A Reasonable Masquerade
Composed June 14, 2008
What seek you, Journeyman?
Is it the Havens of Unassailable Logic?
They lie behind you.
Go there, and rest.
I travel onward,
To see what I have not seen.
Introduction
The title of this essay should generate a variety of expectations among my readers, or my single reader, should I have only one. The Age of Reason is the title of a book by the well-known author Thomas Paine. More recently, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote his own work of the same title. Further, "The Age of Reason" is sometimes used interchangeably with "The Age of Enlightenment". Some among you will recognize these books, authors, or historical period titles without any prompting from me, and will eagerly read on to discover what philosophy I espouse in the following paragraphs. Still others will make the connection with philosophy and prepare to look elsewhere for something more interesting or entertaining. I do not consider myself a philosopher, having taken only a few courses on the subject in college strictly because they were required courses. If anything, I am a de-philosopher, as you will understand if you read on. Thus, the philosophiles among you are more likely to be disappointed with what follows, while those who would go out of their way to avoid a philosophy class may find this more to their liking.
Reason is a valuable tool, but it is over-rated, even dangerous if one relies upon it too heavily. I have identified three important manifestations of Reason, which I discuss below. It is essential to one's everyday goals, as well as to one's life ambitions, to understand the nature of Reason, its objectives and limitations, and to be aware of alternatives, if any exist.
Definitions
To make my point, I find it necessary to first establish a definition. For our purposes, we can start with my definition of "reason":
These definitions do not differ substantially from other formal definitions of Reason
Reasons
The above definitions lend themselves to three significant applications of Reason, Reason as Logic, Reason as Explanation, and Reason as Law, each of which will be discussed in turn.
Reason As Logic
One of the most common uses of Reason is its exercise during the course of logical argument. Given some set of preconditions, a person can follow a logical (well-reasoned) path to reach one or more conclusions, with the objective of proving, or at least demonstrating, a point to another person or group (or often to oneself).
Such proofs or demonstrations are very common in mathematics, because mathematics as a language is structurally dependent on, and structurally contributory to, formal proofs and such. Beyond mathematics, however, logic as reason has been applied extensively to philosophy and theology. It is no wonder that some of history's greatest mathematicians are also history's greatest philosophers. Consider Pythagoras, Descartes, Leibniz, and Sir Isaac Newton, for starters.
In order to reach a reliable conclusion in logic, one must begin with a sound foundation, and proceed with sound arguments to that conclusion. Descartes is famous for his statement "I think, therefore I am." Few of us would think to ask ourselves if we exist, but Descartes attempted to identify an inarguable point, that of his own existence, so that he could build upon that point to develop a reliable philosophy. He believed that nothing was more fundamental than the fact that he (or any person) could think.
Because God has been such a significant and controversial part of Western culture for thousands of years, many attempts have been made to "prove" God's existence. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologian-philosophers of all time, wrote a great deal about proofs of God.
Along with proofs of God came proofs of "not God", and proofs of "not the God that you thought you proved." Such is true of Thomas Paine's book noted above. In Paine's book we find his creed as follows and as described in Wikipedia:
"But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them."
Much of what Paine states in his creed is attractive, even seductive. But his methodology belies his agenda. What he actually offers is a god of his own making, or better yet, license to his readers to choose a god of their own making, ostensibly using Reason as Logic as authorization to take such a step. His statement that "My own mind is my own church" is true to a point, but Paine is therefore vulnerable to the reality that "Perfect reason is perfect because one person imagines it so." Perfect reason most probably does not, and likely cannot, exist in our imperfect world. He addresses some highly charged issues, and feels very passionately about the destructive effects of government and religious institutions on the poor and oppressed. He is correct in stating that "infidelity consists in professing to believe what he does not believe." But in truth this does not rule out the possibility that infidelity also exists in disbelief. He attempts to discredit the religions and their creeds by discrediting the religious institutions. Does he also mean to demonstrate that a creed without an institution build around it is superior to a creed with an institution? Institutions of all types have defects, and most have some positive attributes. So perhaps one could offer some help in those cases where the creed is good but the institution is faulty? Paine's reason took him in the right direction. but even perfect reason leads often to an imperfect destination.
