Knights of Academia discussion

In my earlier posting I posed this question: "According to the text, what does Anselm mean by 'rational' and 'based only on reason'?"

When I started to read Cur Deus Homo I had a pretty clear idea of what Anselm means by "rational" and "based only on reason." After I stared at chapter 3 for a while I concluded I was wrong. (See that other thread for details.)

So, according to the text, what does Anselm mean by "rational" and "based only on reason"?

At the end of my earlier posting I said, "I provisionally conclude that in this work by 'rational' or 'exclusively by reason' Anselm means anything that is not revelation."

That is, since the unbelievers are declared to be "rational" and Anselm's goal is to persuade them "exclusively by reason", and since the unbelievers use emotive claims that such-and-such "dishonors" God and is an "affront" to God, I thought maybe that the unbelievers would argue any old way as long as premises from revelation weren't used.

Boso in chapter 4 says in response to Anselm's arguments in chapter 3, "All of these things must be acknowledged to be beautiful and to be pictures, as it were. However, if there is not a solid foundation upon which they rest, they do not seem to unbelievers to suffice for showing why we ought to believe that God was willing to suffer these things of which we are speaking." And "unbelievers regard what we believe as a fiction rather than as a real event."

These words seem to support my idea that unbelievers will use, and will possibly be convinced by, arguments that exclude that which is claimed to be true because it is part of revelation.

Question #3 can be phrased using Boso's phrase: What things provide "a solid foundation upon which [arguments] rest"? He seems to say revelation can't be that foundation.

The unbelievers' arguments in Chapter 6 apply logic and common sense to Christian claims in order to prove that the set of claims produces contradictions or implausibilities.

"If you maintain that God, whom you say created all things by His command, was unable solely by His command, to do all the things [you have just mentioned], then you contradict yourselves, because you make Him powerless. On the other hand, if you say that He was able [to do these things solely by His command] but willed [to do them] only in the foregoing manner, then how can you show to be wise Him who you claim willed to suffer so many unbecoming things for no reason at all?"

This all seems very rational in the sense I originally thought Anselm was using. Perhaps I over-reacted to the unbelievers' argument in Chapter 3.