“The Vancouver Sun” today has an excellent article by Douglas Todd called, “Rationality is over-rated – just ask scientists”.
Todd articulates the flaw in attempting to prove or disprove the validity of faith simply on the basis of rational intellectual argument. We humans are more than merely rational creatures.
Beauregard challenges the materialist mindset of atheists such as Harris, who tend to believe “the brain is just a computer made of meat”.
it’s incorrect to assume anything that is not “rational” is there-fore nonsensical, illogical, absurd and ridiculous.
Instead, there is an entire realm of human, animal and ecological experience that is best described as “non-rational.”Such “non-rational” realities – including intuitions, emotions, the unconscious and creativity itself – are just as real, if not more so, than many things understood through rationality alone.
Todd goes on to suggest that on its own reason represents a limited way of processing reality. He points out that, if rationality was as clear and precise an instrument as atheists so often suggest, it is difficult to understand why it does not more often lead to the complete harmony of ideas. Why do so many thoughtful, intelligent, rational people, so often find themselves in profound disagreement? If reason is rational should it not always lead to the same reasonable conclusions?
Todd also argues that reason alone has often led to behaviours that are not conducive to the highest human flourishing. Violence and selfishness may in many cases seem to be the most “reasonable” choice. Why is it that human beings so often reject the purely self-centered choices that appear most rational?
Materialist rationality has a difficult time explaining the choices human beings make to act in ways that are selfless and contrary to their own narrowly defined well-being. Why would a rational person ever be moved to sacrifice his or her life to protect another person? It may not seem rational to act in ways that limit my well-being in order to benefit another person. Such actions are compelled by a deeper human motivation than reason alone. Does this mean that the choice for self-sacrifice is opposed to reason?
The impulse for faith is not anti-rational. It cannot be fully confined by reason, but it is not against reason. Even the most hardened skeptic, must acknowledge that the reason the debate for or against the existence of God continues to be such a robust conversation, is that there has never been an ultimately convincing rational argument one way or the other. Honesty compels us to acknowledge that neither atheism, nor theism is inherently more rational than the other.
The difference between atheism and theism does not lie in the realm of reason. It resides in the willingness of theists to acknowledge that human experience is not limited to reason. We humans embody realms beyond mere rationality.
The inner compulsion to open and trust a power greater than ourselves draws upon human faculties that exist beyond the limits of reason.
Human beings are inexplicably touched by beauty. We are touched with tenderness and compassion in the face of vulnerability. We choose to love and to enter into and often stay in relationships that may be difficult and painful. We find ourselves moved by forces we cannot understand or clearly articulate to perform actions that on the surface appear to make no obvious sense.
Life is vastly more mysterious than can be tidily articulated by any rational human constructs. Language is at its best and most profound when it seeks, not to contain human experience but to help us open more deeply to the mystery and wonder of existence.
How “reasonable” is it to simply dismiss a large part of the experience of the vast majority of humanity through all of history simply because that experience is not easily measurable by scientific instruments and cannot be confined to the narrow parameters of human language?
The purely materialist worldview must erect a wall around itself in order to protect its vision of life from vast realms of evidence that its worldview is forced to deny simply because they do not fit into the tight parameters by which it has defined the nature of existence.
Douglas Todd is to be congratulated for inviting the readers of “The Vancouver Sun” to expand their horizons and experience a life that is fuller and more human than may be comfortable for the “new atheists”.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 5, 2012 at 9:05 am
jaqueline
What I object to is that materialists claim reason for themselves. The history of Christendom is woven through with reason and those who are champions of it.
May 5, 2012 at 9:27 am
jaqueline
“Materialist rationality has a difficult time explaining the choices human beings make to act in ways that are selfless and contrary to their own narrowly defined well-being. Why would a rational person ever be moved to sacrifice his or her life to protect another person?”
it doesn’t have that difficulty any more:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uob-rib110810.php
May 5, 2012 at 10:00 am
sethmil
Jaqueline, you said ” Why would a rational person ever be moved to sacrifice his or her life to protect another person?” I would do that for my children, my wife, probably and hopefully for the child of another. I suggest that altruism and the love of God are not the same. Perhaps there is no reason for but a gene in the brain but that is a reason. Perhaps there is no reason but the love one has for another but that is a reason. How do you explain love when the gene or the natural love or any other self serving motive is absent? It is irrational and unreasonable. There is no payback, not even the satisfaction of having done a good deed or of being a martyr. That is the supernatural love of God and they will never find a gene, a proof, or rationale for that. Jesus went to the cross in obedience to The Father, not out of love for humanity or for any other reason (other that to fulfill prophesy but calling that a reason gets tricky). The only reason for God’s love is obedience, man submitting his will to that of God. The fact that unbelievers don’t understand the simplicity and beauty of the cross is, to me, evidence of the limits of reason or rationale.
