is rationality a consistently rational approach?

[Guest guest]

!!srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha!!

!! srI krishNa parabrahmaNE namaha!!

!! srImAn nArAyaNa charaNau saraNam prapadyE!!

 

dear vaishNavAs,

 

Often a thiest is questioned by tresspassers to prove

the existance of God rationally. In the modern days,

it has been a strong notion in the society that until

and unless something is established with a tangible

proof, one should not claim it as a truth. Most

importantly those beliefs that are not established in

tangible ways are deemed to be mere beliefs and not

any truth. One can call this rational questioning as a

process of knowing truth. This process is also

mentioned in vedas as anumAna (doubting and testing

all the scenarios). However, in this article, an

investigation is made to check the consistancy of this

method.

 

In the first place, let us understand what a belief

points to. A child who goes to a school, studies

different sciences from his academic books and he is

conveyed that whatever he is studying " is proven and

is truth " . Keeping this in view, the child accepts

whatever the book says without testing things on his

own or asking for any proof. He reads earth is round

and not flat, it is rotating around the sun with great

speeds. He practically observes none of these as

facts, but he puts all his belief in his books and the

scientists who wrote these books. His conviction on

his books improves as he perceives some of the

contents are now tested by himself. In this way, the

child learns " rationality as an important means to

understand truth " from his books. This very process of

rationality is a product of faith developed by the

repeated experimentation, this is the conclusion from

this paragraph. In other words, rationality is a

rational approach is in itself a belief.

 

Challenge to rationalists:::::

 

Now let us analyse if this process is consistent in

dealing with all the problems. Let us consider the

example of a born-blind man. He has never perceived

light as there is no visual sense organ working in his

body. " How can a person with the faculty of vision can

convince to the blind man that there is blue colour,

when the blind man is a rationalist ? "

 

This argument is not meant to nullify the reasoning

ability of human beings but only to highlight its

limitation. It is also not to conclude that every

thing that we donot perceive as existing.

 

This article proves that not all things can be

explained by rational means, especially when we are

handicapped just like the blind man in this example.

The only way a blind man can see blue colour is by

gaining vision. This requires a big surgery and lot of

effort, in the same way, an athiest is also a

blindman, for he cannot understand the existance of

God. He needs to undergo a practise of strict rules as

prescribed by the Spiritual guru, and gradually gain

the sight to see God.

 

dAsOham,

srIperumbUdUru vEnkata vinOd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.