Sunday, March 08, 2009

The presumption of rationalism

The presumption of rationalism is that one always should use reason in the acquisition of knowledge rather than faith. Reason can move mountains whilst faith makes for mountains of castles in the air.
Reason does not bring mad scientists or despotism; those are faith-based activities as not based in reason and real fact but instead in whims and disregard of facts. Reason is not without emotions.
Faith is the we just say so of credulity.. It begs the question of its subject [Articulett@ Skeptic Society]. Science is acquired knowledge whilst faith , as Sydney Hook remarks, begs the question of being knowledge.
Contrary to advance theologian haughty John Haught, Clifford Richard Dawkins does not make here an idiosyncratic definition of faith, nor do I, but use the word ad one does in stating that one must have faith.And it is no false dilemma to claim thus that reason and faith do in fact conflict rather than faith complements reason.
William Kingdon Clifford rightly maintains that we should never accept a claim without sufficient evidence; advance theologian Keith Ward maintains that with that heuristic method and attitude, we could never get out of bed!Nay, the amount varies, much of life's daily activities require no further evidence finding. He sets up the straw man of the all or nothing fallacy.
Advanced theologians abdicate reason like the primitive ones like Pat Robertson or Norman Geisler; faith does that to people!

4 comments:

IgnosticMorgan said...

Error: McGrath,not Haught who disagress in effect.

Carneades Hume said...

This account now goes to Rationalist Griggsy.

Carneades Hume said...

What do you say about these comments?

Carneades Hume said...

Theism is just reduced animism and like full aninism, it is a superstition!It's an ignoratio elenchi - irrelevant- that it is just one spirit behind Nature whilst full animism has the many behind forces of Nature.
Per Lamberth's teleonomic/atelic argument, no intent intrudes behind natural phenomena so to allege divine input contradicts rather than complements science. To ,however, still claim He does makes the new Omphalos argument that He deceives with the appearance of no intent when He does have intent just as the old one claims that He deceives us with the appearance of ancient ages for historical matters.
John Hick's eptistemic argument is that He makes matters ambiguous about Himself so that He cannot overwhelm our free wills.
No, science finds no intent and thus, without that intent He lacks the referents of Creator, Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and with contradictory,incoherent attributes, He cannot exist. Analysis rather than dogma illuminates that we rationalists don't have to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves!