[split] YOU! - rational/irrational discussion.

[lrh9]

Maybe rational and irrational just cause a fallacy. Maybe there can be a spectrum of points. Believing because of empirical evidence is definitely rational. However, a proposition without evidence (which you define as irrational) may be plausible or implausible. So instead of rational/irrational, how about rational/plausible/implausible?

[Edwardo Piet]

If there's no evidence how would it be rational to believe?

Assuming there is of course, NO evidence for "God" - it is therefore IRRATIONAL to believe in him. To go ahead and believe in him anyway then would be to believe 'on faith.'
That would be: Believing 'on faith' (IOW without evidence) and it would be IRrational.

If it WAS rational then there would be evidence.

If there WAS somehow evidence for God then it would be RATIONAL to believe in him. To believe in him then would NOT be 'on faith' because there would be evidence.
THAT would be: Believing WITH evidence and it would be RATIONAL.

If it WASN'T rational then there would be NO evidence.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Reason works better than evidence as evidence is far too strict.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean a philosophical argument (and that alone) would be enough to call a belief in something rational ... if that is so then no it is not, IMO, sufficient.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I say a belief is rational if there's reason to believe that a belief is actually TRUE. And if there's reason to believe that a belief is actually TRUE then those reasons would IOW equate to evidence OF the truth of it. Because if there ISN'T evidence that it's actually true then you COULDN'T HAVE reason TO believe it's actually true because reason to believe it's actually true would IOW equate to evidence (and cancel out the faith, making the term 'rational faith' an oxymoron.).

EvF

[lrh9]

Say I meet some Joe on the street. He tells me his name is George. I believe him. Am I irrational for believing him without requiring a driver's license, social security card, and birth certificate? I'd say no. I believe him because him saying his name is George is plausible. It's plausible because:

1) George is a name that has been used before. Therefore it is plausible that his name is George.
2) He is a person. People generally have names. Therefore it is plausible that he has a name.
3) I've just met the guy. Therefore it is more plausible that he is telling me the truth than it is that he is lying.

Therefore, since it is highly plausible that his name is George, me believing him when he says his name is George is rational.

[Darwinian]

Say I meet some Joe on the street. He tells me his name is George. I believe him. Am I irrational for believing him without requiring a driver's license, social security card, and birth certificate? I'd say no. I believe him because him saying his name is George is plausible. It's plausible because:

1) George is a name that has been used before. Therefore it is plausible that his name is George.
2) He is a person. People generally have names. Therefore it is plausible that he has a name.
3) I've just met the guy. Therefore it is more plausible that he is telling me the truth than it is that he is lying.

Therefore, since it is highly plausible that his name is George, me believing him when he says his name is George is rational.

Superb example. Exactly my point.

[Darwinian]

Reason works better than evidence as evidence is far too strict.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean a philosophical argument (and that alone) would be enough to call a belief in something rational ... if that is so then no it is not, IMO, sufficient.

Kyu

Your wrong

Well, you're right as well. Reason works better than evidence in the argument I was having with EvF about whether Rational Faith was an oxymoron or not.

He was saying belief without evidence was irrational and I was saying it wasn't and suggested that it would be better to say that belief without reason would be a better statement...

[Kyuuketsuki]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean a philosophical argument (and that alone) would be enough to call a belief in something rational ... if that is so then no it is not, IMO, sufficient.

Your wrong

Actually you're wrong ... well grammatically at least (it's "you're" lol)

Well, you're right as well. Reason works better than evidence in the argument I was having with EvF about whether Rational Faith was an oxymoron or not.

He was saying belief without evidence was irrational and I was saying it wasn't and suggested that it would be better to say that belief without reason would be a better statement...

Belief without evidence (and especially in spite of the evidence) is irrational.

Kyu

[Darwinian]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean a philosophical argument (and that alone) would be enough to call a belief in something rational ... if that is so then no it is not, IMO, sufficient.

Your wrong

Actually you're wrong ... well grammatically at least (it's "you're" lol)

Well, you're right as well. Reason works better than evidence in the argument I was having with EvF about whether Rational Faith was an oxymoron or not.

He was saying belief without evidence was irrational and I was saying it wasn't and suggested that it would be better to say that belief without reason would be a better statement...

Belief without evidence (and especially in spite of the evidence) is irrational.

Kyu

Again, it depends on how you define and use the word evidence.

Would it be irrational of me to believe that you are male? After all, I have no actual evidence that you are.

[Edwardo Piet]

Say I meet some Joe on the street. He tells me his name is George. I believe him. Am I irrational for believing him without requiring a driver's license, social security card, and birth certificate? I'd say no. I believe him because him saying his name is George is plausible. It's plausible because:

1) George is a name that has been used before. Therefore it is plausible that his name is George.

So if his name is George and this is indeed reason to believe that his name IS George then this IOW counts as SOME FORM of evidence.

2) He is a person. People generally have names. Therefore it is plausible that he has a name.

See above.

3) I've just met the guy. Therefore it is more plausible that he is telling me the truth than it is that he is lying.

See above.

Once again: Rational reason(s) to believe (which is what you are suggesting), if indeed his name IS George IOW equate to evidence. Rational reason to believe in something that indeed does hold true=Evidence.

Right? Evidence in it's most basic definition is anything that gives credence to the truth of a belief. Right?

Therefore, since it is highly plausible that his name is George, me believing him when he says his name is George is rational.

Well if it IS indeed a rational reason to believe him and holds true then it counts as evidence...

If it turns out he was lying you were believing him with no good reason to. You may have THOUGHT you had good reason, but you didn't and you were believing 'on faith' on THAT instance which is irrational whether you are a rational PERSON or not. Right?

Once again, see above responses to these quotes.

Belief without evidence (and especially in spite of the evidence) is irrational.

Kyu

Exactly. Because that's what evidence is FOR! Lol. It's what it is all about! For giving credence to the TRUTH of a BELIEF :p Right?

EvF