Of several definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith this one seems most relevant to the discussion:
Faith - "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." And http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationality Rationality - "the possession or utilization of reason or logic" Rationality is a methodology. It is a technique used to link a set of concepts together in a logical way in order to produce a reasoned conclusion. Rationality is based in boolean logic. I.e., if A is true and B is true then A and B are true. If A is false or B is false then A and B are false. These are simple rules that have a foundation in well reasoned arguments. Faith circumvents the rational methodology. In a faith based argument A can be true while B can be false. Yet A and B can still be true. I never said that the argument was simple nor did I say that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive. You can have any number of beliefs based purely on well reasoned arguments and any number of beliefs based purely on faith. But, due to its mutability, you can also have faith based beliefs that violate the rules of a rational argument. Theism and atheism both violate the rules of a rational argument in that they do not require that all predicates of the statement be true in order for the conclusion to be true. On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:35 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > I would argue that one Chuk. > > Faith can be rational and ones ratioanlity can be grounded in faith. > > I find it very hard to accept this or that mentalty. Nothing is ever > as simple as A, if not A then B. what of C,D,E,F and G? > > I reiterate that none of us are wholey rational and devoid of faith. > > On Apr 25, 4:48 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As an agnostic I have to reject this argument. > > > > First, agnostics don't make any statements. They invite both theists and > > atheists to argue their views. Any real agnostic will allow himself to be > > swayed to one viewpoint or the other if the argument in favor is > rational. > > So far, I have found no argument from either side that is sufficiently > > rational to sway my view. > > > > The relevant views aren't theism vs. atheism. They are rationality vs. > > faith. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It seems to me that of the three main competing stances, theism, > > > atheism > > > and agnostisism, that the first two must be based on faith because to > > > know > > > whether or not there is a god is such. Agnosticism is simply a > > > statement of what we all know and hence irrelevent and not at all > > > useful. > > > > > It seems that theists and atheists spend a lot of time disputing the > > > autheticity of their equally untenable positions. > > > > > Would it not be more useful to make rational comparisons > > > between theist gangs and secular gangs and then choose to join those > > > which are deemed to be the least damaging. This, of course, would > > > need to be a carefully defined study but perhaps worthwhile in that > > > it > > > would enable us to establish what is a useful or relevant gang and > > > whether or not it is likely to be > > > kept useful or relevant. You see, I am not sure how to keep democratic > > > gangs > > > useful. I LEAVE YOU TO DEFINE USEFUL OR RELEVANT. > > > > > Happy Easter to you all. Here in New Zealand this Easter Monday > > > coincides with ANZAC day. > > > > > Kind regards all.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
