4 ms·
I agree with all of your post except the first sentence. I do not think this will be a popular post, but still I will try to articulate my disagreement in a re
by JonSkeptic 13y ago
I agree with all of your post except the first sentence.
I do not think this will be a popular post, but still I will try to articulate my disagreement in a readable manner.
People seem to confuse 'rationality' with 'scientifically verifiable' or at least 'based on scientific data'. Maybe this comes from the vantage point that beliefs and opinions not based in science are not rational.
From the standpoint of a logician, I disagree.
Can faith be scientifically tested, proven, or known without doubt: no. But I do not see how that precludes it from being rational. In general, many faiths and forms of belief are exceptionally rational if you accept their base assumptions.
Now that's a big IF. If you do not accept the basic assumptions of the specific faith, it will be forever in your mind 'irrational'. So can faith as a consensus be rational: no, not ever. Can faith be almost perfectly rational from a logic standpoint: absolutely, as long as you accept the base assumptions.
- jessegavin 13y agoI think this is an excellent perspective that deserves broad consideration.
- jwatte 13y agoYou seem to equate rational with internally consistent. I think the latter is necessary but not sufficient for the former.
- BruceIV 13y agoI agree with your logic, Jon. For what it's worth, the base assumption of the (materialist) atheist worldview is that the natural world is a closed system (i.e. no supernatural), from which it follows that science can (at least in theory) describe all of reality. This is a very lightweight assumption, and an easy one to make, but I would point out that it is also not scientifically verifiable, as all scientific data has to be interpreted as being the result of some natural law.