This seems to be a pet subject of yours - And we have touched upon it before. But I hasten to add that you have me "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I did not say that reason is bad. The operative statement was this:
Human reason has it's place, no doubt, but that place is not in trying to discern the things of YHWH. -roamer_1 #525
Mantic poetry or bootless yelling seem the only options have.
That isn't necessarily so. I don't believe this has to be an either/or situation - One CAN have both: Hence, Rap music. ; )
We would say that like everything truly human, reason is good, for "God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good."
And I would fully concur with that statement. What I am attempting to draw your attention to is the inherent limitations of reason.
However, we are fallen. So our reason is weak and subject to being ignored, led astray, or misused.
That, I think, is granted. But one must also consider another somewhat obvious factor. I do not believe that human reason, even in it's natural state (without the curse), can compete with the unlimited potential of the Father.
And that leads me to an illustration of how reason can lead one astray: One can use reason to say:
(1.) Christ is God.
(2.) As the body is connected to the Head, so we will be like Christ.
(3.) We will be like God.
(4.) Ergo, we will be gods.
Now, I don't believe that to be true (and neither do you, I am certain). But many have used this reasoning, and religions have been born from it... And if one were to wrongly divide the Word, the idea has support in Scripture.
An extrapolation such as this really has no support in truth, and the fallacy lies in the fact that YHWH has declared that no one is like Him. So, while we are made in His image, and it is written that we will be "like" Him, it is obvious that the similarity alluded to is certainly still (far, far) subordinate to the Infinite One, no matter what the outcome finally is. YHWH is GOD. There is no one like YHWH.
But without being so radical, it seems that it is hard to realize the effect that human reasoning has (albeit well meaning in most cases) in changing the things which God has unequivocally declared. IOW, "making His words null in effect."
Where it is not purely hubris, it is ALWAYS human reason that does this, every_single_time. So, while we are free (even encouraged) to reason, and to extrapolate, when our reasoning effects the Word, which the Father has declared to be inviolable, that must be the point where reason must be set aside, and we are left only to be in obedience, even though we don't know why.
In the case of Solomon, he may have "rationalized" his idolatry, but that is a misuse of reason. Specifically, he ignored revelation and its authority. Revelation is a grace and it is a gift to acknowledge its authority. But once those gifts are given, reason directs that revelation be followed.
That presupposes the revelation to be true, which often is *not* the case. What you might believe is a misuse of reason, might well be a misuse of revelation.
So, for us, the folly of man's wisdom is (or at least includes) relying on reason alone.
Oh, it certainly includes reason.
And, again, from our point of view, your post is logically inconsistent. You lay out some principles (Scriptural texts) and an example (Solomon) and then argue to a conclusion. But the conclusion at least appears to discredit the method by which it was reached.
Not at all. This perception arrives from the supposition that I discount reason altogether, which I most certainly do not.
I think you are right, that my first response, at least rhetorically if not actually (but maybe actually as well) was too extreme.
But you are right. Yes, this is very much a pet subject of mine. I am no great athlete of reason. But the question of its relationship to what it is to be human and to how we can know (if at all, or maybe if one day) the divine is VERY important to me.
And that's true even though I'm the guy who says I'd rather look into my wife's eyes than think about her. But it's true that thinking about her does help me be a less totally useless husband.
(1.) Christ is God.
(2.) As the body is connected to the Head, so we will be like Christ.
(3.) We will be like God.
(4.) Ergo, we will be gods.
But that's not good reasoning. Just looking at the thing itself, we see that 'like' is an ambiguous term. It can be used to mean "Exactly like" or "somewhat" or "in many respects like."
Widening our view and looking at the entire data field, we find that our Lord (John 10:34 ff) seems to propose a radical interpretation of Psalm 82:6 "... 'You are gods ...'".
So we find a suggestion that saying we will be gods is not entirely off the wall, while from the very first verse of Genesis we 'know' that there is some unbridgeable difference.
So BOTH in the micro-sense of reason, in which something purportably able to be reduced to syllogisms is present, and in the macro-sense, which involves evaluating a conclusion in terms of the rest of what we know, that's not the best example to make your case, I think.
My curfew approaches, so I will say that this is BAD reasoning, and to the extent that errors and hubris can corrupt reason, I agree. It happens a lot. Especially it happens when people try to go for the simple answer. They don't check their work, and, even more important, they don't ask someone else to check their work.
And against your "reason must be set aside," I would say that reason rightly (and piously) used will reach a point at which it is speechless, and I refer to my earlier comments on the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Definition.
Reason, prompted and aided by grace, reaches a conclusion which, while not at all useless, is in some sense little more than a shrug, followed by a prostration.
Thank you SO MUCH for this conversation!
Oh! Quibbling footnote:
That presupposes the revelation to be true, which often is *not* the case. What you might believe is a misuse of reason, might well be a misuse of revelation.
The way I think (that's what we call it so as not to hurt my feelings) that's unclear. That is, the revelation is, by definition (yes?) true. But the use of it may be false. I think that may turn out to be an important difference.
Thanks again. I am thrilled to be trying to talk about this with such good minds.