May 5, 2012 at 10:59 am
jaqueline
Where did I say that?
May 5, 2012 at 11:05 am
jaqueline
Dying for your family is not evidence of altruism..altruism is best demonstrated by how you treat a stranger.
Jesus said…don’t get all proud about yourself for dying for your family…even the evil doers do that…but I say to you love your enemy.
..and…
…it is interesting that Jesus describes the greatest love as dying for your friends…those for whom you have a relationship of spirit…who are not necessarily related to you by blood.
I think the reason I posted the article is to show that materialists have plenty of examples to justify their world view. Another article goes on to explain that genetics accounts for 30% of altruism the rest is environment.
May 5, 2012 at 12:41 pm
sethmil
Sorry Jaqueline, I think I misconstrued what you said, sorry about that. The article actually lends creditably to my argument and it’s a relief to know that at least part of my on lack of altruistic love could just be genetics. I have labored over the concept of selfless love for years. What is selfless love? I have seen and read about magnificent acts of sacrificial and altruistic love by people who make no profession of faith. And also I would try to think of any act of what I call love that didn’t have a self serving motive for, even if it is being a martyr, noble as that might be On the other hand, I can’t think of any ulterior motives for giving your life for someone who hates you and then not even getting credit for it posthumously. That is totally irrational-if you take God out of the equation. That is the love of God, not our love not one we can take credit for, not something we could do if we wanted to. That is Jesus on the cross.That is the defining characteristic of our faith as Christians. That is the defining characteristic of what we are called to do everyday-your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It’s supernatural, it’s full of paradoxes and contradictions. A person either gets it or they don’t. Now we’re getting back to the original subject, the limits of reason though perhaps from a slightly different angle. We’re getting into some deep water here, way over my head but I hope you understand what I’m getting at. In fairness, if you do understand you are one of the few. It’s a lonely place. I’m here reading this blog because I stumbled across it, felt the warmth of the fire and the feeling airiness (sounds like a camping trip) and decided to hang around. I’m pretty sure that’s why you’re here too.
May 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm
jaqueline
If it is God who makes sense of altruism , why wouldn’t it show up in us genetically, if we are God’s creation?
But…what if it is part of being human?
What if, God could not give his life away until he became human? What if becoming human is what enabled God to lay down his life?
May 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm
jaqueline
” It’s a lonely place. I’m here reading this blog because I stumbled across it, felt the warmth of the fire and the feeling airiness (sounds like a camping trip) and decided to hang around. ”
I think it speaks for a number of us regulars on this blog..:-)
(Hey Christopher!…if Seth’s comment does not make it all worth it I do not know what comment would )
May 5, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Tress
The trouble is that all knowledge , whether scientific or intuitive, is subject to upgrading!
For example, early scientists had a far more restricted view of the nature of the Universe than we have today, and possibly , almost certainly , more will be discovered. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY HUMAN BEING UNDERSTANDS IT ALL.
The same applies to the intangibles, to our understanding of humanity and our relationship to our Creator., and if personality is an accidental facet
of development?
Does it even make sense that that we are the only intelligent beings and created by something impersonal? I think not.
And what of our delight in beauty , our love of music . and our appreciation
of natural beauty and our love of replicating it.?
I cannot begin to describe the multitude of things that point to a great and benevolent creator.
When one has not the words, we call it a belief . and then because we do not understand everything , some say that people who believe cannot prove anything, that therefore they are wrong.
I am not forgetting the teachings of the most enlightened of us all , because my terminology and understanding might offend , and that is counter productive . We all see according to our gifts of mind.
let us at least love one another.
May 5, 2012 at 11:11 pm
jaqueline
‘When one has not the words, we call it a belief . and then because we do not understand everything , some say that people who believe cannot prove anything, that therefore they are wrong.’
That is such a great way of putting it.
May 6, 2012 at 8:12 am
timberwraith
I’m starting to view this through a slightly different set of lenses. I’ve grown to see the overly simplistic “rational/materialist vs. intuitive/spiritual” divide as representing a broad spectrum of orientations in how human beings relate to themselves, their environment, and others. I suspect that for many people, one’s place on this spectrum is more often a matter of what feels natural as opposed to being the outcome of a conscious choice. Where we wind up on that continuum is the result of a complex interplay of forces both innate and social in origin. I suspect that the reasons we give for our individual places on this spectrum (I came to see the existence of gods as mythical constructs; I came to sense a presence of divinity surrounding me; etc.) may only represent the uppermost surfaces of how we come to perceive the world as we do.
