Thought—On Reason & Logic

Consider me precipitously rebuked as I assimilate Soren Kierkegaard’s apologetics against human reason. Have I stooped from the actual reality that God is (as in YHWH)[1] and that everything engineered by creation must be for the purpose of gratifying the Maker? Why then do I place so much value in logic? We value what our minds produce, among which is reasoning with logic. Am I not more than a brain or a mind? If I rely on the benefits of reasoning through logic in my apologetics, then I am agreeing that it is an adequate device to comprehend the mysteries of God. It is not—at least on its own. It is, at the most by itself, a good tool for foundations. In striving, I must emphasize that “the things of the Spirit of God…are spiritually discerned.”[2] The natural-minded and materialistic person, that is the reasonable and logical (or sola ratio), do not understand this and, therefore, will not accept this truth. Afterall, we are not saved by reason, but by grace through faith.[3]

From this point on, I understand that reasoning with logic is useful but insubstantial on its own for the purposes of understanding and explaining themes, particularly those concerning God himself, within Scripture. Far be it from me that I “trad(e) the treasure of Christ for the follies of human reason.”[4] I know the skeptic longs for logic, but drinking from that well will only leave them unsatiated, always thirsty for more.[5] Again, we are more than a brain. Paul delivers it nicely—“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.’”[6]

Does this then render the term “Christian philosopher” an oxymoron? By no means. Surely there are other ways to “think” about biblical themes. Actually, considering St. Aurelius Augustine’s “ladder of faith”[7], perhaps the concept of rationality can be extended to and then enhanced through faith (understanding that spirituality is a facet of actual reality). For example, if one accepts arguments for the existence of God and further understands that the natural world was created by Him, then it logically follows that God can perform miracles. Thus, rationality as enhanced by faith can be utilized toward a more comprehensive understanding of true reality. But I uphold (until further persuasion) that it is better to have faith than reason.

---

[1] Exodus 3:14, English Standard Version.

[2] 1 Corinthians 2:14, ESV.

[3] Ephesians 2:8, ESV.

[4] Benjamin K. Forrest and Joshua D. Chatraw, The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020), 412.

[5] John 4:14, ESV.

[6] 1 Cor 3:18-20, ESV.

[7] Benjamin K. Forrest and Joshua D. Chatraw, The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020), 218.

Thought—On the Relevance of The Arguments for God

History repeats itself. That’s why Acts 17 (an almost 2,000 year-old text) sounds so familiar. Generally, people (at least in the western world or worlds where industry and technology have grown in the past few generations) have never not known what it’s like to not have the privilege or luxury of skipping all the arguments for 1) God’s existence, and 2) why Jesus is God. Folks could just Google it, finding a slew of conclusions online, or select from a menu of mosques, synagogues, temples, or churches. Surely this is a mark of progress—not having to be forced to accept a country’s religion. It is a privilege to have the stance of tolerance.

But, because history repeats itself, we find ourselves in a time where the foundational apologetic arguments of 1) God’s existence, and 2) why Jesus is God are again relevant because people are so far removed from 1) why people became Christian in the first place, and 2) why Christianity (including cultural Christianity) is so (seemingly) prevalent today. Perhaps this is a result of the Enlightenment or the many Industrial Revolutions or something like the modern “pressure to be productive”. It seems like many folks these days are just simply uninterested to even contemplate an ancient fascination of whether a god exists in the first place.

I must consider, also, that when I say “we find ourselves in a time” and “[these arguments] are again” that I am mistaken—that this has always been the case, and all this only appears this way to me. Maybe folks have always seemed uninterested to know whether a god exists. Maybe the discussions for 1) God’s existence, and 2) why Jesus is God have always been relevant. Yet suspicion remains concerning the effects of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions and the “pressure to be productive”. And I can attest to the joys associated with engaging in the ancient pursuit of God.