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.
Rationalistic claims are false .
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.
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.
"According to the bible, God created earth before our sun. How would you justify that? That sounds illogical."
We read about God's creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1. Genesis 1:9-10 (The Third Day) Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
"Your god, in his own holy book, admits to having created evil (Isaiah 45:7). Why then should I worship him?"
In Isaiah 45:7, the KJV translates the Hebrew word "rah" as "evil". More modern English translations often opt for the word "calamity" instead. Either one of these translations is viable and could be the intended meaning of the passage. However, that God is ultimately the Uncaused First Cause of all sinful actions is clear from both scripture and reason, so even if the verse cited does not make the point, the general concept behind the question remains.
"Are all presuppositions equally valid? If not, how does one determine which are more valid than others?"
Internal consistency is the most common method I know of for determining the truth value of presuppositions. The test of internal consistency is what presuppositional reasoning is all about. If, for example, a view presupposes "A" and "not-A" at the same time and in the same way, then, in that worldview, reasoning, knowledge, learning, meaning, morality, science, mathematics -- everything -- becomes utterly incoherent.