The short answer is that there are two definitions of rational. By the dictionary definition, science and the older versions of Semitic faith cannot be rationally reconciled. By the definition of psychology, if the person distinguishes clearly between the material reality of this world and the spiritual world of God and their faith then they are deemed rational in the sense of sane and, in the West, this definition is accepted as having legal validity.
A longer answer... The variations in Christian theology are extremely varied and complex - it takes specialists to have a thorough grasp on most - and I am not one. From the Age Of Enlightenment in Europe, a different conception of God began to view Him differently. It took the Biblical images of God has a kind of metaphor inherited from ancient times, something to be understood symbolically rather than literally. It reconciled faith with the Darwinian view of evolution by asserting that evolution was the means by which God filled the Earth with life, and the laws of physics were the means by which God created the Universe. This view was historically significant because it allowed science to grow and flourish. People who hold this view do not usually think that science and faith are logically impossible opposites. I have met some who do find them incompatible, but who are nevertheless comfortable with paradox. I may not be expressing it exactly but since there are many variants of this view, it's probably roughly correct. In the last century and particularly in the last few decades, there has been a growth of Fundamentalist sects which reject scientific evidence - again with a huge array of variants. Some of these reject all science, including modern medicine and technology. Some, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, take an intermediate view, believing that a day in the life of God is so long that He can create via evolution but, at the same time, the story of Eden is literally true and that all animals and plants were created for mankind's use. The JW elders and scholars who developed these ideas claim to have derived them from an exact understanding of the Old Testament and have answers to virtually every question likely to be asked. If a person has no basic (high school level) education in science and logic, the JW arguments can sound extraordinarily persuasive. Most of those who convert are already believers but disillusioned with their previous denomination or congregation. Personally, I find the Fundamentalist views highly irrational from the standpoint of logic and evidence -- and yet even here, the majority of the believers are psychologically rational. The majority live productive and functional lives. I think I understand where you are coming from, Paynuts, because my father was an evangelistically absolute atheist. I've read Richard Dawkins and tend to agree with much of what he says. But I come down on the side of valuing tolerance of different beliefs. I see it as very important to ensuring the best well-being of society as a whole. When people do no harm, why should they not be able to have the faith of their choice? I stand against anyone attempting to manipulate or force others to a particular point of view, especially through any kind of violence or threat of harm. I'm not against people attempting to persuade one another - but I don't particularly like it either. Persuasion sits in a kind of middle zone for me. On the one hand, it can be a useful tool - such as offering people the choice of thinking deeply and hence increasing freedom of choice. On in the other, it can often feel very uncomfortable and unpleasant to have Bible bashers and their ilk attempting to convert one to their beliefs - not just religious people but snake-oil sellers of all kinds -- most people would rather be left in peace to believe as they see fit. Most of us would agree that it's not okay to put harmless people in physical cages: by the same ethic, I think we should not try to put people in mental cages either. Even with this question, while I love the opportunity to share thoughts, I feel uncomfortable at the possibility of causing offense to some if I am too strident in my assertions.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 24, 2016 6:23 AM MDT
Are you assuming that rational-minded people are 100% rational 100% of the time?
There is much that we do not know, hence the reason we continue to study, research, experiment and explore. Things do not become factual only upon discovery and the ability to empirically prove them.
Believers readily acknowledge that their belief is based upon faith. Does that automatically invalidate all of their thoughts? Conversely, were we someday able to prove God's existence, would that then retroactively invalidate all thoughts of non-believers? I would say no to both.
We are complex beings, and I believe it is a safe bet that we all have both rational and irrational thoughts at times.
This post was edited by Bozette at October 23, 2016 2:58 PM MDT
Your question never addressed "denouncing physical evidence for scripture", Paynuts. You are making sweeping and unfounded assumptions if you think it did.
Benedict Arnold 