Faith And Reason

[Chris Smith]

According to 19th-century scholar Samuel T. Coleridge, Reason should take epistemological priority over all else. His reason for saying so is rooted in John 1:1: "...and the logos was God."

Logos, in the first-century Greek-speaking world, meant more than just "word". It meant more properly "Reason", which the Greeks thought of as a sort of trascendent, pure light, and which they regularly identified with God (exactly as John does). No wonder the Greeks thought philosophy so important. And no wonder Christians thought it so important as well, for most of Christian history!

Coleridge argues that, if we identify Reason with God, then to deny Reason is literally to deny God! In this way I think he very effectively responds to those who disdain the findings of Reason in favor of feelings, scripture, etc. While Coleridge thinks that both scripture and feelings have their place, he is concerned to avoid bibliolatry, especially insofar as it almost necessarily results in a denial of Reason. I suggest that reliance on feelings can also become a kind of idolatry in which Reason is denied.

What do you think? Is Coleridge's argument convincing? Or shall we cry with Tertullian, "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"*

-Chris

* I'm actually knowingly misusing this quote. More than anything, Tertullian just didn't like the Platonic influence in the church. He was more of a Stoic, himself. As the father of the Trinity, he certainly didn't shy away from a use of philosophy/reason!

[charity]

I would agree, except when you bring in "feelings" and don't really say what you are thinking. I think you are thinking that "feelings" and "testimony" or "witness of the spirit" are the same thing.

If that is why you are bringing in feelings, then no, I don't agree that Reason/reason should trump feelings.

[Sargon]

Hi Chris.

What do you think about the relationship between the older Wisdom traditions and the later Logos traditions? Do you believe there is any link, perhaps one evolved into the other?

Thanks.

Sargon

[Chris Smith]

Hi Sargon,

I think they're closely related. In particular, Wisdom of Solomon (a Greek Apocryphal document that appears to have formed the background from much Hellenistic Judaism and also for the book of Colossians) lent itself to comparison with Greek philosophy. Already in the early first century, Philo had all but merged the Platonic concept of logos with the Jewish concept of wisdom. The way the Gospel of John understands the logos is very similar to the way Philo understood it.

Best,

-Chris

[Sargon]

Hi Sargon,

Hi Chris.

I think they're closely related. In particular, Wisdom of Solomon (a Greek Apocryphal document that appears to have formed the background from much Hellenistic Judaism and also for the book of Colossians) lent itself to comparison with Greek philosophy.

This afternoon I spent some time in my university library readint the 1993 edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. I was interested in reading 'The Wisdom of Solomon', and 'Sirach'. They point out a few places within the text where Hellenistic influence is apparent. The Oxford bible suggests that this work was actually produced in Alexandria in the latter part of the 1st century. Thus it is obvious that Philo would be familiar with it(not sure, never studied much of Philo). But I think it is safe to assume that Philo was aware of the Wisdom traditions, and that his Logos was influenced by it.

Already in the early first century, Philo had all but merged the Platonic concept of logos with the Jewish concept of wisdom.

Could it be that Philo was merely using Greek terms to express wholly Jewish ideas? This is Margaret Barkers argument anyway, which I find intriguing.

Philo, an exact contemporary of Jesus, was a highly

regarded Jewish scholar living in Alexandria. He was chosen as a

spokesman for the cityâ??s Jewish community before the Roman emperor,

and so it is unlikely that the Judaism he expounded was regarded as

heretical. Commenting on Genesis 9:6, â??In the image of God (â??elohim,

the plural form) made he manâ??, Philo wrote: â??Nothing mortal can be

made in the likeness of the Most High One and Father of the universe,

but [only] in that of the Second God, who is his Logosâ??.18 The Judaism

of Philo is remarkable for the fact that it has a Second God, to whom

he gives various names and titles: Word (Logos), Image of God,

Covenant, Seal of the Universe, the High Priest, King, Shepherd,

Archangel, Firstborn Son.19 Scholars tend to assume that Philo had

introduced a substantial amount of contemporary Greek thought into

his Judaism, rather than considering the alternative possibility: that he

was expressing in the Greek language an ancient form of Judaism

which can be traced to the priests of the first Temple.

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

Barker argues that Philo was not meshing Greek ideas with Jewish ones, but merely expressing ancient Jewish traditions in the Greek vocabulary. If this hypothesis is true, understanding what Philo meant by "Logos" instead of assuming it was the same metaphysical Greek Logos of the dominant culture, we might alter our understanding of what both Philo and John mean with the word. To my knowledge this isn't mainstream, but having read some of her chapters on this subject I find the argument compelling. Philo did not use the term "logos" to reference whatever it was in the heavens he was referencing. He used many other terms which are much more Jewish. This suggests something very different about what the "logos" was to Philo.

Anyway, I hope I'm not boring you. I am soaking up whatever I can about all this, so I appreciate your insight.

Sargon

[Chris Smith]

Could it be that Philo was merely using Greek terms to express wholly Jewish ideas? This is Margaret Barkers argument anyway, which I find intriguing.

