[split] YOU! - rational/irrational discussion.

[Edwardo Piet]

But IF the reasons ARE valid because he IS telling the truth, then they're evidence of him telling the truth.

So in that case you would be believing with evidence - and rationally.

And IF the reasons are NOT valid and he's LYING instead - then they're obviously NOT evidence of him telling the truth (for a start - because he's LYING!).

So in that case you would be believing 'on faith' - and IRrationally.

EvF

I was with you so far, but this line of reasoning does not follow. What you are now saying that the one that believes his name is George is either rational and irrational due to what "George" does, even though the reasoning behind the conclusion has not changed.

Because if your reasons are valid then they are rational reasons and they are evidence. If they are NOT valid then they are IRrational reasons and they are not evidence so that is Faith. THAT is irrational.

Because the question here is not whether you are being rational or not as in whether your 'reasons' are 'most likely' to be correct or not. It's NOT whether the person in question is rational - it's whether the reasons themselves indeed ARE rational or not and whether FAITH ITSELF can be rational or not therefore. Evidence certainly can (and IS) - but the term 'rational faith' I believe is an oxymoron for reasons stated.

If the reasons ARE valid then they would equate to evidence - which is rational.

If they are not then they would NOT equate to evidence and be faith - which is IRrational.

If there are rational reasons to believe George then they'd have to give credence to him telling the truth - which would IOW be evidence. That would be believing with evidence and that would be RATIONAL

If you believe George when the reasons you have are completely irrelevant and DON'T give credence to him telling the truth then they of course WOULDNT' be evidence. That would be believing 'on faith' and that would be IRrational.

EvF