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 doesn't prayer work, when the bible promises that it will (John 14:14, for example)?"
In John 14:14, Jesus says "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." In modern western "Christian" culture, the idea of praying in Jesus' name is often understood to mean appending "...in Jesus' name" to the end of our prayers.
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...
"Is there a question to which you all would give the same - or almost the same - answer?"
I certainly can't speak authoritatively for the opinion of anyone other than myself, but it seems to me that everyone can easily be convinced to agree that if something is, then it is; and also that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same way. In other words, the Laws of Logic are valid. An interesting point to note, however, is that holding to the Laws of Logic can only be rationally justified under Christian assumptions.
Continue reading...