Is it a sin to use our reason?

[Bob]

Hello. Do most Christians believe it's a sin to use our God-given
reason? I used to be a Christian and never questioned the Bible. Then,
after reading Tom Paine's book The Age of Reason I realized that God
gave us reason, not religion. Most of what is in the Bible doesn't line
up with our God-given reason. And when I realized that a group of MEN
VOTED what books would be in the Bible which ones would not
http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttal2.htm , I really realized God had
nothing to do with the Bible and Christianity. I then became a Deist,
that is I believe in God based on applying my God-given reason to the
designs the Designer placed in nature. Here's a great essay comparing
Deism with Christianity: http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm

Thanks, Bob
http://www.deism.com
.

[j***@gmail.com]

and....reason and logic cannot function correctly unless grounded in
absolutes to even be able to draw conclusions.Logic that is not first
true becomes illogical, factually, and reason that is not first true,
becomes unreasonable, factually .Nothing functions, as it should,
without first seeking Gods guidance, because as we know man cannot, and
was never meant to be able to understand absolute truth, of himself.
Man was created so that He must seek God to learn anything in
Truth.......God, of course, being the Truth itself. So when one uses
"reason" to put together a logical equasion, using this factual
information, and nothing is factual without first being true, either,
than Deism, and many other "isms" become quite illogical and
unreasonable.....factually.

Post by Bob
Hello. Do most Christians believe it's a sin to use our God-given
reason? I used to be a Christian and never questioned the Bible. Then,
after reading Tom Paine's book The Age of Reason I realized that God
gave us reason, not religion. Most of what is in the Bible doesn't line
up with our God-given reason. And when I realized that a group of MEN
VOTED what books would be in the Bible which ones would not
http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttal2.htm , I really realized God had
nothing to do with the Bible and Christianity. I then became a Deist,
that is I believe in God based on applying my God-given reason to the
designs the Designer placed in nature. Here's a great essay comparing
Deism with Christianity: http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm
Thanks, Bob
http://www.deism.com
.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob
Hello. Do most Christians believe it's a sin to use our God-given
reason?

No, but it is a sin to exaly himan reason above God.

Post by Bob
And when I realized that a group of MEN
VOTED what books would be in the Bible which ones would not

There are two problems with that:

1) It contradicts some of your other assertions, since they were using their
God-given reason.

2) It is inaccuarate and misleading, since nobody ever "voted" on the matter,
and therefore, using my God-given reason, I am able to determine that your
post is unreasonable.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Bob
Hello. Do most Christians believe it's a sin to use our God-given
reason? I used to be a Christian and never questioned the Bible. Then,
after reading Tom Paine's book The Age of Reason I realized that God
gave us reason, not religion. Most of what is in the Bible doesn't line
up with our God-given reason. And when I realized that a group of MEN
VOTED what books would be in the Bible which ones would not
http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttal2.htm , I really realized God had
nothing to do with the Bible and Christianity. I then became a Deist,
that is I believe in God based on applying my God-given reason to the
designs the Designer placed in nature. Here's a great essay comparing
Deism with Christianity: http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm
Thanks, Bob
http://www.deism.com

B - Well to each his/her own Bob. If a person wants to take things
literally or not...I'm fine with it all...as long as they don't speak for
all Christians. I'm glad you found some kind of clarity in there. I too
believe that God wants us to use our own reason.

Blessings
Bren

[j***@gmail.com]

Did you just say that you think you are the final say whether Gods Word
is true or not?Good grief!...Or are you saying God's Word must be
understood in proper context before man's reason can be tested by God's
Word to find out if his /her reasoning is correct or incorrect?Mans
opinion is not the judge over God.Yikes! the latter would be a horrible
thing to imply!

B.G. Kent wrote:
...>

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Well to each his/her own Bob. If a person wants to take things
literally or not...I'm fine with it all...as long as they don't speak for
all Christians. I'm glad you found some kind of clarity in there. I too
believe that God wants us to use our own reason.
Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Did you just say that you think you are the final say whether Gods Word
is true or not?Good grief!...Or are you saying God's Word must be
understood in proper context before man's reason can be tested by God's
Word to find out if his /her reasoning is correct or incorrect?Mans
opinion is not the judge over God.Yikes! the latter would be a horrible
thing to imply!

B - noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo? I was talking about my own
opinion....note "OPINION" is that Gods word will always be Gods word..that
will never change...but whether or not the Bible IS Gods word is where we
must use God's guidance within.....or what some might call the "gift of
discernment" to decide whether we believe that it is Gods word inerrant.
Having any Christian say "it is" and not "I think it is" ....is what I
have a problem with. I am not fond of one Christian speaking for
all...lest that Christian be Christ itself.



Blessings
Bren

[Jeff Caird]

Post by Bob
Hello. Do most Christians believe it's a sin to use our God-given
reason?

I can't speak for 'most Christians,' but if it's really from God, then No.

Post by Bob
I used to be a Christian

No, you didn't. Maybe you were brought up in a church, or got confirmed, or
your family were church members. But there is no such thing as a 'used-to-be'
Christian.

and never questioned the Bible. Then,

Post by Bob
after reading Tom Paine's book The Age of Reason I realized that God
gave us reason, not religion. Most of what is in the Bible doesn't line
up with our God-given reason. And when I realized that a group of MEN
VOTED what books would be in the Bible which ones would not
http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttal2.htm , I really realized God had
nothing to do with the Bible and Christianity. I then became a Deist,
that is I believe in God based on applying my God-given reason to the
designs the Designer placed in nature. Here's a great essay comparing
Deism with Christianity: http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm
Thanks, Bob
http://www.deism.com
.

Deism is a discredited and extinct quasi-theistic philosophy that was
popular in America around the time of the Revolution. Tom Paine, Tom
Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. They would not have dared to express atheist
or skeptical arguments at that time, so they found a way of dismissing the
God of the Bible without dissing Christians.

[Rodney Dunning]

Post by Bob
Hello. Do most Christians believe it's a sin to use our God-given
reason? I used to be a Christian and never questioned the Bible. Then,
after reading Tom Paine's book The Age of Reason I realized that God
gave us reason, not religion.

Oh, the irony.

God gave us both religion and reason--a simple application of the
latter would have protected you from this absurd error of fact. Where
do you think the Church came from?

To answer your question: No, most Christians do not believe it's a sin
to use our God-given reason. However, many Christians are somewhat out
of practice when it comes to thinking rationally. There are many
reasons for this. A good response, for which I'm not holding my
breath, would be for the various publishers of Sunday-school materials
to develop quarterly series that stress reason, rationality, and
logical thinking.

--
Rodney Dunning
Assistant Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <JV2eh.755$***@trnddc06>, Rodney Dunning says...
[snip]

Post by Rodney Dunning
However, many Christians are somewhat out
of practice when it comes to thinking rationally.

Unfortunately, the truth of this is painfully obvious.

Post by Rodney Dunning
There are many
reasons for this. A good response, for which I'm not holding my
breath, would be for the various publishers of Sunday-school materials
to develop quarterly series that stress reason, rationality, and
logical thinking.

And why do they never do this? I am sure some will say it is because
Christianity is fundamentally irrational. This wrong answer would be harder to
propagate if the publishers would bite the bullet and develop such a series. But
they do not! They have been neglecting to do this for _centuries_ now.

But rather than allow the wrong answer(above) any more currency, I will submit
what _I_ believe the right answer is: it is that the overwhelming majority of
'Christian' societies, social circles or whatever _rely_ on their membership
remaining ignorant of reason and rationality. Otherwise the members they depend
on would see through the reams of fallacies the societies rely on to govern
themselves.

I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

[Rodney Dunning]

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

No, Christianity is not fundamentally irrational, but it is
fundamentally non-rational. "You can't make this stuff up." At
the core of Christianity are truth claims that were not invented or
even conceived except that people witnessed certain historical events
and God revealed about himself certain things that we would never know
otherwise.

But there is also a strong rational component. Our understanding of
God, the Church, the Bible, etc. is guided by reason, logic, and
considerations of fact. The same should be true for how we interact
with each other, our governing institutions-as you point out-and
society at large.

What is the fundamental character our faith? Fundamentally, our faith
depends on a revelation of God that breaks through the boundary of our
perception. Indeed, faith itself is impossible without an act of God.
Yet, that revelation is itself comprehensible and never unreasonable.

