Can reason alone lead us to the valid use of reason?

[Birdmanman]

I’m thinking about this from Vatican I:

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

Can the natural light of human reason tell us what the proper/valid/appropriate use of the natural light of reason is?

For example; we can use our reason to question what the “Final Cause” (that is, the purpose) of the Universe is, which would exclude, by use of reason, the possibility of a purposeless Universe. I’m sure an atheist or agnostic on this forum would say "saying that it is sound and valid to question and expect some answer (and not no answer) to the Final Cause of the Universe is begging the question that there is a purpose). But this is not begging the question if it is an axiom of reason; it is something able to be discovered by a reasonable evaluation of the axioms of reason.

But that was just an example. The purpose D) for me asking this question was:
Can reason alone know with certainty and exhaustively the proper limits and uses of reason?

(I say exhaustively because reason can at least know one proper use of reason, which is reason’s ability to show reason exists, which I think can be achieved by evaluating the proposition “Truth is true” or some other tautology).
(To Catholics: I do not believe a response of a qualified “no” to this question would be a case of Fideism (which is a false teaching, see Catholic Encyclopedia), we would not be saying that the fundamental act of reason is one of faith, but that an act of faith is required, at a point, for a further act of reasonable evaluation of reason itself).

This is related to the epistemology of epistemology.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m thinking about this from Vatican I:

Can the natural light of human reason tell us what the proper/valid/appropriate use of the natural light of reason is?

For example; we can use our reason to question what the “Final Cause” (that is, the purpose) of the Universe is, which would exclude, by use of reason, the possibility of a purposeless Universe. I’m sure an atheist or agnostic on this forum would say "saying that it is sound and valid to question and expect some answer (and not no answer) to the Final Cause of the Universe is begging the question that there is a purpose). But this is not begging the question if it is an axiom of reason; it is something able to be discovered by a reasonable evaluation of the axioms of reason.

But that was just an example. The purpose D) for me asking this question was:
Can reason alone know with certainty and exhaustively the proper limits and uses of reason?

(I say exhaustively because reason can at least know one proper use of reason, which is reason’s ability to show reason exists, which I think can be achieved by evaluating the proposition “Truth is true” or some other tautology).
(To Catholics: I do not believe a response of a qualified “no” to this question would be a case of Fideism (which is a false teaching, see Catholic Encyclopedia), we would not be saying that the fundamental act of reason is one of faith, but that an act of faith is required, at a point, for a further act of reasonable evaluation of reason itself).

This is related to the epistemology of epistemology.

Was there a Vatican II ?

I really hope so.

 

[Birdmanman]

Was there a Vatican II ?

I really hope so.

Thanks for responding! I’m sorry, I don’t understand your statement here? Vatican II can’t “overrule” this statement from Vatican I, if that’s what you mean, and I’m pretty sure it (Vatican II) reiterates this teaching somewhere.

Maybe I shouldn’t have included an example that might lead to controversy. My main question, which may be good philosophical food for thought, is the bolded question in my original post.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The Catholic answer to this question is no, reason alone can not lead us to the valid use of reason.

That was simple.

Why bother asking when you know what the route answer is?

 

[Birdmanman]

The Catholic answer to this question is no, reason alone can not lead us to the valid use of reason.

That was simple.

Why bother asking when you know what the route answer is?

Thanks again for your response.
Do you know where this is taught by The Church? By what do you mean the “route answer?”
Perhaps you are looking at this particular teaching in Vatican I, then surmising that “The Church has said it is a matter of faith that reason can do such and such”, essentially using Faith to delineate a limit (or, more properly, a lack of limitation in one respect) of human reason.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thanks again for your response.
Do you know where this is taught by The Church? By what do you mean the “route answer?”
Perhaps you are looking at this particular teaching in Vatican I, then surmising that “The Church has said it is a matter of faith that reason can do such and such”, essentially using Faith to delineate a limit (or, more properly, a lack of limitation in one respect) of human reason.

I lack faith, and know that is valued above reason, and claimed to work with reason in your theology.

Your theology claims that your faith is very reasonable indeed.

 

[Birdmanman]

I lack faith, and know that is valued above reason, and claimed to work with reason in your theology.

Your theology claims that your faith is very reasonable indeed.

