More on the Limits to Reason
This post at Darwinian Conservatism sparked me to write several comments as part of a pback and forth between myself, Larry Arnhart of Darwinian Conservatism and another reader. Additional comments might be forthming, but already I see a fruitful discourse.
"Me: Another great post.
I have serious questions about the full utility of reason. As I have written on my blog:
"Reason is indeed quite necessary to function in the natural world around us, however, it offers no glimpse into the transendent. That is its perennial limit and an important one to keep in mind when phrases like 'let reason decide' get thrown around in debate.
'The existential-ethical questions as to who I am and what I am to do are inseparable at once from the political question who we are and from the theoretical or 'ontological' question of the way things are.'
None of those questions are answered by 'reason.'"
Reason can only function within predetermined parameters. It is indispensable, but much more limited than many, especially in our secular age acknowledge.
So what predetermines those parameters? Again we come to what seems to me the existential question. Faith and faith alone can answer the existential and ontological questions. THis is irrespective of whether that faith is in an atheistic conception of the universe or a universe of intelligent design.
So do we now arrive at the Kierkegaardian "Leap?"
Again, it is man's need for transcendence and cosmic purpose that makes this such a needful discussion.
Arnhart: You say that only transcendent faith allows us to answer questions about "what I should do."
Does it give us specific answers? Could you provide some examples?
For instance, Robert George claims that "pure reason" alone tells us that heterosexual married couples who engage in any sexual act other than vaginal intercourse are committing sodomy, and this is self-evidently bad.
Would transcendent faith confirm this?
Me: I certainly take your point and would agree that pure reason does not necessarily confirm your example.
However, if you believe in the Bible as the unadulterated word of the Judeo-Christian God, then I do think it illustrates many things one should do as well as not do. The Old Testament "Law" is actually rather specific, perhaps, in Leviticus, so specific as to prove itself practically impossible. Consequently, though we should not be under the illusion we can adhere to everything in an entirely legalistic sense, we can acknowledge that it is a guide that points us in a direction.
I certainly recognize that transcendent faith cannot specifically spell out what one must do under every conceivable scenario. I also recognize transcendence, certainly that which is present outside of the Judeo-Christian framework, does point in vastly different directions on innumerable specific issues.
However, in a general sense, transcendent faith points in a direction that tends towards order and authority. This is the indisputable necessity of functional society.
There will always be differences of opinion as to what is the "Truth" with a capital "T." However, if there is not "Truth" with a capital "T" then, as Dostoevsky illuminates, anything is possible. That cannot be an acceptable situation for us to confront in anything outside academia or conferences on philosophy.
I am not certain if I am responding adequately to your inquiry, I trust you will advise me if I am not.
Paul: Mr. Lawson has written:
'Reason is indeed quite necessary to function in the natural world around us, however, it offers no glimpse into the transendent. That is its perennial limit and an important one to keep in mind when phrases like 'let reason decide' get thrown around in debate.
'The existential-ethical questions as to who I am and what I am to do are inseparable at once from the political question who we are and from the theoretical or 'ontological' question of the way things are.'
However, I thought that reason could tell us the way that things are, and that it is for precisely that reason why medieval theologians such as Aquinas turned to Aristotle as an authority, because they thought that reason itself confirmed the existence of God, but what was more, reason could illuminate the ontological status of God in a way that the Bible could not. Not that the Bible was inferior to reason, but rather the truth that the Bible conveyed was about God's role in human history and in human life, and didn't specify really too much about God's nature, except that he was Jesus.
Me: Paul,
Thanks for raising this issue.
I confess, my view on transcendence is much more existentialist. I think that while reason proves itself a useful tool that can explain much, it cannot explain all. I am not certain that Aristotle could ever really reason through what God is, at best I think he could only reason about how God might choose to manifest himself in ways that we can observe.
How is God the "Alpha and the Omega?" How did he always exist outside of time and space? If, theoretically, God can act arbitrarily and against nature at any time (since God is the creator of nature in the first place), how can we ever use reason to really understand an entity that protean? How do we reason through to an answer for any of these questions?
If we ever do manage this task, then I would be forced to reevaluate reason itself.
We know God as a personal and historical entity through the Bible. We understand how God chooses to become manifest in nature through reason. But even that manifestation must still be God's choice. Consequently, our reason bumps up against the limit of what God allows us to comprehend in our finitude."
