the Website of Timothy McCabe Follower of Christ; Student of Epistemology, Apologetics, and Theology
Home Good News Proofs Questions Presentations Software More

Rationalism

Definition

Rationalism describes any philosophy that claims that beliefs and opinions should always be logical, deductive conclusions rather than being based on experience, observations, religious teachings, or divine revelation.

Keywords: Rationalism, Philosophy, Logical, Reasoning, Deductive, Experience, Observations, Religious, Revelation, Contradictory.

Veracity

Rationalistic claims are false .

Proof

All self-refuting or contradictory claims are deductively false.

Premise 1: Only deductive conclusions should be believed.

Premise 2: Premise 1, being the foundation or starting point of the philosophy, is not itself a deductive conclusion.

Conclusion: Therefore, premise 1, also known as "rationalism", should not be believed.

Rationalistic claims, when adhered to, require the rejection of rationalistic claims. To accept them is to reject them, making rationalism inherently contradictory and deductively false.

Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons

Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons

Riveting, yet absurd; romantic, yet innocent; Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons is a little Roald Dahl, a little Harry Potter, and a little Chronicles of Narnia, all rolled into one. Timothy McCabe collaborates with the great Benedict Ballyhoot to bring you the novel of the century!

 

World Religions and Cults (volume 2)

In Printed Form

Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.

Other Writings

"If there is a God, but there is no evidence to be found for his existence except subjective experiences, is it not reasonable to assume that if he does exist, he does not want us to know about it?"

The conclusion does not seem reasonable to me. First, the premise is very unclear, and I will explain what I mean. Second, in the only way I can see that the premise could be considered true, the conclusion does not seem to be reasonably based on it. AN UNCLEAR PREMISE First, the premise seems unclear in that it seems to suggest that evidence is the only way to justifiably be convinced of something. But note that rational thought cannot exist without reason behind it.
Continue reading...

"Assuming I accept your arguments that there is a God, it is still a huge leap for me to therefore cut off my son's foreskin, avoid clothes of mixed fibers, and give 10% of my earnings to Pat Robertson."

Christianity does not advocate cutting off your son's foreskin, avoiding clothes of mixed fibers, or giving 10% of your earnings to Pat Robertson. So it seems as though there is nothing in your way to becoming a Christian! Since you haven't actually asked a question, I'm going to have to do a little guesswork to try to figure out how to properly address this comment. PAT ROBERTSON I'll start with the easiest one first -- the Bible never even mentions Pat Robertson.
Continue reading...

"If God said "Thou shalt not kill" then why did he flood the whole world leaving only Noah and his family alive, and how is the destruction of Sodom justified (killing people for engaging in "immoral" sex), is God exempted from morality?"

If you have small children, you may have told them that they are not allowed to answer the door, or to talk to strangers. Since they are your children, it is morally wrong for them to disobey you, at least in any circumstance where your commands do not go directly against God's commands (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20). This means that it would be morally wrong for your children to answer the door, or to talk to strangers, because in so doing, they would be disobeying you.
Continue reading...

All articles