Rationalism—Socrates-Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, the Enlightenment (Part 1)
The Biblical role of reason versus autonomous and independent rationalism
Rationalism—Socrates-Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, the Enlightenment
Isaiah 1:18-20—“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’
Says the Lord,
‘Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.
19If you consent and obey,
You will eat the best of the land;
20But if you refuse and rebel,
You will be devoured by the sword.’
Truly, the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Biblical reason is neither neutral nor independent of God.
Reason is a God-given tool, to be used under God’s authority, to think, question, evaluate, and learn in conformity to the truth.
In the context of Isaiah 1, God called His disobedient people to reason with Him and recognize the truth with the result that they would repent—forsake their unrighteous thinking (cf. Isaiah 55:7)—in order to come into conformity with God’s thoughts (cf. Isaiah 55:8) and be forgiven (Isaiah 1:18; 55:7; cf. Psalm 32:9).
Acts 17:2—“And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned [dialegomai] with them from the Scriptures,” (cf. Acts 17:2, 17:17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9)
In the New Testament, the verb translated “reasoning” (dialegomai) which means “to think different things with one’s self, mingle thought with thought,” “to ponder, revolve in mind,” “to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss.”1
“It is the cultivation of our reason by which we are better enabled to distinguish good from evil, as well as truth from falsehood; and both these are matters of highest importance, whether we regard this life, or the life to come.”2
Why can the Christian use reason consistently?
Logic, or the right application of reason in conformity to truth and consistency, must be assumed in order to be used. In the unbelieving worldview, this leads to circular reasoning or question-begging, that is, it becomes arbitrary. The believing worldview, which assumes God’s revelation as the ultimate authority, can make sense of the universal, immaterial, unchanging principles of truth and logic because the believer knows the God of the Bible is the transcendent Creator who cannot lie (Titus 1:2; cf. 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:18). All truth is founded on God’s nature and character. Therefore, logic and reason do not become arbitrary and viciously circular. The Christian can recognize both the competence and limits of reason.
Romans 3:4—“May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,…”
The obedient Christian, humbly recognizing the human potential for error and corruption, must use reason in conformity to God’s standard. This ought to lead to intellectual humility and intellectual dependence. The Christian can recognize both the value and limits of reason.
The unbeliever’s use of reason simultaneously depends upon the God of the Bible while rejecting His authority (cf. Romans 1:18-32). They must grasp the truth to suppress it. Not all use of thought is good reasoning.
Rationalism—rather than using reason as an instrument or tool—attempts to establish reason3 as an ultimate authority. Rationalism attempts to use reason to identify self-evident truths in order to reach certainty.
Psalm 94:11—“The Lord knows the thoughts of man,
That they are a mere breath.” (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:20)
Proverbs 28:26—“He who trusts in his own heart [mind] is a fool [cf. Proverbs 1:7],
But he who walks wisely will be delivered.”
The Questions/Problems of Rationalism
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
Reason vs. Experience
General vs. Particular
Universal Principles vs. Specific Experiences
Logic vs. History
Immutable truth vs. Mutable world
These tensions manifest all throughout philosophical history.
A theory of knowledge is called epistemology.
Rationalism—“I think/reason”
Empiricism—“I experience/observe”
Romanticism—“I feel”
Fideism—“I believe”
Skepticism/Agnosticism—“I doubt”
Knowledge has traditionally been defined in philosophy as justified true belief.
The philosophy of rationalism existed and reemerged throughout Western philosophical history,4 from ancient Greece to continental rationalism in Western Europe, to the Enlightenment in Western Europe and in the United States, represented by such thinkers as Socrates, Plato, Rene Descartes, and Baruch Spinoza.
Footnotes/Further Resources:
[1] "G1256 - dialegomai - Strong's Greek Lexicon (NASB95)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 19 Apr, 2021. https://www.blueletterbible.org//lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1256&t=NASB95
[2] Isaac Watts, Logic; or, The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth (Milner & Sowerby, 1866), Kindle p. Loc 107
[3] Keep in mind that different thinkers defined the concept of “reason” differently. This inconsistency of definition not only potentially creates confusion but also demonstrates one of the weaknesses of the philosophy of rationalism. A system that is in search of objective certainty and supposedly reaches it by self-evident universal truths cannot always agree on how reason is defined, let alone reach the same conclusions.
[4] Western philosophical history, given the times and historical circumstances in which it arose, prioritized thought, logic, and reason, whether through simple rationalism or reason applied to sense experience. With that said, there is also a vast Eastern philosophical tradition that supposedly offers an attractive alternative to logic and reason, arguing that there are multiples types of “logic,” for example. While not in the scope of this course, it is worth mentioning that the Eastern tradition has not, in fact, solved the problems identified in Western philosophy nor circumvented objective truth and logic. The first fundamental principle of logic—the law of non-contradiction—is still operative in the fact that, even with Eastern philosophies, one must accept an Eastern pattern of thought or otherwise. The problem here ought to be obvious—the attraction of Eastern philosophy is that it claims to offer an alternative to the “Western” obsession with objective truth, reason, and logic with the claim that thinking in such a way is restrictive, yet the conclusion is to abandon one system of thought for another. If Eastern philosophies are correct in that there is no system of logic or objective truth, then that is admission that their own system is untrue; if, however, Eastern philosophies claim that they do not hold truth, then they are false. In short, Eastern philosophies, like all unbelieving philosophies, are self-defeating because if their claims and presuppositions are true, then their system must be false.
Applied Apologetics - Biblical/Christian Philosophy (YouTube Playlist)
Rationalism - Socrates-Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, the Enlightenment (Part 1) (YouTube)