Personal Interlude: God and Reason
"No progress will be made. Neither of us will change our views. It is highly unlikely that you will ever believe in God, and I will not stop believing in Him, either."
I have heard that many times. I stand back in many arguments regarding God--for one, I respect myself too much to become a cynical atheist shit who bastardizes any serious attempt to understand metaphysics and epistemology. I took the time to really understand those subjects--and I don't believe in God, I am an "atheist" only as far as I never really think about God. I don't go on militant crusades to obliterate any person who claims that God exists--only fools who think "atheism" is a formal type of metaphysics do that. I am no fool.
However, in many discussions I read or hear in classrooms at my Christian Liberal Arts University I have heard theologians of every caliber attempt to reverse the idea that "the unreasonable cannot be swayed by reason; irrationality cannot be defeated by rationality." (For sure religion is irrational; and for sure a rejection of invalid concepts in the interest of keeping a consistently rational epistemology is rational.)
But when that statement is invoked by the "atheists" when in the heat of battle, the theists catch it can toss it back as: "You are limited by reason, and this faith in reason will ultimately keep you blind to God." Or, "The rational cannot be persuaded by the irrational." Or can they?
Reason is not an algorithmic process; reason is not an elaborate trick performed by automata. Reason takes effort and thus requires a purpose. There are paths to be chosen, characteristics to be isolated, concepts differentiated and integrated, the maintenance of consistency, logical connections, noncontradiction--none of these processes can occur without careful effort.
Unreason is the default of effortlessness; irrationality is a simple nothing: blankness: stillness: inaction: boredom: purposeless. Irrationality does not require careful effort--it does not require consistency, logic, noncontradiction.
So who is more vulnerable of losing his or her "religion"? The atheists who expend great effort in the creation of consistent and noncontradictory concepts as the basis of his or her argument and who do so without a solid metaphysical or epistemological basis? Or those theologians whose beliefs require no effort whatsoever and who do so with a solid metaphysics and epistemology which perpetuate effortless irrationality as a central, founding principle?
Inertia of the brain is more likely to take hold of those aimless athiests than for a brain already halted by it to escape into motion.
I have heard that many times. I stand back in many arguments regarding God--for one, I respect myself too much to become a cynical atheist shit who bastardizes any serious attempt to understand metaphysics and epistemology. I took the time to really understand those subjects--and I don't believe in God, I am an "atheist" only as far as I never really think about God. I don't go on militant crusades to obliterate any person who claims that God exists--only fools who think "atheism" is a formal type of metaphysics do that. I am no fool.
However, in many discussions I read or hear in classrooms at my Christian Liberal Arts University I have heard theologians of every caliber attempt to reverse the idea that "the unreasonable cannot be swayed by reason; irrationality cannot be defeated by rationality." (For sure religion is irrational; and for sure a rejection of invalid concepts in the interest of keeping a consistently rational epistemology is rational.)
But when that statement is invoked by the "atheists" when in the heat of battle, the theists catch it can toss it back as: "You are limited by reason, and this faith in reason will ultimately keep you blind to God." Or, "The rational cannot be persuaded by the irrational." Or can they?
Reason is not an algorithmic process; reason is not an elaborate trick performed by automata. Reason takes effort and thus requires a purpose. There are paths to be chosen, characteristics to be isolated, concepts differentiated and integrated, the maintenance of consistency, logical connections, noncontradiction--none of these processes can occur without careful effort.
Unreason is the default of effortlessness; irrationality is a simple nothing: blankness: stillness: inaction: boredom: purposeless. Irrationality does not require careful effort--it does not require consistency, logic, noncontradiction.
So who is more vulnerable of losing his or her "religion"? The atheists who expend great effort in the creation of consistent and noncontradictory concepts as the basis of his or her argument and who do so without a solid metaphysical or epistemological basis? Or those theologians whose beliefs require no effort whatsoever and who do so with a solid metaphysics and epistemology which perpetuate effortless irrationality as a central, founding principle?
