Posts

Showing posts from May 11, 2020

Reason and Fallibility

Image
Aristotle (385-323 BCE) At least some members of the New Atheists embrace skepticism in a general way to explain why they 1) reject belief in God exists and 2) also reject belief in the nonexistence or impossibility of God. So they endorse negative atheism, but not positive atheism. This is ironic because some theologians have embraced skepticism to explain why they believe in God. The atheists I have in mind say that our fallibility demonstrates that reason, although it usually works, is "limited" or is not "absolute." These are suspect terms though. Reason is of course limited in the sense that everything is limited: to exist is to exist as something specific, and to exist as something specific is to have a limited number of attributes. A is A means that A is limited to being A and cannot also be not-A (at the same time and in the same respect). This is hardly a controversial point. See Aristotle for details. As for reason not being absolute, this brin