God=Man (i.e. Jesus) doesn't pass the reason test

[Traci]

I am having some friendly banter with a former Catholic. We are discussing many topics but he has me stumped on one of them and I could use a little perspective on how to answer him.

We are discussing how faith and reason have to be reconciled or else our faith means nothing. He is making the arguement that believing that Jesus, a man, was also God goes against reason and so does belief in the Holy Spirit, or what he equvacates to belief in a ghost.

Everything that we know in the natural world supports our faith, but what about supernatural beliefs, how do I argue that they are still in the realm of reason?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Traci

 

[Cat_Herder]

I am having some friendly banter with a former Catholic. We are discussing many topics but he has me stumped on one of them and I could use a little perspective on how to answer him.

We are discussing how faith and reason have to be reconciled or else our faith means nothing. He is making the arguement that believing that Jesus, a man, was also God goes against reason and so does belief in the Holy Spirit, or what he equvacates to belief in a ghost.

Everything that we know in the natural world supports our faith, but what about supernatural beliefs, how do I argue that they are still in the realm of reason?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Traci

To answer this we need to know whether your friend is an atheist or a theistic non-Christian (e.g. a Jehovah Witness). Each needs a different approach. If the latter, and your friend accepts the Bible, you can just chuck Revelation 1:7-8 at them. But otherwise you will need to argue from reason, starting with the fact that God is not subject to human conceptions of time and space, let alone human reason; to become subject to reason God would have to become subject to these things, and once you have shown this then the Incarnation logically follows.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think the failed logic is:

• If there is one God which is the man Jesus; that would exclude the Holy Spirit and the Father from being God at that time. *
  However that restricts the devine to the same restrictions as the physical beings, and thus the flaw, God can be present in multiple forms, all places, and one being simultaneously.

 

[Dive_Pistol]

As Catholics, we believe that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man. Although this is one of those mysteries you can’t fully comprehend with your human mind, it makes sense logically that God would choose this way to come to us. Because God is life and health and goodness, he cannot die. Only human beings can die, so as long as we could and he couldn’t, there would be a rift between us and God. By becoming fully human, God himself was able to fully experience humanity, in hunger, thirst, humiliation and even death. So we don’t have to blindly accept this belief; there is logic in the reasons why we believe it.

 

[Garyjohn2]

We must use faith AND reason…but they aren’t always “reconciled” in the way you seem to be using it.

Reason is a powerful tool, but you have to use the right tool for the right job. It is not always applicable to emotions or matters of faith (the spirit world). Behold, the limits of reason.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am having some friendly banter with a former Catholic. We are discussing many topics but he has me stumped on one of them and I could use a little perspective on how to answer him.

We are discussing how faith and reason have to be reconciled or else our faith means nothing. He is making the argument that believing that Jesus, a man, was also God goes against reason and so does belief in the Holy Spirit, or what he equivacates to belief in a ghost.

Everything that we know in the natural world supports our faith, but what about supernatural beliefs, how do I argue that they are still in the realm of reason?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Traci

I would say that it is more unreasonable to believe that Jesus was not God. Just because your friend says “it is unreasonable” does not make it so. What “test” did he perform? Ask him to support his statement with more than just his feelings and then you may be able to help him see how little “reason” there is in his view.

 

[TimothyH]

Everything that we know in the natural world supports our faith, but what about supernatural beliefs, how do I argue that they are still in the realm of reason?

Hi Traci.

I would recommend not arguing that supernatural beliefs are resonable. I think that’s the wrong way to go about it.

Supernatural things are beyond our ability to reason them. That is why the Catholic Church calls them “Mysteries of faith.” That God would come down from Heaven and become man, the virgin birth, that Christ rose from the dead, that bread and wine could be turned into the body and blood of our Lord - these are things which are not attainable through human reason and intellect. I don’t think that you can argue that they are reasonable. They are very unreasonable - they simply don’t make sense!

I recommend agreeing with your friend that these things are totally unreasonable. That will probably take him by surprise! What you are trying to do by admitting this is trying to help your friend see that one does not need to understand something in order to be able to believe in it. Your friend is probably using the word “Unreasonable” as a way of saying, “I can’t understand it therefor I refuse to believe it.”

The fact is that he probably already believes in many things whichare “Unreasonable”; things which he does not fully understand but which are very real to him.

