galanter wrote:We part ways here. Rationality, first, has more than one form. Both mathematics and science are species of rationality, but they are clearly different. One uses empiricism the other couldn't care less about the measurable world.
First, you've mistaken 'different kinds of rationality' for methodology. All of us use the three laws of thought to process information. Mathematics is more explicit in nature but there is nothing REALLY different going on in, say, chemistry, in terms of processing information. Mathematics is the most axiomatic, for sure. But finding out, for instance, that the infinite amount of primes are not evenly distributed uses the same laws of reason as calculating the dispersion of nitrogen in the Universe. By it's nature, sciences are more statistical in their findings and not exact, but that's how it goes when you get empirical.
One of my favourite subjects for discussion is the ol' "Is Mathematics real or is it discovered?". That question is really beyond the scope of what we're talking about here and has no relevance, but if you want to start a topic like that somewhere I'd love to hear your thoughts. I love math! (and have no idea of the answer to that question)
What *would* be irrational, for example, would be to define God as being beyond physical measurement, but then expect science to be able to give a full account and critique of religious truths.
No, what *would* be irrational would be to posit a God - and anything after that.
It's also not at all clear that the mind doesn't have "multiple tools boxes" and that our apparently unified view of the world is not nearly as integrated as it seems. There are all manner of examples from psychology, including brain imaging and studies from brain injuries, that point in this direction.
But are those processes correct ways of processing sensory information, abstracting and making conclusions about the world around us? Saying "well, schizophrenics don't process the world in the same way we do" doesn't really help your argument.
Finally, in the realm of "rational is as rational does" I'll again trot out St. Thomas as one of *many* examples of rational theology.
Saying someone isn't rational shouldn't mean they tried to be rational but made a mistake somewhere along the line, or that they tried to be rational but embrace first principles you disagree with, or that they tried to be rational but you disagree with their conclusions. Saying someone isn't rational shouldn't even mean they aren't empirical, lest you want to cast mathematics into the sea of irrationality.
Saying someone isn't rational should be a critique of methodology, and clearly rationality is an important part of religion and the practice of theology.
I know of rational theology; I've read quite a bit. But to say that because they're being rational ABOUT theology doesn't mean their theism is rational. Remember elementary propositional calculus; doesn't matter how suave your logic is, your conclusions are erroneous if your premise is flawed. For instance:
1) My magic elf will grant me everlasting life when I leave this world
2) I will die
3) When I die, I will have everlasting life
Nothing faulty with the logic, as long as you don't rationally scrutinize my premise.