I think we've sorted this out on VM now; but FWIW these terms often have multiple meanings in the dictionaries, and I'd say the way to resolve this is to say (note this is not an exhaustive/canonical collection of definitions, just the way I use the words)
- logic is just the formal structure behind reason
- "reasonable" sometimes involves claims that involve reason but are not wholly determined by it -- other times it involves claims wholly determined by it...and the way I was using it is the latter, rather than the former
- "reason" refers to the application of logic to experience to produce a truth claim about this application...there may be many equivalent logical formulations of a reason for something, e.g. many formulations of certain laws of physics, where equivalence involves the ability to stipulate a logic which maps between the two hypothesized equivalent claims.
I think my statements are all true if you interpret in these particular lights. And am very aware of these terms having different meanings, but I didn't want to get into this formal clarification unless someone wanted (which apparently you do).
I agree, this is not exhaustive, lol. I think the discussion we had is interesting because, at least I think, it tackles the miscommunication between theists, and at least antitheists (and perhaps some atheists). The "reasons" for believing in God or religion are not the same in structure OR intent as those reasons for agreeing with scientific discovery. Here is one way I thought to think about it, but I'm still wondering if it doesn't hold (its a new idea I had yesterday). Consider the concept of knowledge Plato put forward. Knowledge is a True Justified Belief. To have religion, you need only belief. To have science, or more specifically scientific knowledge, you need (at least, as this definition was shown insufficient by Gettie) the claim to be true, justified, and believed. It is unfair to judge religious thought on the same grounds as scientific knowledge because religious
belief is not intended as a knowledge claim (in this sense! Knowledge can be used in different ways. This strict formal concept of knowledge is all I'm meaning here). The question of rationality is dependent on the justification of the belief. Here, I'm using justification loosely. I mean one has a justification if they have a reason. A reason for a belief is the justification of that belief, and a reason could be anything. The quality of that justification depends on the reason, and the quality of the reason is determined by a number of factors (likeliness, effectivity, etc.). So, the rationality of scientific knowledge is grounded in logic, for its reasons are driven by logical proofs and inductions. Notice this is because scientific knowledge, being an attempt at this strict idea of knowledge, is determined by truth. So, scientific knowledge is necessarily an attempt at truth (and only truth, but of any kind), and so is epistemically restricted to what is provable or reasonably provable (to grant inductive arguments). On the other hand, the rationality of religious belief is less restrictive! Religious belief per se isn't making a claim at knowledge, and so its rationality is not restricted by truth
and more importantly proof. Religious belief may be justified by psychological need, and one may be rational for doing so even if the belief is not true
because it isn't knowledge in this sense.
In fact, by definition, the belief is completely independent of truth. There are many ways one might be justified in believing x even if it isn't true. Even scientists do this. If you study chemistry, our gas equations, or concepts of the atom that we learn in schools (until high level college) are blatantly false. The gas laws are based on assumptions that the gases are ideal, but gases are never ideal. Quantum physics teaches us that our models of the atom are not exactly correct. We are justified though, because the models we use are practical. They work. Can we blame theists for similar justifications for their less restrictive beliefs? It works for that person that doesn't even have the mental capacity or background to grasp quantum physics. It isn't a significant different between scientific assumptions and theistic assumptions. Until it drifts over to claims of reality. For example, the thought that my soul (whatever that is, I take it to me that thing that is me: my identity) is in my foot can be shown false. For, if I sever my foot, am I not still me? Certainly yes, at least in the important sense.
My point is that one should not assume that religion per se is irrational. It is the misconceptions of religion that are problematic. Religion and rationality are not polar opposites. The are actually related to each other in a subjective sense. For this reason, one must be very careful when talking about the rationality or irrationality of religion, on pain of being irrational yourself.