--
Rodney Dunning
Associate Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

[mcv]

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

I think all faith is fundamentally irrational. You can't deduce it, there's
no evidence for it, so in a way it's irrational. Otherwise it wouldn't be
faith. But faith can definitely be supported by reason. Modern scientific
theories have greatly improved my (still very limited) understanding of
God, his greatness and his works.

But lacking any direct evidence, there will always be something irrational
about my faith.


mcv.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

I think all faith is fundamentally irrational.

When most people say "faith if fundamentally irrational", they mean something
quite different from what you mean. For what you mean, I would prefer to say
"supra-rational".

Post by mcv
You can't deduce it, there's
no evidence for it, so in a way it's irrational.

Not quite. "Irrational" does not just mean "not rational". It means a very
specific kind of "not rational". What you mean is closer to "arational".

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

I think all faith is fundamentally irrational.

I think you made that obvious in your previous posts. What still remains to be
seen is why you insist on 'irrational', when what you really mean sounds more
like 'trans-rational', or 'supra-rational'.

Take a closer look at the defintion of 'irrational' in Merriam-Webster, Sure,
they _start out_ with the etymology, saying "not rational", but then they
_qualify_ that by specifying certain particular sorts of "not rationality". It
does NOT mean "anything that cannot be described as 'rational'".

Post by mcv
You can't deduce it, there's
no evidence for it, so in a way it's irrational.

But none of these are true. You CAN deduce it, but not if you insist on
materialist premises.

Of course, I have noticed that 9 times out of 10, when someone insists as you do
that "you can't deduce it", they also insist on these same materialist premises.

Post by mcv
Otherwise it wouldn't be
faith.

You seem to be taking Heb 11:1 as a _definition_ of faith, rather than an
assertion about it. What are your grounds for doing this?

Post by mcv
But faith can definitely be supported by reason. Modern scientific
theories have greatly improved my (still very limited) understanding of
God, his greatness and his works.

Have they? Or have they only substituted a Deist notion of God for a materialist
one?

I have to ask because I have watched how many scientists and students of science
slipped into some form of Deism, even if they recognize the classic form of
Deism is outdated. This happens far more often than that they discover the
Christian God.

Post by mcv
But lacking any direct evidence, there will always be something irrational
about my faith.

Again: 'irrational' does not mean "anything that is not rational". See the M-W
def. again.

[mcv]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

I think all faith is fundamentally irrational.

When most people say "faith if fundamentally irrational", they mean something
quite different from what you mean. For what you mean, I would prefer to say
"supra-rational".

I wouldn't. I agree that the word "irrational" is often taken to mean
"crazy", and I hope it's clear that that's not what I mean. I'm not
too fond of words like "supra-rational" or "transrational" because they
sound way too fuzzy for me.

What I mean to say is that rationality on its own cannot lead you to
faith.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
You can't deduce it, there's
no evidence for it, so in a way it's irrational.

Not quite. "Irrational" does not just mean "not rational". It means a very
specific kind of "not rational". What you mean is closer to "arational".

Maybe. "arational" is a word I can live with.


mcv.

[mcv]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as pessimistic as the
wrong answer that Christianity is fundamentally irrational, is it?

I think all faith is fundamentally irrational.

I think you made that obvious in your previous posts. What still remains to be
seen is why you insist on 'irrational', when what you really mean sounds more
like 'trans-rational', or 'supra-rational'.
Take a closer look at the defintion of 'irrational' in Merriam-Webster, Sure,
they _start out_ with the etymology, saying "not rational", but then they
_qualify_ that by specifying certain particular sorts of "not rationality". It
does NOT mean "anything that cannot be described as 'rational'".

I hope it's clear that I don't mean things like "not endowed with reason
or understanding", but just that there is a component that's clearly not
rational. You can't prove it or deduce it, it's not based on any objective
observations.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
You can't deduce it, there's
no evidence for it, so in a way it's irrational.

But none of these are true. You CAN deduce it, but not if you insist on
materialist premises.
Of course, I have noticed that 9 times out of 10, when someone insists as you do
that "you can't deduce it", they also insist on these same materialist premises.

I don't insist on materialist premises, but I do insist on objectivity,
and there's no objective way to deduce the existence of God. It's a
matter of personal faith, revelation, trust. Our experience with God is
highly subjective, not objective.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
Otherwise it wouldn't be
faith.

You seem to be taking Heb 11:1 as a _definition_ of faith, rather than an
assertion about it. What are your grounds for doing this?

