Which is more irrational?

[FMCoug]

By definition, isn't all religious faith irrational?

[jay santos]

Define gospel stories being factual:

I think you probably mean

Jesus was resurrected, Jesus did miracles, etc.

Is that right?

[Archaea]

Seattle's purpose may simply be to incite discussion, in which case he is successful.

If he is intending to ask an accurate question or to illustrate a point, he has artfully worded the question "inartfully".

Define "rational"? Are we using the classical definition thereof, or some modern morphed version of the word?

If we take Moses or Jesus out of the equation, and say

Mr. Leftkovitz decided to cross the Mississippi and parted the Mississippi the other day, but no pictures were had but a group of people swore to it, how many would instinctively doubt that story?

If Mr. Swarthmore informed Foxnews that he walked across the bay from San Francisco to Sausolito, without using the Golden Gate Bridge, how many would roll their eyes?

Are the events empirically justified and therefore rational?

None of the miraculous events meet any modern or classical definition of rationality.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, actually it's you and Leb that are on the same page here. Both of you are in agreement that a man who permits his religious beliefs to inform his decisions even when they fly in the face of "reality" (loosely defined) is unfit for office.

I'm the one arguing that it's not a big deal.



Oh my. Is that what you think this is about? Heh. You are truly paranoid.

I bet we could now have an entire argument about who is in agreement and who isn't. Game on!

[SeattleUte]

I don't know why this is so hard. Does anybody not understand what "irrational" means? Google "irrational+definition." Those who claim the question is defective are dissembling. I'm not asking whether you've had a spiritual witness or in any way about faith.

I find it curious people think it's so ridiculous to believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, and they dismiss people who hold this belief as automatically hillbillies or unschooled, but not ridiculous to believe Christ turned water into wine, raised Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, cured lepers, or rose form the dead himself. I submit that belief in the Gospels is no more or less irrational than believing the OT's creation story, applying the same empirical methods that cause us to reject the OT stories as implausible.

Beyond the fact that the events described in the Gospels aren't possible in any of our life experience, the Gospels themselves, within their four corners, lack credibility. it has been shown that the first of them was written forty years after Jesus' death, and they are likely not based on eyewitness accounts. They are demonstrably highly stylized and derivative. There is not even a pretense otherwise. The authors will even say now and then that the occurrence of a given event fulfilled such and such OT prophesy. They are internally inconsistent, etc.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't know why this is so hard. Does anybody not understand what "irrational" means? Google "irrational+definition." Those who claim the question is defective are dissembling. I'm not asking whether you've had a spiritual witness or in any way about faith.

I find it curious people think it's so ridiculous to believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, and they dismiss people who hold this belief as automatically hillbillies or unschooled, but not ridiculous to believe Christ turned water into wine, raised Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, cured lepers, or rose form teh dead himself. I submit that belief in the Gospels is no more irrational than believing the OT's creation story, applying the same empirical methods that cause us to reject the OT stories as implausible.

Beyond the fact that the events described in the Gospels aren't possible in any of our life experience, the Gospels themselves, within their four corners, lack credibility. it has been shown that the first of them was written forty years after Jesus' death, and they are likely not based on eyewitness accounts. They are demonstrably highly stylized and derivative. There is not even a pretense otherwise. The authors will even say now and then that the occurrence of a given event fulfilled such and such OT prophesy. They are internally inconsistent, etc.

Here is the problem I have with your question. It assumes the ancient compilers and writers wanted us to accept the "facts" of their narratives literally. I submit it is irrational to believe the ancient compilers were so naive and simple-minded to want us to interpret their compilations in such a literal and simple-minded manner. The compilers were concerned about conveying foundational myths and beliefs in order to perpetuate their cultures, not to transmit information as empirically accurate renditions of historical events.

So if the compilers never intended for the Genesis myth to be interpreted as a scientific rendering of creation or evolution but rather as an allegory, how can it be 'irrational' to accept the compilation in the spirit in which they were compiled and intended to be interpreted?

And then you wish to quantify levels of "irrationality", as which unobservable belief is more unbelievable than the other? huh.