I agree with you that the merit of a person’s position does not depend on whether they have a Ph.D. I also agree that a person can be a rationalist and not rational all the time. No where do I deny any of this in my post.

All I contend is that the same is true with Christians. The merits of Bruce Logan’s conclusions does not depend on whether Logan or someone else wrote the arguments he presents for them, and a person can be a Christian without acting in accord with Christianity all the time.

The point I was making is that NZARH seems to affirm this truism when it suits them and deny it when it doesn’t. That is the problem. And it shows a deeper problem with the methods they use. They are not offering a rational critique of Logan or various Christian writers they are finding something negative about Logan’s character, making that public, and hoping that this will lead people to making fallacious jumps towards rejecting Logan’s opinions. That is an irrational method and one unbecoming an organisation that prides itself in following reason.

If any student of mine were to submit an essay arguing in this manner they would fail. I suspect that any philosophy department worth there weight would fail a person who argued this way.

I could say a lot about your proposed definition: You suggest rationalism is synonymous with materialism, atheism and “any other word denoting a lack of belief in religion” the problem is that a person can be an atheist and not reject religion (certain forms of Buddhism) and be an atheist and reject materialism (certain forms of Platonism) so rationalism cannot coherently be a synonym of all these terms.

I note also that Dr Cooke NZARH’s spokesperson has a paper online here http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/a2k/bcooke.html where he mentionstheists who are rationalists. This is difficult if rationalism is a synonym for atheist. Perhaps you should enlighten NZARH about what rationalism is first.

Matt

I dinnae ken about nae PhDs, although Maxim’s plagiarism was slightly illegal.

One can be intellectually a rationalist yet not always act rationally.

Since you don’t understand, I’ll enlighten you: rationalist is a synonym for materialist, atheist, and any other word denoting a lack of belief in religion, and a preference to rely on the scientific method. While this method itself is highly-rational, not many people dare to claim that they are rational and sensible in every aspect of their lives.

Even if one were like that, I would not be sure that they would enjoy such a perfect and precise life.

If your trying to suggest Paul acted alone, why was the article published on NZARH’s website?

The hypocritical double standard is what pisses me off. Logan was wrong to not cite his sources properly, he got a media beat-up for it and rightly so however where is the beat up when Cook passes himself off falsely or when Craig Young passes himself off as holding qualifications he does not?

I cannot usefully comment upon your preoccupation with PhD`s.