What's wrong with Reason?

[Fishy.Walrus]

I’m having a crisis of faith here lads and lasses in Christ. And wherever I look, often the answer is logic; that logic and reason leads us to God ultimately. And I’ve found this to be so. However, logic has been used quite soundly to go against some Church teachings, I’ve found. For example I know a lot of Catholic morality comes from a teleological process, which I cannot in good conscience or thought accept, which leads me to question teachings. What happens next? Am I to abandon my reasonable faculties in favour of something I don’t see as logical, despite being told that it is the truest logic? Especially considering Jesus is the Word – Logos – how can reason go against reason?

 

[Mythicalbio]

It doesn’t. You should read Grammar of Assent by Newman, it might be helpful.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/index.html

 

[Beryllos]

However, logic has been used quite soundly to go against some Church teachings, I’ve found.

How soundly? Examine your assumptions and your logical process. Perhaps you missed something.

For example I know a lot of Catholic morality comes from a teleological process, which I cannot in good conscience or thought accept, which leads me to question teachings.

Could you give an example where the teleological process works, and/or one where it doesn’t?

 

[Fishy.Walrus]

So I guess where it works is, as I’ve understood the Church uses it, that things have an end, or a nature or a “thingness.” For example, as Fr. Mike Schmitz would say, a table has a nature of tableness; to set things upon, or a chair has a nature of “chairness” to sit upon. And a grave mistake occurs when that thing is used against its nature. However, this does not apply to the natural world in a satisfying enough way; we cannot ascribe a use to things in the natural world to the same degree that we do in the created world of man. For example, what is a tree’s nature and or use? Certainly not to be killed for the purpose of creating a chair. Yet this is no sin. Nor should it be. Yet when it comes to, say, human morality, we utilise teleology to define what is good and what is not, where it shouldn’t necessarily. Does that make sense?

 

[Vico]

…

One natural example is given in Genesis 1

29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:

 

[Gorgias]

However, this does not apply to the natural world in a satisfying enough way; we cannot ascribe a use to things in the natural world to the same degree that we do in the created world of man.

Not a “use”, necessarily, but perhaps a “purpose”.

For example, what is a tree’s nature and or use? Certainly not to be killed for the purpose of creating a chair.

Hasn’t man been placed in the role of steward of creation? And therefore, in a certain sense, doesn’t creation’s telos include being at service to humanity? And if so, isn’t then “being utilized by mankind in a responsible way” both a proper goal and a non-sinful use?

Yet when it comes to, say, human morality, we utilise teleology to define what is good and what is not, where it shouldn’t necessarily.

Why do you say so? Why “it shouldn’t necessarily”?

 

[fhansen]

Only humans, due to free will, can change, compromise, limit, override, or otherwise fail to live up to their nature and purpose. A tree doesn’t stop being a tree as long as it exists, same for a chair, a dog, or a cat. Humans, OTOH, can be sort of diminished or modified versions of their true selves-we can exist in a more or less false state of being even as that true or truest self remains latent inside. What we present on the outside isn’t necessarily in perfect agreement with the inside IOW. This relates to the concept of a purpose, as well as to the existence of natural law, etc: a “right way” to be, so to speak, that precedes and exists independently of our personal opinions. I think this should all be born out by evidence that we witness in our world-and in ourselves- continuously, where falsehood and hypocrisy and pride so often rule the day- rather than any kind of sheer innocence.

 

[MPat]

However, logic has been used quite soundly to go against some Church teachings, I’ve found.

That is pretty unlikely.

It is far more likely that you failed to distinguish between actual use of logic and sophistry.

For example I know a lot of Catholic morality comes from a teleological process, which I cannot in good conscience or thought accept, which leads me to question teachings.

But where is that “logic” supposed to be here?

For that matter, where is at least a sophism?

A single assertion is not an example of use of “logic”, not even a bad example.

For example, as Fr. Mike Schmitz would say, a table has a nature of tableness; to set things upon, or a chair has a nature of “chairness” to sit upon. And a grave mistake occurs when that thing is used against its nature.

Is that a precise formulation…? Perhaps you misremembered something?

