Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Alston's use of 'rationality' is indefensible because no ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Religious Experience
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Alston's use of 'rationality' is indefensible because no single meaning of that term can do the work he requires it to do.

    Philosophy of LanguageReligious Experience
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Alston employs 'rationality' loosely across his argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No one meaning of 'rationality' is sufficient to support all the roles Alston assigns to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Religious ExperiencePhilosophy of Language

    Related

    Alston employs 'rationality' loosely across his argument.No one meaning of 'rationality' is sufficient to support all the roles Alston as...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Similar

    Alston employs 'rationality' loosely across his argument.90%No one meaning of 'rationality' is sufficient to support all the roles...87%It does not make sense to speak of a universal standard of rationality...84%Kim's argument does not rely on rationality being uncodifiable82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mysticism
    View source passageHide passage
    Most objections to Alston are equally objections to the Argument from Experience or come from general epistemological complaints. Objections that apply specifically to Alston include Jonathan Kvanvig’s (1994) faulting of Alston for a loose employment of “rationality.” He argues that no one meaning of that term can do the work Alston does with it. Another objection is that Alston moves from “It is practically rational to engage in a Christian doxastic practice” to “It is rational for me to believ
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit