What is Reason?

[Spirit_of_Truth]

**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.
**

What does “I.e.” mean?

That is to say; in other words.

 

[Hubriss]

It seems like you are all confusing reason with logic. You’re senarios of A=B, B=C, therefore A=C is logic, not reason.

The method and use of reason is to attempt to come to a conclusion about something based on evidence and logic. Since full evidence and clear logic can not always be obtained, reason is the term we use to best fit a solution to a problem that cannot at the moment be definitely known.

Statistics is also a large factor in determining what is reasonable because taking into account rates of emperical observation is largely considered in making “reasonable” conclusions or assumptions. For example, throughout your entire life you’ve seen things fall to the ground. If you could then calculate the probability of a ball you throw up in the air falling to the earth, it would be so close to 100% that it would be reasonable to assume the next ball will fall.

Is it reasonable to believe in God? You weigh the evidence with claims and use logic and statistics to see if there are any concurances or inconsistencies with a belief and the real world.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Might be we ought not so much ride on matters of language as we all know, we think and pray often without any world-wide-known language, but the heavenly us given very fast (reason?).
I.e. when we explain such complicated thing as our relationship to God - or whatever; like political speech. Then we do not stop and think before every word in language and only then pronounce it, but we know without language in our very fast and all embracing heavenly (spiritual) language what we are going to say. This language is not English nor any language spoken on earth. If this wouldn’t be so, we had to wait until we told ourselves what we are going to say. In other words, our brain reason releases a line of thoughts and ideas, which we translate into words. That’s why we say: “You know what I mean” or “I can’t put it in words”. Our meaning is the higher reason, above language.
Quite often me meet low educated with very narrow ability to express themselves. But if we take the time to really get into that person, we often are astonished, how great his thought; how wide his “heavenly God-given inner language“ is (though he cann’t express), and we are amazed, how near this person is to God (very often much nearer than we).

No. Reason is not getting mixed up with logic here. Let me put the two in a logic way together:

It takes a lot of reason as St. Paul said, to hold believe. With this brain reason we see the logic course or order of events of Jesus Christ’s life; beginning with Jesaija’s announcement of the Messiah in the Old Testament (such as Jesaija 9:5), across every word Jesus said - until the (then) most logic resurrection and Ascension.<

Reason shows us the logic of God! Understood even by unreasonable persons, if they get the grace of God to be allowed to believe, instead of their eyes and ears held so they can’t believe, because of they aren’t unworthy to receive this grace of God (Luke 8:10).
**

 

[Hubriss]

**Might be we ought not so much ride on matters of language as we all know, we think and pray often without any world-wide-known language, but the heavenly us given very fast (reason?).
I.e. when we explain such complicated thing as our relationship to God - or whatever; like political speech. Then we do not stop and think before every word in language and only then pronounce it, but we know without language in our very fast and all embracing heavenly (spiritual) language what we are going to say. This language is not English nor any language spoken on earth. If this wouldn’t be so, we had to wait until we told ourselves what we are going to say. In other words, our brain reason releases a line of thoughts and ideas, which we translate into words. That’s why we say: “You know what I mean” or “I can’t put it in words”. Our meaning is the higher reason, above language.
Quite often me meet low educated with very narrow ability to express themselves. But if we take the time to really get into that person, we often are astonished, how great his thought; how wide his “heavenly God-given inner language“ is (though he cann’t express), and we are amazed, how near this person is to God (very often much nearer than we).

No. Reason is not getting mixed up with logic here. Let me put the two in a logic way together:

It takes a lot of reason as St. Paul said, to hold believe. With this brain reason we see the logic course or order of events of Jesus Christ’s life; beginning with Jesaija’s announcement of the Messiah in the Old Testament (such as Jesaija 9:5), across every word Jesus said - until the (then) most logic resurrection and Ascension.<

Most people do think in words so that they may understand their own thoughts and more readily translate them to communicate. You are right that you can realize something before putting it into words. You can tell whether or not something is logical as you hear it, even if you can’t yet explain why it isn’t logical. By the way, it is hard to know the meaning of your writing because obviously English is not your first language. I can tell you are using some grammar and syntax of your native language and converting it erroneously into English because you are thinking in your main language.

Reason and logic can be almost synonymous, but they do not mean the same thing. “Reasonable” and “logical” mean different things. A part of logic is If, then statements. In your example, IF Jesus was truly prophesied to come and resurrect and ascend after he died, and he actually does come and fulfill those prophecies, THEN it would be proof that there is a mystical or godlike quality about him. But the question of whether to believe those things actually happened is Reason, and is different from logic. It is NOT reasonable to believe Jesus was actually prophesied and resurrected and ascended simply because there is no testable claim that can be verified, and it goes completely against what we can and do know about nature. Looking at the prophesies and Jesus’ life, it is not reasonable to believe that the prophecies were talking specifically about him, or that he actually did anything that the bible says he did because there is nothing that can remotely verify claims made by Christians.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

…we sat there for a long time and never spoke a word, but we understood each other ever so clearly…
That word of a love stoy pictures what I ment
We also might e.g. sit in a curch and not thinking a word, but be very close to God and HE understanding “every word” we don’t say

 

[Nancy121]

It’s not based on religion. it’s based on principles. we need to be good human beings. to be good philosopher!

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Not based on religion? Based on principles?
If you speak in terms of “reason”, you’re right. Not so, if you mean definitions of communications other than reasonable ones, as there is a mental togetherness far away of reason.
It seems, that we – as “reason” differs from person to person, won’t be able to find a bipartisan solution on the question WHAT IS REASON.
I said; REASON is highly necessary to bring life into believe and faith in God. At the same time, uneducated do have equal chance to “understand” Christian believe.
Further words than what had be said, seem not to bring us on a better understanding of the matter.
A lot of believe is not more nor less, than direct connection to God, that’s not matter of disposition or regulation, nor of definition. Either one has got it – or not. Nor would believe and faith be matter of exchange or subject to give somebody. It can’t be presented, but must be gained. Each person for himself.
**

 

[Biggie]

Maybe some help with my own definition of reason, please.

Reason is that faculty of the being which supplies meaning, purpose, to objects. An object is anything outside the subjective state of being which can be comprehended.

As previously pointed out, reason operates inductively or deductively. In other words, reason is a digestive process. It figuratively consumes an object, breaks it into components and reassembles them to achieve a new meaning. That meaning, itself, then becomes and object available to reason.

To the extent that an object has a real or potential utility, it is rational. To the extent that potential for utility is not found in an object, it is irrational.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

OK. Good. But where in this definition is our link to God?

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Let us be ever to grateful, that we have the beauty of irrationality, and “out of all reason and ratio”, for the worlds irrationality will survive all reason and rationality. If everything – like thought, motion, being, would be rational only, it would be like trees without leaves all the year round. Black and white. Cold and hot. Naked, impersonal – rational.

Now the impertinent presence of lies, imprints on us the tendency of disbelieve and scepsis;
“can this be true?”

True, the truth, truth that’s been established long before we where; God’s truth, had been fact ages before the Universe was. Some might feel it “irrational” because we do not at once understand; are not right away able to explain that truth, that’s so very much different from what we’ve learned by seeing, feeling, doing and experiencing?

200 years ago (and what is 200 years compared to the time of human being) any scientist would have named you stupid, if you’d told him; you see what’s happening this very minute on the other end of the world and you might see and speak to the person there in real time. It would have been as irrational as if you had told the rationalists 500 years ago, the world is a globe instead of flat, or a huge flying object takes 500 or more in hours around the world.

What Jesus Christ told the world, was just like what Prophets some 1000 years before Jesus and what St.Paul after Jesus said. Most irrational. But this irrationality is what will overcome and remain after all ration and reason we believe in, and remain the truth in eternity.

This is so, because we are not out of ourselves, but of God. Our reason is what we – we, who came after so much we’ll never understand had already happened, made up as THE TRUTH OF REALITY. Creation of heaven and Angels, fall of Satan etc.

What is the reality of a blind cave fish, deep under the sea: “What is sun? There is no sun!”
But there is a sun, and this creature wouldn’t live without this sun.
But there is God and we wouldn’t live without God.