For example, what is a tree’s nature and or use? Certainly not to be killed for the purpose of creating a chair. Yet this is no sin. Nor should it be. Yet when it comes to, say, human morality, we utilise teleology to define what is good and what is not, where it shouldn’t necessarily. Does that make sense?

The truly analogous conclusion would say that it would be bad for a tree to make a chair from itself.

And, well, I guess it would be - if trees were able to make chairs of themselves, and were rational (thus capable of moral decisions).

For example, what is a tree’s nature and or use? Certainly not to be killed for the purpose of creating a chair.

Well, how do you know that?

That seems to be the main problem for now: you think that you know things when, in fact, your knowledge is incomplete, imprecise, maybe just wrong.

In that case the right thing to do is to consider the possibility that you misunderstood something.

And to decide to trust Church at least until the end of investigation.

 

[Servant31]

I’m short on time sorry but quickly… human logic is so often limited. We are limited by observation, understanding, rigor, social pressures,… think in history. We legitimately thought leeching was a good idea, or that the earth was flat, or that the sun obviously revolves around the earth… our perceptions and abilities are limited.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

There are so many different styles of “teleology”. Why don’t you synthesise your own, more solid version of it, from the best components of the imperfect versions we have been served up with? As for logic, it is far bigger than usually supposed.

Etienne Gilson proposed Methodical Realism as antidote to both metaphysical idealism, and nominalistic materialism (both of which lead to literalism and fundamentalism).

C S Peirce, Thomas Sebeok and Roland Barthes contributed to semiotics. M A K Halliday commented on Shannon’s and Wheeler’s tentative thoughts on matter as a special case of meaning. The anthropic principle is at any rate not disproven by humankind’s apparent presence hereabouts!

Einstein suggested the existence of gravity waves which was politely ignored for a century. Most branches of history, cosmology and sciences of living forms have been hampered by the repeated censorship and destruction of formerly known lore.

We know what a wave does, but not what it “is”. Combustion mostly depends on oxygen, so the concept of phlogiston has receded, but we still don’t know much about the “why”.

Almost all etymology seems to have been metaphorical or euphemistic in origin.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics strike me as nice and practical, especially the mental virtues. In Kant, “consider everyone - including yourself - an end in themselves, not a means only” is what I call a principle (even if he got lost attempting to develop it).

I too, highly commend Newman’s Grammar Of Assent.

On the topic of Washington on the Potomac we are high on verification / falsification and relatively low on broad-brush general inference because more evidence fills out a picture that is largely roughly similar to what we have already. (Diaries, camp records, finds in the ground.) One might say something startling about the role of a particular general, or move a skirmish by some hundreds of yards or some hours, or be able to document the activities of civilians.

In personal religious belief on the other hand we have to be high on inference from evidence of God’s action in providence and in the growth of personalities amidst individuals’ ups & downs, and low in verification / falsification as it is usually regarded (i.e tentativeness). This is because Holy Spirit “sixth sense” (especially in others’ specifics) isn’t given to all simultaneously.

Hence Newman’s “assent to degrees of inference” applies, in different ways, to all fields of science and scholarship as well as religious belief. Working hypotheses are extremely respectable, as are “notions” from which we may propose ever increasing amounts of tentative and potential parallel hypotheses. These should not be regarded as knocking each other out, or judged prematurely.

Your inference - your degrees - your assent - your pidgin. Have you got compassion for the uniqueness of the next person? For your own uniqueness?

 

[Richca]

There is nothing wrong with human reason but human reason can error. As another poster I believe mentioned, what logic supposedly used quite soundly that you have come across that goes against Church teachings? Because that logic can be refuted soundly.

Concerning catholic morality, the end or intention is one of the sources of determining the morality of human actions because human beings have been created by God with an intellect or reason through which they freely do things for a reason, end, or purpose. This is manifest if we examine our own actions. The end or intention is not the only source of human morality though. The object chosen and the circumstances along with the end determine the morality of human actions. The end does not justify the means.

If we see that our individual logic or reasoning does not conform to Church teachings, then we need to abandon our own logic and reasoning which is in error in favor to the Church’s teachings which are truth and for the most part founded on divine revelation.