Assess The Difference Between Rationalism And Irrationalism
What are the differences between the rationalist and irrationalist views of faith? Which do you find convincing?
The main difference between rationalists and irrationalists views of faith is that by its very nature, religion can not be reasoned through traditional logic. This essentially means that rationalists can be mostly viewed as a foil to faith or mysticism, while irrationalists arm themselves against such conjecture by claiming faith as being immune to such slings and arrows.
I am most convinced by the arguments presented by irrationalists and their ability to circumnavigate many arguments by ineffable means.
Rationalism is described as "the philosophy that is characterized by its confidence in reason, and intuition in particular, to …show more content…
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher considered to be the central figure of modern philosophy, defended "belief in God as a matter of faith, [and] nevertheless defended the belief as rational" (Solomon 165).
Irrationalists, on the other hand, are defined as defining faith against reason. This provides sidesteps for any attempt at disproving or discrediting the nature of religion(s).
Banks 2
Because of this, mystics "consider rationalists' arguments irrelevant" (Solomon 166). This frustrates most would be rationalists, often ending in said rationalist departing from the argument while the mystic is free to continue their path, free from any burden of proof. Having said that, mysticism can be declared ineffable in its nature, being indescribable and incommunicable.
Søren Kierkegaard was a Danish existentialist philosopher that argued ""proofs" of God's existence, needless to say, were as irrelevant ─ in fact, offensive ─ as you could imagine" and is often famous for his phrase: "leap of faith" (Solomon 169). To this end, irrationalists are allowed a certain subjective truth, in regard to their commitments and strong feelings.
Having discussed both sides in detail, I (personally) find the nature of
The main difference between rationalists and irrationalists views of faith is that by its very nature, religion can not be reasoned through traditional logic. This essentially means that rationalists can be mostly viewed as a foil to faith or mysticism, while irrationalists arm themselves against such conjecture by claiming faith as being immune to such slings and arrows.
I am most convinced by the arguments presented by irrationalists and their ability to circumnavigate many arguments by ineffable means.
Rationalism is described as "the philosophy that is characterized by its confidence in reason, and intuition in particular, to …show more content…
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher considered to be the central figure of modern philosophy, defended "belief in God as a matter of faith, [and] nevertheless defended the belief as rational" (Solomon 165).
Irrationalists, on the other hand, are defined as defining faith against reason. This provides sidesteps for any attempt at disproving or discrediting the nature of religion(s).
Banks 2
Because of this, mystics "consider rationalists' arguments irrelevant" (Solomon 166). This frustrates most would be rationalists, often ending in said rationalist departing from the argument while the mystic is free to continue their path, free from any burden of proof. Having said that, mysticism can be declared ineffable in its nature, being indescribable and incommunicable.
Søren Kierkegaard was a Danish existentialist philosopher that argued ""proofs" of God's existence, needless to say, were as irrelevant ─ in fact, offensive ─ as you could imagine" and is often famous for his phrase: "leap of faith" (Solomon 169). To this end, irrationalists are allowed a certain subjective truth, in regard to their commitments and strong feelings.
Having discussed both sides in detail, I (personally) find the nature of