The Reason of Reason_How Reason, Logic, and Intelligibility Together are Evidence for God

by Scott Cherry

  Reason and intelligibility are complements. This is why we expect reason to work and also why we trust it. Indeed, there are things to reason about which, inexplicably, can be rationally understood by intelligent beings. Reason logically requires an object or it makes no sense. And that there are things to reason about not only requires reason but gives purpose to it. The same is true for logic. Reason works because there are laws of logic that are both axiomatic and inexplicable in naturalistic terms. The laws of logic simply exist as brute facts, which are a form of Order. Reality, because it is rational, demands our adherence to them, and we can comply. The laws of logic enable us to do logic, or “logicize”, and logicizing requires stuff to logicize about, physical or metaphysical.

  Again, what we have identified is ‘Rational Complementarity’. In terms of geometry, angles that fit together are called complementary angles. Reality is complementary because it is replete with Rational Complements and thus intelligible. It’s fascinating that we humans seek out complementary things, and equally fascinating that we can find them. Indeed, we are driven by this quest, and we might even say that it is the essence of reason itself. Yes, Reality is intelligible, but why should anything at all be intelligible to mere “biological machines” such as naturalists say we are? Part of the reason is that there are “rational complements”, but why are there? Do they just happen by random chance? Or is there a Divine Someone who has wired them into the very fabric of Reality, such as all the myriad things that have been discovered by science?

  Certainly the defining characteristics of intelligence are to create, identify and utilize complementary things, like puzzle pieces, interlocking engine parts, and the components of a DNA strand, etc. By the same token, because we observe the pervasiveness of complements in science and in the whole of Reality shouldn’t we reasonably infer an Intelligent Mind? Yes, it is the Logos principle.

  Former Pope Joseph Ratzinger agrees when he says this:

  …All science points to God, since all science requires intelligibility, which in turn, requires an Intelligent Creator. …I say this is mystical because it cannot itself be the product of empirical or experimental investigation, but is instead the very condition of analyzing and experimenting in the first place. This is why many theorists have speculated that the emergence of the modern sciences [stem from] the context of a Christian intellectual milieu in which the doctrine of creation through the power of an intelligent Creator is affirmed. (as quoted by Fr. Robert Barron)

  “Foul!” decries the skeptic. Surely Catholic clergy can be expected to share my position. Perhaps so. But this ought not to dilute the rationality of their words. Still, philosopher Dr. Graeme Hunter may elicit more academic respect. Dr. Hunter is a member of the faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies and Full Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. He says this:

  The intelligibility of things cannot be proven [philosophically]... And the natural sciences give us no right to assume it. But what if, as John [the Apostle] proclaims, the intelligibility of things has been revealed, not just in the form of a divine pronouncement written in a holy book, but in the form of God made man, and dwelling among us, full of grace and truth? God as Intelligibility. The Maker who knows the world; the Knower who makes it; making and knowing as one thing; Maker and Knower taking human form.. (as quoted by Gretchen Joanna)

  Dr. Hunter’s point should not be lost on us. Some may argue that the laws of logic are an outgrowth of language or that they would have pre-existed God so that He could not have created them, similar to the Euthyphro dilemma. But no argument can be made without first presupposing intelligibility, which is the heart of the Logos principle as I have defined it. I assert that the ‘God hypothesis’ is the only reasonable explanation for this state of affairs in which we find ourselves. This is true in language. Again, former Pope Joseph Ratzinger cites Albert Einstein in support of his conclusion:

  Our language provides an intriguing clue in this regard, for we speak of our acts of knowledge as moments of “recognition”, literally a re-cognition, a thinking again what has already been thought. In the laws of nature, a mind so superior is revealed that in comparison, our minds are as something worthless. (as quoted by Fr. Robert Barron) 17

  Blogger Robert Ritchie refers to an argument by Haldane on the intelligibility of the physical world in light of quantum mechanics:

  …Quantum Mechanics argues that the smallest bits of matter don't necessarily follow the laws of physics but act in a more-or-less random manner. There is such a large number of these actions that the result is that they [do] follow the laws of physics. But why? Why don't they act in a truly random manner (which would make it impossible for the physical sciences to say anything)? They seem directed towards an end (the end being the laws of physics), which is just another word for a final cause [i.e. the cause of intelligible quantum behaviors]. (as quoted by Joe Heschmeyer)

  Again, Joe Heschmeyer sees intelligibility in math:

  Consider the stability of math... Two plus two doesn't suddenly equal five, but there's no natural explanation for why these things remain stable (in fact, since these are immaterial truths, materialism can't even approach them). Yet if two plus two generated a random result, we could never have math or science, never develop any technology, and all existence would be a series of random and inexplicable events that our brains would be incapable of processing.

