The reason AFA David and I, or many of the other contributors cannot understand each other is that we belong to quite different rational traditions. It is like we don't speak each other's language. If you take a look at the analysis of liberalism in the final chapters of MacIntyre's "Whose Justice, which rationality?" you will find a good explanation. Part of the problem is that those who belong to the empiricist tradition do not regard other traditions of rationality to be rational. They think that they and they alone are rational. The argument then is really whether the tradition of rationality that we have inherited that informs virtue and an understanding of how we should live and to what end, (disparaged as religion) is a rational tradition. If you look at Aquinas, for example, it is quite clear that he stands within an Augustinian/Aristotelian rational tradition. If it was not rational he would have been unable to write the Summa Theologica. Theology is a discipline governed by rationality; it is just not the rationality of empirical science.

It is a particular aspect of the Enlightenment that we avow all traditions, thinking that we can evolve a universal and individualist rationality. But there is no rationality without a tradition of rationality. Even liberalism is a tradition, although a very weak and fragmented one.

My problem with exclusive scientific rationalism is that it is impoverished. Because it pretends not to stand in a tradition it neglects all of the thinkers of the past and stands bravely and stoically alone.
Peter

Dear Sells,

Theology is indeed governed by rationality and logic. Augustine, Aquinas and other theologians built structures that were logic and rational. It is exactly the same rationality as that of empirical science. In fact we owe much to Aquinas and Augustine. I have read Augustine and have found his “Confessions” to be sublime when he speculates on the subjects of time and space.

However, rationality and logic are simply not enough. Any logical and rational system depends on axioms which are unprovable. Plane geometry is a logical-rational system which depends on unprovable axioms. Saccheri, a brilliant monk, attempted to prove the parallel postulate by a reductio ad absurdum method. That method is to negate the postulate and produce a contradiction. If one produces a contradiction then that shows that the original postulate was necessary to the system.

He negated the postulate in two ways.

1. Through a point not on a given line no lines can be drawn which do not intersect the given line.
2. Through a point not on a given line many lines can be drawn which do not intersect the given line.
He did not produce a contradiction but two non-Euclidean geometries.

The first negation produced spherical geometry, and the second negation produced hyperbolic geometry. He now had three logical, rational systems.

However, had he showed by some manner that any of the Euclidean axioms or postulates were untenable then he would be left with no worthwhile systems even though they would still be rational and logical.

Theology remains a logical and rational system. I certainly acknowledge that. However, it rests upon an implicit axiom. Theology assumes there is a God. I do not think there is a God, and even theologians agree that no proof that God exists is valid. There have been many attempts at proof. Cosmological, common consent, degrees of perfection, moral, ontological, popular, religious experience etc. However, Kant, the great philosopher, maintained that none of those proofs were valid.

Theology is logical, rational and worthless if one does not accept the axiomatic existence of God

david f,

“>>I do not have to justify all of my opinions before I take a political stand. I don't see why theists should have to do so either.”<<

If you were a politician and you were opposed to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia on religious grounds, as but one example, it would be ethically incumbent on you to let me know before you are elected that your stance is such. This is especially so when roughly 80% of the population agree with LVE. Most politicians who are opposed to LVE are so because of religious reasons.

Politicians are not elected to promote or support their particular religious fantasy. They are elected to do the bidding of the people. Most also keep the information that they will oppose the wishes of the people on such social issues a secret.

That you are giving religion some special privilege here is beyond me.

I really don’t know why you are labouring this point and I hope you never end up with a terminal illness in unremitting pain before you realise you should have been more introspective on these matter when you could have been.

>> “However, indoctrination by their parents or their religious institution on their own time is their right.”<<

Can you point out where I disagree with that?

>>” Democracy rests on the supposition that all opinions can have public currency, and the public will decide among them. I would not demand of religious belief what I do not demand of other opinions.”<<

Why are you missing the point? Yes, the public can have a variety of opinions but please read this. The politicians that the public elect must use the opinions of the public and not only use their own religiously based (or Nazi based etc.) opinions in making decisions on behalf of us all. If they can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be politicians. They should be priests as I have said before.

The electorate has a right to know such opinions beforehand. All politicians should supply them without reservation.

This is simple stuff.

David

David F,
I agree that logic is not enough. That is why I stress traditions of rationality that change over time. Descartes was in error when he proposed that epistemology can be based on the thinking individual, there is no such thing as the view from nowhere.

My problem with your dismissal of theology is that the god you project as not existing bears no relation to the god Christians worship, who is named as Father, Son and Holy Spirit: truth history and the future of truth, if you like. Your premise of god being a supernatural divine being is simply wrong even though the great majority of Christians believe in his existence.

God is not an object in the universe. He is not a cause even the first cause. God for Christians is the truth of the life and death of the man Jesus. To simply dismiss theology because you cannot believe in an old man in the sky is infantile.

God is not an abstraction to whom one gives intellectual assent, as if that makes any difference to anything. To encounter god is to identify with the anthropology found in Scripture, the drama of it. To encounter god is to be moved by the passion narratives and to then understand that this one is the one with whom we finally have to deal.
Peter

What is the difference between Sells and a used-car salesman?

At least a used-car salesman has something tangible to sell. The used car can be seen, sat in, driven, etc. The used-car salesman may promise that it will go forever but no one would believe him.

Flogging a non-existent god is a con and so is promising the 'true' believer that they'll live forever.

Such con-artists should be jailed!

David G,
Gee, without you this thread would be reduced to infantile mudslinging.