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
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!
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
"Why does religion 'permit' murder and why are people so eager to justify murders their people commited?"
The dictionary defines murder as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". I will, throughout this answer, use this definition as what I am referring to when I use the word "murder", and I will assume that this is the definition in view by the questioner. When humans deny their Creator, the God of the Bible, there is no longer any objective moral authority, or highest moral law.
Continue reading...
"How would you respond to Stephen Law's Evil God Challenge?"
Atheist Stephen Law challenges monotheists everywhere to explain "why the good god hypothesis should be considered significantly more reasonable than the evil god hypothesis". Most classical theistic arguments for the existence of God, Dr. Law claims, even if successful in proving an omnipotent and omniscient God, do nothing to speak to His moral character.
Continue reading...
"Couldn't God have given us free will without giving us the desire to sin?"
No. That would entail a logical contradiction. Let me explain. If God had given us free will (the ability to choose, or to choose otherwise), we would then be able to choose to do other than what we prefer to do. However, if we are choosing other than what we prefer, then we are choosing to do something against our will. This would be logically contradictory -- to will to do something that you did not will to do. God has not given us this type of free will, nor could He have.
Continue reading...