Because it's a convenient way for me to distinguish between faith and
cold, hard evidence.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
But faith can definitely be supported by reason. Modern scientific
theories have greatly improved my (still very limited) understanding of
God, his greatness and his works.

Have they? Or have they only substituted a Deist notion of God for a materialist
one?

I don't think so. What exactly is a materialist notion of God?

Post by Matthew Johnson
I have to ask because I have watched how many scientists and students of science
slipped into some form of Deism, even if they recognize the classic form of
Deism is outdated. This happens far more often than that they discover the
Christian God.

I do believe in the christian God, but science has given me a better
understanding of his works, and while science can never tell me what
God is, it can tell me what God isn't. He is not the traditional man
on a cloud, for example. Also, if he has created this universe, that
means he himself is not part of this universe, not subject to our
notion of time (which is tied to this universe), causality or laws
of physics. Another thing is that the 7 days of creation are quite
clearly not simply 168 hours, but more likely meant poetically. My
own experience in artificial intelligence has taught me that it is
possible to use the principles of evolution to create something that's
unique, highly complex and exactly what I want. I can imagine God may
work in a similar way.

Ironically, the thing that would probably most shake my belief in God,
is scientific proof that he exists.


mcv.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson
I know that sounds horribly pessimistic, but it is not as
pessimistic as the wrong answer that Christianity is
fundamentally irrational, is it?

I think all faith is fundamentally irrational.

I think you made that obvious in your previous posts. What still
remains to be seen is why you insist on 'irrational', when what you
really mean sounds more like 'trans-rational', or 'supra-rational'.
Take a closer look at the defintion of 'irrational' in
Merriam-Webster, Sure, they _start out_ with the etymology, saying
"not rational", but then they _qualify_ that by specifying certain
particular sorts of "not rationality". It does NOT mean "anything
that cannot be described as 'rational'".

I hope it's clear that I don't mean things like "not endowed with
reason or understanding", but just that there is a component that's
clearly not rational. You can't prove it or deduce it, it's not based
on any objective observations.

I think it is clear. Even by my previous post, that _is_ what I
assumed you really mean. But that is NOT what the word 'irrational'
means. That is why I mentioned the M-W dictionary entry. That is _why_
I proposed alternative words for you. I only wish I knew why you

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
You can't deduce it, there's no evidence for it, so in a way it's
irrational.

But none of these are true. You CAN deduce it, but not if you insist on
materialist premises.
Of course, I have noticed that 9 times out of 10, when someone
insists as you do that "you can't deduce it", they also insist on
these same materialist premises.

I don't insist on materialist premises, but I do insist on objectivity,

But why? St. Paul himself seems to militate against the common
equation of 'objective' with 'true' in 1 Cor 2:9-16.

Post by mcv
and there's no objective way to deduce the existence of God. It's a
matter of personal faith, revelation, trust. Our experience with God
is highly subjective, not objective.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
Otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

You seem to be taking Heb 11:1 as a _definition_ of faith, rather
than an assertion about it. What are your grounds for doing this?

Because it's a convenient way for me to distinguish between faith and
cold, hard evidence.

But is it 'convenient' if it is not correct? And how can it be correct
in the light of 1 Cor 2:9-16?

Post by mcv

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by mcv
But faith can definitely be supported by reason. Modern scientific
theories have greatly improved my (still very limited)
understanding of God, his greatness and his works.

Have they? Or have they only substituted a Deist notion of God for
a materialist one?

I don't think so. What exactly is a materialist notion of God?

Post by Matthew Johnson
I have to ask because I have watched how many scientists and
students of science slipped into some form of Deism, even if they
recognize the classic form of Deism is outdated. This happens far
more often than that they discover the Christian God.

I do believe in the christian God, but science has given me a better
understanding of his works,

Has it? Or are you confusing EPISTHMH with GNWSIS? Physics classes
teach EPISTHMH, not GNWSIS. For GNWSIS, we are better off turning to
the Psalmist, saying things like Psalms 8 and 104, or even to the Book
of Job's Wisdom Hymn (Ch. 28).

Now I regret introducing these two Greek words without proper
prepratory explanation, but if you have a Strong's Lexicon, you can
get a pretty good idea where they come from by looking at entires
G1987 and G1108. And the transcription I am using comes from the
B-GREEK list.

