Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, because the rationale could be defined by how much we participate with enthusiasm in our lives. Religious faith may not be the only way to get there. But religious faith is a way for many people to achieve a sense of having a divine purpose or calling in their lives. This divine purpose, hopefully in the service of others or the community, is a very fulfilling and satisfying way to live. It's changing the focus of your attention from a self-centered selfish perspective and reorienting your way of being to be in the service of God. A God who is out-there, perfect, infinitely good and loving, and something worth aspiring to be like.
But I don't care if it's comparable to anything else or not. I'm simply asking if it conforms to the concept of rationality---aside from serving personal needs.To me a fairer, less biased question would be, "Can religious faith ever be as rational as most speculative beliefs, religious and otherwise?"
And I'm not requiring religious faith to be rational. I'm asking. And from what I gather, you don't think it can be.For to require religious faith to be perfectly rational would set a standard for it that is unachieved by nearly everything human.
The same can be said, by definition, of emotions.That which is rational, by definition, is not faith. That which is faith is not rational.
If faith were rational, it would no longer be faith, but knowledge.And I'm not requiring religious faith to be rational. I'm asking. And from what I gather, you don't think it can be.
Can you put that into a statement, to clarify?The same can be said, by definition, of emotions.
Here's an example of rational faith I've used several times before:That which is rational, by definition, is not faith. That which is faith is not rational.
See post 11 above.If faith were rational, it would no longer be faith, but knowledge.
As in emotions are not created or sustained through the process of rational thinking. To think is often if not always described as oppositional to feel. When some atheists try and talk about the high value of rationalism they often come across as...well..Vulcan if you'll pardon the nerdiness.Can you put that into a statement, to clarify?
Is that though? You have years of driving experience but not years of interaction with that particular driver. They are a stranger you know nothing about but you're willing to make a lot of assumptions about their knowledge, background and character.Here's an example of rational faith I've used several times before:
"While driving I stop at a controlled four-way stop intersection. Just after I stop, a car to my left also comes to a stop. Now, from years of driving experience I have come to believe, not know, that the driver of the other car will recognize my right of way and let me go through the intersection before he does. So, operating on my belief, I trust, have faith, that this is what he will do and not T-bone me as I proceed."
.
Ironically the entire TOS premise was that Spock didn't grow as a character until he realized the utility of emotion and thus became more human.The utility of faith vs rational thinking is another matter.
Live long, and prosper.
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the expression.Is that though?
To clarify (I guess?), is that [an example of rational faith,] though?Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the expression.
.
Yes it is, But so what?The utility of faith vs rational thinking is another matter.