What is Reason?

[mschrank]

Is Reason a thing in itself or just a method of working from first principles?

I don’t know, I haven’t decided. It seems like there is so many points of view out there that it is possible that Reason isn’t so much a position on Truth, but a method.

Some people will argue that it is reasonable to be Catholics, or atheists, or Muslims or whatever. All these positions have their smart, educated, philosophically and scientifically savvy people, and they come to different conclusions. Then how can it be through “Reason” that we can believe in one thing or another?

Example:

Let’s say a = 5, b = 1, c = 3, and d = a+b+c. We’ll call d a ‘position’ on a given issue.

Using “reason” we can conclude that the sum of a+b+c is equal to 9. That is, if we agree that a = 5 and b = 1 and c = 3. If we come to other conclusions, then d might equal any other number, and it’d still be a “reasonable” conclusion. It’s equally reasonable to assume that a = 2, b = 4, c = 2 so that d = 8. Of course, there is such thing as being unreasonable, like a = 2, b = 4, c =2 and saying d = 10- some philosophies and wordviews are utterly irrational, like modern Liberalism- so Reason can do something for us even if it can’t tell us what is Truth.

I think I’ve argued my position but if you really want to bust your brain, realize that all the other letters (a, b, c) are in themselves the addition of other equations, so this quickly becomes an exponential problem.

Keep in mind this is an epistemological problem, not a metaphysical one. I’m not for one second suggesting because we cannot know, that God cannot know or that there is no objective truth. I’m just saying by using pure reason, we cannot know it because reason is a method not a position.

In light of this then, I am not sure how to react to the Church’s position that God can be known through Reason. If that were true, then all intelligent people would be Christians.

Similarly, I cannot accept Atheist/Neodarwianian claims that God does not exist and that all smart people should know this and everyone else is just stupid and/or emotional.

It seems to me that the absolute first principle which we decide our values on is the heart, and the heart decides what it sees. It’s most likely that our heart is shaped by our history and subjective experience, and, most importantly, if you believe, God’s will. Remember in Ephesians 2 St. Paul writes that “we were born of the will of God”.

 

[Pete_1]

Is Reason a thing in itself or just a method of working from first principles?

I don’t know, I haven’t decided. It seems like there is so many points of view out there that it is possible that Reason isn’t so much a position on Truth, but a method.

Some people will argue that it is reasonable to be Catholics, or atheists, or Muslims or whatever. All these positions have their smart, educated, philosophically and scientifically savvy people, and they come to different conclusions. Then how can it be through “Reason” that we can believe in one thing or another?

The rest got too confusing for me . Maybe it is lack of reason that leads to to reach different conculsions.

 

[Mirdath]

Is Reason a thing in itself or just a method of working from first principles?

Reason is a faculty – more method than thing, but not quite. It’s a way of knowing, the other big one being empiricism.

In light of this then, I am not sure how to react to the Church’s position that God can be known through Reason. If that were true, then all intelligent people would be Christians.

Or at least theists, yes

The Church’s philosophical tradition is quite something, but in this one instance, I’m going to have to say that all the various Homers have collectively nodded. I might agree with the statement ‘God can be approached through Reason’; after all, God is one way out of the Prime Mover and other arguments. But it’s hardly an absolute, obvious certainty; and even if one accepts all the proper postulates and occasionally overlooks various flaws and gaps, there is no argument that proves that God exists and is what the Church (or anyone else) says he is.

Similarly, I cannot accept Atheist/Neodarwianian claims that God does not exist and that all smart people should know this and everyone else is just stupid and/or emotional.

Of course. That position is entirely indefensible: it’s an unprovable positive claim – just as theism is, for the record.

What do you make of the claim that there is no reason to believe?

 

[mschrank]

Well Midrath I guess we’re sort of on the same page. As far as no reason to believe, I think that’s not really the same kind of “reason”. You annoying me might be a good reason for me to smack you, but its not using Reason in the sense I’m using it here- in fact, it might even be unreasonable because I’d probably get in trouble with the law.