Hello again!
Well, if one were to value the Catholic faith they would be required to also value the validity reason, or else they would be going against their faith by denying the reasonableness of using reason. The Vatican I teaching above is a good example of this, as is the Church’s condemnation of Fideism (which I have only heard about through the Catholic Encyclopedia so don’t take my word for it).

Ignoring religious matters, what do you personally think of my bolded question in my original post? This is a question of philosophy, which although it has implications for faith, is more along the lines of meta-epistemology.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hello again!
Well, if one were to value the Catholic faith they would be required to also value the validity reason, or else they would be going against their faith by denying the reasonableness of using reason. The Vatican I teaching above is a good example of this, as is the Church’s condemnation of Fideism (which I have only heard about through the Catholic Encyclopedia so don’t take my word for it).

Ignoring religious matters, what do you personally think of my bolded question in my original post? This is a question of philosophy, which although it has implications for faith, is more along the lines of meta-epistemology.

If reason and faith go hand in hand then why is reason limited to Vatican I ?
Was Vatican II a useless excercise?

 

[Birdmanman]

If reason and faith go hand in hand then why is reason limited to Vatican I ?
Was Vatican II a useless excercise?

Sorry, I don’t think I understand what you’re saying? Reason isn’t limited to Vatican I…we can use our reason to understand a lot of things that are not necessarily taught as matters of Faith for us Catholics (although in a sense we would be bound, once something has been shown to be certainly true by reason, to accept what is certainly true, otherwise we would be supporting a falsehood or lying, which is a sin). Do you mean was reason limited by a teaching of Vatican I? I wouldn’t describe the Vatican I teaching I mentioned above a limitation of reason; if anything it is a delineation of a particular lack of limit in an aspect of reason, saying more or less that reason is not so limited that it cannot come to certainty of God. This would be in opposition to those who say our reason is limited to such an extent that we cannot figure this out.

I would certainly say Vatican II was useful, although I think that is a bit off topic.
My main question is over a matter of philosophy, thanks for your interest in this thread!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Is there any other reliable means of knowing than reason?

Thank you for your patience

 

[Birdmanman]

Is there any other reliable means of knowing than reason?

Thank you for your patience

Hi again StrawberryJam!

Faith would be the other reliable means of knowing, but I do not wish to talk about that in this thread except as it pertains to my original question (sorry if that sounds harsh, but I’m sure there are many other threads on the topic of Faith as a reliable method of knowing, and I should know because I have started one recently. If you would like to make your own thread about the topic of Faith as a reliable means of gaining knowledge, I would be happy to participate).

Again, just to restate my original question to anyone who might have an interest in thinking about it:

Can reason alone ascertain exhaustively and with certainty the proper limits and uses of reason?

 

[stevekehl]

But that was just an example. The purpose D) for me asking this question was:
Can reason alone know with certainty and exhaustively the proper limits and uses of reason?

Have you been reading Kant? I would say the atheist can not know the proper limits of reason. Look where reason has lead people in the 20th century. I’m sure if you asked a German in 1935 if they were reasonable they would have said yes. The same for a Chinese communist during the Cultural Revolution or a North Korean border guard today. My answer then would be no, reason alone cannot define its one limits. We must have a moral standard set by a higher authority to guide how we use reason. That would be God, who gave us reason.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m thinking about this from Vatican I:

Can the natural light of human reason tell us what the proper/valid/appropriate use of the natural light of reason is?

For example; we can use our reason to question what the “Final Cause” (that is, the purpose) of the Universe is, which would exclude, by use of reason, the possibility of a purposeless Universe. I’m sure an atheist or agnostic on this forum would say "saying that it is sound and valid to question and expect some answer (and not no answer) to the Final Cause of the Universe is begging the question that there is a purpose). But this is not begging the question if it is an axiom of reason; it is something able to be discovered by a reasonable evaluation of the axioms of reason.

But that was just an example. The purpose D) for me asking this question was:
Can reason alone know with certainty and exhaustively the proper limits and uses of reason?

(I say exhaustively because reason can at least know one proper use of reason, which is reason’s ability to show reason exists, which I think can be achieved by evaluating the proposition “Truth is true” or some other tautology).
(To Catholics: I do not believe a response of a qualified “no” to this question would be a case of Fideism (which is a false teaching, see Catholic Encyclopedia), we would not be saying that the fundamental act of reason is one of faith, but that an act of faith is required, at a point, for a further act of reasonable evaluation of reason itself).

This is related to the epistemology of epistemology.

