(December 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Quantum Wrote:(December 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That's not what I mean. When natural science gets detached from absolutes, the kind that provide a glimpse of Nature’s God, nothing rationally justifies efficient causality, the reliability of intellect, objective being, or consideration of essential natures.
No, reliability of intellect is not justified rationally. Even worse, if intellect were unreliable, we would have no reliable way to ever know it, right? The reliability of intellect therefore must be a working hypothesis which appears consistent with observation.
"When we hear of some new attempt to explain reasoning or language or choice naturalistically, we ought to react as if we were told that someone had squared the circle or proved the square root of 2 to be rational: only the mildest curiosity is in order-how well has the fallacy been concealed?" - Peter Geach
