"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:0r0unvc89jaup19mfa2vs8h2hnlvsi22tt@4ax.com...

Such would invalidate what I'm curious about. I'm trying to find out
how you see things.

I'll try to answer as best as I can.

I have personal evidence to support my beliefs, though I
realize that none of the evidence I have is anything more than
circumstantial.

Yes. But is such rational thought or rationalization?

That depends entirely on how you define it. I looked up the definition of
rationalizing on dictionary.com - the first 3 definitions are relevant to
us:

------
1. To make rational.
2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):
"Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments" (Janice
Castro).
------

Number 1 is a little vague. Does it mean that if somebody's being
irrational and you make them see the error of their ways that you're
'rationalizing' them? I'm not sure that this definition applies here.

Numbers 2 and 3 seem to have more meaning for us, but they appear to be
mutually exclusive. If we accept number 2 as the definition, then I could
very well be using rational thought and still count that as a
'rationalization'. You seem to imply that they are two exclusively
different things, so I'm assuming that the definition you're going with is
number 3 - I'll go with that definition as well so that we're on the same
page.

I can't deny that my reasons are self-satisfying, but that doesn't make them
incorrect. There is absolutely no proof either for or against the existence
of God/s or anything else spiritual. Therefore, all we can work from is our
own interpretations of whatever limited evidence we have. It's inevitable,
because of the inconclusive nature of the evidence, that anybody trying to
draw conclusions from it is naturally going to rely a whole lot more on
his/her preconceptions.

I think this is where the question of 'correctness' comes in. Is it
incorrect to try and draw conclusions from inconclusive evidence? If yes,
then I suppose it would definitely be a clear cut case of 'rationalization'.
I would argue, however, that it is not incorrect to do so. We all draw
conclusions from inconclusive evidence every day - much of the time it's the
only method we have to work out an opinion on a subject.

The problem, and more people should realize this, is that these conclusions
(or opinions, whichever word you want to use) are only as solid as the
evidence they're based on. People reach a conclusion, and then think that
it's set in stone - a 'foregone conclusion' so to speak. People like to
think that once they've come to a conclusion they can put that file away as
already having been dealt with, they don't want to go over the process again
even in the event that some of the evidence they've based their opinion on
turns out to be faulty.

I would define such action, i.e. considering your opinion to be more solid
than the evidence it's based on, to be incorrect. Therefore, I would term
anybody who uses that technique to be 'rationalizing'.

So now to answer your question. My reasons for believing *are*
self-satisfying, but I do not believe they are incorrect. I believe it's
perfectly acceptable to form opinions based on inconclusive evidence, and I
try to keep an open mind, never considering my opinions to be set in stone.
Based on this, I would have to say that I do not term my reasons as being
'rationalizations' based on the definition we're working under.

You could argue that some aspect of my reasoning is incorrect - i.e. perhaps
you believe that it is not correct to form an opinion based on inconclusive
evidence. If you were to do so you could present your arguments, and we
could say that you believe that I *am* rationalizing. But then that opens
up a whole new can of worms, making things much more complicated. It seems,
in this case, that determining whether my reasons are 'rationalizations' or
not is highly subjective.

Whew! Did I lay that out exhaustively enough for you? :D