Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

Can we have both Reason
and
Religion ?

    Post 23. March 10, 2018

    Deism Beyond Reason

   Comparison With Christianity

This is a commentary on Roger Olson’s : Why I Am Not A Deist , in    Patheos website. For perspective, he is an Arminian theologian    (Dutch Reformed, Methodist; opposed to Calvinism)
   http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/01/why-i-am-not-a-deist-no-     offense-to-deists/

  In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a “rational religion”, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.

Olson admits, "I think there’s some truth in the claim that deism is (or can be) more rational than full, robust Christianity." But he doesn't agree that Reason is sufficient to make a worldview into a religion. And I happen to agree with him. But, Olsen goes on to point-out the problem with an austere, abstract, logic-driven, Spock-like worldview.  "A religion that doesn’t go beyond reason has no place for love or sin or care for the weak or hope for an ultimate triumph of good over evil. And its god would seem to me to be bad insofar as he is omnipotent but never intervenes in history or persons’ lives."

In general, I agree with that assessment, and believe that the early Deists were misguided in their desire for a religion based on Pure Reason1. As a logical response to the Church’s use of emotional Faith as mind-control, they went to the opposite extreme of rational doubt. The French Revolution, by over-throwing both church & state, presented an opportunity to create a prototype of a classical Deist religion — the Cult of Reason, and its successor, the Cult of the Supreme Being2 — which left in its wake an object lesson on how abstract Logic, un-tempered by human empathy, could justify the subsequent Reign of Terror3. Thus we learned that the ideal of Pure Reason can't be the sole inspiration of a religion for humans wrestling with their dual natures.  In a BothAnd religion, the sharp edges of abstract reason must be softened by rubbing against embodied emotions, and unruly passions must be reigned-in by logical reasons.   

Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cutures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa — as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes3 of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes4.

Post 23 continued . . . click Next

1. Cult of Reason :
A secular “religion” whose only god was “the people”. It was replaced by Robespierre with a Deist religion called The Cult of the Supreme Being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

2. Robespierre’s cult idealized Pure Reason, but in practice believed that reason is only a means to an end. Hence, his political ends were passionately & bloodily pursued.

3. Material Cause :
The force that moves or changes a material object or a physical process. Unlike ancient gods, G*D is envisioned as the Final Cause of the whole world and its evolution toward some ultimate end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

4. Instead, the evils of this world must be dealt with by the moral creatures of this world. That is our role in G*D’s plan.

Critique of Pure Reason :
   Immanuel Kant, in his 1781 treatise, distinguished between Pure and Practical reasoning.
   Early Deists of the same era, idolized the transcend-ental form of reasoning. But in practice, their thinking was contaminated with the same worldly concerns that have always led men from the “true path”.
   However, a BothAnd combination of Pure philo-sophical reasoning, and Practical scientific problem-solving can allow us to contemplate transcendental possibilities without the risk of believing in impossible things.
   G*D is a transcendental concept, hence with no practical applications. Yet, the notion of an ideal Being can have important theo-retical implications. Yes, G*D is just a theory, but also a reasonable inference from the meta-physical aspects of physical reality.