Explaining Reason: Atheism or Christianity?
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now our beloved Pope Benedict XVI, devoted much writing and attention to questions such as this, not in isolation, but as they relate to academics and civil societies. In an essay, “Theology and Church Politics” published in a 1987 book Church Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, he explains what theology is, what the relation of theology is to the Church, and what the relation of the Church is to education and politics. He explains why such culturally shocking assertions, such as the subordination of the University and the State to the Church, are naturally and rationally ordered relationships for the common good, and it all begins with an explanation about reason.
The University and the State should be subordinate to the Church? Atheism would not agree with this, of course, and it sounds like an outlandish claim in the world today. If you have ever wondered how to respond to the insistence that faith should play no part in academic instruction or public policy, you will find Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation illuminating. This will take a few essays to cover, so this is the first in the series and it deals with the fundamental claim to reason itself.
Can Atheism Explain Reason?
The word “reason” is repeated a lot today, but without an understanding of what it really is. Atheists lay claim to it, assuming that it is the opposite of faith. The word has its root in classical Latin, ratio, and it means intellectual power, the capacity for rational thought.
A tenet of atheism is that reason is a product of human evolution, just another step along the pathway that began with the Big Bang, a “random byproduct of the ocean of irrationality from which everything actually sprang.” But how can this be? If reason is real, then it is as inconceivable that the Big Bang is the primordial beginning of the universe as it is inconceivable that a circle can be squared. That is — it is impossible. The foundation of rationality cannot be irrationality; reason cannot spring from the unreasonable. No, atheism has no explanation for the existence of reason.
Can Christianity Explain Reason?
The Christian position is not based on “In the beginning was irrationality…” but on the opposite. The Gospel of John says, “In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.” God, the Creator who made everything out of nothing, is Reason Itself, and since we are made in the likeness and image of God, our ability to reason came from Reason Itself, revealed to us by Christ, the Word or Logos.
The ancient Greeks spoke of such rationality. When the Gospel of John names Christ the Logos, λόγος, the Greek word for rationality, for Word, it shows the “blending of biblical faith and Greek rationality upon which historical Christianity is based.” Faith illuminates reason and gives foundation for it. Faith demands reason, and reason needs faith to guide it.
As reason searches for truth, faith requires an acknowledgment of where reason came from – God. In turn, we as humans understand this limit and realize that we cannot know everything. Why? That would abolish the very foundation of reason, and make us our own god. Theology, the methodological science of faith, takes up the fundamental question of Greek philosophy, the question about truth and being. Theology is a force for enlightenment, thinking illuminated by the truth beyond it. Theology’s foundation is reason itself.
What is Free Thought?
In the secular culture there is also confusion about what it means to “think freely.” Atheists claim to be “free-thinkers,” a byproduct of the teaching that more or less began with Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who lived in the 1700’s. To assert that faith guides reason sounds, to them and to anyone else with a poor understanding of Christianity, like religion restricts free thought. Is that true?
Kant said in his famous 1784 essay, What Is Enlightenment? that enlightenment is “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage.” (Tutelage is the incapacity to reason without guidance from another, i.e. the incapacity to think freely.) He said that accepting guidance demonstrates a “lack of determination and courage to use one’s intelligence.” But if “free-thought” is only a byproduct of materials obeying the laws of physics, then how does anyone think freely? Impossible.
Enlightenment thinking actually narrowed the concept of reason by abandoning the illumination of faith. Under those explanation, reason becomes restricted to what is reproducible, what can be demonstrated over and over again experimentally, what is pragmatic. It chained free-thought.
Why is that an important distinction? Because it means that truth does not guide man, but is guided by man. It means that man makes up truth as he goes, which is not truth at all. The philosophical question of antiquity “What is it?” is replaced with the question “What does it do?” and the ever-popular modern over-reliance on science as the source of all truth becomes atheist dogma — anything that needs explaining beyond that is left to personal or popular expedience.
How does that translate into academics and politics? Think about it. Next…
Category: Doctrine, Ecumenism, Secularism
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (55)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- The Natural Order of Church and University : Accepting Abundance | November 13, 2012
- Why is the Church Political? Freedom : Accepting Abundance | November 16, 2012
- A few good links | eChurch Blog | November 20, 2012
- Why is the Church Political? | The American Catholic | November 20, 2012
- Atheism and the Wild Imagination : Accepting Abundance | November 21, 2012
“the illumination of faith”
which faith? I know what your answer will be, but if I ask other people in time and space I get different answers (and plenty of good, intelligent people personally convinced that their answer is the only one out of thousands that could possibly be true).
How do I decide?