If you mean by there is no reason to believe, there is no way of proving Christianity true in a vacuum by shutting one’s eyes, rubbing one’s temples and thinking really hard about it, then you’re right.

That’s the thing though, and that’s why Christianity is different than Buddhism or Scientistic Atheism, the latter are indeed contained within your cranium, they are diagramatic just like the Mandela. Something always results from something else. You can “get” Buddhism or Atheism.

Christianity on the other hand, is a story- it has about as much to do with pure Reason as any other story. A story can be poorly written and contradictory, so it can go against Reason but it can also transcend Reason and you can’t use pure Reason to figure out how the story is going to end. The author has to tell you. Christianity has to do with believing the claims of other people, at the end of the day- it’s about a transcendent God who reveals himself over history to human beings.

But anyway, back to Reason… I bet there are many people on here who do believe that Reason is a position and not a method and ime, the Church usually has a good reason for believing things, so I’d like to hear the arguement.

 

[cpayne]

Thomistic definition: Reason is the ability to infer new knowledge based on what one already knows.

Example: Here’s what you know: A = B and B = C.

By reason you ALSO now know that A = C, even if no tells you that.

Another: You know that Jim is going to the party, but only if Jane does not go. You also know that Jane does go to the party.

By reason you know that Jim does not go, even if no one tells you he did not go.

“But what if Jim does go to the party?” someone might ask.

In that case, your premises were wrong in the first place. You can only infer new knowledge from that which actually IS knowledge.

 

[mschrank]

Interesting answer. I’m always amazed at how common sense St. Thomas Aquinas, usually, is.

But how can we prove that God exists from Reason then, and leaping even further, that Christianity is true?

 

[cpayne]

Some principles are known a priori. From this knowledge Anselm believed you could reason your way to knowledge of God’s existence (ontological argument).

Some truths are known by experience, *a posteriori *(for example, everything that comes into existence or changes or moves requires a cause outside of itself). From this knowledge Aquinas believed you could reason your way to knowledge of God’s existence (cosmological argument).

 

[john_doran]

there’s not only deductive reasoning (the process of deriving conclusions already contained in the premises) but also inductive reasoning (the acquisition of knowledgenot explicitly contained in the premises), and abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation). this kind of reasoning is called*** ampliative***.

as far as proving the existence of god, the position of the church is not so much that god’s existence can be proven so much as it is that it can be known by the light of natural reason; the distinction is paramount, since knowledge is possible without proof, since most of what we know is simply not susceptible to rigorous and incontrovertible proof all the way down, so to speak.

how we come to know is, of course, the subject matter of epistemology, and there are many different ways that different thinkers have skinned that particular cat over the millenia…

one of the difficulties in looking for proofs of things is actually first agreeing on a definition of “proof”; i mean, much of the reasoning involved in science and philosophy is very hard, and it is easy both to go wrong in one’s reasoning, and also not to recognize wrong-turns when they have been made, which makes it easy also to see proofs where there are none, and none where they abound.

on a similar tack, “proving” is typically understood as the purview of deductive reasoning, where the premises of an argument logically entail the conclusion. however, even though it is possible to articulate arguments of this sort for god’s existence, the premises for those arguments also require support, and so on. and eventually, the support is reduced to arguments that rely on ***inferential ***rather than entailment relations between the propositions involved, which means that they can be (more or less) reasonably rejected without (obvious) irrationality. which, in turn, means that any arguments based on them can also be (more or less) reasonably rejected.

ultimately, one can have good arguments that are not convincing; but the failure of a putative “proof” to convince doesn’t make that proof any less a proof, as far as it goes.

which means that there can both be good arguments for the existence of god and christianity, and people who (more or less) reasonably reject them.

 

[Tonks40]

Keep this thread going - I’m currently taking a critical thinking class and your posts already have been a tremendous help!