Ask him if he has ever fallen in love with a woman and ask him to explain the feeling to you. Was what he felt “Reasonable?” Where did that ache in his heart come from? What caused it? Why did this one woman cause it and not the woman right next to her? Was the way he acted “Reasonable?” He probably had nearly uncontrollable desires, could hardly eat or sleep, she was all he could think about, etc. How does one “Reason” that? Yet his love was very very real.

The way we feel when we miss someone who has died is unreasonable. It doesn’t make sense. Bravery. Guilt. Joy. Ghosts. Bigfoot. UFO’s. The fact that we all have to die. That somone could kill another person over a candy bar or a dollar. That that stupid &%$#@ <insert president you don’t like here> is in the whitehouse… Heck, if you ask me, the Big Bang theory, human DNA and eyeballs are all pretty unreasonable. Ever look at a butterfly close up? A butterfly is completely unreasonable!

See what I mean?

Our religion is not a religion of reasonableness. Chritianity is radical departure from reason, where you are asked to believe in dragons and monsters and knights in shing armor and fairies and that a frog could turn into a prince and live with the princess happily ever after. (GK Chesterton where are you?)

You won’t have overnight results. There is no “Easy” button for people like this. It takes lots of time, patience and prayer. Sometimes all you can do is plant a seed and hope it grows.

I hope I’ve helped in some small way.

-Tim-

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi Traci.

I would recommend not arguing that supernatural beliefs are resonable. I think that’s the wrong way to go about it.

Supernatural things are beyond our ability to reason them. That is why the Catholic Church calls them “Mysteries of faith.” That God would come down from Heaven and become man, the virgin birth, that Christ rose from the dead, that bread and wine could be turned into the body and blood of our Lord - these are things which are not attainable through human reason and intellect. I don’t think that you can argue that they are reasonable. They are very unreasonable - they simply don’t make sense!

I recommend agreeing with your friend that these things are totally unreasonable. That will probably take him by surprise! What you are trying to do by admitting this is trying to help your friend see that one does not need to understand something in order to be able to believe in it. Your friend is probably using the word “Unreasonable” as a way of saying, “I can’t understand it therefor I refuse to believe it.”

The fact is that he probably already believes in many things whichare “Unreasonable”; things which he does not fully understand but which are very real to him.

Ask him if he has ever fallen in love with a woman and ask him to explain the feeling to you. Was what he felt “Reasonable?” Where did that ache in his heart come from? What caused it? Why did this one woman cause it and not the woman right next to her? Was the way he acted “Reasonable?” He probably had nearly uncontrollable desires, could hardly eat or sleep, she was all he could think about, etc. How does one “Reason” that? Yet his love was very very real.

The way we feel when we miss someone who has died is unreasonable. It doesn’t make sense. Bravery. Guilt. Joy. Ghosts. Bigfoot. UFO’s. The fact that we all have to die. That somone could kill another person over a candy bar or a dollar. That that stupid &%$#@ <insert president you don’t like here> is in the whitehouse… Heck, if you ask me, the Big Bang theory, human DNA and eyeballs are all pretty unreasonable. Ever look at a butterfly close up? A butterfly is completely unreasonable!

See what I mean?

Our religion is not a religion of reasonableness. Chritianity is radical departure from reason, where you are asked to believe in dragons and monsters and knights in shing armor and fairies and that a frog could turn into a prince and live with the princess happily ever after. (GK Chesterton where are you?)

You won’t have overnight results. There is no “Easy” button for people like this. It takes lots of time, patience and prayer. Sometimes all you can do is plant a seed and hope it grows.

I hope I’ve helped in some small way.

-Tim-

I could not disagree with you more. A very good case can be made for our faith being reasonable. To abandon that position is to cut off many who come to the faith exactly through reason.

 

[Lancer]

First your friend has to understand* what is faith*** and what is reason.**
For your consideration**…Catechism** and from JP-II’s Fides et Ratio encyclical.
Pax Christi
**

Catechism of the CathoilicChurch

**

Faith and understanding

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

fides et ratio (faith and reason)

john e. Fagan
the teachings of pope john paul ii: Summaries of papal documents by john e. Fagan succinctly summarizes the pope’s major documents with an emphasis on issues of interest to the laity. It is perfect as an introduction or as a quick reference guide to john paul ii’s voluminous writings.
catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0294.htm

faith
the church received the ultimate truth about human life as a gift of love from god the father in the revelation of jesus christ. “god so loved the world that he sent his only son…” (jn. 3: 16). Christ is the way, the truth and the life (jn. 14: 6). The true meaning of life, therefore, is a person: Jesus christ. The truth communicated by christ is the absolutely valid source of the meaning of human life (n. 12). The ultimate answers to man’s questions about pain, suffering of the innocent, and death are found in christ’s passion, death and resurrection (n. 12).

