If, as you say, no one understands the true or right definition of "rationality," then it is strange for you to refer to my position as "not very rational."

lol

You might be starting to get the idea, ax.

Opinions aren't true, no matter how hard we might want them to be.

There are many different ways to describe a concept, many shades of meaning, none of which is absolutely true. We each have general (often quite vague) ideas about what things mean.

Otherwise we couldn't converse.

In formal language there are no vague ideas. In natural tongues practically everything is vague. That's why philosophy and empirical science are useful, because they're our only tools for cutting through the crap.

you can know what truth is even while lacking an exhaustive understanding of that truth; so knowing what the truth is does not necessarily stop open inquiry...Your point about the limits of human understanding is thus well taken.

Knowing what 'truth' is (i.e . correspondence) is easy. Knowing that we don't know the certain truth about things makes open inquiry possible.

In fact, that is what attracts me to the religious mindset! Sincere religion makes one alive to the mystery of things, keeping in check mankind's tendency to "know it all."

To me, the Absolute must remain mysterious; I trust in Being and I live in mystery. To me talking about the unknowable distracts people from things that are more important than discussing the nature of deities. That's why I emphasize the importance of understanding the limits of human understanding.

If you want to cut the crap, learn philosophy!