Welcome to |
The Lost Nature of Reason - Reason and Logic. Believe it or not, these two words have lost their original definition in the views of advancing science and technology. I noticed a large seperation in Christian circles from honest Christian Apologetics and Ministry. I had a conversation with someone recently who added some confirmation to my observation. She had noticed that I have scripture used in what she considered out of context use. Example, using Hosea 6:9, "My people perish due to lack of knowledge...." because I used this as a general principle versus the specific incident in which God was addressing Israel on. So although she agreed that people do perish due to lack of knowledge, she also had the opinion that I could not use this scripture as support that they do. Her reason was on the logic and reason that to remove the context of the specific nature of a verse to fit a general principle is taking away or adding to the revelation of God, which because what is written is written and we cannot change it. I believe her reasoning is based on a radical re-interpretation of the concept of reason. If () Then :. Therefore. Rather than the Older Notion of Reason which essentially means two things. 1. Seeing our subjective, phychological, human processes as participations in and reflections of objective order, a logos a "Reason" with captial R; and 2. seeing reason not confined to reasoning, calculating -what scholastic logic calls "the third act of the mind' -but as including "the first act of the mind": Apprehension, intellectual intuition, understanding, "seeing", insight and contemplation."* Considered Aristolelian Logic, this is logic and reason with more than equation like a computer. This is a logic of (linguistical) terms, which expres (mental) concepts, which represent (real) essences, or the natures of things. In fact the word "logos" has all three of these meanings. The Greek word, logos, means "objective intelligible stucture," "reason as reavealing that structure" and "word or speech as expressing reason." This logic and reason is something I believe and see as fading. We do not just see the cause and effect, but we understand the essence and emotion that underlines this and why. A classic analogy would be the Logical Spock and the Emotional Dr. McCoy. Spock would find moving on intuition illogical, while Dr. McCoy would follow in his intuition which from experiance has worked. The conflict is evident. When discussing an issue we must keep in mind. Reason can distinguish between irrational and nonrational. Nonrational arguements are not irrational arguements. The structure of human reason seperates into three acts of the mind (Understanding, Judging, Reasoning) which are expressed in Terms, Propositions and arguements. Terms are clear or unclear, Propositions are true or not true, and arguements are logically valid or invalid. According to Scholastic definition, terms are clear if they are intelligible and unambigous. Propostions are true if it corresponds with reality, if it says what is. An arguement is valid if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the terms are clear, the premises are true, and the argument is free of logical fallcy, then the conclusion must be true. Unfortunately this is not an invented game nor can these principles chage. They are the rules of reality when adressing reason. So in my example of using Hosea 6:9 for a mission statement in discipleship, my terms were clear. The premise was true and the conclusion of my premise results in my arguement to be correct. Her reason was linear with the context of a premise which I believe was based purely on historical purpose of the scripture rather than the practical and essential. Her agreement that the principle of Hosea 6:9 is true despite its historical context within Hosea nullified her arguement that it could not be used in principle as the scripture itself is out of context with its historical usage. With this in mind, I realize that from her perception, I seemed illogical, but in her mind she was correct. It is true she was correct on her premise but her arguement was nonrational not irrational. Are we tossing the baby out with the bath water when discussing the aspects of Christian Doctrine? Surprisingly taking "Liberal" "Conservative" etc positions does not support reason. In fact, neither position on Christian Doctrine is accurate or true. I also did some reasearch to find suprisingly that what some called Orthodox Christianity in fact are not Orthodox in reason neither are those who follow tradition always considered Orthodox. Orthodox Christianity taken to its literal form is one who follows the essentials of doctrine. The essence of Faith and Doctrine can summarized in the Apostles Creed and that is considered Orthodox. For anyone to add to this with other 'essential' doctrine would be considered a herectics in face of Orthodoxy. However, to add non-essential doctrine that supliments essential doctrine would remain Orthodox. This is the basic true nature of logos. The Lost Nature of Reason. Craig Nolin Student of the Word |
