Daily Excerpt: How to Argue with an Atheist (TL Brink) - Step #2: Accept the Limits of Reason
Excerpt from How to Argue with an Atheist, by Professor TL Brink
STEP #2: Accept
the limits of reason
STUDENT: Dr. Brink, is it OK for our weekly religion
discussion?
BRINK: You are right on time. Any problems with what we
covered last week?
STUDENT:
No, like I said, I am a rational kind of person, so I have no problems
accepting that I exist and that other people exist.
BRINK: And what about that people are driven by values?
STUDENT:
Oh, yeh, that too is logical, but I just can't see what that has to do with
religion. Humans to me are just like other animals: they exist, they have
desires. So where does God fit into the picture?
BRINK: That is a few more steps down the road.
STUDENT:
Must be, because what you said last time was so rational, and religion still
seems irrational.
BRINK: Tell me what you mean by being rational.
STUDENT:
Following the rules of reason.
BRINK: Give me an example of good, rational reasoning.
STUDENT:
Like the one we talked about a couple of weeks ago:
- Major
premise: All men are mortal
- Minor
premise: Socrates is a man
- Conclusion:
Socrates is mortal
You
pointed out that it assumes what it is trying to prove, but at least it was
internally consistent.
BRINK: Good example, now tie it back to religion.
STUDENT:
I can't. That's the point. Reason is rational. Religion is not.
BRINK: So, you see religion and reason as being opposites.
STUDENT:
Yes, that's how I see it.
BRINK: I agree that they are different, but are they
opposites?
STUDENT:
I don't understand what you mean.
BRINK: Dogs and cats are different types of pets…
STUDENT:
Right.
BRINK: but they are not really opposites. By opposites I
mean that you must choose to be on one side or the other, like the U.S.
political system where you have to choose to be a Democrat or a Republican.
STUDENT: or a Green?
BRINK: or a Libertarian, an Independent, etc. The point is
that the choice is disjunctive: you must choose one or the other, but you are
not allowed to have more than one political affiliation at the same time.
STUDENT:
OK, I get the point: one or the other, but not both.
BRINK: Let's get back to my example of dogs and cats:
different pets but not opposites. A given household may have a dog (and no
cats), a cat (and no dogs), but those are not the only possibilities. Many
homes will have both cats and dogs, and some homes will have neither.
We can illustrate this point with a
diagram known as a two-by-two contingency table. One variable is whether or not
a household has any cats (and each household is categorized on that variable as
a 'yes' or a 'no'). And then we have a second variable as to whether or not
that same household has any dogs (and each household is categorized on that
variable as a 'yes' or a 'no'). The interaction of these four variables leads
to four different cells representing the four different possible outcomes.
|
|
Has dogs |
Has no dogs |
Totals |
|
Has cats |
At least one dog
& one cat |
At least one cat,
but no dogs |
Total cats |
|
Has no cats |
At least one dog,
but no cats |
No cats or dogs |
Total no cats |
|
Totals |
Totals dogs |
Total no dogs |
Total households |
Another way to visualize non-exclusive categories would be
to use overlapping circles. These are known as Venn diagrams.
#
# @ @
# #
@ @
# @# @
# CATS
@ # DOGS
@
# @# @
# #
@ @
#
# @ @
The overlap between the two circles represents those
households with both cats and dogs. Those households having neither a cat nor a
dog would be outside of both circles.
STUDENT:
This sure seems logical, but what does it have to do with religion?
BRINK: My question to you is whether reason and religion are
really opposites (such that if we embrace one we must reject the other, like if
you are a Republican you cannot also be a Democrat), or whether it is possible
to utilize reason and yet still be religious.
I say that the opposite of reason is not religion, but
anti-reason, and the opposition of religion is not reason, but anti-religion. The
contingency table would look like this.
|
|
Appreciates religion |
Does not appreciate religion |
Totals |
|
Uses reason |
Rational &
religious |
Rational, but not
religion |
Total who accept reason |
|
Does not use reason |
Religious, but not
rational |
Neither rational
nor religious |
Total who reject reason |
|
Totals |
Totals religious |
Total not religious |
Total |
or to visualize with Venn diagrams.
#
# @ @
# #
@ @
# @# @
# REASON
@ # RELIGION @
# @# @
# #
@ @
#
# @ @
So, you don't have to choose between God and reason, you can
have both.