The Christian position is that you are made for truth and you can know truth if you are searching. That’s why it is a major tenet that no coercion be used in society, that all are free to conduct this search. We believe the truth will speak for itself, and that we have to proclaim it and let it.
The Catholic Church claims to be one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic. No other does. It sees that all humanity desires unity, and strives to fulfill that, in love and peace. The Church can trace apostolic succession back to Peter.
If you are not sure, keep searching.
Thank you, I shall
> A tenet of atheism is that reason is a product of human evolution, just another step along the pathway that began with the Big Bang…
No, it’s not. Who says this?
> Enlightenment thinking actually narrowed the concept of reason by abandoning the illumination of faith.
I’m sure Joseph Smith completely agrees with you, as well as Mun Sun-Myong, Muhammed, the Hindi yogis, and everyone else who has received divine revelation and illumination of faith that you disagree with. The usage of faith and abandonment of reason doesn’t make any of these proposals correct.
> Because it means that truth does not guide man, but is guided by man. It means that man makes up truth as he goes, which is not truth at all.
No, it means that, in a world where multiple people have opposing views on what the truth is have tools that can allow us to come to a common consensus on what the actual truth is. Things taken on faith not only conveniently place themselves outside of the realm of falsifiability (“God created the world”), they also stubbornly refuse re-examination upon collision with contradicting, equally unfalsifiable ideas (“No, the world is a result of Brahman”) because neither side can actually constitute an argument that has grounds in demonstrable reality. To, in an intellectually-honest fashion, hold one’s own religion to the same standard as one holds others can only result in the rejection of all religions.
I think J. Budziszewski wrote a book in a similar vein.
I would think even an atheist or agnostic would have to admit they are searching for truth and truth itself cannot be measured.
I had this thought today in Mass. Something gives my body life and something in me has the ability to reason. Can these die if they are immaterial? Does reason stop because my heart does? Do I stop reasoning because I stop breathing? I know my body is alive right now it seems consistent that I would know when it is lifeless. Anyways, what brings these thoughts on I don’t know, mystery.
Josh,
Hi!
“No, it’s not. Who says this?”
Can you explain or cite? Please use the definition of reason I gave though, I’m not talking about cognitive process limited to the brain matter. I’m talking about the classical Latin, intellectual power, the capacity for rational thought, intelligence, forming thoughts and making choices in the mind, something beyond the brain matter.
I’ve read where some atheist philosophies redefine “reason” to mean an automatic output of brain function, but that isn’t what I’m talking about.
“No, it means that, in a world where multiple people have opposing views on what the truth is have tools that can allow us to come to a common consensus on what the actual truth is.”
Right, like I said, it means that truth does not guide man, but is guided by man. It means that man makes up truth as he goes.
To clarify something…everything I’m reading in theology indeed supports the idea that we can see some truth in other religions, and in people, just not the fullness of truth. I imagine you and I, for instance, would agree on more things than disagree.
> Can you explain or cite?
Sorry for the ambiguity; I meant that it’s not a tenet of atheism, as far as I’m aware.
> I’m talking about the classical Latin, intellectual power, the capacity for rational thought, intelligence, forming thoughts and making choices in the mind, something beyond the brain matter.
That definition presupposes dualism, though, which is not necessarily something an atheist believes in.
> Right, like I said, it means that truth does not guide man, but is guided by man. It means that man makes up truth as he goes.
I see it as more of a discovery of truth; the chemical makeup of a star, for example, remains what it is, regardless of what we think it is. There are different ways of trying to discover what that truth is, though, and not all are good tools; as such, we need to try and find the best tool for the job, and, so far, the best tool for discovery has shown to be the one that consistently yields the same results – reproduceability.
Should we accept Joseph Smith’s claim that he found golden tablets that told the story of the Nephites and Lamanites, even though he was unable to show them to anyone, and wasn’t even able to reproduce the story the same way following the destruction of the notes of the first “transcription”? Do you consider a person who rejects this story to be “chained” by freethought?
> To clarify something…everything I’m reading in theology indeed supports the idea that we can see some truth in other religions, and in people, just not the fullness of truth.
I’d say another way of looking at this is that religions that have nothing to which a person can anchor in reality will never spread to the scale that something like Islam or Christianity has, because it has no bearing on their daily lives.
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god, nothing more nothing less. It doesn’t have a set of guide lines that need to be followed like a religion does, and it says nothing about the big bang or evolution or anything for that matter, it mentions nothing outside of it’s own definition.
Josh and Kratos,
Atheism only considers natural causes, so wouldn’t that mean atheists must rely on evolution to account for our existence?
If you claim it is something supernatural, wouldn’t that contradict atheism?
This isn’t a set of guidelines, it is the logical conclusion of a fundamental belief.
