is objective, one has to define what morality is. It is the sense of what is good and bad, by a person. In order to sense something as good or bad, a person should have self-awareness. But feelings of self-awareness alone will only let a person make decisions that are important to themselves. In order to build a society, the beings that make up the society must be sentient, and that means they should be able to understand each other as having the same qualities.

All humans have desires that can't all be fulfilled at once, even by cooperation, because of natural events. So, people agree to cooperate upon a law based on their social norms, and those who violate it would be punished for the breach of trust. But since the norms are what apply to the most number of people, the concerns of the minorities will always go unnoticed. It is not that a law inclusive of them cannot be made, but that it takes time for us to incorporate all nuances into any philosophical model. This is exactly why science is incomplete, and is only understood better over time.

But if the law is considered as divine in an attempt to standardize it, it prevents any further improvement of the law to suit other people, thus ensuring that the law that the powerful majority followed at a moment in time would become the law. For this reason, it is not morally rational for a community of sentient beings to accept the

If a law was narrated by someone, the authenticity of it would be verified

4. There has to be one source

Premise: Monotheistic People

Counter Example: Father of Wi-Fi