>As for the actual rationality of believing in the literal truth of Catholic
>dogma, it's not supposed to be rational. The mysteries of the Church are
>_mysteries_; we're not supposed to get them. Is it irrational to accept a
>faith that has mysteries? I am not so sure.
----------------------------------
this amateur philosopher looks at it this way:
all knowledge (description) relies on many axioms and many undefined (meaning not formally defined) words (terms). all ethics (prescription) relies on many axioms and many undefined words.
religious "mysteries", whether of knowledge or ethics, are axioms. so are the rules of "reason" or "rationality" which may or may not be used by religious people. depending on which axioms and undefined words we accept (believe), the remaining theorems and defined words follow, IF we reason (an axiom) and define with care. however, who says we have to "reason"? there are plenty of "normal" people who reject that axiom too. they derive "facts" in other ways.
having adopted a set of assumptions (axioms, theorems and terms) people then look at the "facts" and try to fit them to their theorems and definitions. NOT EASY. for example, consider the multitude of beliefs inside this very listserve. why? because we all adopted different axioms and terms long ago and it's hard to adjust them to others and to the "facts". some reconciliation occurs as people adopt each other's assumptions. this is learning.
more dramatic are the different knowledge and ethics axioms and terms between Left and Right. the differences are enormous and impossible to reconcile. a good example is "profit". the same "fact" (net revenue - total expense in an enterprise composed of both owners and workers) can be interpreted in many ways. why? because the underlying assumptions (axioms, theorems, terms) are different.
the KNOWLEDGE (not ethics) axioms and their associated undefined words assumed by scientists (hard and soft) are MOSTLY agreed upon by other scientists, but there are differences. for example, futile nature vs. nurture debates where the facts don't clearly support either set of assumptions by different people. to illustrate, Skinner assumed that nurture (environment) caused verbal behavior. Chomsky assumed that nature (mental structures) caused verbal behavior. IMO, Skinner, a more timid person, knew enough about science and philosophy to know that debate on the issue was futile and he didn't like debates anyway. i don't know enough about Chomsky to know what he knew about science and philosophy at that time.
the axioms and terms of scientists may be different from those assumed by non-scientists. for example, no scientist could believe that the world was created literally in 6 days because that belief would violate the "reason axiom" and the associated theorems, definitions and facts that scientist have developed from that axiom.
OTOH, one of the theistic knowledge axioms of several religions is REVELATION. if you accept a revelation axiom and its associated book of relevation, and this book says that the world was created in 6 days, then it was, literally. how can one disprove it? only be using assumptions (reason) that are not acceptable to the religion. hence, the irreconcilable and futile debates between evolutionists and creationists, etc.
depending on which ETHICS axioms and their associated undefined words one accepts (believes), so follow the remaining ethics and defined words. for example, IMO, most people on the Left assume a relatively altruistic set of ethical axioms toward low income groups whereas those on the Right assume a relatively egoistic set of ethic axioms toward the lowest income groups.
scientists (again, hard and soft) can accept a set of ethical axioms consistent with their knowledge axioms and believe in Catholic or Jewish or Muslim, etc. doctrine while at the same time believingin evolution and other scientific doctrines. same for non-scientists, of course.
there is a BIG problem when people, scientists or otherwise, accept inconsistent axioms and definitions. the inconsistencies creates conflicts among people and, when the inconsistencies existent within the individual, psychological problems.
ok, philosophers, fire away!
norm