Josh,
“That definition presupposes dualism…”
I know, but this is how I’m using the word, consistent with classical Latin. That’s how it is used in Catholic theology — body and soul, not separate though (as Descartes thought) but inextricably intertwined.
“I see it as more of a discovery of truth; the chemical makeup of a star, for example, remains what it is, regardless of what we think it is.”
100% agree. That’s where I think atheists and believers have much in common. Science is an objective truth, something independent of us, and we strive to discover and understand it.
I agree with you about reproducibility too, but that is limited to knowledge that can be physically tested. There are also bodies of knowledge that are reasoned discourse, that are logical constructs. Much of mathematics is like this, especially abstract mathematics.
This is one place atheists and believers diverge. Science (modern science, the body of knowledge about the physical, natural world) is all truth for the atheist (scientism), but not for the believer.
“…Islam or Christianity…”
That’s another conversation, but they are drastically different. In a search for truth, it doesn’t take much to reject Islam which promises carnal pleasures and uses coercion in theocratic states. This is one reason Catholic teaching today is so adamant about religious freedom. There is a respect for the dignity of man to find truth when he seeks it, and no coercion can be used in this search.
> I know, but this is how I’m using the word, consistent with classical Latin.
My point was that asking someone to explain something using a definition they don’t agree with is a fundamentally-doomed question.
> I agree with you about reproducibility too, but that is limited to knowledge that can be physically tested. [...] Much of mathematics is like this, especially abstract mathematics.
When you say “abstract mathematics”, are you describing mathematics as a whole as abstract or describing a specific subsection of mathematics?
> That’s another conversation, but they are drastically different. In a search for truth, it doesn’t take much to reject Islam which promises carnal pleasures and uses coercion in theocratic states.
With regard to carnal pleasure, I’m not sure how that disproves any claims of truth by Islam. With regard to coercion, Muslims love to claim how often the Qur’an advocates that “there is no compulsion in religion”, and one needs to look no further than a comparison of Jerusalem under Saladin against Jerusalem under the Christian Crusaders to see that there’s nothing about Christianity (nor Catholicism) that prevents it from being just as coercive as the modern-day Saudi government (not even accounting for the thousands murdered and tortured by the Catholic church in the Spanish Inquisition and the European witch trials, and the kidnapping of “Christian” children from their non-Christian parents up through the 19th century).
Josh,
“My point was that asking someone to explain something using a definition they don’t agree with is a fundamentally-doomed question.”
I get that, but this begs the question to be answered about what logic really is. It’s like math, the symbols (the definitions) have to remain the same throughout all arguments for the logic to be tight. I don’t like changing definitions to make the argument work, because that’s like cheating. I have learned in my studies and I try very hard to understand words at their root and to understand how they are used and to adhere to that.
“…are you describing mathematics as a whole…”
Either way. The point is that we know that truth is not limited to the physical world and our senses, we reason beyond them all the time. Even to *do* science, even to name what a scientist is, requires abstract reasoning beyond the tangible and measurable.
—
On coercion, please don’t say things about the Church unless you know they are true. I can give you more documents than you can read in a week that explain in very direct terms that truth is never found through coercion. It is a major tenet of Catholicism. Sure you can pick this or that from history to try to make a point, and people who do that often, I’ve learned, do not grasp the historical context because they’ve read what they are repeating from an anti-Catholic source. One only needs to look at the world today to know which religion strives toward freedom of the individual and freedom in society, and which does not.
> I get that, but this begs the question to be answered about what logic really is.
You’re making the claim that atheists say reason – which you’ve defined as inherently dualistic – is a result of evolution, which I’m not aware of any such claims made by atheists, especially not one that implies a separation of mind and the brain.
> Either way. The point is that we know that truth is not limited to the physical world and our senses, we reason beyond them all the time.
Can you show math that isn’t reproducible? Given the same inputs into the same function, there should always be the same output.
> On coercion, please don’t say things about the Church unless you know they are true. I can give you more documents than you can read in a week that explain in very direct terms that truth is never found through coercion.
I’m sure you can, but, just like the Qur’an says there is no compulsion in religion, the actions of the believers do not always fall in line with their statements. The Catholic church of today may espouse religious freedom, but there are some very significant periods of European history in which they did not (even as recent as the 1850′s, such as the case of Edgardo Mortara). The Catholic church has, by all appearances, not abandoned these practices because they’ve realized the error of their ways, but because social pressures have forced them to do so, lest they fade into irrelevance much like the religions of Babylon, ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome.
Josh,
“You’re making the claim that atheists say reason – which you’ve defined as inherently dualistic – is a result of evolution, which I’m not aware of any such claims made by atheists.”
