What is your answer?

Soft rationalism could see the traditional arguments for the existence of God as

    { 1 } - of no value whatever, since belief in God rests on a "leap of faith" with no intellectual justification.
    { 2 } - giving strong points in favor of belief in God.
    { 3 } - proving conclusively that there is a God.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

Soft rationalism could see the traditional arguments for the existence of God as

This is fideism -- which soft rationalism rejects.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is correct!

Soft rationalism could see the traditional arguments for the existence of God as

    { 1 } - of no value whatever, since belief in God rests on a "leap of faith" with no intellectual justification.
    { 2 } - giving strong points in favor of belief in God.
    { 3 } - proving conclusively that there is a God.

The teleological or cosmological arguments, for example, might not strictly prove that there is a God. But they might show that theism gives a more plausible account of the origin of the world than does atheism -- and this counts in favor of theism. Before making a final "cumulative-case" assessment, however, we'd have to examine both views more extensively and look for further strengths and weaknesses.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is wrong. Please try again.

Soft rationalism could see the traditional arguments for the existence of God as

    { 1 } - of no value whatever, since belief in God rests on a "leap of faith" with no intellectual justification.
    { 2 } - giving strong points in favor of belief in God.
    { 3 } - proving conclusively that there is a God.

This is hard rationalism -- which soft rationalism rejects.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end