Rational? Or Irrational?

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of "rational" is: 1A - having reason or understanding, 1B - relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason: reasonable. That doesn't really tell me much. Maybe it would be more informative to check out the definitions of a synonym, "logical." The American Heritage has as its 2nd definition of "logical": 2 - Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions: reasonable. (There is that word, reasonable, again.) I think there is something here that advances my understanding of what it takes to be logical, and then, since it is a synonym, rational as well.

In fact, the bold part of that last sentence provides an example of rational thought. To say one is thinking rationally means that they are basing their statements on something that has earlier been observed to be true. In the bold statement above it is asserted that if we know what logical means, then we also know what rational means, because we have discovered that they are synonyms, or words that mean the same thing.

Here is a trite and insignificant example of rational thought for the purpose of making sure we are on the same page. I witness John putting sugar in his tea, and then make the claim that John's tea will be sweet. This observation comes from past instances when I know tea has been "sugared" and I remember that every time that happened, the tea was sweet. In my past experiences it has never failed that tea with sugar added was sweet, so my claim that John's tea will be sweet is a totally rational statement. It is based on earlier or otherwise known events.

If I had witnessed John putting sugar in his tea and then said, "John will receive a check for $2,000 from a bird flying in through the open door," people would give me some strange looks, and rightly so. Never in the experiences of anyone who happened to hear my assertion had any of them witnessed, or read an account of, a bird flying in through the open door to deliver a $2,000 check to someone who had just put sugar in their tea. This is irrational thinking. We all properly scoff at it because of its absurdity. That is the reaction best applied to irrationality, although in some cases such thoughts might best be kept to oneself.

So it is rational to expect that what will happen, or might explain a certain situation is something that we have observed to have happened before in similar situations. It is irrational to expect something to happen that has never been observed before, especially when there is a pattern of something totally different that always does happen

There is a point here and it is neither trite nor insignificant. Every time anyone has ever observed an object, or a "thing", that exhibits orderliness, or has design features in its makeup, and it is possible to trace that object, or thing, back to its origin, what is always discovered to be the case is that there is a being with intellect and power over the material of which that object, or thing, is composed who designed it and made it come into being. Sometimes it may be a large team of beings with intellect and power, but it is always, always, a being with intellect and power; intellect to design, and maybe even design a manufacturing process, and power to mold and form pieces and fit them together in a way that functions. It may be something as simple as a needle or a pencil. It may be something as complex as a military fighter plane, or a computer. It may be something in between. It may be a bird nest or a beaver dam. It may be a term paper, a novel, a poem or a song. It may be a corporate hierarchical structure. Somebody, or "somebodies," designed it and brought it into existence. Rational thought requires us to assume when an element featuring design and orderliness is observed, that a being with intellect and power brought about its existence.

What then can be said when an individual observes the orderliness of the solar system, or even galaxies, and claims they came into existence by random, purposeless, unplanned happenstance? What if someone observes the intricacies by which the human body operates, senses the world in which it lives and the abilities of the human mind and claims this all came to be by random, purposeless, unplanned happenstance? What if a person observes even an ant in action, or an amoeba, or a flower, or the way in which all the systems on earth interact with each other. There is no end to the natural examples that could be mentioned. Then what can be said if an observer determines in their mind that all this originated in a random, purposeless, manner of unplanned happenstance?

The only reasonable (there's that word again) response is that such a claim is irrational. The rational approach begins with the assumption that there is a God.