Was it Paul Tillich who said "I beleive because it's is irrational"?

[Taverner]

Or was that Gardus Van De Leuw (sp?)

[eallen]

1. It was Tertullian, about the 2nd century CE.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Nice article on the Tertullian 'quotation'...

...to be found here. (Wikipedia can be uneven in scholarship, but this article is o.k.)

The quotation, like "Elementary, my dear Watson" and "Beam me up, Scotty", isn't actually what the source said, but has become famous anyways.

[Silent3]

3. Perhaps it was a Jim Jones follower...

...or any number of Bush voters.

Maybe Bush himself talking about "the surge"? :crazy:

[kwassa]

4. every person is both rational and irrational

It is part of our character as humans.

The idea that only one approach is rational is false.

[Evoman]

5. Completely true.

However, some are more irrational than others. Which is why we should try as hard as possible to see our own irrationalities and adjust our thoughts/behaviours as often as possible.

[MistressOverdone]

7. And we are more irrational

at various times of our lives, even various times of the day or the year.

[Az]

6. It is interesting to note that as we learn we become less rational

Rational thought is slow and plodding. Not useful for day to day life. You don't really want to have to do the math and physics involved to predict the tragectory and arc of a baseball when you are playing catch. So the mind learns things and memorizes those particular experiences. It looks to these experiences to create a short hand understanding of the universe. It is worth noting that the "short hand" need not be the correct interpretation. It need only be useful enough to make itself notworthy.

So when we are ignorant of a situation we turn to tools such as rational thought. But when we have a good deal of experience with a matter (whether the interp is right or wrong) we eschew plodding through complexity of rational thinking and turn to our shorthand understanding of the universe.

The skeptic reinforces their position by verifying their experential understanding with logic and science. The believer will use logical processes and reasoned thought but apply it to a foundation based on their experential interpretation of the universe. That is they will build their logical constructs within the structure of their belief system.

It is this difference that often sparks disagreement and dismissal from the skeptic and believer camps of one another.

[BurtWorm]

8. Whoever it was was an idiot.

:patriot:

[bryant69]

9. I don't know about that. The experience of the divine is extra-rational

i.e. outside of reason.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

10. I'll say!

;)

[bryant69]

11. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however.

[BurtWorm]

12. Perhaps not.

But it certainly doesn't mean it's worth anyone's time of day, either.

[bryant69]

13. That makes no sense

Why wouldn't it be worth anybodies time of day? If the divine exists, if there's a connection to something more than cold materialism, why wouldn't that be worth knowing?

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

14. If the divine doesn't exist, you're wasting you're time trying to connect with it.

You should be free to waste your time that way, if you like, and I don't care if you do or don't. But I find it irritating when people who choose to waste their time that way claim that *everyone* ought to, that wasting your time in that particular way is "good for one's soul."

I wish people would learn to see religion for what it is--one of many human endeavors or pastimes--rather than something every person needs. I might think people need to listen to the blues or to eat carrots and hummus, but I'd be just as wrong as people who think everyone needs to try to connect with the divine. (Although, I do think the blues and carrots and hummus are vastly more nutritious than the divine.)