|  New Posts
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Reasonable Faith 3rd Edition book > Christianity disallows reason
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
skepticon
Posted 05/27/10 Reply with quote  #1 
In his book Reasonable Faith, Craig argues that reason is a valid, and indeed, very useful tool for bringing unbelievers to the Christian religion. He cites as examples C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel (pg. 22).

It may be useful, but God in truth disallows reason. The Christian message is "Believe in it, or suffer horrific consequences." Am I thus free to utilize reason to consider the Christian gospel? No. My assent is demanded...or else.

What if, employing reason, I conclude Christianity is false? Too bad. I'm punished. Eternally. Horrifically. God thus doesn't want me to use reason. He wants me to simply swallow the gospel. Martin Luther was right to dismiss reason.
idrovetheepb
Posted 05/27/10 Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
It may be useful, but God in truth disallows reason. The Christian message is "Believe in it, or suffer horrific consequences." Am I thus free to utilize reason to consider the Christian gospel? No. My assent is demanded...or else.

So you can only use reason as long as the ideas in question have no potential dire consequences? And, you're assent is not demanded, you can accept God's grace or not. It's that whole free choice thing.
skepticon
Posted 05/28/10 Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
So you can only use reason as long as the ideas in question have no potential dire consequences?

 
Reason is an imperfect tool.  To reach truthful conclusions based on reason requires sufficient knowledge and ability.  And even then, my conclusions may change due to acquiring new knowledge or being exposed to a better argument.  If I'm granted the right to reason, I'm granted the right to be mistaken.  But under Christian theology, if I'm mistaken, I'm horribly punished.  Thus I'm not granted the right to reason at all.
 
Quote:
And, you're assent is not demanded, you can accept God's grace or not. It's that whole free choice thing.


You're ignoring the threat behind the offer. If I arrived at your door with flowers in one hand and a gun in another and said, "Here, take these flowers. If you don't, I'll shoot you dead" there really is no free choice in the matter.  Your "choice" is being compelled.

The scenario is actually worse under Christianity.  It's as if I came up to you and said, "Believe in astrology, or be tortured forever.  And by the way, since I can read your mind, I'll know if you're faking it."

Some people undoubtedly would find reasons to believe in astrology and even convince themselves it's actually quite reasonable.  But any claim that I'm trying to appeal to your reason and intellect is a sham.  What I'm really appealing to is your survival instinct.
idrovetheepb
Posted 05/29/10 Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Reason is an imperfect tool.  To reach truthful conclusions based on reason requires sufficient knowledge and ability.  And even then, my conclusions may change due to acquiring new knowledge or being exposed to a better argument.  If I'm granted the right to reason, I'm granted the right to be mistaken.  But under Christian theology, if I'm mistaken, I'm horribly punished.  Thus I'm not granted the right to reason at all.

I believe God when he says that if we truly seek him we'll find him. Easy for me to say, i know i know.

Quote:
You're ignoring the threat behind the offer. If I arrived at your door with flowers in one hand and a gun in another and said, "Here, take these flowers. If you don't, I'll shoot you dead" there really is no free choice in the matter.  Your "choice" is being compelled.

That would be an absurd situation but i don't think this is the situation God puts us in.
skepticon
Posted 05/30/10 Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
I believe God when he says that if we truly seek him we'll find him. Easy for me to say, i know i know.


Perhaps so, but "finding God" cannot be through reason.  That route is closed to us when we're threatened with inexplicable torment if we fail to reason to the correct conclusion.

Quote:
That would be an absurd situation but i don't think this is the situation God puts us in.


How is it not the situation God puts us in?

If I'm right, Craig's "reasonable faith" project is invalidated and pointless.  We're not meant to reason, but merely to accept what is offered or be tortured for eternity.
OrdinaryClay
Posted 05/31/10 Reply with quote  #6 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

It may be useful, but God in truth disallows reason. The Christian message is "Believe in it, or suffer horrific consequences." Am I thus free to utilize reason to consider the Christian gospel? No. My assent is demanded...or else.

