If a person is unsure of if his 'reasoning/faith' (as you put it) that is irrelevant to if faith can be rational or not in the sense that I am defining it...
Because the point is not whether his REASONING is rational or if he can really 'trust the evidence' if he can have 'faith in the evidence'...the point I am making is if FAITH ITSELF is rational or not...
And faith being defined simply as 'belief without evidence' is not rational. Because IF a belief DOESN'T have evidence then it IOW doesn't have valid reasons to believe. Because if there WERE valid reasons to believe then that would count as evidence (because that's what evidence IS - something that gives credence to the truth of a belief).
So no evidence=no valid reason=irrational. And since belief without evidence not only=irrational but also=faith because that's EXACTLY what faith IS; belief without evidence - the term 'rational faith' is therefore an oxymoron by THAT definition of faith that I am using.
EvF
Because the point is not whether his REASONING is rational or if he can really 'trust the evidence' if he can have 'faith in the evidence'...the point I am making is if FAITH ITSELF is rational or not...
And faith being defined simply as 'belief without evidence' is not rational. Because IF a belief DOESN'T have evidence then it IOW doesn't have valid reasons to believe. Because if there WERE valid reasons to believe then that would count as evidence (because that's what evidence IS - something that gives credence to the truth of a belief).
So no evidence=no valid reason=irrational. And since belief without evidence not only=irrational but also=faith because that's EXACTLY what faith IS; belief without evidence - the term 'rational faith' is therefore an oxymoron by THAT definition of faith that I am using.
EvF
