Contrast this sentiment with the dogma of having all the answers emanating from an age of blatant ignorance no less.

And people merely reciting indoctrination with no clue or inclination toward any wider reality are as cocksure and immovable as you can get. You'll know them by their fruit. Fake certainty of dogma versus humbled awe at the mystery. It is the religious zealot who is arrogant ... not the investigator into the nature of things.

The humility associated with mystery is a start but is ultimately insufficient. The humility associated with desperation is necessary. It is reluctantly allowing the strong man into the house, not turning away from his presence, putting on the straight jacket and surrendering to the agony.

That is the only way to get through the narrow pathway and it requires taking away coping mechanisms such as rationalization and reassurance.

Well now rationalization and rationality are two very different things ... conflated here in service of dishonest apologetics. He knows the difference very well ... as we await the list of subjects for which reason and rationality need to be suspended in order to establish their veracity. Since that's three or four bites at it, I'll answer it: religion is a special case here (at least as far as apologists go). Hmm.

Rationality can lead when dealing with the horizontal, when dealing with what is already accessible to you on your level.

Transcendence is vertical, both up and down. Rationality cannot lead the leveling up. It claims that it can, but the honest person will admit that, even though it seemed like they were ascending, the reality check eventually comes to reveal that they’ve been going in a circle and end up at the place where they’ve already been. The place of despair.

The difficulty is that we intuitively recognize we are entitled to fulfillment and that coherence is part of fulfillment. There is no fulfillment without coherence. Then why should we ever have to deny rationality?

It’s a significant mistake to only see truth as convenient. Truth can be crushing and agonizing. I’m pointing toward a truth that everyone has incredible resistance against, for the same reason we resist and avoid suffering.

Two movies which can be helpful for what I am talking about are Groundhog Day and Fight Club.

so let's define some terms and at least get some agreement on that. Namely, rationality, reason and now rationalisation need defining. In simple terms, like I'm a 7 yr old please

And let's define religion too, for we have two camps it seems - dishonest apologism for crimes committed by God? and genuine struggle for a higher state of understanding/consciousness etc? Where reason can be applied legitimately to the latter?

It won’t matter. FellaGaga is caught in a moral panic that he won’t get out of until he sees how unjust it is and until he shows mercy on himself.

I used certain trigger words, so I will be placed in the perpetrator category and treated with suspicion no matter what. Anybody who pushes back will be placed in the same category.

Just LOL at I'm the one caught in a trap ... seems those caught in dogma, doctrine, insincere indoctrinated FAKE REALITY apologetics or they are going to hell are slightly more trapped.

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."

Oh you are so like Jesus. Or did you forget, lost in all the doctrine spiel that this is the point of the religion?

You don’t know that actual mercy comes in the form of the strong man imposing his will on you, no longer allowing you to repeat your unproductive patterns.

The amount of mercy you show yourself is equal to the presence level of the strong man you are willing to suffer in each moment. Right in front of your face.

Anyone who doesn’t know and denies what I speak about on this forum does so because they don’t know and deny the strong man. They don’t know and deny themselves mercy, justice, truth, love, and redemption.

An encounter with one's "inner fundamentalist" is a good thing. Please inform me as to what gets thrown out in your non-fundamentalist beliefs, and what remains.

Dictionary dot com has five different definitions for rationality. Not sure how asking you to clarify the meaning of a technical term in layman's terms is somehow a "drama game."

Since you are the expert in Psychology in this forum, could you please tell us what psychological disorders cause its sufferers to perceive drama even where none actually exists? Thanking you in advance.

Well, I took it kind of like, "please explain to the class" snark ... maybe that's not how you meant it. But looking for a psychological disorder over it is super meh, and in itself, pitiful snark.

I was actually responding to your response to 1&onlybillyshears. I don't know the posting history between you two. Almost all of your posts that I've read in this Forum are pretty snarky. (Which is not a criticism; I like snark. )

I agree, I am guilty of low-level snarkiness there.

Stopping is probably a good idea that somebody had.

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.

There is the logos associated with narrative and the logos associated with the Enlightenment - empiricism, reason, logic, etc.

We have an intuitive sense that there is value in bringing forth the un-revealed real. The tension is over which logos can bring it forth.

I am claiming that it is the logos associated with narrative, which is becoming more and more of a minority position. With that said, I would never say that there is no value in scientific empiricism. The logos associated with narrative gave rise to the logos associated with the Enlightenment and secularism for a reason.

I’ve been using ‘un-revealed’ instead of ‘hidden’ to avoid charged and alienating language, but the hostility and antagonism are real. Reality, truth, and fulfillment are hidden from us. I’m not going to soften it anymore.

If reality and truth are hidden from us, then this entire thread is kinda meaningless.

So, do you agree that nothing that you have posted in this Forum corresponds to reality or truth?

edit: If the answer is "yes", then I will kindly exit stage left from this conversation.

I mean hidden in that we have to seek it, not that it’s inaccessible. But also hidden in that we are actively being denied access to it, just not in an ultimate sense.

Reality is that which we desire to be in accordance with, but it’s also the fulfillment of that desire across time. Further, it’s the narrative which emerges in our quest for it. My posts in this forum are about navigating through the hidden narrative.

Still, this is reality only if someone subjectively accepts it as their reality. Recognizing it and continually saying ‘yes’ is an essential part of the hidden narrative. (Recognition through both positive recognition as well as through negating other potential realities.)