I came across this wonderful post by Liz Jackson, a Notre Dame PhD candidate in philosophy. She argues for the rationality of faith by taking an argument against her view and showing that it fails. Of course, this doesn’t “prove” anything, but it does undermine several common attacks made against the rationality of faith. I’d be interested to hear from skeptical readers whether they think Jackson succeeds, or if they have an alternative way to argue for faith’s irrationality.
One point that stands out to me is that skeptics shouldn’t just define faith as irrational. She explains why in the post.
Read her post here.
I discovered this blog (The Open Table) just today, but it seems like a good one.