On Human Reason

[Arkán Dreamwalker]

I have a love of logic and reason. In telling why I am telling why I am Catholic rather. I believe that reason leads to God, for God is utterly reasonable. Human reason—though fallen—is designed by God. There is nothing wrong with that sword, only how we wield it. For that sword was forged in heaven, not earth. To put the point less poetically: God sent not only a few special prophets like Moses to one special people but also the universal inner prophet of reason and conscience to all people. The medievals loved to say that God wrote two books: nature and Scripture. And since he is the author of both books, and since this Teacher never contradicts himself, these two books never contradict each other. And since this God who never contradicts himself also gave us the two truth detectors, faith and reason, it follows that faith and reason, properly used, never contradict each other. Therefore, all heresies are contrary to reason. Not all the truths of faith can be proved by reason, but all arguments against the truths of faith can be disproved by reason. Thus if one were to examine all the faiths and lack of faiths in the world, one would find the Catholic* Church to be the only faith that has all the truth, and to be completely concordant with itself, this being because it was instituted by God. And that's why I'm Catholic.

*I would say Christian, but the Protestant churches aren’t perfectly right and consistent, otherwise I would believe in them. However not to insult the Protestants, they are almost right. Oh dash it, this is starting to sound like a political-like thing by trying not to offend rather than a thing on God’s universal prophet, reason. Anyway, I have no intention of insulting anybody.

[Astronomer]

I would say some of what Jesus said has no earthly logic behind it. Would you agree?
Also, can heresies only be disproved through logic, or also through disassociation with scripture?

[John Chrysostom]

I would disagree I think there is much we can never know about God through reason and many heresies must be defeated by Tradition. I would say that this love of reason is a Western view and I would say that is why I'm Eastern Orthodox.

[Arkán Dreamwalker]

Do you not love reason? Do you love falsehoods then?

[John Chrysostom]

I don't trust in reason to explain everything or defeat every heresy. I think there are things we can't know, for example I don't believe in transubstantiation the same way you do because I view it as a mystery while you try and explain how it happens and exactly what is happening with the change, rationally.

[Arkán Dreamwalker]

I would say some of what Jesus said has no earthly logic behind it. Would you agree?

The logic said above that not all the truths of faith can be proved by (human) reason. If we mean the same by "earthly logic" and "human reason" then I agree.
That is rather a nice way of putting it. Heavenly logic is different than earthly or human logic.

Also, can heresies only be disproved through logic, or also through disassociation with scripture?

I never said they could only be disproved through logic, only that all could be disproved through logic. As for whether they can be disproved through disassociation with Scripture, that is another question. Probably. Although likely not all. But I'd have to look into it. Could you explicate some?

I think there is much we can never know about God through reason

I would agree, depending on the definition of "much".

many heresies must be defeated by Tradition.

Following the logic, all heresies can be disproved by reason, questioning your "must". And what exactly do you mean by "Tradition"? You cannot argue that because you traditionally do the sign of the cross right-to-left instead of left-to-right that right-to-left is correct. (Completely random example out of nowhere, I don't know if you even do the sign of the cross at all, just a random example for the sake of example.)Therefore I conclude you are using something other then the common sense of the word when you say "Tradition".

I don't trust in reason to explain everything or defeat every heresy.

If my first post is read clearly you will see that it does not say that I think everything can be explained by reason. If you follow the logic it says that all arguments against the truths of faith can be disproved (or "defeated" as you put it) by reason. If you can refute any part of the logic please do so for my instruction, that I might profit from this new wisdom.

I think there are things we can't know

I agree.

I don't believe in transubstantiation the same way you do because I view it as a mystery while you try and explain how it happens and exactly what is happening with the change, rationally.

Could you please clarify what it is you think I believe about Transubstantiation, and what you believe about Transubstantiation.

Please read this post (and all the posts on here) carefully and slowly to prevent any misreadings or misconceptions.

[John Chrysostom]

By much I mean I think that we should primarily use Apophatic theology rather than Cataphatic theology.

Sorry yes by Tradition I mean Apostolic Tradition and yes I do cross myself from right to left because it is tradition, why do you cross yourself from left to right?

How was the Arian heresy defeated by reason?

By the Catholic view on Transubstantiation I mean the view that we must talk about the underlying reality of the Eucharist as seen in the Council of Trent where they wrote ""Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." The Orthodox view does not go into such details instead calling it a mystery and taking at face value that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Arkán Dreamwalker]

By much I mean I think that we should primarily use Apophatic theology rather than Cataphatic theology.

Could you define "Apophatic theology" and "Cataphatic theology" for me?

Sorry yes by Tradition I mean Apostolic Tradition and yes I do cross myself from right to left because it is Tradition, why do you cross yourself from left to right?

Could you define for me "Apostolic Tradition"?
The cross thing was made up so to speak, I might as well have used an example with dogs or martins. I will look into why we cross ourselves from left to right. I am afraid you still have not told me what you mean when you say "Tradition".

How was the Arian heresy defeated by reason?

Note that I did not say that all heresies were disproved by reason, only that all could be. It is quite possible that the answer to your question is that it wasn't. I will have to look into what the Arian heresy was and whether it defeated by reason.

By the Catholic view on Transubstantiation I mean the view that we must talk about the underlying reality of the Eucharist as seen in the Council of Trent where they wrote ""Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." The Orthodox view does not go into such details instead calling it a mystery and taking at face value that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

I will look into this. I am feeling to tired just now to continue this post. I will try to get back to you tomorrow. God Bless.

[John Chrysostom]

Apophatic theology is negative theology or the defining of God by what He is not, so God is not created, God is not evil, etc. Cataphatic theology is positive theology or defining what God is; God is good, God is just, etc. I think that Cataphatic theology taken too far attempts to put God in a box and define Him too much. To put it in simpler terms I think we should take a more mystical rather than rational approach to God. There is a saying among Orthodox. A theologian is one who prays, the practice of our faith not logic should be the main way we know God.

Apostolic Tradition is the faith given once and for always to the Apostles and handed down to their successors the Bishops.

Very well not all heresies were defeated by logic, why don't you give me an example of one that was?


Looking forward to your post, God bless.

[Sherlock]

The title of this topic appears to betray a particularly Thomistic slant.

Fides et Ratio. Nice discussion, I look forward to reading it.