tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5932887414135945892..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Rationalism and Empiricism ExplainedVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54304761579241126882010-03-08T14:23:39.192-07:002010-03-08T14:23:39.192-07:00I always thought that someone was a rationalist if...I always thought that someone was a rationalist if they thought that there were any innate ideas, or if they thought there was any synthetic a priori knowledge.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10980482309556226342010-03-08T12:34:09.081-07:002010-03-08T12:34:09.081-07:00Which category, R. v E., does the Fundamentalist f...Which category, R. v E., does the Fundamentalist fall under, VR? <br /><br />Really, it's not an exclusive disjunction. A real philosophaster might be a rationalist in regard to some knowledge (mathematics, logic), and an empiricist in regard to natural sciences, history, economics, etc.<br /><br />That said, anyone who attempts to defend the historicity of JC (and scripture) must deal with empirical issues, and really with verification--and in that regard the New Testament's no more reliable than Tacitus or Suetonius (and perhaps less, in so far that other sources support the traditional roman history).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com