Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Actually, the reliability of intellect would not qualify as a hypothesis since a hypothesis could be tested. What you must mean is that the reliability of intellect is axiomatic, an epistemological necessity for the attainment of knowledge. I agree and say that this axiom is irrelevant apart from a second related axiom: reality is intelligible.

If both are in fact true then knowledge can be attain. However, if either of those axioms is not in fact true then knowledge cannot be attained. One of the following applies: 1) we live in a rationally ordered world while we ourselves are incapable of reason, or 2) our capacity for reason cannot be applied to an irrational world, or 3) we live in an irrational would and are incapable of reason.

Now you face an existential choice, one that cannot be rationally determined, empirically tested, or otherwise confirmed. Do you think these axioms are true? Regardless of what you choose to believe, do you have the intellectual honesty to live life consistent with that choice?

That said, if you choose to believe that reality is intelligible and that the intellect is reliable, then it is reasonable to apply the Principle of Sufficient Reason and ask the following questions. Why is reality intelligible and what makes people capable of reason? But of course, these are questions someone ideologically committed to atheism dares not ask.

Esquilax, it's amazing how you can be condescending while insulting someone for being condescending.