And here we go again.
Indeed.
I thought I walked you through this and you ended up agreeing with me, but alas.
Even as an atheist and non-believer in any positive ontology, I had faith in humanity. But I couldn't ground it rationality. It can't be done, because there is no way to do that only rationally and/or with evidence. So even then I was irrationally according to your standard.
Sounds like it. But don't project your past irrationality onto me. I don't have "faith" in humanity. I proportion my confidence in what others are likely to do based on the available evidence (at least, I do my best).
So I checked hard once more and figured out that my faith in humanity grew when I became religious. Even that is irrational.
So far we agree. You used to be irrational, now you're irrational just in a different way.
But here is the problem with your position of only rationality and/or evidence. Neither works in the strong sense, we collectively in the western tradition have tried for over 2000+ years and the answer is found, it can't be done.
Your idea of rationality is an old Greek philosophical idea. It have even be tested by science and it doesn't hold up.
The methodology I'm advocating IS science, which employs reason. What are you talking about?
At best you can combine rationality with personal feelings or opinions, but brains scan have shown that for morality nobody can avoid personal feelings or opinions.
We weren't discussing morality. I made a very basic, straightforward, logical statement. We are confronted by a question, and it has only two possible answers: A and B. We have no evidence for A
or B. Therefore, it is rational to believe in either A or B?
You want the best for all humans. That is no just rational and/or with evidence. That is also personal feelings or opinions.
You want what is best for you as long as you can get away with it. That is no just rational and/or with evidence. That is also personal feelings or opinions.
We've been through this. The goal of moral systems is subjective. How well an action aligns with that goal can be measured objectively. Personal preferences are not inherently rational or irrational things, like preferring chocolate over vanilla. The fact that we have personal preferences does not justify doing things that are irrational.
I bet you have a morality or even maybe ethics. That is in part personal feelings or opinions. OMG, you are irrational.
Wrong again, see above. Personal preferences, in and of themselves, are not rational or irrational.
Well, we all are to a varying degree. You are doing a culturally transmitted idea, which in effect have been falsified by science.
I'd love to see how reason was falsified by science. Since demonstrating falsification requires the use of reason.
Just as you don't have to believe in God, you don't have to believe in your version of rationality. There are other ones, which fits the data better.
What other "versions of rationality" do you think there are? This would be news to all the philosophy professors out there.
You can't avoid relativism, personal feelings or opinions. That is how biological evolution works in humans.
I agree. That has zero bearing on my original point.
We are in effect derailing. Start a new thread or find other and give me a @, my follow human.
You may be derailing, I wasn't.
If we have no evidence for proposition A or B, we have no rational justification to believe either of them. We should avoid being irrational as much as possible.