We rationalists rely on the presumption of rationalism that reason rather than faith is our tool to acquire knowledge. Reason can move mountains of ignorance whereas faith rests on the argument from ignorance.
Faith is the we just say so of credulity. It begs the question of its subject, which it cannot instantiate. Science is acquired knowledge, remarks Sydney Hook whereas faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Reason requires as W.K. Clifford proclaims adequate evidence. Nay, ti would not impede in our lives as we don't require evidence for most matters or just a little. Now the supernatural and the paranormal do indeed require much evidence so as to overcome this presumption and that of naturalism. The amount of evidence for reason to operate on thus depends from situation to situation. And we rationalists declare that not only can we derive evidence from the microscope, the telescope and the Buntsen burner but also from dailly experience as I had the evidence that my parents loved me from their caring actions.
One indeed argues in a circle in announcing that she takes God on faith. That is what Alvin Platinga, advanced theologian, who pleads for the warrant that belief in God is basic like other minds and external reality, does. His faith cannot instantiate Yahweh over Allah or even the Great Pumpkin!
Ideologies like National Socialism and Marxism are also faith-based as their partisans ignore facts and they rely on their whims and tastes.
The Gollden and Silver Rules rest on the insight that we cannot expect others to treat us as we want unless we accord them the same respect, Read John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion" on this point and others.
By the way, it is a myth that Tertullian affirmed that he believed in Christianity, because it was so absurd.
The rationalist fallacy is that with the spread of education there would be less superstition, but the more educated can indeed plead more sophisitcally for their superstition. For sure, theere is a decrease in religious bellief in the more advanced countries, except for ours.Would that Bishop John Shelby Spong could educate more Christians to accept his noting that the Bible does indeed have its faults and people ougt to practive a humanist morality!
David Hume maintains that reason should obey our passions. I maintain only if they do not conflict with the rational, which includes the just.
By the way the atheist Ayn Rand had a faith-based philosophy: it derived from her lack of knowledge of philosophy and her misconceptions of what philosophers actually maintain. Her cult denies that we have the innate moral sense and use her idiosyncratic definition of altruism as opposed to the individual.
Faith is the we just say so of credulity. It begs the question of its subject, which it cannot instantiate. Science is acquired knowledge, remarks Sydney Hook whereas faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Reason requires as W.K. Clifford proclaims adequate evidence. Nay, ti would not impede in our lives as we don't require evidence for most matters or just a little. Now the supernatural and the paranormal do indeed require much evidence so as to overcome this presumption and that of naturalism. The amount of evidence for reason to operate on thus depends from situation to situation. And we rationalists declare that not only can we derive evidence from the microscope, the telescope and the Buntsen burner but also from dailly experience as I had the evidence that my parents loved me from their caring actions.
One indeed argues in a circle in announcing that she takes God on faith. That is what Alvin Platinga, advanced theologian, who pleads for the warrant that belief in God is basic like other minds and external reality, does. His faith cannot instantiate Yahweh over Allah or even the Great Pumpkin!
Ideologies like National Socialism and Marxism are also faith-based as their partisans ignore facts and they rely on their whims and tastes.
The Gollden and Silver Rules rest on the insight that we cannot expect others to treat us as we want unless we accord them the same respect, Read John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion" on this point and others.
By the way, it is a myth that Tertullian affirmed that he believed in Christianity, because it was so absurd.
The rationalist fallacy is that with the spread of education there would be less superstition, but the more educated can indeed plead more sophisitcally for their superstition. For sure, theere is a decrease in religious bellief in the more advanced countries, except for ours.Would that Bishop John Shelby Spong could educate more Christians to accept his noting that the Bible does indeed have its faults and people ougt to practive a humanist morality!
David Hume maintains that reason should obey our passions. I maintain only if they do not conflict with the rational, which includes the just.
By the way the atheist Ayn Rand had a faith-based philosophy: it derived from her lack of knowledge of philosophy and her misconceptions of what philosophers actually maintain. Her cult denies that we have the innate moral sense and use her idiosyncratic definition of altruism as opposed to the individual.
Last edited:
