Why not? Because it is not that; i.e., it is not irrationality. What you're saying only carries weight with the presupposition that "reason" must be the equivalent to a faith in atheists and humanists instead of faith in God and the Church.
This is not true -- atheists do not have faith in reason. Faith by definition is a belief in something for which there is no proof. On the other hand, reason is based on proof -- that which has a logical defense. To have faith in reason would be to believe without proof, without rationale, the very process of rational justification and explanation. Therefore one cannot have faith in reason -- they are polar opposites.
The problem is, as always, not about whether reason aided by relevation is rational or irrational, but about whether or not it is True. Reason aided by revelation--if it is true--is not irrational unless there is no "reason" involved in the combination; if it is solely revelation, without reason, then it is irrational--nevertheless, just because something happens as a result of irrationality, does that mean that it is not true that it happens?
I agree, the pursuit of truth is our goal. However, truth is that which is in agreement with fact or reality. And in the case of religion it is a supernatural being, a being outside of physical reality, that must be proven. This proof must be presented in a rational way utilizing reason or it is not valid proof at all.
In addition, you have conceded that "revelation, withouth reason.. is irrational." Given that correct premise, "reason aided by revelation" is in fact irrational. Even if there was one, or even more than one, rational statement made in your undescribed combination, the inclusion of just one irrational (revelational) statement would make the entire processes irrational. For example, early humans observed lightning and came to the conclusion that something must be causing these arcs of light. This is a reasonable observation. However, this observation was unexplained to them so they invented a supernatural "god of lightning" that threw down bolts from the sky when it was angry. This conclusion was irrational, there was no proof of a supernatural influence -- it was simply created by the people as a way to feel better about the unexplained phenomenon. Therefore, the faith-based conclusion that a lightning god existed was irrational despite the original, reasonable observation that something was causing the lightning.
Thus, if there is no fully justifiable explanation based on reason alone then belief in a supernatural being requires faith, that is, irrational belief.
...just because something happens as a result of irrationality, does that mean that it is not true that it happens? For instance, one day I might be drunk and trip over my feet and fall on my face and find my car keys which I was looking for all day long--would you call my behavior leading to the result of the repossesion of my keys a "rational" activity on my part? But even if revelation is not true, and there is still reason working, it is not an irrational activity if there is a rational outcome
The major fallacy here is that events don't occur as a
result of either irrationality or rationality. They occur based on nature, on probabilities of the physical world. So no, no rational person would agree with you here. If you state your example in a way that is agreeable to causality, it would be quite different:
'I can't find my keys so I'm going to go get drunk and then hopefully I'll trip over my own feet and fall on my face and happen to see my keys.'
This is definately an irrational thought process, and I would expect that the person to actually come to this solution was already drunk in the first place. Even if the keys were found in this fasion, it does not make the solution reasonable. Therefore, repossesion of the keys in your suggested manner would not be a rational activity, and it is not a rational outcome. I would recommend checking the couch and recruiting the help of a friend.
The deeper problem here is that many in modern times have confused "reason" and "truth" with "the simpler explanation." But is the simpler explanation always necessarily true? Sometimes, in fact most of the time, yes. However, most of the time we have this insistence going on that the "physical explanation" of an event refutes the idea that there could be a "spiritual" element; all the scientist is doing is explaining the natural portion of any given event. Nevertheless, I must put in that most scientific explanations seem far too complicated to be a "simpler" one.
Yes, scientists do explain reality using rational though processes. If a scientist was to tell you the process by which there is rain, evaporation and condensation of water from the earth, then it is fully explained as far as any rational person is concerned. However, if you make the arbitrary statement that 'yes, that sounds reasonable but don't forget the spirtual element -- rain is god's tears when he's crying' then you have just made an irrational addition to a complete logical explanation. Scientists do not assert a "simple explanation" or they would make a claim similar to the religious people of the past -- "god is the cause for everything." In that manner science would have been "completed" thousands of years ago and we would still be living in the caves, struggling to survive. Science is the rational search for truth, the pursuit of knowledge. Religion is the destruction of reason -- blind, irrational belief.
Perhaps you are "rational," and perhaps--since you are obviously an expert on the scriptures, seeing as you already know that it has internal inconsistencies--perhaps you could point these internal inconsistencies out for me. Could you do that?
Yes, I could. One example, what were Jesus's last words?
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
And the bible is infallible? Many more may be found
here
Hundreds of others may be found with a simple google search.
This doesn't even include translation errors such as this about the "virgin birth" from
http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml
"There are two hebrew words usually translated 'virgin' in English. 'Bethulah' means virgin in the sense that we understand it. It was used, for example, in Isaiah 62:5. 'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman, this is not it's exclusive usage. The context will usually point out the correct usage.
The confusion arose when the Greek Septuagint used the greek word 'parthenos' to translate Isaiah 7:14. This word, in Greek, does denote a sexually pure woman, and was the inspiration for the gospellers myth of the Virgin birth.
A look at the context of Isaiah 7:14 will quickly reveal that the woman that Isaiah was referring to was probably *already* pregnant, thus pointing out which sense of 'almah' was intended. In any case, the point of Isaiah's prophecy was that before the child reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. (A prophecy which was only partly fulfilled, by the way). The use of the word 'virgin' is not germane in Isaiah's prophecy. The 'sign' was the child, not a miraculous conception.
In short, Isaiah's 'sign' was fulfilled in it's own context, hundreds of years before anyone thought to apply it in a different sense. "
And yes, I am aware of the definition of contradiction. There are so many in the bible that I'm surprised that you claim to know it as well.