I hope more will be forthcoming.
"Me: Another great post.
I have serious questions about the full utility of reason. As I have written on my blog:
"Reason is indeed quite necessary to function in the natural world around us, however, it offers no glimpse into the transendent. That is its perennial limit and an important one to keep in mind when phrases like 'let reason decide' get thrown around in debate.
'The existential-ethical questions as to who I am and what I am to do are inseparable at once from the political question who we are and from the theoretical or 'ontological' question of the way things are.'
None of those questions are answered by 'reason.'"
Reason can only function within predetermined parameters. It is indispensable, but much more limited than many, especially in our secular age acknowledge.
So what predetermines those parameters? Again we come to what seems to me the existential question. Faith and faith alone can answer the existential and ontological questions. THis is irrespective of whether that faith is in an atheistic conception of the universe or a universe of intelligent design.
So do we now arrive at the Kierkegaardian "Leap?"
Again, it is man's need for transcendence and cosmic purpose that makes this such a needful discussion.
Arnhart: You say that only transcendent faith allows us to answer questions about "what I should do."
Does it give us specific answers? Could you provide some examples?
For instance, Robert George claims that "pure reason" alone tells us that heterosexual married couples who engage in any sexual act other than vaginal intercourse are committing sodomy, and this is self-evidently bad.
Would transcendent faith confirm this?
Me: I certainly take your point and would agree that pure reason does not necessarily confirm your example.
However, if you believe in the Bible as the unadulterated word of the Judeo-Christian God, then I do think it illustrates many things one should do as well as not do. The Old Testament "Law" is actually rather specific, perhaps, in Leviticus, so specific as to prove itself practically impossible. Consequently, though we should not be under the illusion we can adhere to everything in an entirely legalistic sense, we can acknowledge that it is a guide that points us in a direction.
I certainly recognize that transcendent faith cannot specifically spell out what one must do under every conceivable scenario. I also recognize transcendence, certainly that which is present outside of the Judeo-Christian framework, does point in vastly different directions on innumerable specific issues.
However, in a general sense, transcendent faith points in a direction that tends towards order and authority. This is the indisputable necessity of functional society.
There will always be differences of opinion as to what is the "Truth" with a capital "T." However, if there is not "Truth" with a capital "T" then, as Dostoevsky illuminates, anything is possible. That cannot be an acceptable situation for us to confront in anything outside academia or conferences on philosophy.
I am not certain if I am responding adequately to your inquiry, I trust you will advise me if I am not.
Paul: Mr. Lawson has written:
'Reason is indeed quite necessary to function in the natural world around us, however, it offers no glimpse into the transendent. That is its perennial limit and an important one to keep in mind when phrases like 'let reason decide' get thrown around in debate.
'The existential-ethical questions as to who I am and what I am to do are inseparable at once from the political question who we are and from the theoretical or 'ontological' question of the way things are.'
However, I thought that reason could tell us the way that things are, and that it is for precisely that reason why medieval theologians such as Aquinas turned to Aristotle as an authority, because they thought that reason itself confirmed the existence of God, but what was more, reason could illuminate the ontological status of God in a way that the Bible could not. Not that the Bible was inferior to reason, but rather the truth that the Bible conveyed was about God's role in human history and in human life, and didn't specify really too much about God's nature, except that he was Jesus.
Me: Paul,
Thanks for raising this issue.
I confess, my view on transcendence is much more existentialist. I think that while reason proves itself a useful tool that can explain much, it cannot explain all. I am not certain that Aristotle could ever really reason through what God is, at best I think he could only reason about how God might choose to manifest himself in ways that we can observe.
How is God the "Alpha and the Omega?" How did he always exist outside of time and space? If, theoretically, God can act arbitrarily and against nature at any time (since God is the creator of nature in the first place), how can we ever use reason to really understand an entity that protean? How do we reason through to an answer for any of these questions?
If we ever do manage this task, then I would be forced to reevaluate reason itself.
We know God as a personal and historical entity through the Bible. We understand how God chooses to become manifest in nature through reason. But even that manifestation must still be God's choice. Consequently, our reason bumps up against the limit of what God allows us to comprehend in our finitude."
I hope more will be forthcoming.
Comments