It is true, one could hold that the others argument is rational but that the conclusion is erroneous. This very fact however implies the subjectivity of the idea of rationality as what is rational is determined by the observor, ergo its a product of humna perception.
No, it doesn't. The fact that an observer perceives that something has a quality in no way implies that it has that quality only in the observer's perception. If I measure a tree and find that it's a certain height, then I do not impose the height upon it - it would have been that height whether I'd measured it or not.
Similarly, it's perfectly possible that when I consider someone's belief to be rational, I am recognising an objective fact about it, not merely imposing upon it a subjective value of my own.
I'm not saying that that
is the case. I'm just saying that the fact that people disagree about which beliefs are rational doesn't mean that they disagree about what the standards of rationality are. And even if they do disagree about what the standards of rationality are, that doesn't mean there's no objective truth to the matter.
In his mind he has a particular reason why he would engage in such and such act and thus it can be said that he has his own rationality, even if said action is fundamentally devoid of reason and by the standards of anyone but himself is irrational.
He may certainly have his own reasons. And he may think that they are rational. But that doesn't mean he's right or that he's justified in thinking that his reasons are rational. If we ask him why he believes something and he says it's because he read every third word on the ninth page of yesterday's copy of the
Times and scrambled the letters at random until they made a message, then even if he thinks that's a rational way to form a belief, I'd say we're pretty well justified in saying that it's not rational. And that is because we can be confident that such a procedure does not tend to produce true beliefs. The fact that he thinks he's being rational is neither here nor there, because he's not being rational.
Basically it is in my view false to think, like the Rabbi who wrote that article, that Greeks are one thing and Jews are another and they do not mix.
Absolutely. In antiquity there were Jews who greatly admired Greek culture, and also Greeks who greatly admired Judaism. (Although Paul preached to gentiles, he seems to have mainly preached to gentiles who hung around synagogues.)
Indeed, Greek thought influenced Judaism in some respects. The deuterocanonical book of Wisdom shows extensive influence from Stoicism and perhaps Middle Platonism. Alexandrian Judaism was very Greek in style and thought, as exemplified by Philo of Alexandria. I don't see how anyone could read Philo and then talk about "Jews" and "Greeks" as if they were two wholly alien cultures.
Plotinus
Even funnier example:
Does your finger knows when you move it???
Can it prove it belongs to a body???
Does it know it was conceived and when???
As Kyriakos said, the reason my finger doesn't know things isn't because it's a part of me, but because it isn't a person. If my finger had a mind of its own then of course it could work out pretty quickly that it's just a part of me. Similarly, if we are parts of God, then I see no reason in principle why there couldn't be evidence for this.
Besides, my earlier point stands. If you think that God has influenced the world in any way then you must accept that there could in principle be evidence for his having done so - otherwise his influence would have to have been pretty feeble. If you think that God's actions have no discernible effect on the world then it's hard to see why you'd believe that he's ever done anything at all.
Also the famous one given to king Midas (iirc) that if he crossed the river a grear kingdom would perish. Midas thought that the Persian kingdom would perish, but it could also be said to have meant his own, which did perish.
