Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]This is like claiming that because you find money under your pillow in exchange for teeth you have a rational reason to beleive in the existence of the tooth fairy.
I don't think this example serves your purposes very well. It is, after all, quite rational to assume that at least some kind of entity replaced my tooth with a few coins... ...[text shortened]... ifficulties. You do the same, but for other reasons. Neither of us are acting irrationally.[/b]
I have to say that you probably have something there. To the religious, their reasons appear perfectly rational. Let us look closer at the tooth fairy example. If the child is prevented with no further evidence than what happened was:
1:His parents told him the tooth fairy exists
2:Following a ritual with his teeth will result in rewards.
3:As it was said, so it was.
It would appear perfectly rational for the child to believe in the tooth fairy. However then new information comes to light, a non-believer claims that there is a more rational explanation to all of this. The child is presented with a choice between:
1: Reflection and consideration of the new more rational explanation.
2: Continue to have utter faith in the good word and perform the required rituals when necessary.
Obviously, the kid is in a bind. Continued blind faith results in continued rewards, whereas questioning the fairy will mean that when he loses a tooth, there will be no reward. In this case, even if there is doubt, it seems more rational to pretend to have some faith at least, or be an underground non-believer like some kind of mid-west american atheist.
Let's assume the child not only has reason but also a sense that truth in itself is important. There is no way that the child can know for certain that this new explanation is true, but on reflection and careful consideration,, everything seems
more rational in the second explanation. Being both a rational child who respects the value of truth, they not only stop believing in the tooth fairy, they are convinced that there is no tooth fairy.
So at first the child had a perfectly rational explanation for what was happening. New concepts for consideration came to light, which upon reflection made more sense. To have continued to hold onto the tooth fairy concept (especially to argue in defence of it) when new more rational explanations exist, that is what is irrational.
Note that in this example, the child is never presented with evidence. In fact, one could argue that back in the day, neither was I. I just grew out of it. The staggeringly more reasonable explanation won out in the end. But if you wanted evidence, a scientific method is the best to go for... because it is precisely not what you claim...
"To use mind to prove mind is to argue in a circle; the senses, of course, might be wrong"
This is a two pronged argument, the first says that arguing solely in the mind leads to circular arguments... Well, no, scientists use experimentation, which is produce an idea and test it in nature several times, with different equipment and teams, each trying to disprove the other. Which most definitely isn't a circular method of argumentation.
The next bit was about the possibility of the senses being wrong. Actually this happens all the time in science. The first guys to use the microscope investigated flies eyes, but depending on the lighting conditions, the eyes would look different, Different perspectives led to different conclusions. This is why (I think it was a guy called Harris, not certain) Harris came along and did two things, first he demonstrated that the compound eye could lead to the myriad different apparent structures being seen, whereas none of the other structures could appear as all of the other structures. Then he added something very important. When reporting something, all relevant details must be given. That is to say lighting conditions magnification etc. In this way if I am repeating the experiment I do the exact same thing as you. If I want to do something different, I know what I'm doing different. By repeating measurements from lots of perspectives, and knowing what's going on at every step, and requiring only one experiment to contradict the theory to disprove it, means that the problem of the senses playing tricks on us is taken care of as best it can.
Of course all of this could be one big nihilistic matrixian simulation. But now we've come full circle and the rational child is left with the choice...
1: Take rational scientific thought (warts and all regarding the potential of the matrixian nightmare)
2: Make dramatically life-altering decisions, based on "second hand" sources.
Both have a certain degree of rationale. One is more rational though, when all the chips are down. So to conclude...
While your original reasons for believing may be rational. Your reasons for
remaining religious in spite of more rational explanations coming to light is irrational.