I typically avoid discussions with people who a) are more involved with an issue than I am, and b) have more time available than I do. But I'll break that little rule today to try to deliver on a post I pledged a few weeks ago.
Arthur Silber publishes an interesting blog called "Light of Reason". A name like that is a heavy load to carry IMO. Mr. Silber does well, but in fact has chosen a burden that cannot be borne. Reason fails him, as it must.
I don't have the time or space to go into this in great detail here. What I would say boils down to "Mr. Silber worships reason". I don't think he would find that offensive per se and it is not intended in that way. What it is intended to convey is that Mr. Silber elevates reason to heights its powers do not justify.
If I am mischaracterizing his position I'm more than willing to be corrected, but it appears that Mr. Silber believes that 1) all that is true can be demonstrated through reason, and 2) reason will never lead to falsity. Without these, he simply has no starting point to build his philosophy.
And I disagree with both statements. I would like to see how Mr. Silber defends them, without resorting to what he would call "arbitrary".