A Serious Question For Theists

[fr0d0]

I don't agree at all that they're opposites.

From the strict philosophical standpoint, rationalism is the view that all or most truth is deductive and a priori, deriving logically from a set of axioms gained by intuition or inherent knowledge. However, the term is not very often used so strictly, so this form of rationalism is generally known in English-speaking philosophy as continental rationalism, as its original proponents, such as René Descartes, were largely situated in continental Europe.

The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, empiricism. This looser rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one's starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the scientific method; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to science, designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalism

I have no problem with that. I think that pretty much describes my own approach. That they are opposite seems to be the prominent view, taken from a quick Google. Perhaps they are talking about strict adherence to either, which I can understand.

---

guys, fascinating reading...

I can understand why thiests need to dismiss all of the scientific evidence, not just some.

As a Christian, I don't dismiss any scientific evidence whatsoever. I don't find that I need to, and I don't find that I need to compromise my beliefs at all. If I have problems with either, my faith or my understanding of science, then I know I'm doing something wrong.

For example... I agree completely with evolution, and I also believe that the bible is true, and that a thorough literal reading of biblical origins does not conflict in any way with scientific discovery.

---

I believe his claim is that scientism is illogical, because it dismisses non-physical, non-empirical evidence. If that's the correct definition, then I'll cop to scientism because the lack of consistency and coherence in "non-scientific" evidence makes it impossible to use that evidence to determine anything for certain, even to the individual in question (IMO).

If you're denying rational, which is what I think scientism is doing besides being self defeating (1), then I can't see how that position is tenable

1 : Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.

Ward, Keith, Is Religion Dangerous?.
Alston, William P (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN 0-415-26332-8.
(source = Wikipedia)