Well, if you aren’t using it improperly there are plenty of folks here and everywhere who will tell you so in no uncertain terms - not in the nicely wraped " intellectual " categories you get at school but you will learn just the same.

 

[markeverett49]

I love that teaching from the First Vatican Council. The classical conception of philosophy (-which would include Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas) held that natural reason could lead to (some) knowledge of God. Not revelation, of course, but much. I think the Church suffers now because many in it do not appreciate the philosophy that under-girds so much of the Church’s theological reflection.

Many of our age’s SECULAR thinkers suffer from an ignorance of the classical conception of philosophy and its contents. A good book about this is David Conway’s “The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity In Search of Sophia.” (“Sophia” means wisdom.) This book had a profound influence on Antony Flew the philosopher / atheist who, very late in life, came to believe there is a God.

 

[Birdmanman]

Markeverett, thanks for your response. Do you think Classical Philosophy itself can with certainty delineate the limits of Classical Philosophy: This teaching from Vatican I seems to teach a matter of Faith, but it is teaching as a matter of Faith something that our natural Human Reason can accomplish, so my concern using this example is, was something defined as a matter of faith that is also a matter of reason? Reason can determine God’s existence with certainty, but can reason alone know without the surety of faith that reason has the ability to do this? Maybe for those who have not attempted to reason through the existence of God, this statement of Faith is necessary (not that a statement of Faith can be unnecessary, I hope you understand what I mean).

(I’m reading Edward Feser right now, and enjoying it so far, although it is really heady stuff for me, and it’s hard to see how we can ‘prove’ Classical Philosophy, though maybe I’m not at that part yet).

Well, if you aren’t using it improperly there are plenty of folks here and everywhere who will tell you so in no uncertain terms - not in the nicely wraped " intellectual " categories you get at school but you will learn just the same.

Thanks for responding Linusthe2nd,
I’m trying to understand your answer; so you’re saying that other people, using their reason alone and not needing to use faith, can tell you what the proper uses and limitations (or lack thereof) of reason are?

Thanks to all who have responded so far!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Markeverett, thanks for your response. Do you think Classical Philosophy itself can with certainty delineate the limits of Classical Philosophy: This teaching from Vatican I seems to teach a matter of Faith, but it is teaching as a matter of Faith something that our natural Human Reason can accomplish, so my concern using this example is, was something defined as a matter of faith that is also a matter of reason? Reason can determine God’s existence with certainty, but can reason alone know without the surety of faith that reason has the ability to do this? Maybe for those who have not attempted to reason through the existence of God, this statement of Faith is necessary (not that a statement of Faith can be unnecessary, I hope you understand what I mean).

(I’m reading Edward Feser right now, and enjoying it so far, although it is really heady stuff for me, and it’s hard to see how we can ‘prove’ Classical Philosophy, though maybe I’m not at that part yet).

Thanks for responding Linusthe2nd,
I’m trying to understand your answer; so you’re saying that other people, using their reason alone and not needing to use faith, can tell you what the proper uses and limitations (or lack thereof) of reason are?

Thanks to all who have responded so far!

I can see how you were confused. I meant " properly " not " improperly. "
Yes philosophy is heady stuff. Feser is good and he says it about as simply as it can be said.

 

[markeverett49]

Markeverett, thanks for your response. Do you think Classical Philosophy itself can with certainty delineate the limits of Classical Philosophy: This teaching from Vatican I seems to teach a matter of Faith, but it is teaching as a matter of Faith something that our natural Human Reason can accomplish, so my concern using this example is, was something defined as a matter of faith that is also a matter of reason?
:

I’m not sure what it means to “delineate the limits of Classical Philosophy.” In “The Rediscovery of Wisdom,” philosopher David Conway outlines the classical conception of philosophy: 1) the goal of philosophy is theoretical wisdom (-sophia, in Greek), which is knowledge of why the world exists and has the broad form it does; 2) a supreme, omnipotent and omniscient intelligence, or God, created the world so that its rational inhabitants could be led by the use of their rational faculties to know that God exists and join him in contemplation; 3) this activity, the contemplation of God, is the supreme human happiness.

That’s a lot to get from reason! Granted, most modern philosophers would disagree with Conway, as they have little use for the concept of wisdom, much less its pursuit. Still, I think he ably defends the classical view, which remains tenable.

It is remarkable that in our time, so many think all talk of God is based on ‘blind faith’ and none based on reason. This is false.