Let’s stop taking reason and reality as the truth and all we do not see, as irrational.
**

 

[Biggie]

OK. Good. But where in this definition is our link to God?

Bruno, my theory is that reason finds God possible on a number of counts, among them 1) the obvious existence of love - love operates on a principle other than human reason; 2) the enduring nature of love - love does not cease with the death of the beloved.

Reason does not dictate, therefore, that a belief in God or in the spiritual is irrational.

Reason is not comfortable, however, with that which cannot be rationalized but cannot be dismissed.

Reason must supply reason’s own purpose or raison d’etra, and considering the vulnerability of the being to death, it represents its role as a search for utility to preserve the being. That which cannot be rationalized challenges its authority over the being.

But I am also offering from reason’s perspective, an existence without God is also viewed as rational and is actually more palatable.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

1. the obvious existence of love - love operates on a principle other than human reason; 2) the enduring nature of love - love does not cease with the death of the beloved.

Precisely this Dear, I many years ago told someone, and she replied: You don’t say. What then about them birds who have one partner all their life, really love that partner and never will mate with another partner if their first partner is lost??? (there are nonbirds too who do alike).

The rest of your fine English is a class too high to me, so I won’t dare to comment - surely it helps others a lot.

But let me ask:
Can you name a good reason why you believe in God?
Or a good reason why you don’t believe in God?

In the end it all concentrates on the question
do I or don’t I believe in God - and why is that so

 

[cpayne]

But let me ask:
Can you name a good reason why you believe in God?

Yes.

 

[Biggie]

Precisely this Dear, I many years ago told someone, and she replied: You don’t say. What then about them birds who have one partner all their life, really love that partner and never will mate with another partner if their first partner is lost??? (there are nonbirds too who do alike).

The rest of your fine English is a class too high to me, so I won’t dare to comment - surely it helps others a lot.

But let me ask:
Can you name a good reason why you believe in God?
Or a good reason why you don’t believe in God?

In the end it all concentrates on the question
do I or don’t I believe in God - and why is that so

Sorry about the language. I have a long mulled over theory as to reason I am hoping to have pulled apart by someone, but I work over constantly how to express it in the simplest, most direct way. So I am not sure I would be a candidate to help anyone - but maybe just stir something up.

By the way, I actually studied Deutsch for three years in my youth. I’d be lucky now if I could get past gutten Tag, so I admire your skill.

There are many fine proofs of God’s existence that can be explored - for example, beyond classic philosophy, Chesterton and C.S. Lewis have both written readably on the subject. I like, “The Question of God - C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and The Meaning of Life”, Dr. Armond Nichoi, Jr., Free Press, 2002.

But for me, I accept God on this basis - the old saying, “The heart has reasons reason itself does not understand.”

I am impressed by the notion that love undeniably exists. Love prompts human beings to do things no other creature will do - act with free will against one’s own interests, even unto death, for the benefit of another. So to me, when a person holds a door open for another it is a miracle not replicated in nature. (My dog never holds the door open for me and lets me go first).
Reason would dictate my own survival takes precedence, and yet we are driven by love as we are driven by reason.

This leads me to conclude there is a principle alive in the universe greater than my own reason that has reasons of its own, a durable, immaterial, personal force. And eventually to conclude there is a person alive with a will for love greater than my own will.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**You didn’t answer, whether or not you believe in the living God; personalised - not as “idea”.

Well I picked up “my English” in 1959 in a UK-factory, so I again avoid to go into your upper class details (I otherwise would have to look up too many words .
My love-sample in first posting can be widened to many creatures other than men. Take your dog. Surely he doesn’t love you just ‘cos you feed him. I never feed my dog. My wife does. I don’t even ever give him a snack as (I hate obedience out of love for food - having been member of many dog-clubs and having had 8 dogs altogether including the one of by Birmingham host-parents). If someone else would feed your dog, he’d still return to you, because he loves you even when he never holds up the door for you

I’ll never forget in 1949 those two chicken in the 30 of my uncles, who always had been together in that chicken lot. Now when my dog caught one of these two, all the rest of the chicken fled. But this chicken who loved that other chicken, attacked our dog severely. I saved the chicken our dog had (it was ok) and the two left together - and lived happily ever after !