John linked some information below and has said that he agrees with this position. If it’s not from something beyond the physical, then how do you explain it?
“Can you show math that isn’t reproducible? Given the same inputs into the same function, there should always be the same output.”
The only reason it is reproducible is because we use symbols and definitions consistently. It is a human construct — in the mind. Reasoned. Even so, there are things we still don’t understand. Imaginary numbers, straight lines, perfect circles, rays — all things we’ve only conceived in the mind. No one has ever actually seen them physically. Again, the point is, there is truth we can reason beyond what is physical.
“…fade into irrelevance much like the religions of Babylon, ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome.”
I try to avoid these conversations because so much of it originates from anti-Catholic literature and the person making these claims that the Church is oppressive does not try to understand historical context or read actual Church documents.
So instead, I just keep pointing to the truth of today. She has survived, she has never changed her faith in revealed truth, she has journeyed to understand and develop doctrine so that man will live as God wills, in freedom and peace. If the stark contrast between Islam and Christianity today is unrecognizable to you, I will not be able to say anything to change your mind. Something tells me you don’t go to Islamic mothers’ websites and expect open and civil dialogue though.
> John linked some information below and has said that he agrees with this position. If it’s not from something beyond the physical, then how do you explain it?
If reason is merely “the capacity for rational thought, intelligence, forming thoughts and making choices in the mind”, that seems well-rooted in the physical; anti-depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogenics can alter the thoughts a person thinks quite easily.
> The only reason it is reproducible is because we use symbols and definitions consistently. It is a human construct — in the mind. Reasoned.
The symbols, sure, but the things they describe are not. Simply because the word “red” is made by people does not mean that ‘red’ itself is created by humanity.
> Imaginary numbers, straight lines, perfect circles, rays — all things we’ve only conceived in the mind. No one has ever actually seen them physically. Again, the point is, there is truth we can reason beyond what is physical.
Truth in what way? That they exist, physically? Obviously not (so far as we’ve discovered). That they exist as concepts? Certainly, but how does that change anything about the unreliability of divine revelations or the fact that the pope is about as reliable as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, or L. Ron Hubbard?
> I try to avoid these conversations because so much of it originates from anti-Catholic literature and the person making these claims that the Church is oppressive does not try to understand historical context or read actual Church documents.
I’m really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I’m genuinely perplexed. Do you deny allegations of the Catholic church’s involvement in the witch trials of Europe, the Inquisition, and the kidnapping of children from non-Christian parents? I’ve not encountered this before, so it’s surprising to me.
> If the stark contrast between Islam and Christianity today is unrecognizable to you, I will not be able to say anything to change your mind. Something tells me you don’t go to Islamic mothers’ websites and expect open and civil dialogue though.
It’s very easy to see the difference between the Catholic church and Islam today, but wind that clock back five or six hundred years and the two seem to trade places. Bear in mind that, following the Dark Ages, Europe re-discovered a lot of its lost history by reading Arabic translations written by Muslims of books that had been burned by the Catholic church. The ummah of today is the Catholic church of the 1300′s.
“…forming thoughts and making choices in the mind…”
The mind is certainly affected by physical things and by things that affect the brain, but the mind is not physical itself.
“Simply because the word “red” is made by people does not mean that ‘red’ itself is created by humanity.”
The concept is devised by the human mind, as an understanding.
“Certainly…”
Glad we found agreement.
“…how does that change anything about the unreliability of divine revelations…”
The point was that knowledge and truth are not limited to what is physical. Physical science, strictly speaking, is limited to what can be measured and observed; but even science itself requires concepts devised in the mind and thus transcends the physical.
“I’m really not trying to beat a dead horse here…”
I’m not sure how you got “deny” out of my request to stay on topic and not change the subject. It’s just that your accusations reveal a lack of knowledge about history. The three new topics you are introducing require a great deal of historical context and refutation of misinformation that is spread by anti-Catholic sources. People against the Church like to read the sensational literature that appeals to easy emotion, but they rarely (in my experience) take the time to read the boring texts with accurate data. If you’d like me to address that — because you are sincerely interested in understanding, as opposed to rejecting anything I offer — I will make it a new topic in a new post.
“It’s very easy to see the difference between the Catholic church and Islam today…”
I’m going to accept it at that and leave it there. You are gifted at including many subjects into a single sentence.
Could you do me a favor as I prepare a new post for next week? Could you cite your sources for those three topics you mentioned above? Thank you!
I think my post yesterday went to never-never land.
Howard, nooooo!
I don’t see it in spam jail or anywhere. I’m sorry. Can you retype it?
Stacy, just brilliant. You are on mental steroids with this one and your comments.
.
