Re the Cosmological Argument: The Cosmological Argument is intended to show that God exists, not *which* God exists. Aquinas was very clear on that; his Five Ways are all about showing the existence of a deity; there are other, separate arguments he deploys to show that the Christians have the correct relationship with God.
On Aquinas, Ed Feser's "Five Proofs of God" are fairly accessible. On the Kalam version, William Lane Craig is the current best proponent, at reasonablefaith.org
Sadly, I'm not the Thomist I'd like to be. However, Michael Flynn (who wrote The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown) *is*, or at least is a much better Thomist than me; I got my info from one of his blog posts, along with some reflection.
One quick note: I think you're absolutely right that rationality doesn't guarantee correctness. However, it seems you're using deductive validity as synonymous with rationality (e.g., when you mention that rationality is a conclusion that follows from the premises). Rationality can extend beyond this, as most (but not all) believe scientific reasoning (induction, inference to the best explanation, probability judgments) can be rational, even though in these forms the conclusion does not follow from the premises (in a logically deductive manner).
Instead, rationality can be some correct belief, desire, or behavior that makes sense with a belief-desire complex. For example, if I think I'm Napoleon, and I desire to take over the world, I ought to attempt to take over the world with my Napoleonic army. Never mind this is completely delusional; it follows from the belief-desire complex.
I think all this fits in nicely with what you said; I just mainly wanted to be sure we recognized that rationality extends beyond deduction.
Re the Cosmological Argument: The Cosmological Argument is intended to show that God exists, not *which* God exists. Aquinas was very clear on that; his Five Ways are all about showing the existence of a deity; there are other, separate arguments he deploys to show that the Christians have the correct relationship with God.
Thanks for pointing this out. Would you be willing to link me to the other, separate arguments? I'd be interested in reading them.
On Aquinas, Ed Feser's "Five Proofs of God" are fairly accessible. On the Kalam version, William Lane Craig is the current best proponent, at reasonablefaith.org
Sadly, I'm not the Thomist I'd like to be. However, Michael Flynn (who wrote The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown) *is*, or at least is a much better Thomist than me; I got my info from one of his blog posts, along with some reflection.
Excellent compendium of material on the limits of rationality.
One quick note: I think you're absolutely right that rationality doesn't guarantee correctness. However, it seems you're using deductive validity as synonymous with rationality (e.g., when you mention that rationality is a conclusion that follows from the premises). Rationality can extend beyond this, as most (but not all) believe scientific reasoning (induction, inference to the best explanation, probability judgments) can be rational, even though in these forms the conclusion does not follow from the premises (in a logically deductive manner).
Instead, rationality can be some correct belief, desire, or behavior that makes sense with a belief-desire complex. For example, if I think I'm Napoleon, and I desire to take over the world, I ought to attempt to take over the world with my Napoleonic army. Never mind this is completely delusional; it follows from the belief-desire complex.
I think all this fits in nicely with what you said; I just mainly wanted to be sure we recognized that rationality extends beyond deduction.