The problem with reason

[Wonko_the_Sane]

 

[Ani_Ibi]

But how do we (if it is even possible) dialogue with someone who is unconvinced of the validity of reason? i.e. someone who does not think reason is a valid means to discern truth?

Possibly such people do believe that reason is a valid means to discern truth. But they are confused. At the root of all confusion is a false premise. Shed light on the false premise and the confusion disappears.

However. For some folks there is a very large payoff for staying confused. And I don’t say this as a diss. Some kinds of confusions or false premises distract the person from truths about their own experiences in life which they feel are too painful, shameful, or belittling to illuminate.

Help with that comes from a spiritual director not an apologist.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

:yup: It is unreasonable to expect to fully grasp our Infinate God with our finite mind. That is one problem with exclusively relying on reason in matters of faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

Let’s look at the word science, from the Latin *scientia *which was one kind of knowledge – not what we would call ‘science.’

In scientific endeavour there have always been a polarity between knowledge derived by observation and knowledge derived by theoretical means – or reasoning.

Theory or reasoning then is distinct from observation and therefore concerned with things that ‘appear not.’

Reason then is a subset of faith. Reason is not **distinct **from faith. If I did not have faith in numbers, physics, biology, how could I reason within those fields of investigation? Faith then is a necessary condition for reason.

Generally speaking what has happened in secular science is that an observation is made. A scientist cannot explain it but also cannot explain it away. Often unexplainable observations are then misexplained for some time.

Enter the theoretical scientist, who does the math. Voila! There is a new explanation for the observation. Observation then must confirm this new theory to be predictable.

We do not accurately ‘see’ an observation until there is a theory which predicts that same observation.

As humans it is our nature to observe, and reason. Underpinning these two gifts is the gift of faith which allows us to trust in observation and reason as ways to understand the world we live in.

Even when our observation and reason are impaired we still believe in the possibility of observation and reason; the principles of observation and reason; the ideal of observation and reason. What allows us to believe in these possibilities, principles, and ideal is: faith.

CS Lewis wrote (I believe it was The Hideous Strength) about a painting which was hideously deformed. The protagonist had a revelation that deformation cannot exist without an understanding of pure form. It is faith which gives us this understanding of pure form even when our faculties of observation and reason are seriously impaired.

 

[Chancellare]

All this is great, but how do you dialogue with someone who refuses to listen to reason? Perhaps they believe God does not act according to reason, and therefore they refuse to be swayed by rational argument.
Worse yet, they will not even consider exploring thoughts beyond those that they are confortable with, because “Hey, God isn’t reasonable anyway…”
Myself for example, thought this way when I was sorta into non-denominational Protestantism, but I was still a Catholic (though very immature in the faith). I think it was because I wasn’t sure that Protestantism was right that I decided to see what the Catholic Church said in its defense. Perhaps if I was born Protestant, I would have never considered looking at other viewpoints, because I didn’t think reason was a valid method for discerning truth.

(Note: I know that not all Protestants have the viewpoint that God isn’t reasonable, this was just my own view while I was theologically closer to Protestantism, but still a Catholic.)

Unfortunately, it’ s also the same with Islam who also believe God is not reasonable. According to this way of thinking, if God decides that we have to be suicide bombers to reach heaven, then that’s alright because God is not limited by reason. That’s how dangerous that kind of thinking is. Sometimes we don’t see what’s at the other end of the tunnel until the train hits us.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a61/nekic/reason_is_the_greatest_enemy.jpg

This image is terrible. But I think one of the reasons people think this is because they think reason is soley attributed to materialism/sciences. This is not the fullness of reason. Reason brings us to the only possible last step: faith.

One could quickly debunk this sign and say, “you argue as if this is a reasonable statement”…if you say your argument is unreasonable, what authority does it hold?

 

[VociMike]

I think the validity of reason is based upon its ability to give verifiably, observably correct answers, at least in those cases where such answers are possible.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

I think the validity of reason is based upon its ability to give verifiably, observably correct answers, at least in those cases where such answers are possible.

This is a definition of reason from after the Scientific Revolution, where “truth is that which is observed”, of course this methodology places everything immaterial (soul, God) in a place where it cannot be discerned: and therefore does not exist. However, because we constantly are aware of our soul, and because it is quite reasonable that God exists (from the cosmological argument) it is quite obvious that our “reason” does not in ANY WAY contradict God’s existence.

Reason is far different from this “observational” type of method. There are four parts to reasoning in Nature:

1. Material-Causes
2. Agent-Causes (mover, shaper, carpenter)
3. Formal-Causes (the essence of a thing: rockness/chairness)
4. Final-Causes (Purpose: tree produces another tree, rain feeds corn, etc)

The modern Scientific way to discern reality only focuses on the first two (Material causes (matter), and Agent causes (forces: gravity, etc).

If we look at all four, we can clearly see evidence everywhere that God exists, but we can still not prove it. But of course in light of reason we know that it would be impossible to “prove God’s existence” even though his existence is quite evident by “effects”, therefore meaning through reason we realize: faith is the only means to come to God. And thus reason and faith are always in harmony.

 

[rciadan]

Mentally or as you put it, “retarded” people, have the capacity to reason because they still have free-will. They may not reason in the same way we do, but in some ways their reason is much more simpler than our reasoning (Hence they are usually called simple). And since God is all-Simple, one could say that inlight of their reasoning, they are much closer to God. I think sometimes we think reasoning has to do with “Science” but really it has more to do with seeing beauty and importance in nature in all things. Truely coming into contract with God and recognizing it. Our society place too much importance on the sciences, and not enough on philosophy (common-sense thinking).

