René Descartes.
Note: This post is pretty long, and it's a rambling train of thought, trying to outline how I see the role of reason in human affairs. If you aren't up for philosophical challenges, you may not like it.
About My Philosophy
Skepticism:
A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. Also the doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
Rationalism:
The view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".
Empiricism:
A theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
I am a moderate philosophical skeptic—I deny that I can know anything with absolute certainty, except maybe that I am a thinking being.
This does not contradict my believing in God, or absolute truth, or you, my blog readers. This is because I am also an empiricist.
I am an empiricist. This means that I try not to believe anything except that which has solid, sensory evidence for it. This leads me to belief in God, in my family, my friends, this earth.
This does not mean I don't believe in China because I haven't been there—I see other evidence of its existence, including firsthand testimony by people I know and who I doubt would lie in this case.
I am a rationalist—I accept the existence of certain philosophical truths which I think make sense—the laws of mathematics and physics, ultimate morality laid out by God, etc. I think to deny these things would not only be silly but also crippling—imagine if some pseudo-philosopher decided that math doesn't work, or if a poor excuse for an empiricist said that because he hadn't seen the laws of morality, they don't exist!
Note that this person would be a pretty bad empiricist—mere sight is not the only way of discovery, or else blind scientists would not exist. Logic leads us to the existence of absolutes of some kind.
Here's what rationalism has lead me to: Humans are clumps of dust. While the clump of dust in their head called the brain is connected spiritually to a soul, the presence of a spirit alone does not itself make them better at logic—in fact, a hand calculator can beat almost all of them. I see evidence that they can reason, but their attempts at logic should be scrutinized heavily. So this leads me to philosophical skepticism ("why trust anything?"), which reenforces my love for empiricism, which requires reason to work well, leading me back to rationalism.
Matrix Philosophy
Some of you, unfamiliar with the principles of science, may wonder if I am a "Matrix Philosopher". (Translation: A teenager with no life whose only thing to say that is of real interest is the claim that we could not know if our reality is a simulation or other deception.)
I do agree that it's possible that we live in a simulation—my philosophical skepticism leads me to that conclusion. However, why should we think so? If it's a deception so close to a real world, where the heck is the evidence for the "theory"? This is the basic problem with most conspiracy theories—they use the lack of evidence for their theory as evidence for their theory, without ever considering the idea that maybe 9/11 looked like a terrorist attack because it was exactly that!
Occam's Razor, a commonly accepted scientific principle, states that, in the absence of enough data to decide between hypotheses, we should prefer a describable one that requires as few causes as possible. We currently have no way of testing the Matrix idea, so we can't examine it very well, and we can therefore throw it out. If more data comes along and ends up supporting a simulation, okay, it's back on the board. But "We don't know everything" is not a reason to go with what sounds cool. It's yet another reason to think things through with humility.
"this argument hinges upon the assumption that if something cannot be absolutely, irrefutably disproven, then it is actually a reasonable theory. It is an understatement to say that this is false, because nothing can be absolutely, irrefutably disproven. One might as well ask if we actually a bunch of talking fleas living in Santa Claus' pants and deluding ourselves into thinking we're human." —Mike Wong
Isn't Rationalism Arrogant?
No. While the Bible does say, "Lean not on your own understanding," what I think it means is that we should not take what we think about a certain subject (say, that Biden is a bad president) and then say that, if someone else thinks Biden is a good president, they're an idiot. You're not God, and someone's opinion on a broad topic, in and of itself, isn't enough data to find out their intelligence. If they think Biden is a good president because inflation means more money, and more money is good, you can conclude idiocy or at least extreme ignorance on their part—but most people have more legitimate reasons.
If your interpretation of a Bible verse leads to anti-intellectualism, change your interpretation, because by definition anti-logic is nonsense.
"But Intellectual Knowledge Isn't As, Like, Good, As Strong Belief!"
Those who say that "logic won't get you to Heaven" are right. I mean, logic alone, without all the useful data in history and God's word, won't get you very far at all.
That's not what you meant? Oh, you mean that just knowing that Jesus is the Christ won't get someone to Heaven—they have to have an emotional reaction some people call belief.
You know what? I mostly agree. But their understanding of logic is poor. Yes; I totally agree that just reading the Bible and going to church don't save you. But if you know something, have the ability to act on it, and don't, I don't know what to call you other than a hypocrite with a dose of moronity. Like if I know that if I am sleepy, and I want to lie down, and I know that the pillow over there is soft and will help me lie down, but I don't lie down. Why?
Yes, we all do that. We're all imperfect beings whose ability to reason is clouded by what most call emotion. The smartest person alive has a bit of stupidity buried inside, ready to come out at some time.
If you just mentally believe something but don't act on it, the Bible has this to say to you:
"But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves." —James 1:22
I don't get why some people want to open a chasm between belief and knowledge. It's knowledge and action that aren't the same, and anyway, if you are knowledgable and smart enough, surely you will act—and sometimes, if you don't have the integrity to do so, your emotion pushes you forward anyway.
So thinking the right things alone won't save you—you have to act. And if you think about whether you should act on what you think, you probably will act.
Reasoning in the Bible
Here are just a few examples (from the NTL). Another example is when an angel strikes someone mute for stupidity, or when Jesus and Paul each debate the Jewish leaders.
"So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless. Now someone may argue, 'Some people have faith; others have good deeds.' But I say, 'How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.' You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?" —James 2:17-20
See how James says that those who just know things are not on the right path. Just knowing that God exists doesn't save you—trusting, based on evidence, that Jesus has bought your salvation saves you. And if you think you do, but don't act (forgiveness, kindness, etc), either you don't really believe it, or you're really dumb. And if you start caring only about the action ("earning your way to Heaven"), you're putting ultimate faith/trust in... yourself. And you probably lock yourself out of the house, lose your phone, or even think that Toothless would beat Smaug.
"I am losing all hope; I am paralyzed with fear. I remember the days of old. I ponder all your great works and think about what you have done." —Psalm 143:4-5
When you're scared about the future, look at the evidence of the past. Think about how God has lead you. This is textbook empiricism.
"Unfriendly people care only about themselves; they lash out at common sense. Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions." —Proverbs 18: 1-2
This verse emphasizes critical thinking and listening to those wiser than yourself.
"Enthusiasm without knowledge is no good; haste makes mistakes." —Proverbs 19:2
Again, blindly rushing into things (like we all often do) leads to trouble.
"Here are some further sayings of the wise:
It is wrong to show favoritism when passing judgment." —Proverbs 24:23
Bias and dishonesty are dangerous.
Biblical Contradictions?
This post was meant to be about philosophy and logic, not history. However, if you want to learn about supposed contradictions in the Bible, these are nice resources:
http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ (refutes the Skeptic's Annotated Bible)
https://www.gotquestions.org/ (answers a LOT of questions)
https://www.genesispark.com/essays/contradictions/ (the main site is pretty unscientific, but this essay has a good line-by-line defense)