You are conflating methods and consequences. I use reason to establish coherency in my life. My faith is no exception. You may not like the consequences of God's laws, but your dislike of the consequences does not impugn the use of reason in establishing a rational belief in God.

There are millions who have, and do believe, with no apologetics involved. That means ALL have the opportunity to believe with reason or with out. All are WITHOUT excuse. God provides an avenue with or with out reason to fellowship with Him. The truth of God transcends our meager ability to understand.

Quote:

Reason is an imperfect tool. 

No! You don't say.

Just because it is an imperfect tool does not mean it can not be used. Imperfect tools are used all the time to achieve goals. The goal of reason in the human mind is coherency of thought. More often then not, the obstacle is not reason, it is hubris. Atheists pretend that reason is important in their life all the while knowing full well its limitations.
OrdinaryClay
Posted 05/31/10 Reply with quote  #7 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

If I'm right, Craig's "reasonable faith" project is invalidated and pointless.  We're not meant to reason, but merely to accept what is offered or be tortured for eternity.

Your reasoning is absurd. If one person does find God through Craig's apologetics then the project is validated and pointed.
skepticon
Posted 05/31/10 Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
You are conflating methods and consequences. I use reason to establish coherency in my life. My faith is no exception. You may not like the consequences of God's laws, but your dislike of the consequences does not impugn the use of reason in establishing a rational belief in God.


Not conflating, but linking.  If I'm threatened with horrific punishment for arriving at an undesired outcome through a specific method, I'm effectively told, "Don't use that method!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
There are millions who have, and do believe, with no apologetics involved. That means ALL have the opportunity to believe with reason or with out. All are WITHOUT excuse. God provides an avenue with or with out reason to fellowship with Him. The truth of God transcends our meager ability to understand.

Yes, those people are doing as exactly God demands: belief without reason.  If everyone is "without excuse" for unbelief (as Paul states), then reason has no part to play.  It would be like denying the sun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay

No! You don't say.

Just because it is an imperfect tool does not mean it can not be used. Imperfect tools are used all the time to achieve goals. The goal of reason in the human mind is coherency of thought. More often then not, the obstacle is not reason, it is hubris. Atheists pretend that reason is important in their life all the while knowing full well its limitations.

I'm not denying reason can play a part in your belief; I'm denying it can be the means to your belief when you're threatened with eternal torture should you reason wrongly.  Since reason is imperfect, there's a very good chance you will reason wrongly.  But reasoning wrongly lands you in hell.  Thus, you either need to reason perfectly, or not at all.
skepticon
Posted 05/31/10 Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

If I'm right, Craig's "reasonable faith" project is invalidated and pointless.  We're not meant to reason, but merely to accept what is offered or be tortured for eternity.

Your reasoning is absurd. If one person does find God through Craig's apologetics then the project is validated and pointed.



I have no doubt people can find reasons to believe.  I think we can agree that people can find reasons to believe anything.  But I wonder, does Craig, when presenting his arguments, remind the listener that if they don't accept his arguments, they'll be tortured forever?  If not, he should, because that's consistent with the Christian message.  It would make clear that God is threatening them.

As I said above, the Christian message is not appealing to the intellect, but to our survival instinct.
OrdinaryClay
Posted 05/31/10 Reply with quote  #10 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

Not conflating, but linking. 

Your link is empty of substance. The consequences are the same no matter what "method you use". Rejection of God always carries the same consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

If I'm threatened with horrific punishment for arriving at an undesired outcome through a specific method, I'm effectively told, "Don't use that method!"

You have twisted what is happening.  God doesn't say you must come to Him through reason. You may come to Him through reason. No matter how you come to God your salvation is through faith and not because of your reasoning ability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

Yes, those people are doing as exactly God demands: belief without reason. 

God demands no such thing. You have not substantiated your claim despite you're wishing you had. God allows belief without reason. Just as He allows belief with reason. Exactly because reasoning is imperfect and intellectual talent is unevenly distributed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

If everyone is "without excuse" for unbelief (as Paul states), then reason has no part to play.  It would be like denying the sun.