  And in language:

  Our language provides an intriguing clue…for we speak of our acts of knowledge as moments of “recognition,” literally a re-cognition, a thinking again [of] what has already been thought. …the being of the universe is not dumbly there, but rather intelligently there, imbued by a creative mind with intelligible structure. (Heschmeyer)

  And in astronomy:

  …In the 300s St. Athanasius argued that “if the movement of creation were irrational, and the universe were borne along without plan, a man might fairly disbelieve what we say. But if it subsist in reason and wisdom and skill, and is perfectly ordered throughout, it follows that He that is over it and has ordered it is none other than the [reason or] Word of God. (Heschmeyer)

  Finally, Paul Davies is Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide, Australia. In a lecture on the subject he captures it this way:

  Science did not spring ready-made into the minds of Newton and his colleagues. They were strongly influenced by two longstanding traditions that pervaded European thought. The first was Greek philosophy [in which] the universe is not completely chaotic and capricious: there is a definite order in nature. The Greeks believed that this order could be understood, at least in part, by the application of human reasoning. They maintained that physical existence was not absurd, but rational and logical, and therefore in principle intelligible to us. They discovered that some physical processes had a hidden mathematical basis, and they sought to build a model of reality based on arithmetical and geometrical principles.

  Chapter 15

  God, the Logos, and the Trinity

  As I have been arguing, the theistic hypothesis is the most reasonable explanation for the state of affairs in which we find ourselves. But this is not merely an argument for generic theism; it is an argument from the logos for the one John called “Logos”. The Apostle’s portrait of the Logos is that which best fits what we find in the cosmic logos, not that of an abstract metaphysical entity but that of a Person, usually translated from Greek into English as “the Word” in the Gospel of John and in the Book of Revelation (19:13). In the Christian worldview he is the one who best embodies all that is ordered, rational, intelligible, meaningful and beautiful—Jesus Christ. We will devote the final chapter to him.

  In his paper Michael Martin contends that even if logic were evidence for theism (which he does not believe) it is not especially strong evidence for the existence of the Christian God as portrayed in the Bible. I admit that this is a reasonable observation. There is significant overlap between the the
ological understandings of God among world religions, especially the three monotheistic ones—Judaism, Islam and Christianity. In fact, it is common for Muslims I know to assert that Christianity and Islam are basically the same and that they both worship the same God.

  No Muslim I know believes that the two religions have two different Gods. On this point I believe they are sincere as it rings true to my readings of the Qur’an and what I know of the historical development of Islamic theology. Some Muslims may even be sincere about the former assertion if they have a more pluralistic bent, but for the same reason I also tend to think they wish to minimize the differences in favor of a “pan-monotheism” (in which Muhammad is still the “seal of the prophets”, of course). Again, there clearly are significant similarities between Judeo-Christianity and Islam, at least on the surface. But there are also important differences. Thus, only by distinguishing between the attributes of God could the case be established that logic is especially good evidence for the Christian God. One of the differences is the doctrine of the Logos which I highlighted in the introduction and toward which my whole argument is mounting. It is the crux of this whole discussion. You see, in the Bible the Logos is logic according to John the Apostle—logic personified. And it is Jesus who is identified as the Logos.

  Now we will turn to this uniquely Christian idea and examine some of the core Bible passages that develop it, starting with chapter 1 of John’s gospel. Let’s look at this one again.

  In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. …10 He was in the world and the world was made through him… (vv. 1-5, and 10)

  What I hope can be seen in this passage is a defining characteristic of the Christian system of thought, which I have already called the “Logos principle”. (I call it a “system” because it is one, as well as to tie it to what I said about systems above, though not to marginalize the relational aspects inherent in it.) Neither Judaism nor Islam—nor any other religions—possess this unique system in full force. Though Judaism has elements of it, Islam is devoid of it. The simple idea is that God was never alone in the universe because of Jesus—and the Holy Spirit. (Note: We’re not talking about multiple gods here, as Muslims commonly suggest; it is the trinity. But that is not our present inquiry, so I intend to avert the deeper question of the trinity for the sake of brevity and focus.) Observe that verses 1 and 2 say that the Word [Logos] was “with God”. Next observe that “the Word” [Logos, Jesus] was a full participant in the act of creation. I realize that this belief is no less than blasphemy to Muslims. Here we see that God the Father enjoyed, and still enjoys, a co-eternal relationship with Jesus the Son.

