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