Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:15 am
Per dictionary and similar in philosophy.
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Further clarification, please…
About “faith”-- I just learned via a search using Google that Doha is the Capital of Qatar. So, my current belief that Doha is the Capital of Qatar is based on my confidence, my trust, in Google.
So, is my belief that Doha is the Capital of Qatar faith-based, and hence, not rational?
To be more serious, there are no absolute 100% faith nor absolute 100% rationality.
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.
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.
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.
Generally we know the Capital of Qatar is Doha because it is mentioned everywhere and agreed by many people. To be more sure you can verify Doha is the capital by checking with the official government site.
Such an approach will give us a 90% Rational and 10% Faith because you we never know, the site could be a fake one.
The above degree of rationality can be increased based on one knowledge from extensive reading and informed from hundreds and thousands of sources that reported Doha is the capital of Doha.
In the case of Doha as Capital City of Qatar, one can visit the city of Doha and confirm it with the official authority plus relying on all other secondary evidences.
In the case of the claim 'God exists' no one has been able to produce direct evidence to justify God exists as real.
Note my argument;
God is an Impossibility
Since there is no proof and God is an impossibility, the only recourse for a theist is to believe God as real based on faith [99%] and 1% rationality.
In this case, a faith-based belief that God exists is not rational.
About “rational”-- The proof for the existence of God that was offered in the thread entitled, “If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?” is in accordance with reason or logic.
So, is it rational? Seems to be in accord with the definition of “rational” offered here.
There are many who claimed they can prove God exists by reason.
One can definitely think of God, but God cannot be rationally proven. At best theists are relying on pseudo-rationality, i.e. attempted rationality but fraught with logical fallacies.
Such claims are not rational but still depend on faith.
The consolation is this could be 90% faith & 10% reason, thus a nett-faith based belief.
Btw, I have offered a new perspective to the idea of God, i.e. it emerged due to the terrible existential psychology within humans. The idea of God provides instant relief to the terrible existential sufferings. This is why theists are so aggressive [some will even kill] to defend their achieved feeling of security.