Fats_Tuesday said:
So, can you please give me a rational way of approaching a concept such as the "holy trinity"? Religious language is deliberately impenetrable, so a rational person can only enter it so far before they relise they are being hoodwinked by doublespeak apologetics.
What you may read and find metaphysical, I may read and find bunkum.
Fats, the rational way would be to read the evidence on which this belief is based and then make a judgement based on the evidence presented - I'm sure you do this in this case and I'm pretty sure we come to the same conclusion.
I'm sure it is bunkum personally - though I reserve the right to accept that it may not be to Mr X and that his consciousness is not my consciousness and we are both individuals with inalienable rights to believe what we want and either of us could be right or wrong - but I have reached that conclusion personally for me from my own research.
There is no priest telling me, no book by Dawkins for me to take a cue from. My choice based on my own level of understanding at this time with the knowledge it may all change in the future and I could think completely differently.
The point is that if we invoke rationalism - and we don't have to but if we do - then we'd better be rational. That's all. If we come to conclusions that are not based on thought or logic - then we are being illogical no? What are they based on? In the case of religionists I would guess it comes down to emotion, sense of belonging, family-replacement, guilt, fear, conditioning etc....but none of these are rational.
And now I see some atheists being similarly irrational in their stance - we need to watch this (imo).
Imo, this is very important - and in response to a post above that asked why - because we are now in a time of unreason to a certain degree. It is not belief
per se that is the problem, nor any given philosophical stance - it is irrationality. That is what underpins the vast majority of what people see today as problems in religion.
Rationality is - or should be - our highest principle. If we neglect it for any reason on any level we will suffer imo.
An example: suicide bombers are taught that they must look down and hide their face as they approach their target and that this is stated in the Qur'an as a humble attitude for the martyr which will guarantee heaven.
They don't - as far as I know - question this because they have abnegated their critical faculties and deposited ultimate trust in their mentors but in fact this is not true and no such statement exists in the Qur'an or anywhere else.
Why they are told do do this is so they cannot be identified on camera or by a bystander and thereby possibly allowing a trace to their handlers.
If there was a logical and critical questioning tradition in Islam - as there originally was built-in to the religion at the beginning before it was suppressed - then they could question this and know the truth.
Another example: Dawkins (for whom I enjoy having a particular distaste) once said of a woman who was banned from wearing a crucifix at work and took her case to court, that he could tell she was stupid because she 'had a stupid face'.
This (to me) is the height or irrationality. How can one tell someone's intelligence from their face? Are we back in the days now of measuring heads to find criminal tendencies?
And why should she be 'stupid' just because she chooses to war a crucifix. Another example of how irrationality leads to bias, prejudice and intolerance.
And yet, this same Dawkins can be found singing hymns in church at Christmas yet explains it away as 'tradition' (!).