Halevi's own claim that syllogistic religion is 'tenuous' is itself a philosophical argument, making the position self-undermining if philosophical reasoning is categorically unreliable about divine matters.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
When an idea or rule contradicts itself or destroys the very thing it's trying to achieve.
Syllogistic religion(as the approach Halevi is critiquing)
The idea that you can prove religious truths the same way you'd prove a logical argument—by stacking logical steps to reach a conclusion about God or faith.
Tenuous(describing Halevi's view of logical arguments about religion)
Weak, fragile, or not convincing; something that barely holds up or could easily fall apart.
syllogistic(Aristotelian logic)
A theory covering a rather limited range of arguments, specifically two-premised arguments containing only the four kinds of categorical sentences