Your statement is a non-sequitur. Everyone is without excuse exactly because reason is not required but still acceptable and allowed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

I'm not denying reason can play a part in your belief; I'm denying it can be the means to your belief when you're threatened with eternal torture should you reason wrongly.

This simply does not follow. First, your "link" is meaningless as I pointed out above, two, just because person A reasoned themselves into rejection of God does not mean that person B may not reason themselves into an acceptance of God. He may, and many do. Hence, reasoning as a means to come closer to God is rational and coherent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

Since reason is imperfect, there's a very good chance you will reason wrongly. 

How do you figure there is a "very good chance". The discipline of science would disagree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

But reasoning wrongly lands you in hell. 

Choosing wrongly lands you in Hell. You have other options beyond reasoning. It is not God's fault if an atheist deludes themselves into thinking that "pure reason" is the only meaningful way to establish ones world beliefs. If anything, your post is pointing out the speciousness of the atheist "cult of reason".

Considering the question of God's existence is the most fundamental question of our lives it is wise to consider all options when searching for truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

Thus, you either need to reason perfectly, or not at all.

This is absurd. You just admitted above that reasoning can play a part. If it can play a part then you admit that some is admissible even according to your standards. If some can play a part then imperfections do not annul the benefits of reason.
OrdinaryClay
Posted 05/31/10 Reply with quote  #11 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

I have no doubt people can find reasons to believe.  I think we can agree that people can find reasons to believe anything. 

Agreed. There are many who manage to convince themselves that it is rational to accept the possibility that something can exist with no cause. This takes great faith on their part.

Quote:

But I wonder, does Craig, when presenting his arguments, remind the listener that if they don't accept his arguments, they'll be tortured forever?  If not, he should, because that's consistent with the Christian message.  It would make clear that God is threatening them.

The fact that God threatens consequences is no secret. I hardly think those that listen to his debates and speeches don't realize this. Even if they don't at the moment they will find out by reading the Bible, which they will do if they accept his arguments. If they fall away because of this then that is their choice and it has nothing to do with the nature of using reason to believe or disbelieve Craig's arguments.

Quote:

As I said above, the Christian message is not appealing to the intellect, but to our survival instinct.

There are tens of thousands of intelligent highly educated people who disagree. The Christian message does, in fact and substance, appeal to the intellect. Maybe those who think it does not are the ones with the imperfect reasoning.
bdsimon
Posted 06/01/10 Reply with quote  #12 

I would add that there are consequences all the time to imperfect reasoning. If you take a class and do not use your intellect there is the threat of failing the class- however by using your intellect and learning the material as desired you can pass. The threat of failing the class has no bearing on the truth claims made in the class. If you are on a 10 story building and considering jumping- the warning that you will die if you do has no bearing on your ability to reason to the same conclusion.
skepticon
Posted 06/02/10 Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
Your link is empty of substance. The consequences are the same no matter what "method you use". Rejection of God always carries the same consequences.


If the consequences are the same regardless of method, then clearly there's no valid method.  Since reason is a method for acquiring knowledge, you've just confirmed my point that God disallows reason.

God's message is simply "Believe what I say or suffer horribly."  There's no room for reason in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
You have twisted what is happening.  God doesn't say you must come to Him through reason. You may come to Him through reason. No matter how you come to God your salvation is through faith and not because of your reasoning ability.

If we weren't threatened by horrific, eternal torture for failing to come to God through reason, then you might be right.  But so long as the threat exists, reason is off the table.  Salvation through faith alone is the only way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
God demands no such thing. You have not substantiated your claim despite you're wishing you had. God allows belief without reason. Just as He allows belief with reason. Exactly because reasoning is imperfect and intellectual talent is unevenly distributed.


I never claimed that God disallowed belief with reason. My claim is that God disallows reason as a method.  You cannot allow reason as a method, then turn around and torture someone if they reason "wrongly".  Getting to the belief must be through faith, simply accepting the message "as is".  After that, reason becomes pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticon

If everyone is "without excuse" for unbelief (as Paul states), then reason has no part to play.  It would be like denying the sun.

