AJ113

Yes. However we may each have differing definitions of the term "rational person." My own definition would involve a person being generally rational in order to be classed as a rational person.

Or is this unsupported opinion a mere irrational belief?

Have you read my posts or are you just trying to be clever with words? NB. This is not a false dichotomy. It's either one or the other, pal.

AJ113

Well, I guess we're all dying to know: how can one be legitimately irrational?

Biff the unclean

So is it your claim that no rational person holds an irrational belief?
I once happened upon a friend and was startled to see a lit cigarette in his mouth.
"What's this? I thought you didn't smoke."
"Oh, I don't," said he, "I never have more than one a day. I'm a non-smoker."

If a person holds an irrational belief. And they know that it is irrational but chose to hold it anyway then that person is behaving in an irrational manner. If you behave in an irrational manner you cannot lay claim to being rational. Much like my smelly friend could not lay claim to being a non-smoker.

Or is this unsupported opinion a mere irrational belief?
Yes, because if you decide to believe something that you cannot substantiate you are knowingly deluding yourself which is an irrational act.

Lets take an extreme case--exaggerated just to make the point.
I have no idea who you are Nowhere357. I don't know if you are a child molester. I have know idea of how I would even go about finding out if you are a child molester or not. If I use Pascal's Wager I find that I can believe that you are a child molester or that you aren't…there are no other possibilities. If you are and I believe that you aren't that would place children in danger but if you aren't and I believe that you are then the children will still be safe. Therefore I should believe that you Nowhere357 are a child molester. Further as part of my concern for children I should go around the neighborhood ringing doorbells and spreading the news.
I did say this was extreme but if you look at the history of Christianity it's very mild. Take the Jews, they didn't kill any Gods no more than you harmed any children. But the Xians have unsupported opinions. Jesus existed-unsupported. Jesus was God-unsupported. The Jews killed him-unsupported.
Unsupported opinions lead directly to the murder of millions of Jews.
My unsupported opinion would have the whole town thinking you were a child molester.
Both of these cases I picked come to terrible ends which stress how irrational they are.
But suppose I pick an unsupported belief that doesn't hurt anyone. Say I chose to discount what my mirror says and believe that Pierce Brosnan and I are twins. I have no reason to believe this, but it doesn't hurt anyone and it makes me feel good. Does that make it rational? NO! I am deluding myself because I'm forming an opinion without any evidence to support it. To purposely delude one's self is an irrational act.

––The Unclean.....Biff the Unclean

Sabine Grant

Bonjour Bumble Bee Tuna... my post response was addressed to AJ113 as to establishing that Rational BAC cannot be a rational individual BECAUSE of his faith. That characterization is IMO a negative attribution of the overall character of BAC. Do you mean in this post that all individuals who hold a religious faith no matter what their position or contribution to society may be are by definition irrational the moment they harbor a religious faith ?
" he would start to deconvert"....do you imply that all individuals who do not hold any religious faith or have deconverted are then to be entrusted to be rational individuals no matter how they respond to daily situations? do you consider that a non theist serial killer is then rational by the fact that he holds no religious faith ? is the fact that a person has or does not have religious faith determine his level of rationality? please clarify.....

Sabine Grant

I think what BAC means is that the definition of faith in biblical terms does not call for reason to be what inspires faith. As a christian he is then justified according to biblical standards to not rely on reason for his faith.

Sabine Grant

Did you or did not you make that statement in which you in your opinion evaluate that BAC is disqualified from making any claims ( which he supported by using his personal life and accomplishements) about being a rational individual ? if so...what documented arguments other than his religious faith do you have to invalidate his claim that he can be a rational individual? are you dismissing his accomplishments as being the product of him using reason? please clarify....

Sabine Grant

Good point Mike... however some species will devore their younglings.....the weakling of a litter is often rejected and left to starve without the mother increasing her level of nutritional care. What do we have there? from which evolutionary function do those reactions come from? are you suggesting that instinct is what engenders love?

Sabine Grant

Yes... that was my very point in my earlier posts. Since reason seems to be the determining factor to evaluate the level of productivity of someone's thoughts, I questionned the outcome of reason as wheter or not it should lead to an ethicaly acceptable result. What is the purpose of reason Bumble Bee Tuna?

Nowhere357

Yes, I understand this point. I think it's loaded comparison, though.

Yes, this is what I thought you meant.

Your analysis has left out the existence of non-rational methods of reaching conclusions. We have "gut feelings" and "mother's instinct" for example. I list all such methods under "intuitive" belief, as opposed to "rational" belief.

It is not a priori the case that rational belief is superior to intuitive belief. When we are talking about rocks and trees and stars, rational enquiry rules.

But when we are talking about human emotions, intuitive belief comes out on top. Few of us make decisions about love, for example, from a purely rational viewpoint.

I think this is not necessarily correct. I know my kids are average, yet believe they are special. I accept these opposing thoughts as each correct in it's own light. These contradictory beliefs do not invalidate my rationality.

I'd say we are humans, and it is irrational to deny our humanity.

Nowhere357

This wasn't directed at me, but I'd say the supernatural either doesn't exist, or is undiscovered natural stuff. Of course our emotions are natural.

Absolutely. However, in my experience, when I feel compelled to help/protect others, rational justification is involved only after the fact. The "feeling" provides it's own justification, during the fact.

Doesn't this indicate that rationality is not our only tool, as we try to understand our existence?