Is rationality a consistently rational approach?
Home | SrimAn nArAyaNa | ramanuja | visishta-advaitham | yamuna | alwars | prapatti | practise | scriptures | vishNu-purANa | charama slOka | articles | gallery | temples | FAQ | services | links | disclaimer

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.

athAto "brahma" zignAsA - Then thereafter be inquisitive to enquire about "the Absolute"