In many ways, those who are mentally challenged are much more reasonable than us scientific people. For example, science may take a flower and divide it into parts, and pieces, and destory the flowr in the process, and say “the flower is nothing but parts”. But the simple folk, who can see the forest from the trees, look at the flower and see something much more beautiful than all its parts, we see beauty and appreciate it. That is far more reasonable in my opinion.

You make my point, whatever word you use. When I refer to reason, I am referring to the process of logical thinking and analysis, which is what I think most think of when the term “Reason” is used. In that sense, the “Mentally Challenged” as you put it, which I may add is no less offensive or condescending than “retarded” and much less accurate (I’m not referring to those who have to try harder to “think things through”; but, to those who lack the capability altogether), who lack the ability to think in this fashion, can achieve salvation through simple faith, without the use of logical reasoning.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Another point of the whole discussion is to show that even people who say that they don’t have faith actually do. They have faith that reason is a viable way to discern truth. Reasoning that reason is reasonable is a circular argument, and therefore not valid. The fact that people base their actions on reason shows that they have faith in something. Otherwise they would act completely randomly (or perhaps only with instincts), and they would certainly not be able to think.

You make an extremely good point, Emrys. Someone who questions that reason is a way to discern truth shows herself a liar each time she reasons that if she steps in front of a speeding car she will suffer harm!

If you were to question the person, you might find that what she means is that there is no absolute truth about what is right and what is wrong. She probably believes this to be absolutely true! which, of course, is self contradictory!

For such a person who says that whatever thing a person wants to do is OK for him to do because there are no virtues that apply to all. You might want to ask her if she has a son or daughter or nephew or niece or grandchild. If she does, you might want to give her this scenario:

Lets say you know a known pedophile who believes as you do that there are no absolute truths about what is right and what is wrong. Moral truth is relative, he agrees with you. Lets say this man has told you he believes sex with children is a choice between consenting adults and consenting children. He then tells you he wants to spend time alone with your son (or daughter, or niece, or nephew, or grandchild). Would you oblige him?
The answer, of course, is that she would not. You could then tell her that you believe this passage from the Bible is an absolute truth:

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects …(1 Corinthians 13:6-7)
I trust she will see that, at least in some cases, there are absolute moral truths that guide us. The fact that there are opens up the possibility that they originated not with us, but from the one who created us, for every society believes unjustified murder is wrong. Every society has principals or laws governing marriage.

Societies differ in what exactly is unjustified murder, but the rules or laws governing no society hold that you can kill anyone you want. Societies differ in when sex is permissible, but no society has rules or laws stating that a man can have sex with whomever he wants. These virtues are present in all societies because they are present in all people. If they were taught, you might see some societies where murder is never punished but always thought justified and sex in any form is permitted. This is simply not the case. Therefore, what St. Paul writes in the first three chapters of Romans is absolutely true, that God has put in all of us the same sense of right and wrong, the same virtue. The disagreements among us are in how to apply those virtues, not in the virtues themselves.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

] There are four parts to reasoning in Nature:

1. Material-Causes
2. Agent-Causes (mover, shaper, carpenter)
3. Formal-Causes (the essence of a thing: rockness/chairness)
4. Final-Causes (Purpose: tree produces another tree, rain feeds corn, etc)

Did Heisenberg not posit that causality was not a necessary condition for existence? (I know you said ‘reason’ not ‘existence.’) My question is:

Can reason be used to expand one’s knowledge (scientia) in a system of non-causality? If so, then how? If not, then why not?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

] There are four parts to reasoning in Nature:

1. Material-Causes
2. Agent-Causes (mover, shaper, carpenter)
3. Formal-Causes (the essence of a thing: rockness/chairness)
4. Final-Causes (Purpose: tree produces another tree, rain feeds corn, etc)

Did Heisenberg not posit that causality was not a necessary condition for existence? (I know you said ‘reason’ not ‘existence.’) My question is:

Can reason be used to expand one’s knowledge (scientia) in a system of non-causality? If so, then how? If not, then why not?

 

[AndyF]

emrys250:

Yes.

I feel the Church to some extent has a propensity to feign acceptance of free thought, and I have found it becomes hostile if one’s reasoning equates to a negative favor of dogma. This is uncharitable in nature. Lately the Church has issued the Relativism decree in hopes it can cap free thought. The intent is to entrench the ideal that there are indeed absolutes. But it’s application is somewhat subtler, in that it is used as a precept to stifle any reasoning that is seen has anti-dogma. Scripture is full of relativistic reasoning. Being a positive, the relativism here is accepted none the less.

Reasoning involves relations and comparisons. Prevent relation comparison and you prevent reasoning.

St. Paul(Cor) states that Faith matures, therefore implying that it evolves. We compare,juxtapose and infer as tools to finally realize the truth. Even when given an answer, one may require time to absorb it due to the complex eschatological material presented and limited to human reasoning as opposed to Devine reasoning.

I think in the past this was not a challenge to the Church. The educated were low in numbers and clerics were trusted has the sole repository of this knowledge. Today theology classes are open to the public and man has many questions he wishes to have answered.

In Radio Replies Vol I, ((lates)Card. FJ Sheen,Frs. Rumble and Carty):

A607

“The strangling of reason is left to people who are ready to believe anything they hear about the Catholic Church. But the Church herself asks no man to strangle his reason, and says it’s heresy to say that it ought to be strangled. Nor must Catholics accept anything however unlikely. If a thing seems
unlikely, they should suspend their judgement until secure evidence of it’s truth or falsity, and then decide accordingly.”

A611

“… But I may investigate as much as I wish. The more I find out about the truth taught about the Church the better the Church is pleased. It is one thing to deny a doctrine, quite another to inevestigate it’s ful significance.”…

AndyF