STUDENT: But suppose you had to choose? Which would you
take: God or reason?
BRINK: I would choose God over reason because I know how
fallacious human reasoning can be, and how perfect God is. But, I can have both
if I realize that reasoning is one of the good gifts of God too frequently
misused by man.
Logic is not an attractive destination, nor even a wise
guide. At best, logic is a reliable compass, though one which is often blind to
the objects directly in front of it.
STUDENT:
But some things are clearly contrary to reason, illogical.
BRINK: True. We call those things self-contradictory. Here
are some examples. Tell me why they are self-contradictory, and therefore
inconsistent with reason.
"There are no errors in this book, except this one."
STUDENT:
The statement admits that it is an error, therefore, we should not take it
seriously.
BRINK: Right, it is logically inconsistent, so it fails to
pass the test of reason. Here is another.
"No
statement longer than six words is true."
STUDENT:
Oh, I get it. The statement itself has more than six words, so it refutes
itself.
BRINK: Now, try this one based upon definitions.
"My
brother is an only child."
STUDENT:
I get it. The definition of "an only child" is that you have no
brothers or sisters, so one who says that his brother is an only child cannot
himself exist, or else he does not have a brother.
BRINK: That is a good job of reasoning from definitions to
existence. Likewise, you could reason from the definition of a circle to the
conclusion that no square circles exist.
STUDENT:
Yeh, that's obvious, but what does this have to do with religion?
BRINK: Let's look at a statement made by a theologian about
God.
You are familiar with some of his use of logic already. I am
talking about Descartes. This particular example of reasoning is called the
Ontological Argument for the existence of God. I want you to listen to it and
tell me if it contains the same type of logical fallacies that you have been
able to point out so far and reject. The argument consists of three points: two
premises and a conclusion.
First premise: God is defined as a
perfect being.
STUDENT:
That sounds OK.
BRINK: OK, let’s go on.
Second
premise: perfection includes many qualities, such as being all-powerful
(omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (beneficent) ...
STUDENT:
Yes, those are the characteristics I have heard ascribed to God.
BRINK: Ah, but I am not yet done with the listing of the
qualities of perfection. Descartes also included existence as a quality of
perfection. And now for the last part of the argument.
Conclusion:
God, being a perfect being, has all of the qualities of perfection, including
existence, therefore, God exists.
STUDENT:
Wait a minute. ... There must be something wrong with this argument. It sped by
me a little too quickly. I think this is the one that assumes what it is trying
to prove.
BRINK: Agreed, but, is it self-contradictory like the other
irrational statements, or is it entirely self-consistent (and therefore
rational)?
STUDENT: All right, I cannot find any internal
inconsistency, so it is rational, but what about it assuming what it tries to
prove? The second premise was that God has the properties of perfection
(including existence) so it has to assume that God exists.
BRINK: Another version of the Ontological Argument was
offered by Anselm in the 11th century. He addressed your point in the following
way. He defined God as the most perfect possible being. He argued that such a
being who existed only in our imaginations would be less perfect than one who
necessarily existed. Conclusion: God necessarily exists.
Let's recognize the real insight of
the ontological argument. It does not so much attempt to define God into
existence, but it does recognize that our very capacity to define and value is
based upon His existence.
STUDENT:
Well, I'm not sure I fully understand this concept of necessary existence. I
admit that there is no internal contradiction within the argument, but you
always have to look at the premises and where they come from.
BRINK: OK, let's go back to your opening example of the
mortality of Socrates. Where did your premises come from?
STUDENT:
Oh, the fact that all men are mortal? I just look at the obituaries: everybody
dies eventually.
BRINK: Let's clarify that point: you have observed that some
people have died, but you have not observed all people dying. I think you are
switching from the certainty of deductive reasoning to the probability of
inductive reasoning. You have observed some people dying, and so you generalize
that all men, including Socrates, will die eventually.
STUDENT: But doesn't inductive reasoning also work?
BRINK: Most of the time, if the sampling is both large and
representative, and that is what good scientific methodology is all about.
Induction is never perfect. For example, about one in ten women is biologically
barren, incapable of conceiving a child or carrying it to term. However, that
woman had a mother who was fertile, and a grandmother who was fertile, and a
great-grandmother, etc., etc. back to Eve. So, how could we have predicted that
this woman would be infertile?