When ever I discuss Catholicism with someone and it is friendly talk, I always describe it as “the thinking person’s religion”. I actually say “man’s” but feel like being more socially acceptable today.
.
I do feel a bit arrogant saying that, as if I am indicating that ordinary people can’t take part. What I actually mean is that a person must think (reason) to be a successful Catholic, or a good Christian in general. It is what connects us with the Devine and gives us some understanding of His likeness. We were given teachers of God’s word, without considering what we are told we could not possibly assimilate the meaning.
.
After I wrote the above I got to thinking. What about the mentally challenged among us? They don’t seem to have the same reasoning powers as most – or do they? This ability is a continuum of course. When I hear parents of those children speak of them, words I often if not always, hear about them is “a blessing”. Through our eyes mental capacity could be geographically described as follows:
We are in New York City. The mentally challenged are in Los Angeles. God is the Sun. The key to a true comparison, I believe, is that we are all three in a straight alignment, with N.Y.C. furthest from the Sun.
Stacy,
The way you use the word “atheist” is not quite right. It specifies that the person doesn’t believe in deities. That is all. Anything else, including only considering natural causes or other aspects of spirituality, do not fall under that label. There are other words for other aspects of a person’s world view, such as materialism or secular humanist. While many atheists may share the same views on many things, that only means they share multiple labels. You can’t lump everything under “atheist” and attempt to expand its definition.
Also, consider that many Buddhists are in fact also atheists. They don’t have a belief in a god. But they also have other spiritual beliefs. According to the actual definition of “atheism”, there’s no contradiction there.
Regarding evolution by natural selection, there is an immense amount of evidence for it and, more specifically, for an evolutionary origin of humans. It is a core aspect of modern biological study.
Thanks Howard. I’ve been reading Cardinal Ratzinger and the ecumenical documents of Vatican II, and they are not what I expected at all. Ecumenism doesn’t mean to give up truth and appease everyone else, it means we need to find better ways to communicate it — which means we need to understand the fundamentals underneath it all. I was intrigued about Ratzinger writing about politics.
On “person” vs. “man,” I know! I use “man” a lot even though I’m not one, but it communicates. You could say “human” I guess.
Great analogy about the Sun and location. Jeff McLeod explained something like that too, how the brain is the physical matter, but the mind, even if hindered by a physical disability, can still show the power of intellect and will. I don’t know if you remember this piece he wrote, but I’m copying some of it here. Here’s the link. It was published at Catholic Lane and it got a WIDE reading.
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/a-brief-catechesis-on-mental-illness-and-violence/
Like
Stacy, Jeff has described a person that I lived with close up from childhood to young adulthood. A mentally ill adult, tortured by destructive thoughts and impulses yet able to sort of function. The will was incredibly strong. Fighting for goodness and wholeness against a larger enemy and losing. Not fully aware of the consequences and too proud to give in to outside help. A glimpse of a particular fighting soul, from my view point, no different than a healthy person being physically tortured.
John,
I’m noticing that atheists seem to reject being grouped as — atheists.
For me, this isn’t about people. I like atheists just fine as long as there is mutual respect and friendship. It’s about logic and philosophies. It’s about learning to communicate better. That’s why I welcome atheists here, and anyone else. People should have the space to communicate and think things through. Isn’t that a good use for the Internet?
Anyway…
“The way you use the word “atheist” is not quite right.”
I’m taking the strict definition (no belief in a god) and extending the logic, that’s all. And I’m reflecting the thought of people much greater than me who have devoted much of their lives to studying these relationships.
“Anything else, including only considering natural causes or other aspects of spirituality, do not fall under that label.”
I’m interested in this atheist spiritualism. Historically, atheism has indeed meant a belief in nothing supernatural, that would point to a god. What is this spiritual thing? How do you account for it or describe it? Do some atheists now think there is more to truth than what science can prove? I’ve met some who do, but the reasoning seems confusing. Pantheism is confusing.
“You can’t lump everything under “atheist” and attempt to expand its definition.”
It’s not so much *me* that is doing this, but this is how the philosophies are considered.
“Regarding evolution by natural selection, there is an immense amount of evidence for it and, more specifically, for an evolutionary origin of humans. It is a core aspect of modern biological study.”
I haven’t addressed that, and if it is true, there’s no contradiction with Christian faith. Even if the body of the first man evolved, it was God who created the first man’s soul out of nothing. A person has a body and a soul, a person is not just a body.
This isn’t about evolution, it’s about the beginning. Was it God? Or was it the Big Bang? The first would explain how man reasons. The second would not.
John, the atheists who have argued here are many and loud. None that I can remember has just said, “I don’t believe in God” over and over again.
Howard,
“A glimpse of a particular fighting soul, from my view point, no different than a healthy person being physically tortured.”