Inertia of the brain is more likely to take hold of those aimless athiests than for a brain already halted by it to escape into motion.
posted by Tom J at 10:44 PM
4 Comments:
Tom,
Thought I'd stop in and check this out.
The inconsistency of faith with reason has been a vested interest of mine ever since I got into Kierkegaard. They are by their very nature contradictory. This fact often causes a great deal of annoyance in me towards the apologetic tradition. These two simply cannot be reconciled.
So far we are very much in agreement. As a matter of housekeeping though, I'll just state that, as you have defined your stance on God, I would consider you an agnostic. This, I believe, is a far more tenable position, as I think you recognize. Strict adherence to the process of reason leads one neither to theism or atheism, but only to agnosticism. For the person of reason, it is the most honest and rational position that can be held with regards to God.
Out of curiosity, I'd like to know how you'd respond to someone who asserts that you have "faith in reason."
Hey Dave,
One important characteristics of a rational mind a sort of purity of cognition—ideas which have no basis in reality ought to be rejected. The disposal of invalid ideas does not require disproof—the rejection of invalid ideas is not irrational.
I take God to be an invalid idea—it is simultaneously impossible to prove or disprove (everyone: theists, atheists, and agnostics alike; believe that God cannot be proved or disproved.) The cause is that it has no basis in reality, and just it has no place within cognition. And so I simply reject it without further deliberation—notice that I did not disprove God's existence. I am not open to the possibility of a concept's existence, either—because this would require supporting evidence which “God” does not and cannot have.
I believe that the basis for theism in all forms is invalid—and so I am reluctant to take the label of “atheist” or “agnostic”—all such labels are too “God-centric.” I am only an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a God(s) and I am absolutely & rationally certain in my belief—and as such I live day to day without thinking about “God.”
However, I am a person who is “rational”—common sense-like, in an Aristotelian way; who DOES have a solid basis in epistemology and metaphysics. On occasion I challenge atheists (without solid epistemology or metaphysics) with the question or argue them into a position where they must answer the question: “Out of curiosity, I'd like to know how you'd respond to someone who asserts that you have "faith in reason."”
The difficulty in answering that question is that it depends heavily on the context. But for general purposes, I will take that assertion to mean “what brings one to believe reason is our only way to understand the world?” or “What cause is there to take reason as our means to knowledge?”
My answer: Reasoning's method is logic; logic is all there is in reality (as non-logic, or contradiction, is not an aspect of reality)--and so only through logical reasoning can one apprehend reality. If one accepts reality, one necessarily accepts logic (and thus “rationality”) as the only method of attaining knowledge. I have simply chosen to accept reality.
Briefly-- perhaps there'll be more later-- two comments:
1) You appeared to be claiming the title of "atheist" in your post, which is why I brought it up. I recognize the "God-centrism" of that term, and think that's all the more reason for you to prefer agnosticism, which is derived from a Greek word for knowledge. Technically, one can be agnostic about many matters, though the meaning of the term has admittedly become muddled by religious contexts.
2) I'm not satisfied with the assertion that logic and reality simply "line up," and ergo logic's the way to go. How did you apprehend that reality is necessarily logical? I can't see how you could answer in any way that doesn't involve logic. In other words, I could just as easily assert that faith is all there is in reality, and ergo faith's the way to go.
Ultimately, though, I respect the fact that you believe you've chosen reason.
1.) "I am only an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a God(s)"--I said this to distance myself from the "God-centrism." I would not take the label of agnosticism because it has, in my understanding of the concept, skeptical elements that I do not agree with. It is true that agnosticism does not believe that God can be proved or disproved--but both atheism and theism believe the same. The difference is in epistemic approaches to such a concept--I align most closely with atheists, as agnostics will remain in limbo, so to speak.
2.) I did not merely assert that reality and logic were integrated--I provided an argument. I wrote "(as non-logic, or contradiction, is not an aspect of reality)..." in the jargon of logic geeks, this fact holds true for "all worlds." That observation is actually the identification of an axiomatic concept: An axiom simply is--there is no alternative, only The Void.
Axioms precede logical reasoning.
Post a Comment
<< Home