On faith and rationality
Hello,
I once read in your words that in order for you to abandon belief in God, you have to abandon rationality,
On the other hand, you also said that nothing is certain, not even God.
Now my question is, how does this work out? It sounds like on the one hand not believing is irrational and illogical and simply doesn’t fit with reality, and on the other hand it’s uncertain. How can something that simply has to be and there’s no other way be uncertain? There’s a paradox here, isn’t there?
I don’t know where you heard that. I did say that belief in God is rational and is a consequence of rationality. It has nothing to do with whether it is certain. On the contrary, a rational claim is necessarily (!) not necessary. Therefore, it is certainly possible that I will find out that I was wrong and that belief is irrational, and then if I am honest enough, I will have to abandon it. At the moment, I think it is derived from rational thinking.
“I will add that in my opinion the heaviest price I will have to pay if and when I have to give up my belief in God is the renunciation of rationality. This is, for me, the basic relationship between faith and science.”
I copied from your article here on the site about the Faith and Science series, Part 1.
So you are essentially saying that faith can be derived from rationality and a rational claim is not a necessary or certain claim and therefore does not contradict each other? It seems, however, that we need to define what is rational because there are obviously some who do not believe and believe that they are the rational ones.
Giving up belief in the assumptions I currently have is indeed giving up rationality. But changing the assumptions can entail a change (and not a giving up) of belief.
A rational claim is a claim that is consistent with common sense and logic. I don't think anyone can offer an objective and agreed-upon definition of rationality. But in any case, just because there are others who believe something doesn't mean they are right. And if you expect a definition that will show that all others are wrong and will make everyone answer, that is a childish expectation. Any fundamental concept by its very nature cannot be defined.
For example, the principle of causality is a rational and logical principle. But it is clearly not certain, and it certainly is not the result of a logical argument (and even if it were, a logical argument always has assumptions). From it, the existence of God can be deduced. This does not mean that there are not those who believe that there is no God or that the principle of causality is not true (or true in parts other than what I think).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