I’m hoping that people can reach a place of understanding and acceptance between the two extremes of this continuum. Rather than one side trying to repress or eradicate the other way of being, I hope that we can come to acknowledge that both sides–and the myriad ways of being which lie between the two–have their respective strengths and flaws. Rather than trying to annihilate each other, we should try to reach a place of understanding which acknowledges that everyone along this spectrum has their own pieces of life’s puzzle rather than owning the entire puzzle and the table top it is assembled upon.
Yeah, I know. This sounds like a “kumbaya moment”. Rather than being naively optimistic, however, I believe that I am being practical, for I suspect that if these tensions are allowed to fester long enough, violence will surely result–especially on a geopolitical level. (Think of secularists such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris aligning their ambitions of repressing and controlling Muslims with the military power and imperialist aspirations of the United States.) Also, there are dangerous political and social schisms evolving in my own country (the US) which partially reflect the “rational/materialist vs. intuitive/spiritual” divide. I suspect that if these schisms deepen over the next generation, civil war could very well be the outcome. There is a lot of hatred, arrogance, and dehumanization swirling around this divide–on both sides.
As with so many issues surrounding human relationships, we are seeing a struggle for power play out along this divide. In much of the world, religious institutions have controlled entire governments and cultures. The power of religious institutions has waned in some parts of the world and has become more entrenched in others. The activist face of atheism and “rationalism” is essentially a kind of backlash against the abuse of power that has been fostered by religion’s aspirations toward social dominance. Ironically, atheism and “rationalism” also show aspirations toward power and control. The stated goal in many quarters of the new atheist movement is to eradicate religion and spiritual ways of perceiving the world. New atheism clearly has its sights set on social dominance.
Personally, I trust one group’s aspirations for dominance as much as the next. The desire for power and control usually lead to bad places, given time and the accumulation of resources.
Rather than trying to control and eradicate each other, I think it makes more sense to recognize how we each contribute to a collective understanding of life. Trying to shove everyone through the same template of conformity, regardless of whether that template is rational/empirical or emotional/intuitive, only brings hatred, conflict, and violence in the long term. A template that comfortably fits one segment of humanity will surely sever and mutilate those who do not fit its conformist apertures. Religion and secularism have both aspired to this social butchery. The time for seeking common ground is long overdue.
May 6, 2012 at 8:26 am
Christopher Page
timberwraith
This is a beautiful, wise and profound comment. Don’t be embarrassed about trying to create a “kumbaya moment”. Even a “kumbaya moment” can find its place in the great vision of human community that we share.
I wonder if you would allow me to post your comment as a separate post on inaspaciousplace.
thank you for your thoughtful words.
May 6, 2012 at 8:32 am
timberwraith
Thanks for the kind complements, Christopher. You are welcome to post my comment as a separate post, if you wish.
May 6, 2012 at 10:31 am
sethmil
I think I have mentioned it elsewhere but if you’re not familiar with The Williamsburg Charter and or Oz Guinness’ book “The Case for Civility” you should check them out.
http://bit.ly/IRl1Vm
http://amzn.to/IRldDX
May 6, 2012 at 12:47 pm
sethmil
Very poignant, and I would add we, the (U.S.) Christian Church, are past due for some serious soul searching and a refresher course on the First Amendment
May 6, 2012 at 10:20 am
sethmil
In thinking about all this and trying to articulate my thoughts, I realize how fleeting any real understanding of Gods love I think I have is and I can’t catch it long enough to put it down. I could spend all day wrestling with this but in the end, and I can’t say I wasn’t forewarned, God’s love is one that “surpasses knowledge”. So like Tress says I have to just call it belief and leave it there. I cannot prove it but that is not an argument for non-existence. Tess makes another good point, if I understand correctly; it is illogical and narrow minded to think only what is provable is true. I have longed to make people in my circle (present company excluded), who are continually berating and making heretical remarks about the Christian faith understand and yet I cannot communicate it what I know. Any effort to do so is usually met with a blank stare or an argument on what is for me a non negotiable point or the one that about causes me to go into a tongue biting raging meltdown “We’ll just have to agree to disagree”. That thought brings me full circle back to the subject at hand, that reason alone will not get you there. The interesting thing is, if that is true, then how do we know? How do we tell people? I think I already know the answer but that’s another discussion.