As you are likely already aware, Reason as Logic has bred a great deal of contention throughout history. Dislike of a small portion of one philosopher's argument has led to full-fledged attacks on that person's entire argument, and this has led sometimes to bitter feuds. Isn't it also ever-so-true that an argument or debate may end with one side declared the victor due to superior use of logic and argument, while the vanquished and even the observers walk away troubled by the outcome, with little or no change in their own positions?
Logic implies consistency. Consistent application of a set of rules should yield "correct" results. So when logic is applied to a human being, consistency is expected. Now I don't know about you, but I not only make occasional mistakes, but I view events and circumstances from different perspectives, and my assessment of or response to those events and circumstances can change, over time and from time to time. I don't view this as a bad thing, but anyone who expects absolute consistency from me will be disappointed. I don't expect others to behave differently, and I perceive those who expect absolute consistency from others as selfish, people who, for their own satisfaction and convenience, want others to act in ways that they themselves cannot.
Successful application of Reason as Logic often leads to arrogance; early success leads us to adopt increasingly complex strategies that eventually entrap us, leading to personal injury, or injury to those around us.
We know that humans as a race, and we as individuals, do not understand a great many things. We also believe that we understand a great many other things. We certainly hold beliefs and understandings that are not accurate, or are the result of errant information or information processing. How can we distinguish between that which we know and that which we only think that we know? Logic as Reason is more easily left to mathematics, because there we can better control the structure of the subject matter. When brought to the realms of philosophy and theology and human reality, such logic is far more susceptible to errors in judgement, to personal bias, etc. Reason as Logic can serve us where logic is appropriate, but it cannot serve us when cause-and-effect are not apparent, or are simply irrelevant. Reason is thus neither comprehensive nor inerrant.
Reason As Explanation
Since Reason has much to do with inference and conclusion based on first principles, it is only natural that Reason should be used to explain certain events or behavior. For instance, we know that fire gives warmth. If the fire is out, and one is cold, a reasonable conclusion might be that one will become warm if the fire is restarted. Explanations may change over time. The explanation for the sunrise each morning was once that a god had arisen and was riding his chariot across the sky, bearing the sun with him as he rode. Today, we know that the sunrise is due to Earth's rotation.
Humans have an innate desire for an explanation for everything. Historically, what could not be understood or explained to oneself and one's neighbors was attributed to god or gods. Many astronomical observations, such as comets, meteors, Sun and Moon, eclipse, etc. were only attributable to god's action. Similarly, sickness, miscarriage, deformity, and such were god's punishment or god's whim to persecute a person or persons. Attribution of the awesome and frightening to God/god/gods in many cases became the dominant motivation for believing in a deity. Today, when the stock market swings wildly we search for an explanation. Any explanation will satisfy, regardless of how much it may or may not have influenced the market's activity.
During the Renaissance it was often considered fashionable or pious to study science, at least in part because it seemed that science is the behavioral study of God. Predictably, as our understanding of physical sciences grew from the Renaissance onward, it became increasingly common to find or identify rational explanations for astronomical and medical phenomena, as well as for social and psychological phenomena. The concept of god became less important, to the point where the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared during the late 19th century that "God is dead", presumably meaning that God had been either explained away or was no longer necessary.
Reason as Explanation is commonly extended to include Reason as Justification (or Reason as Excuse). In Genesis 3:12 we find Adam speaking to God as follows: "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Yes, Adam had an explanation for his actions, and his explanation clearly, or so he thought, should justify his actions, because not only was his own action influenced by someone else, that someone else had come as a gift from God Himself. In Exodus 4:1 Moses speaks with God, saying "And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee." Moses realized that God was commissioning him for a difficult task, and here he offered his third explanation of why God should choose another prophet instead.
Clearly, Reason as Justification/Excuse is not limited to the Old Testament. The Divine Right of Kings was an explanation used by monarchs in Europe to justify their kingship, regardless of how they obtained that kingship, or what they did with that privilege/responsibility. In our society today we justify wrong actions or wrong behaviour by identification of external, unavoidable factors that contributed to such actions or behavior. Because a person was abused by a parent are we to accept their abuse of someone else? Because some people are genetically predisposed toward certain behavior or actions does this mean that those actions or behavior are acceptable? All of us are predisposed or environmentally influenced to do or be things that we know we should not do or be. Explanation is not justification!