Now consider this example: one is a
prime number, so is three, five, and seven; therefore, all odd numbers are
primes.
STUDENT:
But the next odd number, nine, is not a prime, because it is the product of
three times three.
BRINK: Correct, but you know enough about primes to know
that we stopped our sampling short and got the wrong conclusion. You are
assuming that your declaration that all men are mortal is a better sampling. My
point is that to make the statement that all men are mortal, you would have to
know that Socrates is going to die, and that means that you have to assume your
conclusion in your major premise, just like you criticized Descartes for doing.
STUDENT:
We know that people are probably going to die because they have physical bodies
that wear out and get injured or sick or old and die. That's science.
BRINK: We will talk about the limits of science next time.
That will be our next step. But today we will just focus on the limits of
reason.
STUDENT: So, I guess reason can just reject those
statements that are irrational in the sense of being self-contradictory.
BRINK: A system resulting in self-contradiction must be
rejected, but only a system that exhibits consistency can be retained. As we
have seen, statements about God can be perfectly self-consistent.
STUDENT:
But the same would be true of statements an atheist might make.
BRINK: But, if atheists or agnostics say that no one can
know the truth about God, then any statement they make about God would be
self-contradictory.
STUDENT:
OK, I get it, but can this potential self-contradiction of atheists and
agnostics really prove God's existence?
BRINK: Let's try one more example of contradiction. Every
man in Seville is shaved by the barber of Seville, if and only if the man does
not shave himself. Does the Barber of Seville shave himself?
STUDENT:
The statement is just impossible: if he shaves himself, he does not shave
himself; if he does not shave himself, he shaves himself.
BRINK: The contradiction applies only if we assume that the
Barber of Seville is a man in this shaving system. If the Barber of Seville
were a woman, or a machine, there would be no contradiction.
Similarly, God might stand outside
of the system. That is the logic of the cosmological argument.
- Every
event has a cause.
- But
that cause was also an event, which had its cause.
- So,
the first cause could not have been an event, but something outside of the
time-space coordinates of events.
STUDENT: ... and that would be God?
BRINK: Exactly.
STUDENT: OK, but where do religious thinkers get their
premises from? reason?
BRINK: Ultimately, no. It is unreasonable to ask reason to
provide what is beyond its capabilities. Reason is but a tool, perhaps the
greatest tool of the human mind for surviving in the physical world of this
planet. When we use reason, we must make sure that we are employing the right
tool for the right task.
Reason is only a process, not a
product. Reason is the process of moving from one thought to another, and
maintaining consistency of category or purpose. Reasoning does not guarantee
truth in the product. For example
- MAJOR
PREMISE: All cats are dogs.
- MINOR
PREMISE: Felix is a cat.
- CONCLUSION:
Felix is a dog.
Here the conclusion is false, but
the reasoning obeyed the rules of the deductive syllogism, it just started with
a faulty premise.
Reason is an essential tool both
in religion and science. Most theologians use reason in the form of deductive
or means-ends reasoning.
Here is a well-reasoned syllogism
(the deductive process is perfect):
- MAJOR
PREMISE: All humans are sinners.
- MINOR
PREMISE: John is a human.
- CONCLUSION:
John is a sinner.
Here is well-reasoned means-ends analysis (the
action/conclusion makes sense, given the assumptions):
- DESIRED
END/EFFECT: I want to be saved.
- ESSENTIAL
MEANS/CAUSE: Jesus is the only way to salvation.
- ACTION/CONCLUSION:
I accept Jesus as my savior.
Non-Christians cannot criticize
the process reasoning above, but only the premises: not accepting the major
premise that all men are sinners, or not having the goal of salvation. Sin and
salvation (and all religious doctrines) are to be accepted or rejected, not
proved objectively by reason or science. Each person must decide to act as if
sin and salvation are his/her ultimate concern (to use Tillich's definition of
religion). It boils down to decisions about values.
Remember the Gordian knot?
STUDENT: Was that the one that no one could figure out
how to untie, so Alexander the Great cut it with his sword?
BRINK: That's the one. There are some problems in life that
pure reason cannot untie all by itself, so we need the sword of religion. Faith
is not so much the necessary conclusion of reasoning as it is the necessary
assumption for a worthwhile life.
STUDENT: But religion does not seem like a strong sword
or a useful tool. It is just faith, belief, not reason.
