What is Rationality?

I have argued that rationality is proper function or the absence of dysfunction or impairment of rational faculties. Mr. Planck says that it is rational to believe in things we cannot prove. He distinguishes between “evidence” and “proof.” As I understand him, evidence is something that is “testable.” But that is where the problem of induction comes in. Can we “test” what will happen tomorrow? He also uses Ockham’s razor or the principle of parsimony, that it is not necessary to believe in God to understand the world. Of course, I disagree with this and I have shown elsewhere that it is necessary to believe in God to understand the world. [1] The problem with this objection is that it is irrelevant to the circumstances I have presented. I gave the example of me reading the Bible and I experienced what I believe to be God speaking to me and forgiving me. In the absence of rational defeaters, why am I irrational in believing in God?

Evidence is Unnecessary for Rationality

Let’s take my example of reading the Bible. I experienced what I believe to be God speaking to me. If God designed my cognitive faculties to discover Him in reading the Bible, then why do I need evidence? Just as if God designed my cognitive faculty of remembering that I ate chicken yesterday, I am rational in believing I ate chicken yesterday, so too am I rational in believing in God if my mind is designed in such a way that I can discover Him in many circumstances which includes one without evidence.

Direct Rebuttal on Principle of Parsimony

Mr. Planck uses the principle of parsimony for his position that it is irrational to believe in God. However, this argument fails. First, with the circumstances I have given, belief in God and the principle is not logically contradictory. Unless he shows that they are logically contradictory, if I read the Bible and experienced what I believe to be God, the principle of parsimony does not defeat it. Second, how exactly does the principle of parsimony defeat the belief with the circumstances I have given?

Conclusion

I have argued that (to be rational) we do not need evidence for believing in God. Thus far, my two arguments are still strong.

Notes

[1] See http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p47.htm

Apolonio Latar III

Words:  400 approx