  Between the Father and Son there existed from all eternity things that by definition can only exist within a relationship: cohabitation, togetherness, love (the highly unique and central doctrine of Christianity, but not the present focus), communication, intimacy, harmony, pleasure (of the sort that only occurs in positive relationship), agreement, joy, mutual respect and admiration, collaboration, cooperation and participation (as in cooperative creation, which is clearly evident in vv. 3 and 10). All of these and others are qualities of a good relationship and implicit in theirs (i.e. it was neither hostile nor indifferent). But there are two more that I left out for the ovation: logic and reason! Both of these are also relational qualities for mutual cognition, i.e. thinking together. Yes, of course God thinks! (I was surprised by one Muslim student for whom this idea was completely alien and irrelevant.)

  I hope you will agree this is a staggering concept even if you reject my exposition! In short, these two qualities and all the rest can be captured in the three general aspects which I’ve been highlighting: Complementarity, reciprocity, and intelligibility. According to the Logos principle, none of these were ‘invented’ by God in the act of creation as though they did not exist before then, or how could God have been loving and merciful (as it is said of him in the Scriptures) before he created humanity. Rather they have always existed and flourished within the divine relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  Other Bible passages also give witness to this idea and help shape Christian thought. Consider this one penned by Paul the Apostle who was in full agreement with John:

  He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Bible, Colossians 1:15-17)

  This passage contains some additional ideas that are relevant to our discussion; not only that Jesus was co-creator, but also that all things were created for him. This portrays Jesus as both the full participant and the full beneficiary of the beauty, glory and genius of creation. Then verse 17 states that in him all things hold together. Think of it—Jesus is that which holds all things together, both physical and spiritual. This is the quintessential element of the Logos principle according to the Greeks:

  The idea of the logos in Greek thought harkens back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heraclitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, Stoic philosophers (4th–3rd century bc) defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe. …Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century-ad Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.19

  Verse 20 of Paul’s treatise goes on to say that God’s ultimate purpose is “through him [Jesus] to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of the cross.” In this single verse the vital idea of reconciliation is introduced—which is also a rational complement because it involves a kind of resolution between two or more parties; in this case one of them is God himself. It also involves the central idea of sacrifice on God’s part—which Muslims ardently reject. These are astonishing doctrines that are celebrated by all Christians worldwide but which we will not discuss further here and now, though they certainly deserve more attention. Suffice it to say that they are uniquely part of Christian theology and the all-enveloping concept of the Logos principle. No other religion has them.

  One final New Testament passage contributes quite nicely to the eternal complementarity of God the Father and Jesus the Son, this time from the words of Jesus’s own prayer to the Father as recorded by his closest disciple John (the only Christian Apostle who was not martyred).

  “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed… 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (Bible, Gospel of John, Chapter 17:5 and 24-26)

  Once again, I’m aware of the questions that a prayer of Jesus raises about the Christian understanding of Jesus’s nature in relation to that of his Father, especially for Muslims and other Unitarians who reject the idea of plurality within unity. But the trinity per se is not our specific focus of discussion, so we must bypass it even though we are dancing around it. Let the reader be content with the obvio
us implications of these passages. In this passage we may observe several things. First, Jesus acknowledged his shared glory with the Father before the existence of the world (v. 5). Second, Jesus acknowledged the Father’s love for him (v. 26); a love that pre-existed the very foundation of the world (v. 24). This is really just one comprehensive idea—that Jesus shared both the glory and the love of the Father before creation.

  As a Christian, certainly I want you to believe this, or at least that these are the actual words of Jesus who believed these things about himself in relation to God the Father. Short of that, I hope you accept that Jesus was not a mythical figure but a real person who lived in time-space for whom there is credible eye-witness testimony to his actual words and deeds—or at the very least that the biblical accounts claim to be such; and that the accounts we have in today’s Bible are historically reliable and authentic (for which there is ample manuscript evidence that is accessible for study). Short of that, I fully expect you to agree that the New Testament teachings that are at least attributed to Jesus, along with those of the Apostles, have been the primary shaping influences on the Christian worldview (i.e. theology, philosophy, science, etc.).

  But for this discussion I will be reasonably content if you simply understand the logic of the Logos principle. If these passages are believed (and even if they’re not), they constitute the foundation of Christian thinking on the uniqueness of the New Testament’s Theos in contrast to Islam’s Allah as well as to the gods of other belief systems. The Logos principle stands alone.

  I realize that when it comes to religions all we have are more-or-less sufficient explanations for things we see in Reality that either do or don’t fit (which is also true of many scientific hypotheses). Again, my point is that the Logos principle as the Christian explanation for all that is rational, intelligible, cohesive and coherent is totally unique among other religions. It is theologically embodied in the person of Jesus and his eternal relationship with God the Father. Assuming theism, this is why I say logic is better evidence for the God of the Bible than for other gods, who is uniquely portrayed as being the Father of Jesus the divine principle of logic.