Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

[Wootah]

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

If there was a logical chain that was demonstrated to be a contradiction would you still follow your beliefs or would you simply accept that God could do all things?

For instance suppose you had to accept that square circles existed. Would you claim that God could make square circles or would you abandon your beliefs?

I for one would not follow my beliefs once I knew they were irrational. Would you?

[marco]

[Replying to post 29 by ttruscott]

Antony, Octavian and Lepidus formed a Triumvirate - three making one. That is easy to see and recognise.
Antony, however, was NOT a triumvirate, but a third of one.

When we say there are three persons but one nature we are escaping the crisis through semantics. In rational terms we should say that Jesus contributes towards GODness, as do the two others. This is wrong; Jesus IS God, not a contributing part. Nor can we get over the problem by saying they are all a single divinity. They are all divine, certainly, but their separation totals three. And this, mystically, amounts to one. There is NO way of explaining this logically. Analogies fail.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 24 by marco]
The Trinity somehow remains irrational to you. Maybe next time we talk on it we can see if there is a shift on either side.

Rationality is not subjective. One side argues that Trinity doctrine is rational. But when pressed to explain the apparent irrationality of this dogma, their answers always fall short or explain something that is not what Trinity teaches.

The side arguing for rationality would benefit from being able to provide an example or an analogy of something that is both three (or two, or six) and one but not multiple aspects of what is essentially one or multiple components which together make up some kind of unity. Just one example. Please. Is that too much to ask?

Scroll up to the discussion between Marco and I.

[Wootah]

For those in this thread. The Trinity discussion is a bit like hurling stones and better suited to discussions on the Trinity.

Would you abandon a belief that is irrational/illogical?

[ttruscott]

They are all divine, certainly, but their separation totals three.

I consider that there is never a separation, that the unity is never spit even when they act individually...and analogies do fail.

[marco]

They are all divine, certainly, but their separation totals three.

I consider that there is never a separation, that the unity is never spit even when they act individually...and analogies do fail.

Well ultimately we can accommodate some sort of meaning that accords with what we believe. That is the beauty of reason; if we seek we find an answer with which we can be comfortable and one that fits like a jigsaw into our belief system. When this is the case, not even God can fault us since we are following the only path we know, the one that our reason sets us on. So Wootah is right in the long term in saying that there would be no acceptance of the irrational. Reason, if patiently employed, finds a way. I'm afraid Marco is still in the wilderness as far as that goes for my reason stubbornly refuses to offer the comfort of a fine solution - at least in matters theological.

[McCulloch]

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

I believe in irrational numbers. Most people don't understand why that is so incredible. They sat through the math class where irrational numbers were explained and what was uppermost in mind was "is this going to be on the exam?" and stuff about human mating rituals.

A Rational Number is any number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. One half, three quarters, 43/7 etc. These are the numbers that we actually think of as all the numbers. No matter how small a gap there is between two rational numbers, there is an infinite number of rational numbers between them. It is impossible to name two different rational numbers that are so close together that there isn't an infinite number of rational numbers between them. So, mathematicians believed that the set of rational numbers was continuous. After all, if there is no such thing as the smallest gap between rational numbers, then where would any non-rational number fit on the number line?

But it can be shown that irrational numbers exist. One example is the square root of two. This number greater than 1.41 and less than 1.42. It cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers. This has been proven with mathematical rigor.

I used to think that paradoxes of Trinity and Incarnation were like that. Something that does not make sense but must be true because the logical consequences of their denial were more illogical than their acceptance. But that is not a valid perspective. Denial of Trinity and Incarnation, in truth, bring about fewer not more logical paradoxes.

[William]

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

If there was a logical chain that was demonstrated to be a contradiction would you still follow your beliefs or would you simply accept that God could do all things?

For instance suppose you had to accept that square circles existed. Would you claim that God could make square circles or would you abandon your beliefs?

Square and circle are simply words used to label common shapes and as such there can never be square circles.

I for one would not follow my beliefs once I knew they were irrational. Would you?

If the chain of logic you speak of determines an undeniable irrationality in a belief system, I would see no point in holding on to said belief system.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Since you so graciously replied. Would you answer my question?

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

This might be the question I want to ask:
Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were illogical?

I thought I already did answer that question.

IMHO it's illogical that anything exists at all. But I exist and apparently so does the the entire universe. So I am forced to believe in illogical things.

Adding a concept such as a "God" doesn't help. If anything that just makes things even more illogical.

So I'm forced to believe that reality exists as illogical as reality may be.

I think you're mistaken. You said that existence is illogical and irrational, but you haven't explained why. All you've said is that it's your humble opinion. You haven't explained why non-existence is more logical or rational.

Your belief in the illogicalness of existence is no different than a religious person's belief in god. You just simply believe it, without any real reason to.

I would say that existence and non existence would have an equal probability, except that.... I exist, so it would appear that existence is slightly more likely.

We exist, and no one can explain why. However, I suggest that this shows only a lack of understanding/knowledge, not a lack of logic or rationality.

Tell me why you believe existence is illogical or irrational.

[Mr.Badham]

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

I believe in irrational numbers. Most people don't understand why that is so incredible. They sat through the math class where irrational numbers were explained and what was uppermost in mind was "is this going to be on the exam?" and stuff about human mating rituals.

A Rational Number is any number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. One half, three quarters, 43/7 etc. These are the numbers that we actually think of as all the numbers. No matter how small a gap there is between two rational numbers, there is an infinite number of rational numbers between them. It is impossible to name two different rational numbers that are so close together that there isn't an infinite number of rational numbers between them. So, mathematicians believed that the set of rational numbers was continuous. After all, if there is no such thing as the smallest gap between rational numbers, then where would any non-rational number fit on the number line?

But it can be shown that irrational numbers exist. One example is the square root of two. This number greater than 1.41 and less than 1.42. It cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers. This has been proven with mathematical rigor.

I used to think that paradoxes of Trinity and Incarnation were like that. Something that does not make sense but must be true because the logical consequences of their denial were more illogical than their acceptance. But that is not a valid perspective. Denial of Trinity and Incarnation, in truth, bring about fewer not more logical paradoxes.

Wait, what is the evidence for the square root of 2? Do I have to believe in it if you can't show it to me? Is the square root of 2 illogical, or is the belief in it illogical.... if no one can show it to me. It sounds to me like you know where it should exist, between 1.41 and 1.42, but you don't really know. Maybe the logical thing to do, is to give it a number, like say 1.415, until that does't work anymore and then give it a new number, like 1.4155.

Maybe the problem with the number isn't it's logic, but rather with the people who need to use it. If I'm building a house, the square root of 2 doesn't need 8 decimal places. If I'm measuring atoms, maybe it does, but it doesn't need 30, so why go beyond that?

You said it yourself, the square root of 2 is somewhere between 1.41 and 1.42. That makes sense. It's not incorrect. That's logical. Why is that not enough?

Why must incomprehensible be illogical?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

I for one would not follow my beliefs once I knew they were irrational. Would you?

That's irrational, by definition. Therefore, any sense of comprehension is unattainable.