Religion and the rational
A response to a Christian writer.
I recently had the welcome opportunity to comment on a post by the Christian writer Joe Keysor on the topic of the role of the rational in religion. He was kind enough to write a very lengthy response, which is extremely flattering. My response to his response struck me as too long for a comment, so I present it here.
It is addressed to him, but I hope others may find it of interest. I must say that it was very nice to have the rare experience of an intelligent and civil discussion online. It was quite refreshing. My thanks to Mr. Keysor.
Mr. Keysor,
I must say I’m flattered by the length of your response, which I think may be a bit more than my comment deserved. Nonetheless, I do want to respond with a few points of my own:
I do not hold that rational thought is solely based on observation and theory. I may have given the impression that I do. If so, that’s my fault.
I do think the observation/theory method is perhaps rationalism in its purest form, but if it were the only form of rationalism, we would have to dismiss thinkers like Plato (my favorite philosopher) who certainly thought rational thinking could be used to understand non-material things.
I agree that rationalism can often lead people to reach erroneous conclusions. Thales, like all the Greeks, was doing the best he could in a world that lacked even magnifying glasses, and came to conclusions that were inevitably wrong. I do not think that this invalidates his method, however. He created a means of ascertaining truth, though he himself could not arrive at the truth.
Interestingly, modern science accepts that this kind of failure is unavoidable. At its best, the scientific method is intended to be perpetual and conclusions are never final. Scientists can give the impression otherwise at times, of course, which I think only contributes to a polarizing discourse.
However, some of the ancient philosophers used rationalism to reach conclusions that were not far off the mark. The atomists came very close to the basics of modern physics. Heraclitus’ theory that all is flux and change could well be accurate. We don’t know yet for various reasons, but it remains a very viable theory.
My point being: Even if specific conclusions are wrong, it does not mean the method is unsound. It is a way to truth, not a guarantee of truth.
Reading your response, I must admit that I think I was wrong to refer to a leap of faith. It implies that people make a conscious choice to believe, and I acknowledge this is often not the case, and is perhaps relatively rare. More commonly, I imagine, people feel compelled to believe by inner conviction or simply do believe. I can think of several examples in my own life and I should not have implied that their faith is somehow contingent upon a decision of the will.
Regarding the superiority of revelation, I think that to a certain extent this is an issue of the observer. The ancient Gnostics, for example, believed that Christian revelation indicated that there were two gods, one supreme and good, the other an evil demiurge. They were denounced as heretics by the orthodox, but they had a good run for a century or so. Obviously, you would agree that they were heretics with an erroneous understanding of revelation. As an agnostic observer, however, I cannot say which of you is correct, or indeed if either of you are correct. This seems to indicate to me that, at the very least, we can get revelation as wrong as we can observation and theory.
I don’t want to get into a huge argument about Darwin. I disagree with your views on his theories, in that I think it’s fair to say they are “settled science” and I don’t think he was biased by personal preferences.
However, I think this is a bit beside the point. What is important, in my view, is not Darwin’s conclusions but—like Thales—his method, which in my opinion is quintessentially rational. Again, his conclusions might be erroneous (I don’t happen to think they were, though that’s another discussion) but I think his rationality is secure.
When I posited my thought experiment, I was not attempting to say that it was how evangelists ancient or modern preach their beliefs. My point was to give a concise summary of basic Christian tenets as they might appear to you if you had no knowledge whatsoever of Christianity. I also want to add that I commented on it only in regard to someone’s likely perception of its rationality or lack thereof. Certainly, Christian tenets have immense persuasive power, as a great many ancient pagans converted to Christianity without previous knowledge of it. Nonetheless, I think these tenets are spiritual, not rational, and perhaps more powerful to many people as a result.
You write, “But if the scientific does not cover all aspects of rationality—just as it does not cover all aspects of life and human behavior—then something may be rational yet outside of the range of scientific knowledge.”
Here, I think we agree. Plato, for example, used reason to explore things like justice, the good life, the ideal state, the source of creativity, and many other things that are outside the range of scientific knowledge. However, I do not believe that Christianity (or any religion) works that way. It seems to me that religions are not the result of a Socratic exploration but rather a non-rational sense of the numinous.
You yourself describe this as “a direct experience of the reality of God which is more real than any earthly knowledge, and is in fact the doorway to eternity.” I don’t think this is by definition an invalid means of understanding existence, but I also don’t think it’s rational and perhaps it shouldn’t be.
Regarding your question: “If someone says ‘God does not exist,’ and a Christian answers ‘The heavens show the glory of God,’ or ‘I know God exists because of what he has done for me, and how he has changed my life,’ or ‘How do you know God does not exist?’, or ‘Have you ever really studied it?’—are not these rational responses?”
I think the former are not and the latter are. The former are assertions of belief or personal experience. You could just as easily say, “The immortal forms show the glory of God” or “I know God exists because he has made me happy.” I think these sentiments are not very compelling to those who do not share them.
