Critical Rationalism In The Bible

Firstly, I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint of strong rationalism. To begin with, a proponent of this philosophical ideology would not use the Bible as their first source of evidence. Instead, they would start from a position of neutrality to validate or refute Christ’s resurrection through reasonable data. Perhaps, they would begin by investigating statements like everyone dies or Jesus was divine and could live again since these look at both sides of the issue. In turn, if they decided to pursue the Bible as justification for the resurrection, it would only be because they previously evaluated and justified it through neutral proof to be true. Secondly, even if the Shroud of Turin was genuinely a piece of linen from a man’s crucified body, it could not be validated that it came from Jesus. Specifically throughout history, many men were crucified who shared many of His physical features. Humbly I reason, long hair and beards to not differentiate someone from another because these are too common. Thus, for the Shroud of Turin to be strong …show more content…
For example, the quote, “… the existence of God can be proven just by looking at the world around us,” shows a critical rationalist using proof to support their claim. Simply, the Earth is being used as evidence. Also, this statement assumes that God created it, and in that case, it would supply a viable reference to His presence. However, it is hard to believe something based simply on assumptions. Additionally, I believe critical rationalists would use reasonable proof to explain their view of a truthful Bible. If they did not do this, how would they be justified in using the Scriptures to support their view of Christ’s true resurrection? In the end, to support their religious stance, a critical rationalist must use evidence. Otherwise, they are akin to fideism because they are only relying on