Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52
Rationality is valuing reason, logic, evidence as tools of discovery/deciphering reality. Rationalization is a defense mechanism corruption of rationality trying to fit reality into our preferred little box (such as in apologetics, obviously). To interchange the two is dishonest apologetics, or ignorance, or a mistake. I can't begin to imagine why you wouldn't just look it up instead of this drama game of "like I'm a 7 year old."
It is more a plea, Craig included and maybe more so (though the theist may have a prerogative in cryptic language) to keep things simple and direct. Simplicity is perhaps a goal of logic, reason and science.
I think the use of "rationalisation" can be taken in good faith, as meaning a form of rationality rather than a slight against you. Though I can see how it can be interpreted as deliberate equivocation, and underhand in that sense.
"Rationality is valuing reason, logic, evidence as tools of discovery/deciphering reality"
Going with this as a starting point, there seems nothing inherent within this for which Craig would take direct issue (I will explain why). Therefore, I am inclined to think 'rationality' in the context of this thread is more fittingly defined as 'non-spiritual' or 'scientific' - 'science' being defined here as phenomenal observable events, which would not include miracles, actions of deity, communication with deity etc.
Your beef seems to be zealotry and self righteous hypocrisy of some religious folk, for which I think there is something to be learned from the prodigal son story by the way - in other words, truths can indeed be ascertained from narrative, myth, parable etc.
As to why Craig may not necessarily contest rationality as "valuing reason, logic, evidence as tools of discovery/deciphering reality" is because there is nothing necessarily illogical about religious belief. First, there are countless logical arguments to support the existence of God. Most philosophers are not atheist, at least the few I am familiar with. And second, there is ample evidence that events told in scripture are historical. Considering Plato, he developed a framework for understanding the 'Creator' as a craftsman modelling the world of illusion, what we normally consider 'reality', on an unseen pure true reality where He resides. This is logically sound, reasonable, within the boundaries of what is considered rational here. And so again, the bone of contention cannot be rationality per se, but the notion of spiritual contact, higher truth that does not manifest normally in phenomenal reality except in exceptional circumstances, truths understood only via mediation of Christ etc (which itself, I would argue, can be framed in a logically consistent way also).
With this is mind, I am finding difficulty in not seeing Craig vs fellaGaga as a theist/atheist dichotomy. I understand this is not your position as you have explained. So what is left? Craig is preaching and you object because how can the God he promotes be good when carrying out acts of evil? To this I believe scripture answers - God is power.