What is your answer?

Hard rationalism says that beliefs about religion and other world-views must be proved; we must appeal to hard evidence that is beyond doubt and dispute. To this, it may be objected that hard rationalism

    { 1 } - sets the standards of rationality too high for the subject matter.
    { 2 } - can't make sense of how people actually evaluate religions.
    { 3 } - both of these are important objections.

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
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

Hard rationalism says that beliefs about religion and other world-views must be proved; we must appeal to hard evidence that is beyond doubt and dispute. To this, it may be objected that hard rationalism

Such "hard evidence" and "strict proofs" are appropriate for some areas of science and mathematics -- but not for areas like religion (or law, or literary criticism, or history, or philosophy).

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is wrong. Please try again.

Hard rationalism says that beliefs about religion and other world-views must be proved; we must appeal to hard evidence that is beyond doubt and dispute. To this, it may be objected that hard rationalism

    { 1 } - sets the standards of rationality too high for the subject matter.
    { 2 } - can't make sense of how people actually evaluate religions.
    { 3 } - both of these are important objections.

People in fact use a "cumulative-case" assessment. They examine a religion, find themselves swayed positively or negatively by various factors, and eventually come to a decision based on these.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is correct!

Hard rationalism says that beliefs about religion and other world-views must be proved; we must appeal to hard evidence that is beyond doubt and dispute. To this, it may be objected that hard rationalism

    { 1 } - sets the standards of rationality too high for the subject matter.
    { 2 } - can't make sense of how people actually evaluate religions.
    { 3 } - both of these are important objections.

"Hard evidence" and "strict proofs" are appropriate for some areas of science and mathematics -- but not for areas like religion (or law, or literary criticism, or history, or philosophy). We can see this in how people actually evaluate religions. They examine a religion, find themselves swayed positively or negatively by various factors, and eventually come to a decision based on these. They use a "cumulative-case" assessment.

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
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end