"rational creationists"...sigh

[Whitelightning1161]

http://www.youtube.com/group/RationalCreationists

:facepalm:

 

[Prolescum]

You only have to look at the membership of the group to know it's intellectually challenged and not a threat by any stretch of the imagination. Anyway, it's moribund.

 

[Mapp]

So now the Creationists are trying to ruin the word rational, great.

 

[Andiferous]

That's very curious.

The word "rational" has always struck me as a bit subjective, somewhere below "reasonable" and just above "common sense."

 

[Prolescum]

I really think you should ignore it - three members and a 40 second video about how there are no unicorns in the bible (sense of humour fail) posted 4 months ago...

 

[borrofburi]

That's very curious.

The word "rational" has always struck me as a bit subjective, somewhere below "reasonable" and just above "common sense."

I've always identified rational with reasonable, in the sense that "rational" comes directly from the latin root for reason (iirc).

 

[Squawk]

I'd never really considered rational and reason in the sense of comparison, but now that I have I'm not sure they cover the same subject.

I think of rational, or rationality, as the ability or process of addressing various propositions. I apply rational to the process, the method of evaluation. I think of reason, or reasonable, as the position that one arrives at after considering the propositions.

Hope that makes sense, I'm not really sure how to express it. should it be of sufficient interest to anyone I can try and expand on it.

 

[Andiferous]

I'd never really considered rational and reason in the sense of comparison, but now that I have I'm not sure they cover the same subject.

I think of rational, or rationality, as the ability or process of addressing various propositions. I apply rational to the process, the method of evaluation. I think of reason, or reasonable, as the position that one arrives at after considering the propositions.

Hope that makes sense, I'm not really sure how to express it. should it be of sufficient interest to anyone I can try and expand on it.

I think it does? Do you mean that rationality (to rationalise?) is a means of evaluating and interpreting "facts" or propositions? This could be why it seems that outside the scientific environment interpretation of facts is subjective and prone to error (rationalisation), but reasoning is the process of building an argument, so the process of reasoning can be correct independent of the truth of its propositions/premises.

 

[Squawk]

I'm thinking of going back on my previous statement, because I can make a case for reversing my use of the words and still being coherent.

The acid test, can I think of a conclusion that is reasonable but not rational, or vice versa.


Ok, sorta come to a conclusion of sorts.

Reason is the process by which facts are measured against one another, rational is the process of figuring out which facts should be used to reason with in the first place.

For example, if one accepts God then it is reasonable to presume that the world was created by God. However, I would suggest it is irrational to accept god in the first place. Rational could, then, apply to prior evaluation.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm thinking of going back on my previous statement, because I can make a case for reversing my use of the words and still being coherent.

The acid test, can I think of a conclusion that is reasonable but not rational, or vice versa.


Ok, sorta come to a conclusion of sorts.

Reason is the process by which facts are measured against one another, rational is the process of figuring out which facts should be used to reason with in the first place.

For example, if one accepts God then it is reasonable to presume that the world was created by God. However, I would suggest it is irrational to accept god in the first place. Rational could, then, apply to prior evaluation.

Bravo. Better said than I.

It's because of this I find rationalisation is trickier, harder to pin down, and tends to be a bit more subjective in the real world.

 

[JustBusiness17]

If I could stear this conversation in a different direction, creationists have always used this type of language manipulation. I think they are burdened with a high level of envy when it comes to debate. Lets not forget "creation scince", "discovery institute", or "intelligent design". I'm sure there are many other examples but more importantly, they are also working hard to pass off their baggage at the same time. Who here hasn't heard evolution being called a religion? How about Darwin being referred to as our "Massiah"?

Isn't this the real issue here?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Oh cool. They've come up with more oxymorons!

 

[Jotto999]

Rational creationists are in the same boat as mathematicians gambling with a roulette, with just the difference that I have never heard of anyone who gambles with a roulette claim to be a mathematician.