BRINK: But we have just pointed out that religion is not
necessarily anti-rational.
STUDENT:
But it starts out with premises that cannot be proved by reason.
BRINK: Which goes to show the limits of reason. Like any
other logical argument, the premises must be assumed independently of pure
reason. Instead of calling religion "ir-rational" that would make it
"trans-rational" or beyond reason.
STUDENT:
That sounds like cheating, like a short-cut to knowledge.
BRINK: Religion does posit a starting point, an assumption,
which serves as a foundation for further rational endeavor. Everyone must start
from some premise of reasoning. Ayn Rand starts from the idea that humans are
selfish and isolated individuals. I start from the premise that humans should
be in a loving relationship with God. The real question is which foundation for
life we choose?
STUDENT:
But that's just faith, belief, not real truth.
BRINK: I must clarify what I mean by religious faith. I
prefer not to equate it with beliefs, at least beliefs about factual
statements. The term, faith, has three different implications within the study
of religion.
First, it may mean a person's denominational
affiliation. For example, we say that John is a member of the Bahai Faith,
a religious organization.
Second, the term, faith, may mean a doctrinal statement
about God, salvation or the afterlife. For example, on Sunday mornings we
Catholics recite a creed in which we say that we "believe" in God the
Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As we shall see in the next step,
on science, we do not believe these aspects of theological doctrine in the same
fashion that we believe that the earth is round, or that water boils at a
certain temperature. They are different types of truth, requiring different types
of proof, resulting in different types of "belief." So, I shall use
the term "doctrines" when speaking of religious "beliefs."
Notice that these doctrines may not be "provable" by pure reason. The
doctrine of the Trinity is not rational, because it is beyond human reason, but
so are other aspects of the divine: God being omnipotent (all powerful),
omniscient (all knowing), or beneficent (all good).
Third, the term, faith, may mean a person's religiosity,
the strength of that person's religious commitment. It is in this third
aspect of faith that I contend is the core of what religion is about.
"Keeping the faith" is not a matter of striving to maintain an
irrational delusion, in defiance of the facts, but a matter of following
through on one's commitments.
Therefore, I will try to avoid
using the vague term, faith, and try
to specify whether I mean denomination, doctrine, or commitment.
STUDENT: But the words faith and belief are used so often in the Bible and by so
many preachers. I think a lot of people would have a hard time working with
your suggested terms.
BRINK: They do, but let's look at what the Bible really says
about faith. The New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greek term translated
into King James English as faith is pistis. That would be better translated
as loyalty; the Latin term is "fides," of which the proper English
translation would be fidelity or faithfulness. Clearly, the apostles who
authored the gospels and epistles of the New Testament did not mean to use the
term "faith" in the narrow sense of a simple belief that something
has happened, but as a commitment to a relationship with God.
STUDENT:
But the Bible also uses the term "belief."
BRINK: The term, belief,
is used over sixty times just in the Gospel of John alone, but it is almost
always in the context of "believe in" or "believe on"
rather than "believe that." To believe in someone is to be committed
to that person and the values that he stands for. That's the kind of
"belief" or "faith" (commitment) necessary for salvation in
the spiritual realm.
Consider this: if we define a
"Christian" solely as one having "belief" (acceptance of
the doctrinal position that Jesus is the Son of God) then Satan is a Christian
because Satan believes that God exists, and that Jesus is His Son. Of course,
the key difference is that Satan is committed to thwarting God's plan of
salvation, while the real Christian is committed to actualizing God's plan of
Salvation.
STUDENT:
What about other religions? Would they appreciate your use of terminology?
BRINK: Muslims have more clarity bout the need for
commitment. In Arabic, "Islam" means submission (to the will of God).
A "Muslim" is one who submits. The Muslims have framed the question
properly: it is not whether or not one “believes in God,” but whether or not
one submits to and obeys God that determines one's salvation. It is a matter
more of choice and volition rather than intellectual capacity. I call this kind
of faith “commitment.” Think of it as fidelity, faithfulness to a relationship.
STUDENT: OK, that makes it clear. Your terms do clarify
things.
But, back to the question of reason. Can't we say that
some faith, I mean "commitments," are rational and some are
irrational?
BRINK: Exactly, and that is the purpose of theology, to sort
out religious statements and practices.
STUDENT:
So, I guess you and the atheists are speaking a different language.