The classic excuse is "I did (or did not do) it because..." A healthy counterexample can be found in the Korean drama "Jumong", in which the hero leads his forces to near-victory over the evil foe, but then falls victim to treason and victory is snatched from his grasp. Later, he apologizes profusely for his failure, never once trying to justify his lack of success by some unavoidable circumstances. Someone was set against him, and this person did not play "fair", but we always have obstacles to what we are attempting to do, so the line that divides Reason as Explanation from Reason as Justification, or Reason as Excuse, is extremely difficult to place.
Reason As Law
Following hard upon the perception that Reason as Logic represents ultimate truth we find Reason being used as Law. Reason can be a useful discriminator, as a method to determine what is right and wrong. An action or point of view can be seen as satisfying Reason, or dissatisfying Reason. Imagine the scales held by the blindfolded statue of Justice, in which even the slightest imbalance should be identified and corrected. Precision is extremely important, and the scale is either satisfied (balanced), or dissatisfied (imbalanced). Yet when used as a discriminator, as it is in legal systems worldwide and throughout history, Reason falls short yet again, and here it is most dangerous. How can the discriminator called Justice operate when it depends on Reason as Logic, which is neither comprehensive nor inerrant? Reason as Law, dependent upon Reason as Logic, also fails, as it must.
Logic and Law clearly share many common features, thanks to their interdependence. They share an affinity towards precision. A law is broken or not because of precise events that may or may not have occurred. A logical argument may stand or fall on the basis of very specific wording used or avoided. Both can be very callous. A law may not concern itself with why an action occurred, only with the issue of whether such action occurred. Reason is concered with logical process, which often cares nothing for the consequences of a conclusion for one or many persons. I could go on, but I think that one could spend perhaps more time debating how to distinguish Reason from Law, than on finding their similarities.
How often do we employ Reason as a mechanism to demonstrate or justify our own superiority? As with Reason as Logic, in which the "losers" have seen their position "disproven", yet still retain their beliefs, Reason as Law often leads to encounters in which some legal conclusion is reached, but for those who lost the encounter no positions or viewpoints were changed, and no models of thinking were adjusted. The only result is that one party is seen as the victor, while the other walks away believing that he is a victim of injustice. How many of the king's subjects truly believed in the Divine Right of Kings? But if they could not refute it, and were not powerful enough to oppose it legally or militarily, how could they deny it?
Though the concept of the Divine Right of Kings has been dead for centuries, its demise did not prevent others from promulgating a similar doctrine. With God "dead", Nietsche proposed that a few select humans (himself among them) should establish the moral standards for the coming ages. How did Nietsche merit such a privilege? By his superior intellect, the divine right of reason! The king is dead, long live the king!
Reason and Law have stood together for millenia, nurtured by those in power for their own use, sometimes maliciously, other times with good intentions. The Jews built an extensive legal system upon The Ten Commandments and associated teachings of Moses. By the time of Jesus the educated and religious elite among the Jews knew exactly how and how not to violate any one of thousands of laws. For the uneducated, it was nearly a hopeless task to try to pass a week without violating some aspect of the law, so detailed had it become. Reform was required, and Jesus came along at a time when the people were desperate for a Messiah. Jesus was well-respected by most who heard Him, but He upset the prevailing power structure, and so provoked a great deal of criticism. In response to such criticism, likely leveled at Him by some who felt their power slipping away and who didn't appreciate His interpretations of the Torah, Jesus says in Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Matthew 5:17 bears some explanation. The purpose of Law is to define the parameters of relationship between individuals and groups so that people can peacefully coexist with other people and with their God. Laws are coercive in nature, because people don't naturally coexist peacefully with others or with God. Laws have an enforcement, or punishment, provision for those who fail to abide by them. Jesus surely upset the prevailing practice of law, but He did not challenge the basis of those laws. In fact, His teachings highlighted the intent of the original legal foundations with an authoritiy that no one else could rightfully challenge.
