The weaknesses of logic and reason is that they can be used to sup-port any deplorable behavior, such as racism and genocide and slavery.
Reason is only as good as the ground on which it is based. There are also different kinds of reasoning, such as “survivalist principles” or the law of positive thinking. I for one think a good case for Christianity can be made in respect of our “existential dilemma”. But first we must understand that all systems of thought—metaphysical or otherwise—are based on foundational principles that are really just assumptions, and that includes the scientific principle. Why? This is because we assume a realist position in respect of things existing independently of mind. Because of this, one could reason that reasoning about anything at all in terms of truth is pointless, and that we should be more concerned with ideas that protect our well being for as long as possible and promote the most pleasurable lifestyle.
But in order to interact with the world meaningfully we must make an important assumption, and that is to approve the existence of things existing independently of mind. This in turn opens the door to and justifies other types of reasoning other then the search for the most pleasurable existence. On the basis of pleasure and experience, we can make reasonable judgments, such as, which is the best foundational assumptions that we can use in order to build an ordered society which promotes the greatest happiness and values? On recognizing that selfish behavior leads to suffering and death, one can reason that certain assumptions, beliefs and lifestyles are not the best foundations upon which one can build a fruitful society; and even though some behavior feels good, one must sacrifice those in order to develop a truly fulfilling state of unity and being.
For instance, if you reason that the world is ultimately without objective
purpose,
meaning, and universal moral law, and that the world is nothing but natural events, then that leaves people open to the negative justification of doing what ever they want with life in complete disregard to others and yourself. They can define people in anyway they want. They can hurt anybody they want, and control anybody they want; and not feel any guilt whatsoever, since all things are permissible and so ultimately they are going to cease to exist and get away with it. E.g. what does it mean to say that rape is wrong if the universe is not rooted in a real transcendent perfection? It means nothing. If you are just a fluctuation of energy, then the only laws and principles that objectively apply to you is the forces that compel you. Any distaste for how you go about getting that pleasure is just a meaningless opinion which has no objective relation to ultimate truths. Some people kill people and some don’t. Nature is simply nature.
But one cannot build a positive society on such a foundation, and one cannot expect people to knowingly accept moral fantasies that they know not to be true or have no logical foundation.
That’s why, if I’m going to bring children in to this world and build a society in which people can feel secure about their existential being, I must absolutely appose naturalism in principle, even if it might be true, for the simple fact that naturalism absolutely destroys the logical foundations that supports the human value system and thus our personal well-being. This line of reasoning leaves open to us only one option, and that is to say that there is a purpose, a meaning and a value at the root of reality. It is true that I haven’t demonstrated this logically, but it does follow reasonably in respect of promoting the greatest good for human society. That doesn’t mean that one can forget reason and promote any old nonsense in its place; that’s not what I’m implying. One must have a reasonable faith absolutely. What I mean to say is that, according to my principle of the greatest good, since there is no “a-prior” reason to say that naturalism must be true, then there is no good reason to accept it by “faith” and therefore I must reject it and develop a system of thought that supports the premise of an ultimate purpose. Either that, or i must accept by faith the most reasonable revelation based Religion.
To Be Continued…