BRINK: We certainly are at times: the same words, but
different meanings, and that really impedes the process of dialog.
I would not be willing to die for
most of my beliefs about mere facts, like whether the temperature in this room
is closer to 70 degrees or 72 degrees. But there are certain values for which I
would be willing to sacrifice my life and fortune.
The important truths to which we
should be committed are values.
STUDENT: Like family? Country?
BRINK: Right, and those are not facts, but commitments to
certain values, commitments that we back up with our money and our lives. Let's
take a look at patriotism, the commitment to a country.
Does this nation exist?
STUDENT:
The U.S.A.? Of course.
BRINK: How do you know that the U.S.A. exists?
STUDENT:
I been in the federal courthouse, I have read the Constitution, I have heard
the president speak.
BRINK: Ah yes, the president, the representative of the
nation, and from that, you infer that the U.S.A. exists.
STUDENT:
Obviously.
BRINK: ... and I have been in a Church, I have read the
Bible, and heard the Pope speak, and he is the representative of God, so there
must be a God.
STUDENT:
Well, I see the similarity that both the country and God are abstract concepts,
invisible to the eye, and they both get people all committed, but there is a
difference. I just accept the existence of the U.S.A. because it just makes
more sense to assume the existence of the source of my scholarship check.
BRINK: ... and so most people just find that it makes more
sense to accept the existence of God as the source of their spiritual
nourishment.
STUDENT:
I guess it is kind of hard to get meaning just out of facts and logical
deduction.
BRINK: That depends on what kind of meaning we are talking
about. If you are referring to conceptual meaning, that is what facts and
reasoning convey. But if you are trying to go beyond that onto a level on which
life is "meaningful" then you are going to need values. That is why
we said last week that humans are values-seeking beings.
STUDENT:
I guess it can get kind of confusing, using the term meaning both to refer to
the meanings and definitions of concepts and also for the significance of life.
BRINK: For that reason I prefer to use the term
"relevance" when
I talk about values. Conceptual meaning is the ability to
figure out the world. Meaning in the form of relevance is the ability to figure
yourself into the world.
STUDENT:
And so religion would deal more with relevance, rather than conceptual meaning.
BRINK: Precisely, and that is why pure reason cannot provide
religious answers: reason focuses on what is conceptually meaningful, not on
what is most relevant. That is why I speak of truth in the form of
"validity" when I am in the realm of conceptual meaning:
"valid" tests for measuring psychological disorders,
"valid" reasoning using deduction.
STUDENT:
So is it impossible to provide a valid reason for worshipping God?
BRINK: Right, the term valid does not apply here. There is
another term that I suggest we use for "truth" within the realm of
religion. Religion has truth in the form of "value" rather than mere
conceptual validity.
STUDENT:
But shouldn't religion provide some reason for believing in God before I have
faith in Him?
BRINK: Let's rephrase your last question, replacing the
vague terms of "faith" and "belief."
STUDENT:
I'll try. Shouldn't religion provide some reason for ... accepting God before I
make a commitment to Him?
BRINK: Good job rephrasing but now I want you to hear what
you just said. You used the term "reason." Did you really mean
"logic" the process of deduction?
STUDENT:
Well no, not in that way.
BRINK: Did you mean a reason in the sense of a motive for
being religious?
STUDENT: Yes, something more like that.
BRINK: That is going to get into the realm of values,
purposes, and goals. I shall refer to proof within the realm of relevance as
"vindication" rather than "verification." We should not ask
"is belief in God capable of verification" but "is commitment to
God capable of vindication"?
STUDENT:
That is OK, we agreed last time that humans are values oriented.
BRINK: Indeed, that is what we are, and that is what
religion is all about: the commitments we make to certain values. When I say
that "I have faith in God" what I am really saying is that I am
committed to God and the values that He has proclaimed.
STUDENT:
Wow. I am not so sure that I can comprehend that from a rational perspective.
BRINK: That is the whole point of this step. We must admit
that reason is limited: it cannot create values. Almost a century and a half
ago, the Pope referred to such reliance upon human reason as a fundamental
spiritual error.
"Human reason, without any reference to God, is the
sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. It is a law unto itself
and suffices by its natural force to secure the welfare of man and of
nations." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, 1867
The atheist may choose not to commit to God, claiming "My
reason cannot comprehend God; therefore, He does not exist and I owe Him no
allegiance."