Yes! I was so thankful Jeff wrote that because to someone suffering in this way, it offers so much hope. We are not slaves to our bodies. I don’t see how any other approach to addressing mental illness can ever help anyone. What if more therapists understood this, and they could help the tortured soul win the battle? They could treat the whole person.
Stacy,
I realize I’m being a little nit-picky with labels and such, but to me it’s important. I know that since many atheists share the same views on many things and since they may primarily identify as “atheist”, that all gets lumped under that one word. But according to the definition, it’s inaccurate.
I can’t say much to answer your question of spirituality without a god, as I am no longer a spiritual person, really. And when I was I was a Christian. For that I would suggest talking to, say, Buddhists, or people of other religions which don’t involve gods.
I only brought up evolution because of your comment that “atheists must rely on evolution to account for our existence”. Maybe I should have been more clear with what I was getting at. What you said there isn’t necessarily true. Atheism says nothing about human origins. I mentioned the evidence for it because your comment seemed to convey that you didn’t accept it. That’s all. I know that’s not what the actual post was about.
So to get back on topic, regarding “the beginning”, the Big Bang theory isn’t supposed to account for human reasoning. It’s a bad question. How does the concept of human reasoning falsify the Big Bang theory?
John,
“Atheism says nothing about human origins.”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that an atheist doesn’t necessarily have to consider the origin of humanity. They can chose to have no opinion. OK (if that’s what you meant).
But what if an atheist does want to answer the question of origin? There’s no denying that many do and have, and that evolution is given as the explanation. Evolution would require going all the way back to the beginning of matter.
“So to get back on topic, regarding “the beginning”, the Big Bang theory isn’t supposed to account for human reasoning. It’s a bad question.”
I agree it’s a bad question, but again, if an atheist does want to answer questions about origin, then the Big Bang would be the origin of human reason.
“How does the concept of human reasoning falsify the Big Bang theory?”
No one is falsifying the Big Bang. It was first proposed by a Catholic priest, but not to explain the origin of mankind. It’s a theory about the origin of the universe, but presupposes that God created the universe out of nothing. If you take out God, then the Big Bang is the origin of everything, and the ability to reason is a result of physical evolution.
What I’m saying is that if I tell you I’m an atheist, I have not conveyed to you my views on the origin of humanity at all. All I’ve said is that I don’t believe that gods exist.
When you said that “There’s no denying that many do and have, and that evolution is given as the explanation”, you seem to be saying that evolution is *always* given as the explanation. But that isn’t true. I”m sure there are atheists who reject the theory of evolution by natural selection. That’s what I mean when I say that “Atheism says nothing about human origins.” One does not guarantee the other.
“No one is falsifying the Big Bang.”
Ok, I think I better understand what you’re saying now. Do you accept the big bang theory, with the addition of God causing it? I just want to make sure I completely understand where you’re coming from there.
“If you take out God, then the Big Bang is the origin of everything, and the ability to reason is a result of physical evolution.”
Yes; but what’s wrong with that?
John,
I’ll take your word that some atheists reject evolutionary theory, but I’ve never met one.
Do you have any links to how atheists who reject evolution explain the origin of man? I’m curious, and definitely would spend some time reading what they have to say.
“Do you accept the big bang theory, with the addition of God causing it?”
If it’s true, God caused it. If it’s not true, God caused that too. It seems plausible, but with things like that I tend to say, “No one (but God) was there, so we’ll never know for sure.”
We define God as follows: “We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable…one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature…creator of all things invisible and visible…” Fourth Lateran Council
God is before time and space, the first cause of everything. If you think about it, just for logic’s sake, the ultimate definitions are required, otherwise we aren’t talking about God anymore, but something less. There’s much more about that from St. Thomas. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm)
“Yes; but what’s wrong with that?”
Reason cannot come from the unreasonable; rationality cannot come from irrationality.
Dang Stacy great stuff here. I was just reminded of this in the daily catechism emails from flocknote.
“Do you have any links to how atheists who reject evolution explain the origin of man?”
Off hand, I don’t. I’m in the same boat as you; I would like to read what someone with that point of view would say too. But like I said, more than likely they’re out there. Maybe I’ll do some Googling later and see if I can find something.
“If it’s true, God caused it”
How do you know?
“Reason cannot come from the unreasonable; rationality cannot come from irrationality.”
What exactly is unreasonable and irrational? Could you be a little more specific, please?
John,
“How do you know?”
You asked whether I accepted the BB theory with the addition of God causing it. My answer is I don’t know, it seems plausible, but there is no theological conflict with the theory. A believer could accept or not accept the BB theory.
“What exactly is unreasonable and irrational? Could you be a little more specific, please?”
