Reason

This week's topic is broad and very far-reaching, but without it, any argument I make (or have made) is open  to an attack which has become all too common in the past few centuries.  The basic structure of this attack is as follows:

"My brain works through a series of chemical reactions.  These reactions are responsible for the thoughts which I perceive, as well as emotions, instincts, and any other event which occurs primarily in my mind.  Chemical reactions, by nature, occur in a very rigid way, which usually has very little to do with the external world, given the requisite conditions for the reaction to occur.  Therefore, if my thoughts arise solely from a series of chemical interactions, there is nothing to say that they are trustworthy or even pertinent.  Thus, human logic cannot be trusted."

This is, as best I understand it, one of the main arguments which gives rise to the philosophy of nihilism.  It is the atheistic evolutionary biologist's favorite platitude and the ultimate end of the exercise in futility known as post-modernism.  In an attempt to demonstrate that their philosophical outlook on the world is the best, the nihilist has done away with human logic altogether, and we have arrived at the blissfully ignorant conclusion to our sense of humanity.  But does this argument make sense?

Concentrate

Of course this thinking makes sense, as long as you just accept it at face value.  In fact, one wonders why it has taken this long to arrive at this conclusion in the first place.  But let's take the place of the skeptic for a minute.  What if this argument doesn't hold water?

I claim that the nihilistic view of the world is one of the most brazenly futile intellectual pursuits ever fabricated by man.  To prove this, let us begin by assuming that nihilism is true.  All right, good.  We've thrown out the idea of logic altogether and embraced the fact that we're unreasoning beasts driven by Lavoisier's rules.  Now, surely if this is true their must be some shred of evidence for its being true.  But wait....  We've just finished ruling out the idea that we, as humans, are capable of utilizing evidence to construct a meaningful model of the world!  What we are stuck with is a self-defeating argument- in fact, it is the self defeating argument: "I argue that it is impossible to make an argument."  This is tantamount to the old jest, "Everything I say is a lie."

What the nihilists see as their "Get Out of Jail Free" card is in fact their red card, their ejection from the game of logic itself.  The fact that men like Friedrich Nietzsche have tried to back this stance with volumes of reasoning is proof enough for me that human logic is not inherently flawed.  But perhaps it is not enough for you.

What if?

This is a subject in which both sides are equally difficult to prove, because this sort of meta-cognition is necessarily inaccurate.   Still, there are trends in this area that can be examined.  If human logic is not trustworthy, then it follows that many things humans do will not follow sound logic.  But if humans are capable of sound reasoning, then there is likely evidence to support this, as well.

By making it this far in this week's blog post, you must needs be at least somewhat pensive and studious- the reason I type these thoughts down instead of making a large discourse out of them is that many people I know would be asleep by this point in the oration.  The only thing which would keep you reading (aside from feeling sorry for me) is if you enjoy thinking about the reason behind why we as humans do what we do.  And I posit that you would only still be participating in this mental activity if it has yielded results in the past.  Put more simply, we all know that there are reasons behind some of the things we do.  And this is enough to form at least a small basis for the possibility of extant human logic.

There are other hints of the worth of rationality.  The study of mathematics (one of my favorite pastimes) is a human pursuit solely based on faith in human logic.  If one and one did not always equal two, then mathematics would fail as a tool.  As it is, we humans have been able to utilize mathematics to help us achieve many of our most important discoveries.  Furthermore, I feel as though my reasoning is worthwhile, and this in itself is meaningful.  Feelings are not always misdirection, and if they are consistent with other sources of information, they can be more or less reliable.

Therefore, I suggest that the idea of sound human logic is at the very least possible.  And since there is yet to be a convincing argument to the contrary, I feel fairly safe in claiming that in many cases, human reasoning is, in fact, reliable.

For those of my readers who were hoping to get more Scripture this week, I do apologize.  The topic this week, in my opinion, was geared more toward people who would not consider the Bible to be inspired, so I was reduced to other means.  Nevertheless, here are a few passages I find pertinent to the issue.  First, I would start with the whole book of Ecclesiastes.  It is one of my personal favorite books of the Bible.  On this topic, it contains great lines like, "'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the Teacher. 'Everything is meaningless!'" (1:2, 12:8)  If anyone is qualified to think about thinking, it's Solomon.  Also, check out 1 John.  It is full of appeals to the reason of men, such as when John attests to the reliability of his Gospel account. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)  In general, God expects His followers to look around, examine the facts, and follow where they lead (hint: they always lead to Him).

The challenge I want to lay before you this week is to think about why you do what you do.  I suspect that you will find many reasons, both good and evil.  And when you figure out your motivations, spend time refining those that are good and repenting of those that are evil.  Sound simple?  It shouldn't.  Anyway, thanks for coming with me on this rather didactic ride through the murky waters of nihilism.