STUDENT:
I guess that is where I am at.
BRINK: But, is that as foolish as saying "My knowledge
of physics and mechanical aptitude cannot comprehend how airplanes can fly,
therefore, I shall stay on the ground"?
STUDENT:
That would be foolish because you would be limiting yourself by your own
ignorance.
BRINK: That's not the way that atheists would view it. They
would say that people limit themselves when they choose to commit themselves to
God. Maybe the atheist is missing out on some good things in life. On another
step we will explore those values.
STUDENT:
I hope so. Right now, it just seems really complicated, like trying to
understand my calculus class.
BRINK: What is required is not the mental agility you may
need in calculus: an advanced form of reasoning. Religion is compatible with
reason, but that is not what is required for salvation. Jesus used the analogy
of the faith of a little child.
STUDENT: Ah, but what kind of "faith" are you
talking about?
BRINK: Good, you have learned quickly the right questions to
ask. It would not be the "faith" of denominational affiliation. The
Bible does not say that the Baptists are going to heaven and the Methodists to
hell, or vice versa. It would not even be the "faith" of having the
correct understanding of precise doctrine, because most children don’t
understand complicated theology.
STUDENT:
So, I guess getting into heaven would not be like passing a multiple choice
exam.
BRINK: The kind of "faith" operative here is the
complete love and reliance that a little child has for its parents. Those who
do not understand God's will are not guilty of ignorance, for God's will is not
highly complex, but the utmost of simplicity. They are guilty of pride in
refusing to accept the simplicity of God's will. Lack of religion is not a
defect of the head, but of the heart.
STUDENT:
That is really hard to comprehend from a strictly logical perspective.
BRINK: That's the point. Atheist logic is like a
two-dimensional, flatland geometry in a 3-dimensional world. By being unwilling
to postulate anything beyond the world of length and width, nothing which
assumes a third dimension can be admitted, and no evidence of the third
dimension can be comprehended.
If length is the first dimension,
and width the second, and height the third, and time the fourth, perhaps the
spiritual is the fifth, standing outside of space and time, and not
comprehensible by the four dimensional physics' conception of the Big Bang.
STUDENT:
So, I guess I cannot rely upon pure reason to investigate the spiritual.
BRINK: As we say in Mexico, that would be like trying to get
milk from bulls or eggs from roosters.
STUDENT:
But I just can't stop being a rational person.
BRINK: You should keep on being a rational person. Remember:
it is not either reason or religion. It can be both/and. The goal is to achieve
wisdom: a balance between knowledge and doubt. We should value and respect
reason. It is one of God's greatest gifts to us, and we should always be
grateful to God for His gifts. But reason is merely a tool, a useful but
limited tool. It may serve us well to free us from the ulterior claims of
pseudo-science and superstition, but it serves us badly if it serves to alienate
us from the ultimate.
STUDENT: So, religion cannot be the product of reason.
BRINK: No, to expect that from reason would be to expect
cats to be herded and sheep to climb trees. Reason cannot be worshipped, for
worship must be passionate commitment.
STUDENT:
So, I can still keep on being rational, even if I became religious?
BRINK: Yes, but reason must be kept in the role of a dutiful
and helpful servant, and not be allowed to reign as a cruel master. One of the
great functions of religion is that it puts reason into its proper
perspective.
STUDENT:
OK, I am getting it, slowly.
BRINK: Let's try another analogy. Do you like art?
STUDENT:
I love music, especially jazz and classical.
BRINK: Can you give me a purely rational reason?
STUDENT:
It's a matter of taste, artistic preference. I just hear that kind of music and
I can relate to it.
BRINK: There is nothing rational about it. Reason cannot
prove jazz worthy of your commitment. You just know you have a potential love
relationship with jazz, and you commit your time to listening to it. You do not
let reason get in the way of that. Reason that does not transcend itself is
mere criticism, and stifles creativity. That which is ultimately valuable may
be beyond the limits of reason. Ultimate relevance is not definable in purely
rational, objective terms.
STUDENT:
I guess it all boils down to decisions about life, not so much just trying to
reason things out. It's sort of like love. That's not really rational either.
BRINK: Exactly, the essence of life is commitment. You have
to choose whether to commit yourself to jazz or chemistry for a career.
STUDENT: ... or both?
