Faith-Based Beliefs are not Rational

[Age]

To be more serious, there are no absolute 100% faith nor absolute 100% rationality.
I am not sure what this means. If it means, among other things, something such as nothing is [epistemically] certain, then it is just plain false.
Knowledge is based on a Rational% + Faith%.
Thus when I assert 'rational' at it utmost it meant 99%Rational + 1%Faith.
Faith-based would meant 99%Faith + 1%Rational.

As far as I can tell, the ‘percentages’ you have assigned here are merely figments of your creation, at best.

You picked it in one, huge nose.

veritas's BELIEFS are so strongly held onto that just about EVERY sentence of veritas is a figment of veritas's own creation. If you hang around here long enough you will notice that there is just about nothing that veritas will say to defend, and TRY TO "justify", those BELIEFS.

One could not even begin to make an assessment without further elucidation by you as to what the claim means.

Assuming you do not have any prior knowledge of capital city of countries, and if you rely solely on what is presented from google and insist on faith that is a fact, then that would be an irrational approach to your answer.
To be more rational, you would need more rational justifications and verification from the proper authority.

But if I can’t rely on Google for information about the Capital of Qatar [my claim about finding the information via Google should not be taken to imply that I think everything one finds on Google is to be given the same weight], what other source could I rely and how would I know that it, whatever it is, is more reliable than Google. How would I know that any source that I consult on the web, for example, didn’t have Google as its source. For example, when you say,

The most rational approach [99% rationality] is to verify with what is published in the actual official records of the Qatar governments based on visits to the country and its government offices to confirm Doha is the Capital of Qatar.

,

how will I know [how do you know?] that the source that displays this, is accurate?

You say,

Generally we know the Capital of Qatar is Doha because it is mentioned everywhere and agreed by many people.

Have these “everywheres” and these “many people” gotten there information from google, or from some other source? If from other sources, is consulting these sources rational, or does one just accept them ‘on faith’, according to you?

To be more sure you can verify Doha is the capital by checking with the official government site.
https://portal.www.gov.qa/wps/portal/about-qatar

Is it rational, by your reckoning to accept this source as an authoritative on? Do you know that the author[s] of the site didn’t use google as a source for the information about the Capital of Qatar?

Such an approach will give us a 90% Rational and 10% Faith because you we never know, the site could be a fake one. [my emphasis- Hugh]

The irony here, is thick!

No need to continue with more of the same observations.

You seem to be advocating for an epistemic situation that is an impossible one, and hence, making an incoherent “recommendation”. It looks like you are in the thrall of a notion of “justified, true belief” and “evidence” requirement on “justification”, that leads to skepticism, or some sort of kind of coherence theory or some kind of foundationalist theory, none of which hold up under scrutiny.

Cheers,

Hugh

[Logik]

I would like to see VA's work and how he gets to his numbers. Be they 90/10 or 0.0001/99.9999.

And I'll even make a prediction that you can hold me accountable to. Even with 1 in a million odds I can find a contradiction in VA's claims.

There is a possible, even if not probable scenario in which his beliefs fail. Because that's how falsification works. All it takes is one black swan....