The Logic of Rationalism
Ian | 1 January, 2008 | 23:04There’s a potential criticism of rationalism that is any defence of rationalism is built on rationalism and thus is a circular argument, and there’s therefore no justification for basing one’s outlook on rationality.
Neglecting the fact that it required a rational argument to attempt that bit of deception, lets see what reason I can develop for rationalism.
When one person has an experience (lets say you) and wants to share it with someone else (say me) for the purposes of advancing our groups collective knowledge (for survival or increased advantage), you have only a few forms of communication with which to transfer that knowledge (language, interpretive dance, but no direct brain to brain communication). So for you to pass that experience to me requires a way to make it sound convincing and plausible. At the same time, I don’t want to take in bunk knowledge from a kook (no offence intended), so I need a way of deciding whether or not the knowledge being passed is valid. This is where logical reasoning comes in – you structure the argument in a way that is sound, and if I judge it to be sound and convincing I accept it.
So the way I see it, irregardless of if that initial claim of circular logic is true, there is still a good enough reason for me to live sceptically and to doubt claims of revelation.
Subscribe to posts
LOVE your post. I hope you’ll check out my site http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/ as I think you’ll find it right up your alley. I’ve categorized all my posts on the left. Take a few minutes to read through a few. Leave a comment if you like. I’m going to check out some of your other posts now. Take Care.
Hey Ian, just wanted to write and say that I enjoyed reading through your posts and watching your videos. I founded a non-theistic group at the University of Manitoba (http://ummash.org/) and it would be great to exchange ideas or possibly even plan some kind of elaborate gathering at some point. Regardless, if you’re ever planning to be in Winnipeg, give me a shout!
Hey Ian, Can you do me a favor and go to brookrobinsons’ blog, specifically this link http://brooksrobinson.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/random-thoughts/ and post a comment. I know you can offer an additional rational thinker’s response to the typical asinine question he’s posted there and ericburns’ response. Thanks.
Hey Ian, I ran across another post that left me dumbfounded.
http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/the-bible-stands/
So yeah, “irregardless” is a meaningless word.
Before I address the post in question…
Hi DoubtingThomas426. How are you? I love your site. I love the cowl thing going on with your icon. I think you’re wrong, of course, but it really is relatively well put together bunk.
Which brings me to this post. With respect to the author, aren’t you just advocating subjectivism? And are you really willing to say with intellectual honesty that even if rationalism is supported only by circular logic that you’d still use it because you don’t like the alternative? Because, and I am an expert in this arena, that would be faith, bro.
I should mention that using a methodology to refute a methodology is actually a rather common test. I mean, what’s the point of relying on a philosophy that can be used to discredit it itself?
At the risk of overkill, how do you know your rationalism is reliable? If you’re following the logical dictums of Descartes’ cogito ergo sum, how do you know that your thoughts are reliable? After all, atheists usually allege that reason itself evolved by chance [or some inexplicable yet benevolent mechanism called natural selection for which they also cannot posit a reasonable materialistic origins for] so how do we know your reason and hence your rationalism is reliable?
And, above all, what is the objective standard for your rationalism? Or is it subjectivism all along? “I believe therefore it must be. I hope.”
I hope this isn’t the case. I hope you can provide me with the objective standard of your rationalism. Otherwise, I fear, you will perhaps have disproven your own existence. If “I think, therefore I am,” what are the consequences if one is not thinking?
– Sirius Knott
[...] Help the SSA Response on Rationalism 15 January 2008 I got some good responses to my The Logic of Rationalism post, in paticular I wanted to make a full response to this post: Which brings me to this post. [...]
[...] 24 January 2008 Recently (when I’ve been posting), I’ve written a bit on rationalism and have been trying to construct a logical defence of it, both for myself, and for my (so far very [...]
Thanks for this – great idea.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the post,
Nice post man i just signed up to flickr to!