Assess The Difference Between Rationalism And Irrationalism

What are the differences between the rationalist and irrationalist views of faith? Which do you find convincing?
The main difference between rationalists and irrationalists views of faith is that by its very nature, religion can not be reasoned through traditional logic. This essentially means that rationalists can be mostly viewed as a foil to faith or mysticism, while irrationalists arm themselves against such conjecture by claiming faith as being immune to such slings and arrows.
I am most convinced by the arguments presented by irrationalists and their ability to circumnavigate many arguments by ineffable means.
Rationalism is described as "the philosophy that is characterized by its confidence in reason, and intuition in particular, to
know reality independently of experience" (Solomon 673).
By this definition, a rationalist is one that would use arguments supported, or refuted, by logic and/or reason. Rationalists, by and large, consider mystics "obstinate and unwilling to argue rationally" (Solomon 166). However, not all rationalists were entirely divorced from the concepts of religion, mysticism, and God.
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher considered to be the central figure of modern philosophy, defended "belief in God as a matter of faith, [and] nevertheless defended the belief as rational" (Solomon 165).
Irrationalists, on the other hand, are defined as defining faith against reason. This provides sidesteps for any attempt at disproving or discrediting the nature of religion(s).
Banks 2
Because of this, mystics "consider rationalists' arguments irrelevant" (Solomon 166). This frustrates most would be rationalists, often ending in said rationalist departing from the argument while the mystic is free to continue their path, free from any burden of proof. Having said that, mysticism can be declared ineffable in its nature, being indescribable and incommunicable.
Søren Kierkegaard was a Danish existentialist philosopher that argued ""proofs" of God's existence, needless to say, were as irrelevant ─ in fact, offensive ─ as you could imagine" and is often famous for his phrase: "leap of faith" (Solomon 169). To this end, irrationalists are allowed a certain subjective truth, in regard to their commitments and strong feelings.
Having discussed both sides in detail, I (personally) find the nature of
irrationalism fascinating. This is mainly due to my enjoyment in mental exercises and casual argument. The constant feints and counterarguments based around circular reasoning seem to upset everyone attempting to engage their arguments with reason. The ability of the mystic to claim "faith" at any point in which one may be backed into a logical corner is a truly powerful tool when engaging in an argument. I consider myself a person of logic, but can not deny being convinced by arguments of mysticism needing to be experienced by oneself, and being outside of a bound of quantifiable quality. This trump card can be abused, however, and has historically been used by men in religious power to perform all manner of horrendous acts of cruelty. From a strictly novel standpoint of the ability to out argue any would be adversary, I can not deny that I am drawn to the allure of such ability to grant a rival no quarter.
In conclusion, rationalists are (as their name bespeaks) wont to use reason to prove or disprove (as is often the case) the facets of religion. Irrationalists are defenders of their faith by means of claiming their religion as being exempt from casual logic, and superseding all attempts to deduce any fallacies that may arise from continued worship. My own conclusion was that it
Banks 3 would be folly for a rationalist to attempt to argue with an irrationalist, as this is a battle that can not be won; thus drawing by attention as well as fascination by the means through which they continue their dance around man kinds' attempts to logic