I believe that Jesus' comment in Matthew 5:17, as is so typical of God's Word, strikes at multiple levels. There was the obvious need for social justice as it pertains to relationship between persons and social structures, which is one reason why Jesus had many followers. This need is demonstrated in the story of the woman caught in adultery (see John 8:1ff). Here we find that a woman has indeed broken the law, and is about to pay for her crime with her life. Observing that the woman has no defense, and that those who would take her life are no less guilty than she, Jesus skillfully persuaded the angry crowd to spare her life, without condoning her actions. The parameters of relationship between the woman and her accusers had been broken, not by definition of law, but by its practice.
In addition to social justice and relationships between people, Jesus operated on a deeper level. The Law and the Prophets certainly has much to do with daily life, with how we live in the presence of other human beings, but it has even more to do with our relationship to God. More importantly than His teachings and crusades about social justice, Jesus fulfilled the law by enabling the restoration of right relationship with God Himself. The Apostle Paul understood this deeper level very clearly, spending much of his teaching on this very aspect of Jesus' mission. In Romans 6:14 Paul wrote "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Then again in Galatians 5:18 he wrote "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." He writes further in Galatians 4:3-5: "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Sermons, papers, and countless books have been written on this subject, so I will not delve deeper than what is obvious and evident from minimal inspection. Paul recognized that we as humans have violated God's trust, and under a strict and perfect system of justice, are doomed. He further recognized that Jesus fulfilled the strict requirements of justice, yet skillfully spared our lives from any who would press the precision of that system of justice against us. If we are under grace, we are protected from Reason as Law in the hands of others, and we lose motivation to use Reason as Explanation to justify our state of being. We cannot be condemned because we are under grace, and we cannot justify our state because we did nothing to merit God's grace.
As you can see, Reason as Law affects us socially and spiritually to levels well beyond what most of us might suspect. And we ourselves are consumers of Reason as Law as we seek each day to extend our own power and influence. Reason and Logic are often instruments of greed. We use them to outwit others so that we can obtain what they would otherwise have gotten. We use Reason as Explanation to justify why we should have, or are entitled to have, things that we want. Even those who profess to show compassion toward others will show no compassion towards those who see or do things differently because the so-called compassionate have built their own set of laws by which to hold others in the balance. We all work at both ends of Reason as Law, oppressing and being oppressed.
Reason as Logic precedes Reason as Explanation precedes Reason as Law. Accord Reason its proper place. It is not the greatest virtue in existence. It is arguably less than virtuous, so why do we worship it?
If you have followed the discussion so far, you can see that between Reason as Logic, Reason as Explanation and Reason as Justification we have motivation and excuse to deny God, to deny our own shortcomings, to deny our sinfulness, and to justify what we choose to justify. How different this is from what Paul writes in Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Peace implies no fear. Holy defines our relationship to God. It is that relationship that we fear, and this fear (the source of Adam's and Eve's understanding of nakedness) is what triggers our attempts at self-justification.
We are in the Age of Reasons, Reason as Logic, Reason as Explanation, and Reason as Law. In the fractal image that is human history this has been simply another age, with different values, different gods, with some people wielding power, and others subject to or oppressed by that power. Reason is used often as a surrogate for God, for trust, even for compassion. What lies next beyond the Age of Reasons? Perhaps another age with new values and new gods, a new elite, and a new group of oppressed. I have presented pitfalls and problems with Reason in each of its manifestations, so by now you may be wondering "If I cannot depend on Reason, on what can I depend? What are my alternatives?" I'm so glad you asked, but you are not the first to ask such questions, nor am I the first to address Reason in this manner.
An Age to Come
If the Age of Reasons is about fear, oppression, grasping what is irrelevant, perverted relationships to others and to God, then the Age To Come must replae fear with trust, oppression with compassion, possession of the irrelevant with experience of the truly relevant, and perverted relationships with right relationships founded upon recognition of God's holiness and His grace toward us.
Solomon wrote in Proverbs 3:5: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
And again in Proverbs 16:2: "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; But Jehovah weigheth the spirits."
Still again in Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."
The prophet Isaiah notes in Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Jesus also addressed this matter in Matthew 18:3: "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."
