Sublime

Plato and Aristotle make a neat distinction between having an opinion and possessing convincing scientific arguments in support of it. I think that the average educated European or American of today knows that the Earth is round, but is probably not able to offer direct and convincing proof of this belief. His level of scientific understanding, at

Philosophy

Logically, we must concede to solipsism and related doctrines that the reality we are learning about might be an unrepresentative portion of a larger, inaccessible or incomprehensible structure. But the general refutation that I have given of such doctrines shows us that it is irrational to build upon that possibility. Following Occam, we shall

Saint Anselm was, like Lanfranc, an Italian, a monk at Bee, and archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), in which capacity he followed the principles of Gregory VII and quarrelled with the king. He is chiefly known to fame as the inventor of the “ontological argument” for the existence of God. As he put it, the argument is as follows: We define “God”

They must come to understand—and put into practice—the convictions that authentic faith is not opposed to reason; that scientism must be put to rest; that mere toleration must not be tolerated; that voluntarism must be eschewed; and that opponents must seek to really listen to one another. As an exemplar of these various intellectual and moral

Francis Bacon and then John Locke grounded the reliability of knowledge in empirical observation, René Descartes in the solidity of “pure” reason. Bacon’s and Locke’s empiricism and Descartes’s rationalism played immensely influential roles and opened the doors to modernity. The shattering and liberating impact of their philosophies freed knowledge

real and bogus arguments

keep an open mind and inquire, moving toward what’s true and away from what’s false.