Your statement is a non-sequitur. Everyone is without excuse exactly because reason is not required but still acceptable and allowed.

I didn't say "reason is not required." I said reason is beside the point.  Christianity, through Paul, states that God and his character are self-evident.  Essentially, this means that "God exists" is axiomatic.  Reason plays no part in axioms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
This simply does not follow. First, your "link" is meaningless as I pointed out above, two, just because person A reasoned themselves into rejection of God does not mean that person B may not reason themselves into an acceptance of God. He may, and many do. Hence, reasoning as a means to come closer to God is rational and coherent.


I'm not denying person B's ability to reason.  People reason themselves into all sorts of beliefs, some quite fanciful.  My claim is that if God allowed us the use of reason to evaluate the gospel, then He would accept our conclusions without threatening us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
How do you figure there is a "very good chance". The discipline of science would disagree with you.

There's more to science than simply reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
Choosing wrongly lands you in Hell. You have other options beyond reasoning. It is not God's fault if an atheist deludes themselves into thinking that "pure reason" is the only meaningful way to establish ones world beliefs. If anything, your post is pointing out the speciousness of the atheist "cult of reason".

Precisely, it's about a choice: "Believe what I say or suffer horribly."  There's no room for reason there. I think you're coming to appreciate my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
Considering the question of God's existence is the most fundamental question of our lives it is wise to consider all options when searching for truth.

Your statement, "The question of God's existence is the most fundamental question of our lives", begs the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
This is absurd. You just admitted above that reasoning can play a part. If it can play a part then you admit that some is admissible even according to your standards. If some can play a part then imperfections do not annul the benefits of reason.

Sorry, I thought it obvious that no one can reason perfectly.  "Reason perfectly, or not at all."  I'm saying not that "reason can play a part," but that God is effectively giving us a "Hobson's choice" (i.e., no choice - our only option is to not reason at all).
skepticon
Posted 06/02/10 Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
Agreed. There are many who manage to convince themselves that it is rational to accept the possibility that something can exist with no cause. This takes great faith on their part.


Sort of like how people suppose God exists without a cause. I know, how irrational is that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
The fact that God threatens consequences is no secret. I hardly think those that listen to his debates and speeches don't realize this. Even if they don't at the moment they will find out by reading the Bible, which they will do if they accept his arguments. If they fall away because of this then that is their choice and it has nothing to do with the nature of using reason to believe or disbelieve Craig's arguments.

Craig's arguments are just so awesome it's impossible to rationally reject them?  So those who hear him and still reject Christianity are actually thinking to themselves, "Well, there's absolutely no doubt Christianity is true and Hell exists, but I choose to avoid paradise and spend an eternity being tortured horribly"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
There are tens of thousands of intelligent highly educated people who disagree. The Christian message does, in fact and substance, appeal to the intellect. Maybe those who think it does not are the ones with the imperfect reasoning.


As we agreed, people can find reasons to believe in anything.  There are tens of thousands of highly intelligent people who regard Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, etc. as being perfectly reasonable.

My claim is not that people can't find the Christian message intellectually appealing, but that, at it's core, it's not meant to appeal to the intellect, but instead to our survival instinct (e.g., fear).
skepticon
Posted 06/02/10 Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsimon
I would add that there are consequences all the time to imperfect reasoning. If you take a class and do not use your intellect there is the threat of failing the class- however by using your intellect and learning the material as desired you can pass. The threat of failing the class has no bearing on the truth claims made in the class. If you are on a 10 story building and considering jumping- the warning that you will die if you do has no bearing on your ability to reason to the same conclusion.


The situation you present is actually different than the one given to us by God.  The correct analogy would be if the teacher in your class presented you with a claim (e.g., the theory of evolution explains the variety of life on the planet) and then said, "You're free to go use your intellect to see if this claim is true, but if you arrive at any other conclusion than this, I'm going to waterboard you forever."

Is the teacher really giving you an opportunity to go use your intellect to find out if the claim is true?  Nope.  And so it was with God.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.