reason
man can know that god exists by reflecting on creation. As we read in the book of wisdom, “from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their creator” ( wis. 13: 5, cf., rom. 1: 20, n. 19). “if human beings fail to recognize god as the creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way” (n. 19).
man must depend to a great extent on others as source of knowledge. He is unable to factually verify even a small part of his knowledge himself. Therefore, he must trust in the veracity of those who teach him. “this means that the human being – the one who seeks the truth – is also the one who lives by belief” (n. 31).

john paul also explains how faith supports reason and how theology supports philosophy:

1. 
   *]human reason is inherently weak and inclined to error. Deprived of revelation, reason can go off course and miss its destination (n. 48). Faith warns reason against the paths that will lead it astray (n. 73). It shines light on the true paths (n. 79).

1. 
   

   *]faith stirs reason to explore paths that it would not otherwise have suspected it could take (n. 56). It proposes truths that might never have been discovered by unaided reason. For example, the notions of free will and a personal god who is the creator of the world have been crucial for the development of a philosophy of being. The christian proclamation of human dignity, equality and freedom is reflected in modern philosophical thought (n. 76).

   *]faith gives the philosopher the courage to tackle difficult questions such as the problem of evil and suffering, the personal nature of god and the metaphysical question “why is there something rather than nothing?” (n. 76). His faith gives him the conviction that his reason will find solutions, much as a trustworthy map gives one looking for buried treasure the confidence to keep digging.

 

[TimothyH]

I could not disagree with you more. A very good case can be made for our faith being reasonable. To abandon that position is to cut off many who come to the faith exactly through reason.

As did I.

I reasoned my way into the faith, much like St. Augustine who I took as my confirmation saint. I came to the conlusion that based on the evidence before me (much of which was of a very personal nature between God and I), it was unreasonable to believe that God did not exist. I then reasoned that God would not have revealed himself to man and then left us with only a book as a guide - a book which had not yet been written, would not be assembled for close to four hundred years, could not be printed for 1433 years and which most people would not be able to read for 1800 years. I reasoned that there must be an authority on earth. I saw evidence of that authority in the writings of the early Church fathers and in the Bible.

Catholicism was the only reasonable conclusion I could draw.

Yet there are matters of faith which cannot be explained through reason and intellect. We testify to this every time we go to Mass and the priest says, “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” and we respond with something like “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”

What do you think Jesus is talking about when he explains the Eucharist in John 6? He says, “the flesh is of no avail.” Jesus tells us that our eyes will only see bread and our tounge will only taste wine, that our human minds will never be able to fully grasp what he is going to reveal to us in its fullness only on the night before he is to die for our sins. Jesus is saying, “Your mind cannot hope to grasp this. This is something which you will only come to know because I have revealed it to you.”

I would suggest reading “Orthodoxy” by G.K Chesterton.

PAX

-Tim-

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jesus doesn’t pass the reason test?

Exactly what is the reason test?

 

[st_felicity]

Everything that we know in the natural world supports our faith, but what about supernatural beliefs, how do I argue that they are still in the realm of reason?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Traci

There are plenty of things in the natural world that we assent to as “reasonable” that we cannot explain.

Examples: Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

Just because there isn’t an explanation, that in itself is not justification for calling belief in the supernatural :unreasonable." There is no “explanation” for dark matter or dark energy, but it is specifically REASON that helps us infer the truth. The same is true about our beliefs about God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive.

 

[Traci]

To answer this we need to know whether your friend is an atheist or a theistic non-Christian (e.g. a Jehovah Witness). Each needs a different approach. If the latter, and your friend accepts the Bible, you can just chuck Revelation 1:7-8 at them. But otherwise you will need to argue from reason, starting with the fact that God is not subject to human conceptions of time and space, let alone human reason; to become subject to reason God would have to become subject to these things, and once you have shown this then the Incarnation logically follows.