Reason, ratio from classical Latin, is intellectual power, the capacity for rational thought. The un- and the ir- are the opposite, absence of intellectual power.
When I asked “how do you know?”, I was referring more to your claim that what’s described by the Big Bang theory had to be caused by a god. How do you know that?
Regarding reason, I’m feeling like we’ve reached the point where I understand your position well enough and I’m out of questions to ask at the moment. I’m eager to read the rest that you have to say about this subject. The only thing I can think of to say now is that I just don’t agree. I see our more advanced intellectual power and ability to reason as a result of our evolution. We by no means completely understand all this, but I think scientists are making advances so we can better understand why we are what we are. So that’s where we disagree.
“I see our more advanced intellectual power and ability to reason as a result of our evolution.”
How do you know this, by faith? If not what is your REASONING?
John,
I know you asked that, but I don’t want this to spin off to a prove the existence of God conversation. That’s why I titled it “Explaining…” That way I can start with the presuppositions (which all arguments have anyway) and discuss the basis for reason.
We start with God (briefly, incompletely defined above). The atheist (no God) position starts with the next thing that would be the beginning, the Big Bang. Whether God caused the Big Bang is not germane.
“I see our more advanced intellectual power and ability to reason as a result of our evolution.”
I know. OK.
“We by no means completely understand all this, but I think scientists are making advances so we can better understand why we are what we are.”
Only as it relates to the brain though, not the mind/soul which is where we/I put the power to reason. It’s something beyond the physical brain. If it’s not, then there is no way to explain the ability to think freely or choose freely. There is no way to explain free thought or free will. There is no way to explain the power to reason. It presupposes a freedom that things only made of matter do not have. This point is key.
“So that’s where we disagree.”
Thank you. That’s at least useful, isn’t it?
Howard and Stacy,
Here’s something interesting that I found. Two scientists, Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier, have developed a hypothesis describing our ability to reason not as something that developed to help us make better decisions, but as something that helps us construct better arguments, and how it’s evolved. Here are some links about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Evolution_of_reason
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201103/why-did-we-evolve-the-ability-reason-argue
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c5/s2/Why%20Do%20Humans%20Reason%20Sperber.pdf <—- I believe this is their paper
I need to read through the paper still, but it sounds like they provide some good evidence. They point out that us humans do have major problems with our ability to reason such as confirmation bias. Of course, their hypothesis isn't universally accepted, but I think it shows promise. Like I said, we haven't figured all of this out yet, but I think it's better to look for natural explanations first before defaulting to a supernatural or "god" explanation.
John, I did read the abstract and the conclusion and read a few of the paragraphs that had the word evolved in it. I don’t always read an entire Papal Encyclical so there is a precedent.
You have an interest in this subject and it would be, I am sure, a very interesting study. Theories abound. I really only find it productive to ponder a problem using more fully developed science. What do teaching Ph.D.s have to do except give well learned lectures and think up new theories – grade papers? Academic accomplishment is very competitive. Sorry but I don’t have much respect for the academy in my later years because they have led us into a very sad way of life. I do have respect for certain teachers – Pope Benedict XVI for example.
I find no general problem with the theory itself except for the use of the word “evolved”. It is used cavalierly as if that part of the theory has been taken care of. When we commonly use the word we tend to understand it as a slow series of changes leading to an ability that had not previously existed. The magazine article does the same.
If we are speaking of evolution by natural selection the ability already exists, it is just made more common. If we are talking about gene mutation, we have big problems with destructive mutations.
An interesting new science is called, if I remember correctly, cognitive psychology. Studies have found that young pre-schoolers have an understanding of God without training and can understand what you mean by Him when you talk about God.
“it’s better to look for natural explanations first before defaulting to a supernatural or “god” explanation.”
The search for truth is not necessarily a linear process. The Catholic Church has no position on “evolution” except that God cannot be dismissed from the conclusions. Whatever is uncovered is confidently believed that God created. This confidence was present when cleric Gregor Mendel performed his fundamental scientific studies in genetics.
To “make sense” of anything presupposes that an objective truth exists that we can recognize as “making sense”. It makes “no sense” to have a process if the results are already known internally.
Howard,
First, I see no problem with the use of the word “evolved”. This is coming from a scientific point of view, in which the theory of evolution by natural selection is accepted and explanations for things such as our ability to reason are looked for within that well-established framework; the theory of evolution is the answer to “how”, and Sperber and Mercier are simply proposing a new hypothesis to the “why”. Any other hypothesis, such as the view that reasoning developed to help us make better decisions, would also be based on the notion of having evolved.
