Is superstition more circumspect that rationalism?
I can probably anticipate the answers to this.
As rationalists we pride ourselves in being critical correct? After all, it was critical examination of the world that dispelled much superstition through science. And God knows how much science has helped civilization (and how much it has hurt, I suppose). My question is: Is a person who can at least consider the possibility of a different metaphysical outlook not more critical than those who would limit reality to sensory-data? To be sure, initially rationalism and science were more critical than superstitious beliefs as they considered the possibility of non-God explanations for things (risking life and limb!). But now, rationalism has created parameters of reality than prevent it from being critical. I know, I know-- it is because there IS no reality beyond or involved with that which we perceive and quantify through the senses. But this presupposition would preclude super or para natural reality. If one is a true rationalist, one cannot be truly circumspect if there is anything beyond.