Oh there is love in the world even spread among some of all creatures for the simple reason, that God is love. As He created all there is, love is widely spread over all there is too. Sigmund Freud’s idea of all having to do with sex, is simply ridiculous, as many ideas of many philosophers are. See Nietzsche who ended insane, as he did not believe in the one and only God. Oh, how these philosophers will hate their scripts today!!!
The exampel of holding up a door is less love, than the desire to be loved by this person. Making good impression, is wanting to be loved.

I would simply not dare to call the one and only God who not only created all there is, but also saved the world from its own destroying through Jesus Christ His only son, as simply: “there is a principle alive in the universe greater than my own reason that has reasons of its own.” For how would one justify oneself before God one day when we stand face to face before Him, that we called GOD simply “an alive principle” ?

The excuse “oh well I thought….” won’t count then for many reasons, such as St. Paul made clear in Romans 1:20 …For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.,………

Understand God? No! Never and nobody will ever understand God – not even the Angels do, will or ever had. So, why should we deny believe - just because we do not understand God?!

The subject “Philosophy” includes every reasonable thought about things we do or did not understand yet. Mathematic, Astronomy, Chemistry where Philosophies, as well as the idea that the world was flat – until understanding came about. God we’ll never understand; still He is NOT subject to philosophy, but believe and faith, and as we are told firstly by God Himself directly, the prophets, later by God through Jesus Christ, there is no excuse what so ever for disbelieve. (Or considering God as “an idea”).
**

 

[Biggie]

**You didn’t answer, whether or not you believe in the living God; personalised - not as “idea”.

**

Bruno, I am trying to take the viewpoint of reason, (the topic of the thread), not completely stating my own beliefs. And I am trying not to attempt a complete philosophical proof, since I already feel I have derailed the thread.

 

[Nickkname]

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.

God can be known through reason because man can figure out that God exists through a simple observation of the world and thinking. Science, for example, tells us that something created the Universe. Science dosen’t tell us that it is God, though, because Science deals itself with facts, not truths. Religion, on the other hand, deals with truths, so it says the something that created the Universe is God.

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

I think your premise is faulty.

Plenty of intelligent people engage in unreasonable behavior. I have personally seen people smoking in the parking lot of the oncologist’s office where they are being treated for lung cancer.

The existence of God can be known through reason. Don’t read more into that statement than what it says.

 

[Swan]

God can be known through reason because man can figure out that God exists through a simple observation of the world and thinking. Science, for example, tells us that something created the Universe. Science dosen’t tell us that it is God, though, because Science deals itself with facts, not truths. Religion, on the other hand, deals with truths, so it says the something that created the Universe is God.

I have to respectfully disagree that God can be known through reason. True, I can observe the universe, or what we know about it, and reasonably conclude that its creation was by a means greater than man, but also incomprehensible to man. From there to the concept that a loving, all powerful being such as the Judeo Christian God was that creator is a huge, huge leap, IMO. I think it is also a huge leap to conclude that human emotions are also a creation of this same God. Look at the Deists - they based their belief in a god on nature but they denied the existence of the J/C God. To say that one (observation of the universe) leads to the other (belief in the J/C God) in a “reasonable” way is, IMO, faulty logic.

 

[1holycatholic]

I have to respectfully disagree that God can be known through reason. True, I can observe the universe, or what we know about it, and reasonably conclude that its creation was by a means greater than man, but also incomprehensible to man. From there to the concept that a loving, all powerful being such as the Judeo Christian God was that creator is a huge, huge leap, IMO. I think it is also a huge leap to conclude that human emotions are also a creation of this same God. Look at the Deists - they based their belief in a god on nature but they denied the existence of the J/C God. To say that one (observation of the universe) leads to the other (belief in the J/C God) in a “reasonable” way is, IMO, faulty logic.

You, too, are reading more into the statement than is there. It seems as though you assume that reasonable means self-evident.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica: Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

This is the statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PB.HTM
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.