BRINK: Good point, they may not be mutually exclusive. But
getting back to religion, which commitment could be preferable to that of a
commitment to God?
STUDENT: So, I have to choose to commit myself to God, or
not.
BRINK: That is what it boils down to.
STUDENT:
Are you saying to go ahead and make a choice, even in the absence of reason?
BRINK: Yes. We do not tell the air "Before I draw my
breath I need proof that oxygen exists." We breathe, and when we stop
breathing, we die physically. When we stop our relationship to God, we die
spiritually.
STUDENT: But shouldn't those who say God exists have
the burden of proof?
BRINK: Is this discussion a criminal case in court? In the
legal system the prosecution does have the burden of proof. What does that have
to do with which religion we should follow (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,
Wicca, or none)? If you visit me at my home and I offer you something to drink
(Coke, Pepsi, Orange Juice, iced tea, water) and you choose the Pepsi and I
choose the Coke, which one of us has the "burden of proof"? Even if
you said, "no thank you, nothing for me" would I need to meet some
legal standard of burden of proof before I started sipping my Coke?
STUDENT:
So, you're saying that religion is just a choice? and maybe one choice is no
better than another?
BRINK: Religion is a choice, but a choice based upon values,
and therefore some choices are better than others. My point here is that pure
reason cannot make that choice between denominations or about doctrines (such
as the existence of God).
STUDENT:
It seems very difficult to come to any clear doctrinal statements about God.
BRINK: Yes, it does transcend words. Religious language is
more subjective, evocative and relational, self-involving, rather than
detached. It is not so important how we define "God" or
"love" but it is ultimately relevant what our commitments are
regarding "God" and "love" and how steadfastly those
commitments are pursued. In that sense, "God" and "love"
are action verbs more than passive nouns.
STUDENT:
So you are saying that we need God (because of His relevance) even if we cannot
be very clear about how to define God (conceptual meaning).
BRINK: Exactly.
STUDENT:
Is it better to just stay out of religions if we have doubts or are confused?
BRINK: This is the view of many agnostics and deists. I say
we have to get over our fears, legitimate fears, of doctrinal error, and the
risk of joining the wrong denomination.
STUDENT: Could it be said that the inability of atheists
to just accept God is some kind of mental disorder?
BRINK: I don't think we would find that listed in the DSM.
It is a spiritual disorder, but not necessarily a mental one, though I can see
some parallels. There is a denial of spiritual reality.
STUDENT: How would you answer this point, that Christians
reject other gods, and the atheist has just gone one step further?
BRINK: There is a major difference in why Christians and
atheists reject other gods. It is analogous to why my friend the Catholic
priest does not have two wives and why I do not have two wives. He has chosen
to commit himself to a celibate life of having no wife, while I have committed
myself to a monogamous life having one and only one, not having any spousal
love left over for another wife. Christians must be totally committed to their
one God. Most Christians do not deny the existence of other spiritual beings,
such as Satan and demons, but simply refuse to worship them because they are
not worthy of worship.
STUDENT:
Are you saying that atheists really have an emotional agenda? That they are not
so much objecting because of a lack of rational proof, but they are just mad at
God?
BRINK: I don't know if I would call it an emotional agenda,
or cite anger as their principal motive, but I do think that we have to look
beyond reason for an explanation. Perhaps it is that they do not wish to commit
to God's values because there are other values in their lives that they cherish
even more.
STUDENT:
I have seen some atheists who seem to hate God.
BRINK: That would make them angry theists rather than
atheists.
But the similarity does outweigh the difference: both
atheists and angry theists lack a good relationship with God.
STUDENT: So what then is the role of reason in religion?
BRINK: There are some contradictory religious systems
around, and some of them are quite dangerous. The use of reason protects us
from falling into such mistakes. We must discern our religious commitments
wisely. To put it into theological terms, reason helps us avoid the errors of
heresy.
USING THE CODE FF25.
Read more posts by and about TL Brink HERE.
 |
Follow MSI Press on Twitter, Face Book, and Instagram.
Interested in publishing with MSI Press LLC?
Check out information on how to submit a proposal.
Planning on self-publishing and don't know where to start? Our author au pair services will mentor you through the process.
Julia Aziz, signing her book, Lessons of Labor, at an event at Book People in Austin, Texas.
Check out our rankings -- and more -- HERE.
Comments
Post a Comment