 

[cpayne]

as far as proving the existence of god, the position of the church is not so much that god’s existence can be proven so much as it is that it can be known by the light of natural reason; the distinction is paramount, since knowledge is possible without proof, since most of what we know is simply not susceptible to rigorous and incontrovertible proof all the way down, so to speak.

True; I was being lazy and imprecise. By the way, hi again.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Mschrank sais above among other notable things:

It’s most likely that our heart is shaped by our history and subjective experience, and, most importantly, if you believe, God’s will. Remember in Ephesians 2 St. Paul writes that “we were born of the will of God”<

Though that’s true, God gives everyone the chance to have a view accross and down at ones history and subjective experience. You circle in that idea, by mentioning (and mentione it as most important), that “ones heart is shaped by God’s will”.

Well – I dare to doubt that, for a very simple reason:
If “your will is shaped by God’s will”, you are not any longer free to decide for God or evil. But to decide for God or iniquity, irresponsibility, is the reason why we are on earth.

In fact, REASON ought to tell us, that our responsibility is not towards the world, but towards God. All the more so, as we know (not only from Philippians 4:7) that reason is way below the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Now the very funny and at the same time very astonishing and enlightning fact is, that this “peace of God” which is an embracing or realising or recognising of the reality of God has nothing really to do with intellect nor with REASON. What is REASON compared to the being of God?! Our REASON that anyhow changes from century to century, is just nothing compared to the believe of the very untutored day labourer, who, because he believes, lives in God.

**

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**The other day a person who is sadly enough unable to believe in Gods existence told me: “Now be reasonable!” and he went on explaining, that all reason tells us, that believing is highly unreasonable.

I wonder then, why an intellectual person would just believe what he sees and is based on experience. Where in fact is his intellect then? Isn’t just that unbelief highly unreasonable?!
Men is enabled by God to think further than earthly pragmatism. To tolerate human and ones own spirit just to go as far as to what can be explained and is empirically recordable, means vetoing any reason (not even to speak of intellect).

St. Paul says in Romans 1:20, that God’s invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature have been clearly understood from what has been made, therefore we really are without excuse for our unbelief.

We do need a lot of reason to believe in God, as Paul points out. But at the same time; reason also might stop believe, if – yes if we let reason not go in one with the spirit of our soul but restrain reason into the borders the world sets. Paul puts it this way in Romans 7:23: “I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.”

Anyone is able and capable of refusing Gods existence. But high and highest reason is necessary to believe in God. Christian thinking and compassion and the peace of God is higher than all reason - as St. Paul pointed out in Phil. 4:7.
**

 

[Spirit_of_Truth]

Reason I.e. sound judgment, allows us to bridge the gap and apply the most probable answer solution to any given conundrum. It is reasonably to assume that the core of the earth is hot based on reason, even if there is no first hand account, it is highly probable to assume as such, and there are many other scenarios you can apply.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**What does “I.e.” mean?
As I said above; yes of course is reason most important, and moreover so reason is (as St. Paul said) indispensable to gather believe.
So I don’t see what daily experiences have to do with the previous posts. Daily experiences have to be embedded in faith just as contrariwise. It was reason which enabled St. Paul and the Evangelists to give sound judgment of the reality of God.
**

 

[Dan_Michael]

Seems Reason is good at figuring/understanding ‘Solid’ arguments: ie, A=2, B=3 then C=5 type.
But does Reason suffice for ‘Fluid’ arguments? Or in the case presented here, ‘vapor’ (or Spiritual).

Meaning: How does the Heart reason? How does Intuition reason? How does the Soul reason? How does the Spirt reason?

Or do they even have cause to???

