Allan Paxton suggests that «super-AI will surely inject a sorely needed mega-dose of
rationalism into human affairs, since it will...
«The Bible is by far the most complete account of the coming of
rationalism into religion, based on the earliest documents available.»
They brought a strong element of
rationalism into theology which contrasted strongly with pietism.
Not exact matches
I contest your mockery even though much of your wordage usages are complacently configured
into a time lapse
rationalism.
But trends in
rationalism and scientism over the last two centuries turned it
into a «value - free» social science» to some, just a form of applied mathematics.
Lest any reader should suppose that he finally abandoned his
rationalism in his attempt to state the relations of God and the world, Whitehead states immediately preceding this passage that» in each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition
into a contrast.»
The Commission realized that western culture and science could not destroy the traditional idols but has also introduced
into India new gods like
Rationalism, Scientism, Individualism and Materialism which had no sense of the sacredness of human persons and was converting technology
into a force for exploitation of the industrial workers and dehumanization of peoples» lives in the cities of India.
After passing through an era dominated by
rationalism, Western culture is experiencing an explosion of religious mysticism — a manifestation of the human spirit's seeking to transcend the confines of the single - storied universe
into which it has locked itself since the Enlightenment.
I address these issues in section VII) Combining these two ideals,
into rational empiricism or empirical
rationalism, means that one can not achieve rational coherence by simply denying or ignoring some facts of experience, and that one can not achieve empirical adequacy by being inconsistent (even if inconsistency is re-labeled paradox, mystery, or ambiguity, and referred to in hallowed tones).
If attentions are turned to pumping a dry well like this
Rationalism vs. Religion false dilemma, no matter which way it's flipped, ahem, then people will clump
into opposing camps and the jabs, barbs or slams of one sort or another increase.
These two sides of our heritage have become split
into opposing schools in much of contemporary thought — with one side protesting constrictive
rationalisms of all sorts in the name of freedom, and the other resisting all plunges
into historicist relativism.
The whole history of the modern and postmodern eras has burned
into our consciousness — on grounds as various as Enlightenment
rationalism and post-Nietzschean deconstructionism — the scientific, psychological and ontological impossibility of a resurrection.
By arguing that the Bible's first «author» was a woman, Bloom has breathed a kind of new life
into the dusty old Yahwist, that hybrid creation of
rationalism, historicism and romanticism usually associated with the name of Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918).
Hanvey and colleagues are championing represents, they claim, «a significant and hard won movement from scholastic
rationalism which for all its virtues of clarity, precision and structure, was difficult to translate
into the culture of modernity.»
This is not the time to launch
into a polemic on
rationalism — you are not there to make converts.
The Last Witchfinder flies us back to that thrilling period when scientific
rationalism was dropped
into the great cauldron of intellectual history, boiling with prejudice, tradition, piety and fear.
Notice «inner psychological needs» @ 3:08:40 which also became the new «definition» for one's Tribe in the late 1970s and
into the madness (and economic
rationalism aka early neo-liberalism) of the 1980s in the west.