Also, can you provide some of those studies that you mentioned regarding pre-schoolers and their understanding of God? I’d like to read more about that. My immediate question would be, which god? Yahweh? Allah? Thor? Odin? Zeus? The list goes on and on.
John, if a child could articulate features of Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Odin, or Zeus I would be very surprised. We are talking about something more blunted. The urge that adults succumb to in all cultures before it develops into a full featured religion. Whatever made you John, spiritual before you gave it up. The interesting thing is that this vague understanding appears to be inborn.
http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2012/11/today-on-kresta-in-afternoon-november-9.html#links
http://www.fuller.edu/Academics/Faculty/Faculty-Members/Barrett,-Justin-L-.aspx
“the theory of evolution is the answer to “how”
Indeed, and another word of importance is “theory”. For the proposition we are discussing to have any merit, the “why” has to be supported by the “how”.
Natural selection and it’s useful twin artificial selection are not denied as a feature that can be used by nature and man. But, if this is to be the “how”, detailed explanation and proofs must be presented to show exactly how this has happened. Actual happenings must be presented to support ideas. This is the reason I say we cannot use speculation of scientific truth in our decision making unless we understand that our conclusions can only be tentative.
John,
I have read several such papers as that, I’m quite familiar with the argument.
When I wrote, “A tenet of atheism is that reason is a product of human evolution…” that is precisely what I was referring to.
Precisely!
The flaw in that argument is, as I’ve already mentioned:
1) Reason cannot come from the unreasonable. Rationality cannot come from irrationality.
The only way out of that is to change the meaning of “reason” to be merely something of the brain, which is what the evolution argument does.
Which leads to the second flaw…
2) If “reason” only relates to the brain, and not the mind/soul, something beyond the physical brain, then there is no way to explain the ability to think freely or choose freely. There is no way to explain free thought or free will. There is no way to explain the power to reason.
**The power to reason presupposes a freedom (a power) that things only made of matter (rocks, water, trees) do not have.**
This point is key.
I don’t know why people don’t embrace this idea. What is there to fear in it? It is magnificent!
Howard and John,
“Also, can you provide some of those studies that you mentioned regarding pre-schoolers and their understanding of God?”
Ya’ll come over to the Trasancos house and I’ll show you that all day long. Kids ask a lot of questions.
“Ya’ll come over to the Trasancos house……”
Do you have cookies?
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/we-are-one-cookie/
LOL.
I saw this article when it came out, and couldn’t wait to comment on it but was distracted…
Today I finally returned to comment and the conversation is already so well developed I will need to read it all after work tonight. But I will read it. Oh my gosh, I saw Stacy quoted me. I am so not worthy. Thank you Stacy
Anyway, my quick take is that I wish every high school student could be given this essay by Stacy, and to fully understand it before they set foot in college.
Based on some of the discussion, I understand that there are atheists who are dualists. I consider these atheists to be standing on the banks of the Tiber. Someone like physicist Roger Penrose, who refers to himself as an atheist, believes that the physical world is an expression of the primary world of mathematical ideas. His book, The Road to Reality, shows how mathematical theories often existed long before they appeared as the exact model of certain aspects of the universe. Theories like Riemannian geometry. The theory came first, physicists later recognized the idea in the fabric of the universe itself.
I find this fascinating because it is so close to religious belief, that the universe is a — dare I say sacramental — manifestation of divine principles, I wonder what keeps someone like Penrose from taking that last, easy step.
I will follow this thread and have more to say later!
Jeff,
Thank you! I almost emailed to let you know, but thought better of it since I know you are busy. I’m glad you saw this whole article though because I wanted your opinion. I do think this is significant for anyone trying to understand human organizations and their place in it – but I don’t take any credit for the ideas here. They belong to our Pope Benedict XVI who reflects the truths of our Lord.
I am homeschooling our daughters, as you know, and their curriculum is woven into their faith, as they learn academically, they also are learning about the origin and purpose for knowledge, and about morality. It’s all united, and when they understand that, school work is not just some chore to do, it’s what they are made to do. It makes so much sense. I wish more people understood this. It’s so…right.
(Of course, we have our battles, but you know.
)
Looking up Roger Penrose…
Stacy,
As an Atheist, I love your blog. Your posts on Atheism provoke strong responses which have translated to some posts in response. Here are two of them. There is a great deal of gest and some ridicule there, but rest assured that I have a good deal of admiration for you as a fellow blogger.
http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2012/11/understanding-catholics-part-i-whence.html
http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2012/11/understanding-catholics-part-ii-whence.html
- GP
If I were you I would bill myself as a “rambling novice satirist”.
Part 2 didn’t load.
Part 2 is unusually long for even me.
Rambling Novice Satirist is accurate.
GP,
Haha! Thank you, I think. Best of fortune blogging.