Regarding the latter, however, I think you make a fair point. I’ve asked myself both those questions at times, and I can answer: “I don’t” and “Yes, I have.” They are perfectly reasonable questions and admit of numerous reasonable answers.
For those who do believe, however, we seem to agree that their belief comes from “something far greater than reason.” Or, at least, quite different from reason, but certainly possessed of its own integrity. Perhaps our disagreement is ultimately over the definition of words, as I think my understanding of “rational” may differ from yours, for various reasons. It may be only in that you believe that knowledge of God is possible, while I believe the existence of God and, if he does exist, God himself are unknowable.
For me just to leave a ‘like’ is just not sufficient. It is so refreshing to read this very interesting and captivating exchange of views, when so much content elsewhere is little more than argument in the worst sense of the word.
1/2 I tried to be brief, but the length is too great for the system. So I will put it in two parts.
Mr Kerstein,
I made a few introductory comments earlier today, but should have delayed that and put them here.
Much more could have been said, but I cut out quite a bit to make it less than 2,000 words, which did improve it I think. So I hope you will overlook it if this is too long. I have tried to confine myself to the main points.
About Darwin, I am glad to set that aside. I do believe however that the question of human origins is essential to this topic, and has a lot to do with problems of knowing and spiritual reality. I encourage you at some point to look at some material on the other side – for example, Stephen C. Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
Without going into the details of Darwinism, surely it must be self-evident that the nature of rationality and intelligence is intimately connected to the question of human origins. If we as human beings came about by accident as the result of a random process, and the workings of our brains are merely questions of chemistry and biology, true and pure rationality is one thing.
If on the other hand if we were created by an external source of infinite power and resource, and reason and feel and behave as we do because of invisible spiritual qualities which are not material and cannot be seen nor weighed or biologically explained, then true and pure rationality must be something entirely different.
In my view, the second explanation conforms more closely to the human personality as we know and experience it daily, and hence is more rational, and logical. So it is all a question of presuppositions, and the first and most fundamental question on which all else depends is, “Does God exist or not?”
When it comes to the narrower question of rationality, I did think you were limiting rational thought to observation and theory, so I welcome your clarification. I can’t agree however that secular scientific observation and experiment is rationalism in its purest form, as you maintain, for the simple reason that it cannot extend to many significant aspects of human life. If, for example, I want answers to any ethical question, science is inadequate. If the purest form of reason really is so inadequate, then its purity is of limited value. And what if rationality in its purest form is confined more narrowly to mathematics and abstract logic? Then it has even less to do with our daily lives.
Should I get revenge on someone who as hurt me or should I forgive him? Should I steal from a very rich man who would not be hurt by the loss? Scientific knowledge does not deal with the heart, mind and soul, but there are other modes of knowing that do. You concede the validity of some (not all) philosophical insight, and I add the validity of some (not all) religious insight by revelation.
You agree that there is a different sort of understanding such as that given to Plato. He understood that the soul lives after death, and that there is higher eternal reality above and beyond this temporary physical world. To my mind this is a higher understanding than that of modern secular rationalism.
You accept the obvious fact that rationalism can lead to erroneous conclusions. That qualification is an important one. True, the ancient philosophers did have some very contemporary insights, and the achievements of ancient philosophy are impressive. My personal belief is that God gave it to them to achieve the maximum development of mind without revelation, and many religious people have been challenged by them, but (for someone who believes) their achievement still falls very far short of the revelation of God through Moses and the prophets, and through Christ.
This leads us to the subject of faith. You said in your discussion with someone else on my thread that you might be able to believe if you had some kind of a mystic experience, similar to that which Ezekiel said when the heavens were opened and he saw visions of God.
Many Christians today are opposed to that sort of thing, and there have been mystical claims that discredit the idea of a genuine mystical experience. There was a Christian writer from India for example who claimed in his books to have been to heaven a number of times and had conversations with David and Moses, along with other things which did not seem at all credible. However I believe it is possible to have a direct experience of the divine, which may come in various ways and degrees, and that is essential to real faith, which must be more than an intellectual proposition in order to be alive.
I did get the impression you were speaking of a leap of faith as a conscious choice. But you explain in your clarification that faith is more complex than that, and involves inner conviction or simple belief apart from rationality. I maintain, and the Bible teaches, that there must be some divine intervention, some call, some opening of the heart. You can think of some examples from your own life, and so can I with regard to mine. I wrote about this in a Substack article of July 10, “Why I believe there is a God.”
You mention the inadequacy of revelation. Just as appealing to rationality does not mean all of one’s conclusions are right, so appealing to faith and revelations also does not mean one’s conclusions are right. You point to the Gnostics who had an erroneous understanding of revelation. You are correct, I would say their revelation was false – how is an outside observer such as yourself to know?