Of course, you can argue against religion using that belief/saying. The example McGavin used is how a homo-sexual can say that he discovered that he/she loves other people of the same gender. He also talks about having ‘rational’ reasoning, which he defines as taking what is known to you and mixes it with the ‘becoming known’. This reasoning is where these two (‘known’ and ‘becoming known’) coincide and meet. Ratzingerian denounces this view though and talks about how he upholds an objective morality instead. McGavin also talks about Aristotelian perspectives and how this form doesn’t focus on value but instead focuses on a way of reasoning that identifies a mean that moves us towards happiness. This is also where we discover the phrase practical reasoning, or wisdom.
Finally, we move on towards how we can see the conversationalist view in this article. McGavin states that since all of the psychologists and philosophers have different views it is hard to see the conversation aspect of it. And in order to understand the conversation happening we need to first understand moral and immoral matters. We also need to take a look at the contribution that social sciences can have on the