[Vision2020] Re: note WAS: Why Christians don't reason well (serious)

[Robert Dickow]

My response comments inserted below:

Bob Dickow

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
To: "'Robert Dickow'" <dickow@uidaho.edu>

Subject: note


> Robert,
>
> I'm writing offline, since Vision 2020 seems like the last place

...seems reasonable to me.

>to make
> a serious point about reason, but I found your note interesting. Feel
> free to post this note and respond.
>
> But your example appears to beg the question in a huge way. It assumes
> that Reason is some neutral, universal, timeless standard that everyone
> agrees about -- "standard reasoning" -- as if it were some simple,
> friendly, agreeable Supreme Court of reality. But *that* is what is in
> dispute, and you just ignore the deeper debate.
>

Huh? I'm not sure that there can be a debate. See my original note. But,
let's have a go:

> The clash between Christianity (my tradition) and the Enlightenment
> ("standard reasoning") is in part a debate about which criterion is
> supreme. To just assume "standard reasoning" is supreme and therefore
> Christians are idiots is just like a devout Muslim invoking the Koran to
> claim that Buddhists, in your words, "have difficulty using--or refusing
> to use--the Koran" or like Latvia complaining that Cuba is immoral for
> not using Latvian law.
>

Now, I've seen this line of argument before. Unfortunately you are using a
Religion/Holy Book >Religion/Holy Book analogy, which is not a
direct analogy to the Faith vs Reason issue. Think about it.. It will not
apply
in a in relating to the Faith vs. Reason issue. Try another tack. (Hint:
Argument by analogy has many pitfalls. Be cautious here. No charge.)

> If I make the substitutions, this is how your opening paragraph sounds
> to my tradition:
>
> > It seems that many devout/fervent Cubans (and, to be fair, sometimes
> > Latvians) in many social strata have difficulty using--or refuse to
> > use--Latvian law. One Latvian explanation they do this is that doing
> so can be a
> > way of demonstrating to themselves and others the astounding
> superiority and
> > awesome power of Cuban law over Latvian law. You see, if you
> steadfastly stonewall a
> > Latvian line of argument, Latvian law in effect loses the argument
> every time,
> > without ambiguity or doubt.
>
> And
>
> > It is virtually impossible to convince Cubans who place so much faith
> in
> > Cuban law. For the Cubans, the Latvian law simply does NOT matter.
>
> Weird, no?
>

Woah! No kidding!

> All the same questions Enlightenment folks raise against Revelation,
> Christians raise against Reason as the ultimate criterion.

I never suggested anything about Reason being the ultimate anything.
I just said that Faith will always win, from the point of view of some
believers, over reasoning. My thesis was very simple: Reason can not
stand up to Faith because Faith does not use the same conventions as
Reason. Therefore, I wrote, Faith is superior to Reason in this one
sense. I implied that fairly clearly. And I gave an example. Didn't you
see how Aloysius's position was impervious to Plato's argument?

>Where did
> Reason come from?

God gave us Reason.

>What proof do you have of Reason?

You don't prove Reason any more than you prove the color 'Blue'.

>Isn't it just an
> historical construction?

No.

>Why is it authoritative?

It's not. It's just a handy way to approach solutions to certain problems.

>Why do you think it's
> universal?

Did I suggest it is universal? In any case, it may be universal, insofar as
we know.
Things everywhere in our universe everywhere seem to obey the same laws of
nature, and can be subject to rational explanation and analysis. As for a
heaven or another 'universe' (where God might have his
summer home or whatever, where his hobby is making extremely heavy
rocks in his spare time) that does not seem so 'obey' reason, we probably
can not know. It is also hard to imagine how such a place would operate.
As for God, I do know that he is a very reasonable guy, and probably
would just say "No thanks" if asked to make a rock he couldn't lift.
As for Faith, I think it serves as the only reasonable alternative to those
situations that Reason can not address.

>Why are there so many conflicting interpretations of rational
> inferences?

Sorry, I don't quite follow this question. Oh, maybe you mean, like,
why scientists have arguments about things? Lots of reasons, like
maybe facts are not all in, or are misintrepreted, or in error, or that
better rational explanations exists. These situations in no way
diminish from Reason as a valid method. Why do people keep bringing
this argument up?

>Isn't it circular to justify Reason by Reason?

No. That is not a case of circular reasoning.

>Why do you
> accept Reason by blind faith?

I don't. What gave you the impression that I did?

>Why do you think Reason is the only true
> way?

It isn't. I am a Catholic (a Christian faith, and...oh...
when I went to Catachism class they told us Catholicism was
the ONLY true religion and that if I even stepped
inside another church I'd do time in Purgatory. But
I'm pretty liberal so I don't buy all that nonsense. But,
I digress...). Faith is also important to me. But in my view,
Faith is reliable only where Reason can not be applied.
There are such instances. I have personally experienced
such instances. In fact, I think I feel one ...coming on...
...now....

>And so on. . .
>
> All the best,
> Doug Jones
>