In part 1 of Irrational Christianity, I gave a very brief
and light explanation of why Christians tend to condemn rational thought. Though it was quite concise, I didn’t want to
spend any more time discussing the foundational Christian animosity toward
logic. Instead, I want to move on to the
next part which is to explain why this thinking is wrong.
The first reason it is wrong is because the unintelligent
Christian will often accuse logic and reason as being relative to the
individual. It is said that it is
simply, “Your logic” as if to imply that logic is somehow subjective. This is a huge misconception of the uninformed. Logic, by nature is objective. If math in Asia was different than math in
the United States we would have a problem.
However, due to the nature of logic, it is not. I think the primary reason this misconception
happens is because somehow people try to separate logic from math or science. Maybe they try to make it a substitute for
common sense or the like. Whatever the
reason, this misconception is indeed false.
Logic is not man made.
Much like the laws of science or mathematical principles, logic is a
definition of something that exists or holds true regardless of definition. So when in philosophy we have the fallacy of
composition, nobody is inventing something, instead philosophers have defined
that which is true of statements regardless of location. The fallacy of composition simply states that
the properties of the parts of a whole do not necessarily apply to the whole. This is true whether or not it is defined as
a fallacy or not. For example, hydrogen
is lighter than air and oxygen is breathable by humans, however when the whole
is made of two hydrogen molecules
and one oxygen molecule, the whole
does not share either of the properties of the parts (water is not lighter than
air and is not breathable by humans).
Hence, the fallacy of composition isn’t a man-made idea it is simply a
truth based on analysis of what exists.
Terminology helps communicate the truth of the principle that is already
taking place, but it does not make it true.
So when people attempt to put logic in a separate category than say
math, they have a bad conception of logic – really math is the algorithmic
definitions of logic related to quantifiers.
Meaning there is correct math and incorrect math, but there is not an
individual’s own math that is only specifically true for them.
There is something called logical inference which is a bit
different than the rules of logic.
Logical inference is the idea of using the rules of logic to infer a
conclusion. The conclusion might end up
being false, but if the steps taken followed basic rules of logic and the facts
given did not contradict the conclusion made then we can say the conclusion was
sound. It is still possible to have a sound conclusion end up being false. So let’s say I know a ninja is following me,
I also know that that particular ninja was hired to kill me. It would be a logical inference to say that
this ninja was going to attempt to kill me.
Now, being that the ninja is human and could have a sudden change of
heart it is possible that the ninja never actually attempts to kill me (or more
likely successfully kills me). Therefore
the conclusion could be proven to be false, but the logical inference was still
sound given the facts available.
Sometimes people think that since the conclusion of a logical inference
can be wrong, then logic is untrustworthy, but that is wrong thinking. Hopefully this simple example showed the
distinction between the rules of logic (and their application) and the
conclusions drawn from a logical inference and helps show why the conclusion
can be sound yet sometimes nevertheless be false.
Another aspect that shows this dilemma between faith and
reason is false comes through theological understanding. When Christians talk about God creating the
universe, there is an underlying presupposition that is hardly discussed:
Christians are actually claiming that God made a rational universe. Meaning, it was God’s design to have
patterns, methods, and understandable functions within the very design of the
universe. This is a presupposition in
science as a whole, that the universe is
rational and therefore can be understood.
If this was not the case, then the advancements we have made in
civilization would not have taken place.
In order for there to be advancements there must be understanding; in
order for there to be understanding there must be rational thought. An irrational universe renders science
useless.
A second part of theological understanding comes from the
Book of Genesis chapter 1 verse 27. This verse describes God as creating man
being made in the “image of God.” One aspect of this “image of God” is being made with a mind that is logical and
therefore a mind that can reason. This
assumption is in place from the very start of creation, because without
reasoning Eve could not be convinced to take the forbidden fruit. However, because she could reason, the devil
reasoned with her and she made a poor choice.
With reason there comes accountability
and responsibility. So the Bible assumes from the very beginning
that God made a rational universe and that he gave man rational minds that
could reason by process of logical thought.
In fact, given these two premises is why the church actually sponsored
science and encouraged scientific exploration; because God created the universe
to be understood and gave humans the mind to understand it.
Some people might be chomping at the bit to shout out, “But
the fall corrupted man’s mind!” My
answer to that is simple, yes in some areas, but it did not destroy our ability
to use logic and reason. Maybe our
thoughts can be evil; maybe we are prone toward sin; maybe we can’t think on
the things we need too (without even touching the other theological ideas like
the effect of baptism); however, we are still able to process logically and use
reason to make good inferences otherwise we could not be accountable.
Logic is demonstrated every day to be universal. As an example, for East Sunday I was at a
gathering and there were a couple different families there and quite a few
children. I told a seven year old girl
there, Victoria, that in order to live a good life she should just not do anything
I do. She responded, “So I can’t eat
anymore, or bathe, or walk, or use the bathroom?” Simple logic expressed through the mind of a
seven year old girl, yet we have adult Christians who run behind faith and
condemn logic, acting as if faith and reason cannot coexist. If a seven year old can be reasonable, why
can’t a mature Christian?
