(June 20, 2009 at 6:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Quote:You don't get religion. Faith in a God that you can't prove. *shrugs*
I don't see how "Faith" defined as 'belief without evidence' can possibly be rational, no - it's totally irrational to believe in other things without evidence...why would it be different with God?
You're saying the same thing again. Let me put it yet another way for you:
So you're saying, categorically, that without evidence there is no possibility of rationality?
The rationale for faith is that there is no evidence. That's what you're asked to accept. You can't accept it. Fair enough. That doesn't make it irrational. That just makes you unwilling to consider it rationally.
Why shouldn't it be different with God? So what if that's a unique requirement? Does that make it any less valid? There are thousands of expressions of descriptions of the phenomenon throughout human history. Trying to belittle it as 'special pleading' is saying nothing is allowed to be unique. This dismissal doesn't carry.
You're asked to consider it so that you might understand what follows. To those that have tried it, it makes sense. It logically follows. It works out. You cry that you can't understand it whilst refusing to follow the logic. That makes you deliberately ignorant.
Belief is never certainty. Belief isn't like you believe you have an arm. You can know you have an arm. You don't have to believe it.
You're going to have to remove 'belief' from our vocabulary, along with 'faith', because neither make sense using your rationalisation.
Belief in God is just that. A trust. A faith. Why? Because we cannot know. Rational? It's purely rational, because it can't be evidential. We can't know, therefore we have to rationalise it and believe or not. As a result of that rational decision we cna take further logical steps. These steps form religious thought.