Epistemological Rationalism

The second major epistemological theory I would like to cover is Rationalism, the belief that we acquire knowledge by using our minds. Knowledge is only warranted if our intuition can fully apprehend the thing in question. Knowledge is a result of analytic truth (deduction) and, thus, can be reliably expressed in syllogism. In its simplest form, this takes the form of an argument. The modus ponens (or modus ponendo ponens, "mode that affirms by affirming") states that if X and Y are true, the Z must be true. For example:

1. If today is Sunday, I will be at church.
2. Today is Sunday.
3. Therefore, I will be at church.

This can also be used to prove a negative (a modus tollens):

1. If you are a human being then you are not a stone.
2. You are made of stone.
3. Therefore, you are not a human being.

Of course, there are examples that don't work because we can deny the antecedent. Take for example:

1. If God would show Himself to me personally, that would prove that God exists.
2. But God hasn't done so.
3. Therefore, religion is false.

Just because 1. and 2. are both true, doesn't necessitate 3. There may be other explanations. God may show Himself to us, but our senses may not fully grasp His presence or just because something is not “shown” does not mean it does not exist.

For a rationalist, the mind and argument (essentially) determine what we can know, as opposed to an empiricist who may claim that that the only way to know if God exists if we can somehow experience Him. Only because the world has an inherently logical structure, can we, as an rationalist would claim, know anything. In our case, it must be proven to be a logical necessity before a rationalist can accept God's existence. So, when I begin to tackle the arguments for God's existence, I will be venturing into the world of rationalism, but I have my doubts about this method.