We hear a lot about being rational in religious debates. What is your definition of being rational? Does lack of belief necessarily mean one is rational? Is staying open to possibilities rational?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

To me being rational is to believe based on understanding. What seems to one rational is to another irrational, considering that understanding is simply based on giving enough thought to something in order to come to a "result". I live by the understanding that I am. Which leaves open to me all possibilities. Example: If a Doctor would tell me my child were incurable sick I would not accept what the Doctor says as absolut truth. I would jump up and down, while turning around, ringing a bell in my right hand and blow a whistle at the same time, if that is what I am asked to do. Is that rational to most? Probably not. But if the demonstration of a belief brings about the desired result, to me that is acting very rational.

I see it used two ways. First I see it used in the sense of "Now, let's be calm about this." Because religion can be a personal subject, its like asking the person to be politely objective about the subject for a bit.

The second builds on that. Rationality is a type of reasoning, specifially, hypothetical-deductive-peer approved. Now, what peer group has authority over what is usually where this method breaks down, and if you get one side or the other that has a claim to a totality of authority, such a method is not even possible. It should be noted this can occur on either side of the debate.

-TC

In any debate.


Using the faculties of reason, being consistent with what logic dictates within a conceptual framework of knowledge.


No.


Not always.

I am of the opinion that one should be rational in every kind of debate. Otherwise, there is no possibility of exchanging information, and without rational processes, we are reduced to simple conflict without hope of resolution.

Being rational, in my opinion, means pursuing meaning through an examination of all of the available evidence, through the exercise of such logical principles of deriving new information from old (which can include both induction and deduction), and testing the results against what is reasonable.

Being rational does not mean that one can't use other kinds of thinking. For example, most truly creative thinking is not rational at all. Reading Joyce's opening line, "'Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo..." doesn't smack of great rationality. However, this kind of thinking is not something upon which one can build arguments, or deduce further meaning. That's not what it's for. It's art, and it speaks to us in another voice, another frame of reference, often emotional. It's neither good or bad, right or wrong. It simply is. Many love it, many don't get it, many try, many don't care. So what?

Other kinds of creative thinking include invention. Now, this kind of thinking, for all that it may very often begin as non-rational, must eventually give itself over to rational thinking or it cannot go anywhere.

So in the end, rational thinking is the process of developing inferences, assessing those inferences for truth-value, and then continuing to develop and assess inferences which follow from previous inferences assessed as "true."

In my view, irrational thinking is a process of developing inferences and accepting them as true without critical assessment, and then building upon those inferences towards increasing unlikeliness.
All belief, even the most sacred of beliefs, must be held up to scrutiny. Even, I think, a lack of belief must be held up to some scrutiny, although much less stringently. If I say that it is my profound belief that there is an actual Gaia-Earth-Mother goddess living at the center of the planet, this would undoubtedly produce a great deal of skepticism among many. They would want me to provide some evidence for my belief, so that they can hold it up to scrutiny and examine it as a potential truth. (Many of these same people would accept without a moment's pause that there is a God who, while able to stop the tsunami that killed a quarter-million mostly-innocent people, didn't).

On the other hand, if I were to assert that I don't think there's a goddess living at the center of the earth, nobody would bat an eye. A few might say something like, "well, d'uh!"
Absolutely. In fact, it would be most irrational to close one's mind to possibilities, even those previously considered impossible. To close one's mind is the exact equivalent of saying, "I believe that there is NOT [whatever the topic is]." As a statement of belief, it now falls into my point above, that it requires scrutiny and rational examination.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Rationalism and logic is heavily emphasized in the dharmic religions of India, Hinduism and Buddhism.



Check this out....


Sage Vasishta to Prince Rama.


Yoga Vasishta Ramayan (II-18) says:
Though human in origin, an exposition of truth is to be accepted; otherwise even what is regarded as divine revelation is to be rejected. Even a young boy's words are to be accepted if they are words of wisdom; else reject it like straw even if uttered by Brahma the creator."


------------------------------------------------------------------------








Sri Sankara, the famous Advaita philosopher, makes this point in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita 18.66:

" ...... The appeal to the infallibility of the Vedic injunction is misconceived. The infallibility in question refers only to the unseen force or apurva, and is admissable only in regard to matters not confined to the sphere of direct perceptions etc. ..... Even a hundred statements of sruti to the effect that fire is cold and non-luminous won't prove valid. If it does make
such a statement, its import will have to be interpreted differently. Otherwise , validity won't attach to it. Nothing in conflict with the means of valid cognition or with its own statement may be imputed to sruti."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Vacaspati Misra, the author of Vamati, says, "Even one thousand scriptural statements cannot transform a jar into a piece of cloth".





--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We must take up the study of the superconscious state just as any other science. On reason we must have to lay our foundation, we must follow reason as far as it leads, and when reason fails, reason itself will show us the way to the highest plane. When you hear a man say, “I am inspired” , and then talk irrationally, reject it. Why? Because these three states-instinct, reason, and superconsciousness , or the unconscious, conscious, and superconscious states-belong to one and the same mind. There are not three minds in one man, but one state of it develops into the others. Instinct develops into reason, and reason into the transcendental consciousness; therefore, not one of the states contradicts the others. Real inspiration never contradicts reason, but fulfils it. Just as you find the great prophets saying, “ I come not to destroy but to fulfil” , so inspiration always comes to fulfil reason, and is in harmony with it.

---Swami Vivekananda




Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other concrete science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion ? In my opinion, this must be so, and I am also of opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific, as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry, but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has.


-----Swami Vivekananda



-----------------------------------------------------------------




Believe nothing, merely because you have been told it, or because it is traditional or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for your teacher. But whatever after due consideration and analysis you find to be conducive to the good , the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine , believe and cling to and take it as your guide.

- Buddha





-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Logic and reasoning ( Vaada ) is part of the Vedas and Vedic philosophy. Nyaaya sutras which deals with this subject is one of the Shad Darshana or Six Branches of Vedic Philosophy (the others being Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa a.k.a. Vedanta). Although it has been greatly overshadowed by the presently popular schools of Yoga and Vedanta, scholars understand that Nyaaya is the foundation of all the other Darshanas, for it expounds the means whereby one may determine the truth in regards to any particular subject matter.


Vaada: discussion; a kind of debate between two parties -- the exponent and the opponent -- on a particular subject. Each party tries to establish its own position and to refute that of the other, arguing against any theory propounded by the other. Both, however, are trying to arrive at the truth by applying the methods of reasoning and logic. This is an effective and efficient way to reach valid knowledge if both parties are honest and free from prejudices.






Of the disputants and debaters, I am Vaada ( logic and reasoning) .

---Krishna ( Bhagavad Gita).

Rationality is a methodological commitment to consistently follow basic rules, the most foundational of which is non-contradiction. All religious systems I have studied (from Mormonism to Islam to Buddhism and Hinduism and all in between) are "rational," meaning they utilize reason.

In order even to communicate, we have to have some kind of understood set of consistent principles.

So of course in order to think about religious issues we need reason. We all use it, and so are accountable to it and rely on it.

In fact, we can't avoid it.

EvangelicalHumanist's example from Joyce is helpful; even though it is image and emotion-rich, in order to explain this we use reason, and we need reason to understand Joyce's existentialist points from Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake, etc.