RE: The Trap of Pure Rationalism
December 2, 2011 at 12:42 am
(This post was last modified: December 2, 2011 at 12:49 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
I guess pure rationalism (whatever that is) is probably to be avoided. That's because the only human beings capable of being consistently rational about anything are psychopaths.
First,you are begging the question; I do not search for truth.I do not believe in a 'big 'T' truth. Second; I have always allowed for the possibility of supernatural revelation. I simply do not believe it's likely. My lack of belief is due to there being no credible evidence for such a thing in recorded history.
Of course. I do not recognise any outside or transcendent moral authority.
-----------------------------------------------------
My perception is theist apologist tend to be against the rational as justification for faith. (belief without evidence)
Then the apologist may make statements such as the irrational assertion I actually heard recently on TV: that for a believer, a thing can be both true an untrue at the same time*. The rationalist simply dismiss such claims as drivel. (I do not mean half-truths or shades of grey,I mean binary opposites.)
* George Orwell called it 'doublethink'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Quote:Do you feel that pursuit of truth is hindered by not allowing for the possibility of supernatural revelation?
First,you are begging the question; I do not search for truth.I do not believe in a 'big 'T' truth. Second; I have always allowed for the possibility of supernatural revelation. I simply do not believe it's likely. My lack of belief is due to there being no credible evidence for such a thing in recorded history.
Quote:Do you feel that there is a basis for ethics outside of the existence of higher authority?
Of course. I do not recognise any outside or transcendent moral authority.
-----------------------------------------------------
My perception is theist apologist tend to be against the rational as justification for faith. (belief without evidence)
Then the apologist may make statements such as the irrational assertion I actually heard recently on TV: that for a believer, a thing can be both true an untrue at the same time*. The rationalist simply dismiss such claims as drivel. (I do not mean half-truths or shades of grey,I mean binary opposites.)
* George Orwell called it 'doublethink'
Quote:Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word doublethink is part of Newspeak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