 

[Nino]

Recently a man wrote a letter to my local paper…he was an attorney,bragged about his scholarship re: history,was published etc…yet in his attack,he twisted history to ‘prove’ his point. This was about a favorite president of mine and this scholar did not let the facts get in the way of his reason why no museum should be built in honor of this historical figure. As in 1984…the horror preview of whats coming for us is …if the establishment says.2+2=5 then …its 5! I have a sense of Justice and in-justice…based on the ten commandments and Jesus’o own 11th commandment…so my ‘reason’ assures me there must be a prime mover…a supreme being ie GOD that also has a sense of justice and in-justice,therefor judgement day for all of us…not just April; 15.If one eats too much and does not work it off…the belt has to be taken out again…if one does NOT look both ways before crossing the street regardless of the light…one may not get another chance to be stupid…reason…when I married my wife years ago she looked just like Jane Russell…half a century later I tell her that she has not changed…and is as beautiful as ever…reason…for love,like reason is for all seasons…not just philosophy 101…Nino

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

How does the Heart reason? How does Intuition reason? How does the Soul reason? How does the Spirt reason?
Or do they even have cause to???

**I can’t see how an organ ever could reason or be reasonable, whilst your soul and spirit defenitely reasons and puts two and two together. Organs or thinks funktion and react, but never reason. It takes a thinking person to be reasonable. It’s clear, that your spirit can be so reasonable, as to see an overwhelming reason to believe all about Jesus’ Life, all about Jesus’ words and all of Jesus’ resurrection.

Or am I completely wrong about your English language (which sadly enough isn’t mine too)?**

 

[Dan_Michael]

Bruno, English is a funny language.
Reference to the Heart (as the Sacred Heart of Jesus), does not refer to the ‘organ’ as such, but the attributes ascribed to it in our language… like Love, emotions…

In that light, does Love Reason?

The point I was trying to make (without saying it), was that Reason alone as a determining factor in other then a few disciplines looses the argument.
Reason does aid understanding, but not by itself. As deep Understanding is one Gift of the Holy Spirit. We live in a complex/general fashion, and to rely on only one specific form of understanding is to not have all the data. It is when one ‘specific’’ discipline (field of study) tries to encompass all of the ‘general’ in living life, that distortion happens. This is to say we are living in the real/unreal, visible/invisible, body/spirit… all at once… among other aspects of our being.

Being Catholic (which means Universal) would tend to consider many multiple aspects to aid Understanding Fully(as fully as one’s mind can), rather then Understanding Specifically. Theology and Philosophy aim for a more full understanding. Reason uses logic. Love uses…?

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Oh – I say – yeah! Thank’s a lot in any case. But what does “I.e.” mean?

In that light, does Love Reason?<

A clear YES for the love of the heart of Jesus; knowing, that in Greece “heart” (funnily enough I write out of the heart clinic where I am since a week again) heart was the centre of ways and means to think and feel. So, of course the love of the Sacred Heart of Jesus does reason (I just kind of get this funny way of twisted thinking – no harm ment ;-). Since I speak the very simple, basic English I picked up in factory where I worked in Birmingham/England 1959, I’d say it the following way – instead of “this love reasons”; - this love makes a lot of reason. In fact it reasons our life altogether.
Yes, English is a bit of an illogical language as the British Composer Philip Flach told me, – so we ought to write in Swahili
But let’s be serious: The reason that binds us inseparably on God where we come from and where we go to, (well as destination) is so immense huge, and reaching into every smallest detail of our doing, life and thoughts, that we literally must feel God with everything we do, everything we see, everything we feel, think, live.
And we do have every reason of the world, to use all reason we have, to be reasonable enough to make our life a single reason: To live in God now, so we live with God in eternity.

Good night
Yours, Bruno (it’s past 22h now here and I ought to be asleep)
**

 

[Dan_Michael]

Bruno,

Loved your last post. American/English is even more confusing, but can be more precise too… which adds to the confusion.

ie, means ‘that is’… and is usually used to further explain something for better comprehension.

You say it well:
“But let’s be serious: The reason that binds us inseparably on God where we come from and where we go to, (well as destination) is so immense huge, and reaching into every smallest detail of our doing, life and thoughts, that we literally must feel God with everything we do, everything we see, everything we feel, think, live.
And we do have every reason of the world, to use all reason we have, to be reasonable enough to make our life a single reason: To live in God now, so we live with God in eternity.”

Pleasant Dreams…