My friend is a former Catholic and I recently asked him if he even believed in God and he hasn’t responded yet. I initially assumed that he believed in God but after debating a bit I get the impression that he isn’t. I probably should have asked that first because if he doesn’t then the scriptures I have been sending him are pretty useless

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I reasoned my way into the faith, much like St. Augustine who I took as my confirmation saint. I came to the conlusion that based on the evidence before me (much of which was of a very personal nature between God and I), it was unreasonable to believe that God did not exist. I then reasoned that God would not have revealed himself to man and then left us with only a book as a guide - a book which had not yet been written, would not be assembled for close to four hundred years, could not be printed for 1433 years and which most people would not be able to read for 1800 years. I reasoned that there must be an authority on earth. I saw evidence of that authority in the writings of the early Church fathers and in the Bible.

Catholicism was the only reasonable conclusion I could draw.

Yet there are matters of faith which cannot be explained through reason and intellect. We testify to this every time we go to Mass and the priest says, “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” and we respond with something like “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”

What do you think Jesus is talking about when he explains the Eucharist in John 6? He says, “the flesh is of no avail.” Jesus tells us that our eyes will only see bread and our tounge will only taste wine, that our human minds will never be able to fully grasp what he is going to reveal to us in its fullness only on the night before he is to die for our sins. Jesus is saying, “Your mind cannot hope to grasp this. This is something which you will only come to know because I have revealed it to you.”

I would suggest reading “Orthodoxy” by G.K Chesterton.

PAX

-Tim-

So we agree on what matters to us regarding our faith. The question was more one of technique to use to answer a challenge to that faith based on reason. Saying that there are unreasonable aspects to our faith to such a person is going to sound like a cop-out to him, and will only confirm what he already thought was the case. That is, our faith does not pass the reason test. To such a person, I say confront the reason challenge head on. Remember what St. Paul said about becoming all things to all people. For a person who is hung up on reason, present reasons. To the person who craves mysticism, show him our mystics, etc.

 

[Traci]

We must use faith AND reason…but they aren’t always “reconciled” in the way you seem to be using it.

Reason is a powerful tool, but you have to use the right tool for the right job. It is not always applicable to emotions or matters of faith (the spirit world). Behold, the limits of reason.

I guess I have always felt that reason (either science, logic, history, personal experience etc.) could support any belief I hold, even supernatural ones. On the surface it seemed that everything I believe is logical, but I haven’t really been challenged like this to take that deeper.

 

[Traci]

I would say that it is more unreasonable to believe that Jesus was not God. Just because your friend says “it is unreasonable” does not make it so. What “test” did he perform? Ask him to support his statement with more than just his feelings and then you may be able to help him see how little “reason” there is in his view.

Good point. I did recently email him back and told him that just because he didn’t understand it doesn’t make it untrue…we’ll see what he responds with.

 

[Traci]

Lancer:
Thanks for this Lancer. This is a great place to start to define what it is we both mean by faith and reason and what the Church also means by it.

 

[Traci]

What do you think Jesus is talking about when he explains the Eucharist in John 6? He says, “the flesh is of no avail.” Jesus tells us that our eyes will only see bread and our tounge will only taste wine, that our human minds will never be able to fully grasp what he is going to reveal to us in its fullness only on the night before he is to die for our sins. Jesus is saying, “Your mind cannot hope to grasp this. This is something which you will only come to know because I have revealed it to you.”

I think maybe we are talking about different things. I agree with you that we can’t understand the mysteries of faith, but belief in them can be logical. For example the apologetics for Christ in the Eucharist is pretty rock solid if you ask me. I can logically believe that Christ is in the Eucharist even if I don’t understand how.

 

[TimothyH]

The question was more one of technique to use to answer a challenge to that faith based on reason.

You can’t use reason to explain how a guy can be both man and God at the same time or how a guy can walk out of his own grave. You can give evidence that it may have happened but you can’t explain how it is possible.

All I’m saying is that it is possile to approach a challenge against faith from the standpoint of reason by pointing out that there are many thingw which we all believe beyond a shadow of a doubt but which don’t pass the test of reason. It’s not necessarily a cop-out. It’s just affirming the truth. It’s showing the guy that he wouln’t be crazy or a weirdo for believing in God, even through God can’t fully be explained. You then present evidence that it is not unreasonable to believe in such things even though they cannot be fully explained or understood. That’s all I’m saying.

-Tim-

 

[Traci]

Jesus doesn’t pass the reason test?

Exactly what is the reason test?

In the context of our debating he is basically saying that is isn’t logical to believe that man could be God. Earlier in the argument I claimed that faith and reason always have to jive and he is using it as an example that they don’t and it is unreasonable or there is no evidence to believe that God could ever be man.