Post by mcv
and while science can never tell me what God is, it can tell me what
God isn't.

Well, it can give you the _short_ list of what He is not. But the real
list is much longer! That is why people write books like "The Cloud of
Unknowing".

Post by mcv
He is not the traditional man on a cloud, for example. Also, if he
has created this universe, that means he himself is not part of this
universe, not subject to our notion of time (which is tied to this
universe), causality or laws of physics.

Neo-platonists in Late Anitquity managed to figure out _all_ of this
without being exposed to modern science. Why did you require modern
science to figure it out?

Post by mcv
Another thing is that the 7 days of creation are quite
clearly not simply 168 hours, but more likely meant poetically.

I wish more people understood this!

Post by mcv
My own experience in artificial intelligence has taught me that it is
possible to use the principles of evolution to create something
that's unique, highly complex and exactly what I want. I can imagine
God may work in a similar way.
Ironically, the thing that would probably most shake my belief in
God, is scientific proof that he exists.

Now that is a surprise.

[b***@juno.com]

Post by Rodney Dunning
No, Christianity is not fundamentally irrational, but it is
fundamentally non-rational. "You can't make this stuff up." At
the core of Christianity are truth claims that were not invented or
even conceived except that people witnessed certain historical events
and God revealed about himself certain things that we would never know
otherwise.

Such as the trinity, the incarnation, predestination versus freewill,
substitutionary atonement, and other beliefs that could not, or would
not, be fabricated by human minds.

The doctrines of Christianity that appear bizarre to our 3-dimensional
minds, are quite obviously communcations from a higher plane of
existence, that is, communcations from God.

Post by Rodney Dunning
But there is also a strong rational component. Our understanding of
God, the Church, the Bible, etc. is guided by reason, logic, and
considerations of fact. The same should be true for how we interact
with each other, our governing institutions-as you point out-and
society at large.

Yes. And interestingly, with the advent of quantum physics,
biochemistry, and microbiology, it is becoming more and more clear that
God is constantly at work in the universe. Thus deism is DOA.

Post by Rodney Dunning
What is the fundamental character our faith? Fundamentally, our faith
depends on a revelation of God that breaks through the boundary of our
perception. Indeed, faith itself is impossible without an act of God.
Yet, that revelation is itself comprehensible and never unreasonable.

I agree, but the trouble is that "reasonable" is actually a very vague
word. When you say Christianity is "reasonable" you are correct on one
level. But on the other hand, the specific doctrines of Christianity
would never be invented by a clever human, since they are so alien to
human inventiveness. Our reason can only invent something that seems
obvious, intuitive, and reasonable. But Christianity is not that way.

However, science has shown itself to be just as bizarre. For example,
when you study Einsteinian relativity, or quantum physics, or DNA, or
biochem, or electro-magnetic radiation, and so on... all these modern
sciences exhibit themselves in bizarre, counter-intuitive, unreasonable
ways. Modern 20th century science is contrary to basic human reason, or
perhaps a better word would be basic human "intuition."

Many people think they are using their "Reason" when in fact all they
are using is their "intuition."

Aristotle and other early Greek philosophers tried to do science by
using their intuition. And their painfully obvious errors were the
result.

Likewise, when Thomas Paine wrote his "Age of Reason" what he should
have called it was "Age of Intuition." His arguments are all intuitive,
which is why they are so powerful to the weak minded.

A certain philosopher, I believe it was Francis Bacon, said it well: "A
little philosophy inclines one to atheism, but depth in philosophy
brings one around to believe in God again."

That is true. Just ask Antony Flew.

[shegeek72]

Post by b***@juno.com
The doctrines of Christianity that appear bizarre to our 3-dimensional
minds, are quite obviously communcations from a higher plane of
existence, that is, communcations from God.

4-dimensional - you forgot time. :)

Post by b***@juno.com
Yes. And interestingly, with the advent of quantum physics,
biochemistry, and microbiology, it is becoming more and more clear that
God is constantly at work in the universe.

No, it doesn't. It means we're finding out more about physics, biochem
and microbiology.

Post by b***@juno.com
Thus deism is DOA.

That's like saying atheism is DOA and I doubt many atheists would
agree. Though one cannot prove a negative, so technically one cannot
say God doesn't exist, only there is no proof of one.