I propose for discussion whether the following is the correct spectrum of possibilities on the rationality of a proposition X. (To note, since I have no academic training in philosophy, I am open to corrections regarding the terminology I used, as there may be established terms for some of the concepts.)

a. X is strongly demonstrated by reason. = a subset of X is explainable by reason & ¬X is repugnant to reason.

b. X is demonstrated by reason. = a subset of X is explainable by reason & a subset of ¬X is not explainable by reason.

c. X is just acceptable to reason. = a subset of X is explainable by reason & a subset of ¬X is explainable by reason.

d. X is not according to reason. = a subset of X is not explainable by reason & a subset of ¬X is explainable by reason.

e. X is against reason. = X is repugnant to reason & a subset of ¬X is explainable by reason.

To the spectrum thus far, I add a sixth possibility, for which letter "f" is really handy because it may relate (IF it is valid at all, which is another issue I propose for discussion,) to propositions that can be known only by faith:

f. X is just acceptable_f to reason. = X is not explainable by reason & ¬X is not explainable by reason.

Notes and examples:

1. "Subset" above includes identity, i.e. it is NOT proper (or strict) subset.

2. A statement on the rationality of a proposition specifies the best case of any of its subsets.
Thus, stating that "a subset of ¬X is not explainable by reason" implies:
- that there may be a proper subset of ¬X that is repugnant to reason,
- but that there is no proper subset of ¬X that is explainable by reason.

3. An example of the difference between "repugnant" and "not explainable" is the case of the universe, for which we know from empirical observations this fact:

F: the universe started to exist 13800 Mya.

F is consistent with four mutually exclusive cases Cx that (IMV) exhaust the universe of possibilities:

C1: God (the Subsistent Being of classical theism) created the universe from nothing.
Explainable by reason.

C2: The universe popped up from a metaverse existing "eternally" by itself.
Not explainable by reason at the metaphysical level & not yet rigorously accounted for at the physical level.

C3: The universe exists "eternally" by itself in a cycle of: Big Bang - slowing expansion - stop - accelerating contraction - Big Crunch - Big Bounce into a new Big Bang.
Not explainable by reason at the metaphysical level & discarded from empirical observations since 1998.

C4: The universe popped up from true nothing (not Lawrence Krauss' "nothing", which is case C2).
Repugnant to reason.

Thus, the rationality case for proposition C1 is b, as C1 is explainable by reason and a subset of ¬C1 (= C2 OR C3 OR C4) is not explainable by reason.

("Eternally" above stands for "from an infinite past and to an infinite future", not for proper eternity as divine attribute.)

4. An example of rationality case c is X = "there are angels" (obviously before any divine Revelation on the subject).
X is explainable by reason: God exists, He can create angels, and may have freely decided to do so.
¬X is explainable by reason: God exists, He can create angels, and may have freely decided not to do so.
 

Last edited by Johannes (8/19/2015 3:35 pm)