It was clear to the writer of Proverbs, to Isaiah, and to Jesus that human reasoning and comprehension are inadequate, and also clear that humans use whatever reasoning capacity they do have for self-justification. Reason is not simply inadequate, you will note, but it can actively lead us in the wrong direction, even to death! To counter an extemely common but subtle re-interpretation of some of these verses I will point out that God did NOT say "...so are my ways higher than your ways until such time as your technology becomes sufficiently advanced." His words are for all ages. Our own satisfaction and amazement at human technological achievements in no way lessens the force of the words of Solomon, Isaiah, and Jesus.
God made order in the Universe, but He also created chaos. By "chaos" here I do not mean the disorder that might engulf a city in the moments and days before it falls to an enemey. I refer to physical and spiritual systems that behave in manners not defined by reason. Reason can help us to understand the order, but it does not aid us greatly in our understanding of chaos (notwithstanding the mathematical study of Chaos Theory). God often does the unreasonable. Selecting Moses as His spokesman, or giving Abraham and Sarah a child when they were very advanced in years. Like sending Jesus to teach and heal, only to be crucified by those He tried to help. And then bringing Jesus forth in resurrection. Ultimately, how is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ reasonable? How is it reasonable for God to even ask us to believe such a thing? But we can, and we do. We must.
While we can understand aspects of God, and delight in what we learn of His nature by scientific means, we must never conclude that we can predict what God will do, or comprehend all that He is doing, because God can make miracles, and miracles are God's response to scientists who think they've figured Him out.
Jesus said that we must become as little children. How? What does this mean? What do children think and do that Jesus found so admirable? Children trust in their parents, not in themselves. Children have hope. Both are important, because we must trust in someone other than ourselves, and we must have hope that our future can be something better than what we have experienced through our constant failure and weakness that is daily proclaimed to us by the manifestations of Reason. Be careful what you trust, but you must trust, because God made this Universe in a fashion that requires trust. Relax your terrified grip on Reason, embrace and enjoy the God who created you and can satisfy you forever.
Paul writes in Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." This was not written during some idyliic period in human history when all was sunshine and roses. It was written during a time when life was very hard, and injustice and oppression were commonplace. How often do we think of things as Paul describes here? Perhaps we can count the times on our fingers. That's not the point. Such thinking is supposed to be natural and constant. If we demote Reason to its proper place, something else must grow to fill the void. That something else is none other than personal relationship with God Himself. It is not God who fills the void, nor is it some ivory-towered ideal, but it is an active relationship with Holy God.
The Age Of Reasons should be recognized for what it is. It is incomplete, dissatisfying, and all too often just plain misleading. Look beyond the reasons and seek right relationship to God. God has the answers. We do not and never will. Embrace God's order. Embrace God's chaos. But most of all, embrace God's presence.
What have you found, Child?
Is it a relationship with Holy God?
His mystery and majesty engulf you.
Trust Him, and savor His presence.
Proclaim Him to those who need to hear,
That we may delight in Him also.
Afterword
If C.S. Lewis were to read this essay I suspect he would wag his finger at me and admonish me to be certain that I distinguish between the failures of Reason and the failures of the Reasoner. While this distinction may be obvious to some, or may be easily inferred from some of my statements, it should be stated explicitly. Certainly, if you examine my descriptions of the failures of Reason you will find that those failures are largely failures of the Reasoner, not of Reason itself. I also wonder if Lewis might consider the relationship of logic to Reason as the relationship of a room in a house to the house itself. As the room is a part of the house, but not the entire house, so logic is a part of Reason. Such a viewpoint allows us simultaneously to redeem Reason, which is, when not abused by a faulty Reasoner, one of our best tools for understanding God and His creation, and admit the inadequacy of logic alone. This viewpoint will likely lead to expansion of the definitions of reason stated at the beginning of this essay, as it seems that current popular, as well as my own, definitions of Reason are too limited.
7/27/11: I might need to re-title this essay as "Beyond Reason". It may not be that logic alone is inadequate, but that our faulty reasoning leads us to prematurely dismiss some sources of input to which logic is not commonly applied, specifically spiritual understanding or sensation or experiences. Thus, it is not actually that we are moving beyond reason, but that we are moving beyond reason as our world customarily identifies it. It is truly difficult to apply measurements to spiritual things, so it is accordingly difficult to apply our rational thought to spirituality.