Nowhere357

I've shown why your definitions are inadequate - you have not rebutted my examples, and you have not shown how my definitions are "meaningless".

I can do this as long as you can.

Rational BAC

Hey---Y'all lost me a long time ago on this subject.

But if the mods are worried in any way (since I seem to be the subject of this very long discussion of essential rationality simply by holding a basic Christian belief and a very liberal and non literalist one at that).-------

----None of this bothers me at all. You all enjoy the discussion. I will look in from time to time to see how the debate is going.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Your definition of rational equates to "makes a majority of rational decisions". This definition makes EVERYONE rational, thus rendering the word meaningless. I've said this a few times, in greater detail, so I don't really know how you can say I haven't rebutted it.

OK, not "meaningless". But semantically useless. I can invent a word that means "having some color": colorous. Every object in the world is some color. Thus, while colorous certainly now has meaning, it would be a complete waste of time to say 'Well, that tree was colorous'. It's a useless word if it applies to everything. Your definition of "rational" does this.

My definition applies to a select few people, thus fulfilling its duty as a clarifying adjective. It doesn't apply to everyone, and that's the point. It sets apart two groups, allowing differentiation between the two. This is the point of adjectives.

The only way you have 'shown my definition to be inadequate' is to ignore part of it. But I guess maybe I'll have to repeat myself...

"A rational person might mistakenly make an irrational decision and regret it, but he won't make one and think it was good after the fact."

-B

Rational BAC

Shouldn't really get back into this one---but will throw this in just for kicks.

Methinks that Christianity is what really raises red flags for atheists.

So let us get away from that just to raise (or lower) the discussion to something somewhat meaningful.

Say I am a completely rational nuclear scientist or a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant -------but just happen to believe that knocking on wood brings good luck--or rubbing on a rabbits foot does the same thing ---or throwing salt over my left shoulder --------or any number of quirks that very rational people seem to have.

Does that make any of them essentially irrational? We are talking about very rational people on a very rational daily basis here.

I think Bumble Bee is way out on a limb here and does not want to admit that the limb is about to break and he will fall.

Nowhere357

Look, somewhere in this long thread someone said they can call a person irrational, if the person was generally irrational. That is the only definition I have used.

But you say "Yes, because nobody in the whole world is irrational in general."

So we're not talking about the same thing. We need to start over.

Do you see a difference between "irrational" and "non-rational"?

You admit love is not irrational. Does this mean it's rational?

I think we have two methods of "knowing" - logic and intuition. Reason uses both.

Bumble Bee Tuna

No, I don't see a difference between irrational and non-rational, yes, love is either rational or irrational depending on the relationship is question, and intuition is not a way of knowing at all. Logic is the onyl way of knowing things, intuition is a way to think you know something when you don't. Reason never usees intuition, because intuition is entirely unhelpful. It's sometimes right, it's often wrong. It's the equivalent of a guess, and reason is the process you use when you don't want to guess.

So you want to start over? OK, I'll start.

To be rational, one must always try to make rational decisions, and regret it when he/she fails at that goal. A rational person would never make an irrational decision and admit it was irrational, yet be proud of it.

This is how I interpret the word "rational", because it is the only way I have been able to give the word any meaning.

-B

BadBadBad

I think you are irrational with respect to your religious beliefs. Why not admit that, just like you might admit that any of the following might be irrational: playing the lotto, being in love with someone that's all wrong for you, being superstitious in other ways, or smoking, etc. Faith, is not defined as a rational process, so I don't know why you would have a problem with that. If you would admit your beliefs are irrational then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. Your screen name says otherwise, hence the argument. Let's argue over whether your religious beliefs are rational as compared to whether you are a rational person or not.

Tarnaak

Being that a belief system is a personal one, having the rationality of one's belief debated is IMHO ludicris. Sure it may seem irrational to some who don't hold the same beliefs, but as humans, we all make irrational decisions that seem rational at the time, but that does not make a person irrational, only makes that belief or decision seem irrational to others.

Reality also may differ person to person, I heard it once said that there are as many realities or dimensions as there are people. What is good for the goose, so to speak, is not always good for the gander.

Proof of reality when dealing with an individual, is based on the individual not the whole, unless of course the reality specifically involves the whole. Religion does not SPECIFICALLY invole the whole, simply individuals making up a group(s).

To say ones view on reality is wrong, must be proven in order to change that persons view on reality. Since there is no deterministic PROOF one way or the other in reference to religion, saying that religion is irrational is only banter.

Sure one can argue about religion or whatever, but it all comes down to the circumstantial evidence. Is there enough to change the mind of the person, and again, this will vary in degree based on the individual.

AJ113

Brett and Tarnaak:
With the greatest of respect, you both appear to have missed the point.

We are discussing rationality in general, as we have been advised by a moderator that to analyse a forum member's specific rationality within a thread is not fitting.

Nevertheless, the situation is thus:
If a certain individual ADMITS that his beliefs are irrational, and does nothing to redress this state of affairs, is it reasonable to describe that person as irrational?

Tarnaak

IMHO, no, in that as a person I'm sure he is rational. His belief system may be irrational, but that does not make "him" irrational.
This is speaking directly to him admitting that his belief is irrational, otherwise see previous post...