Hi Sargon,

The short answer is "no," at least not in the sense of expressing orthodox, anthropomorphic, Palestinian Jewish ideas. (He was much more closely associated with the kind of Hellenistic Judaism that produced Christianity and gnosticism.) True, Philo was at least as Jewish as he was Platonic, and there are some very close analogues in Judaism that lent themselves quite readily to expression in Platonic terms. It is also true that his mind doesn't always appear to be entirely made up as to whether he wants to be more Jewish or more Greek. He very often affirms both literal and allegorical readings of the same passage, for example. And he describes the logos both as "God's firstborn...who holds the highest rank among the angels" and as an "Incorporeal" emanation from God. But I think T. H. Tobin's work on Philo's concept of the logos has pretty much hit the nail on the head:

...a basic sense of what Philo meant can be gained by paying attention to the kind of language he used

and why he used it. Like other Middle Platonists, Philo thought that God in his essence could not be

implicated in the material universe. At the same time, the relative order of the material universe had to

derive at least indirectly from God. For Philo the logos served as the intermediate metaphysical reality

through which the universe was originally ordered and by which it continues to be sustained in an orderly

state. It was not simply a metaphor; it was a real aspect of the divine reality through which God was

related, although indirectly, to the universe. Although a derivative reality, the logos was not created as

was the rest of the universe.[34] In much the same way, the logos cannot aptly be characterized as either

personal or impersonal. Rather it was the source of the intelligibility of the universe and so was itself

intelligent in a way that transcended the universe and, in that sense, also went beyond the categories

either of personal or of impersonal.[35] In this respect, Philo was very much like other Middle Platonists

who also maintained both the transcendence of God and God's indirect relationship to the universe

through the use of an intermediate metaphysical reality.

Tobin, T. H. "The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 2 (1990): 252-69.

Philo also describes God as a pleroma, which is a term that both in philosophy, gnosticism, and arguably also John and Colossians gets used of a transcendent realm of divine light from which all reality emanates. The Jewish Encyclopedia, though outdated, was at least mostly correct when it said,

The God of Philo, owing to the influence of Platonism, is not only essentially different from man and the worldâ??an idea which also coincides with the teaching of the Pharisees of this periodâ??but He is entirely devoid of attributes. Philo opposes not only the literal understanding of the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic passages in the Bible, but also the doctrine of God as an active worker, inasmuch as activity can not be predicated of a Being devoid of attributes. This was the impelling motive of Philo's doctrine of the "Logos," which doctrine later on became a chief pillar of Christianity.

So this isn't standard, mainline Judaism we're dealing with here. Philo is very much a meeting of the worlds.

By the way, one of my ongoing projects is a study of D&C 93. In part, I am exploring what "the record of John" would have meant to a first-century audience. My conclusion is that it would have stood pretty firmly in the anti-anthropomorphic, gnosticizing tradition represented by Philo. In fact, I will argue that in one or two respects it may go even further in that direction than the biblical Gospel of John does.

-Chris

[The Nehor]

And again Greek philosophy gets more to say about Christianity than Christ did.

[Sargon]

Thanks Chris. I wish more discussion of this sort of thing went on here. I'm trying to raise myself from 'novice' to 'experienced' in between studying for my completely unrelated major. I'll get back to you once I've been able to do some more research.

Sargon

[Hammer]

According to 19th-century scholar Samuel T. Coleridge, Reason should take epistemological priority over all else. His reason for saying so is rooted in John 1:1: "...and the logos was God."

Logos, in the first-century Greek-speaking world, meant more than just "word". It meant more properly "Reason", which the Greeks thought of as a sort of trascendent, pure light, and which they regularly identified with God (exactly as John does). No wonder the Greeks thought philosophy so important. And no wonder Christians thought it so important as well, for most of Christian history!

Coleridge argues that, if we identify Reason with God, then to deny Reason is literally to deny God! In this way I think he very effectively responds to those who disdain the findings of Reason in favor of feelings, scripture, etc. While Coleridge thinks that both scripture and feelings have their place, he is concerned to avoid bibliolatry, especially insofar as it almost necessarily results in a denial of Reason. I suggest that reliance on feelings can also become a kind of idolatry in which Reason is denied.

What do you think? Is Coleridge's argument convincing? Or shall we cry with Tertullian, "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"*

-Chris

* I'm actually knowingly misusing this quote. More than anything, Tertullian just didn't like the Platonic influence in the church. He was more of a Stoic, himself. As the father of the Trinity, he certainly didn't shy away from a use of philosophy/reason!

Why are feelings considered devoid of reason? & and reason devoid of feelings? Reason can change with perspective and perspective can change with information and experience. All of these can bring and create feelings.

I smell an orange and I both feel and reason in memory and thought connected with facts found in my knowledge and experience.

[Chris Smith]

And again Greek philosophy gets more to say about Christianity than Christ did.

That's at least as much the fault of the Fourth Gospel as anybody else. There's a good reason that Christian intellectuals almost immediately turned to Platonism in elaborating Christian doctrine: it's called the Johannine Prologue. Well, that, and thinkers through the centuries have just generally found Platonism compelling anyway.

But I think you exaggerate. Nobody calls into question the major principles Christ argued for, i.e. compassion, love, self-denial, meekness, etc. Those are the eternal moral principles of Christianity. Where Greek philosophy comes in is elaborating the relationship of God to humanity and the world, which Jesus explicitly commented on only in very general terms.

The emphasis of the church has certainly been skewed during certain periods of history, but on the whole I think that Jesus' injunctions have been generally observed (or at least people have made a valiant effort) in every age since his incarnation.

Why are feelings considered devoid of reason? & and reason devoid of feelings? Reason can change with perspective and perspective can change with information and experience. All of these can bring and create feelings.

I smell an orange and I both feel and reason in memory and thought connected with facts found in my knowledge and experience.

Hello Hammer,

If my post suggested that feelings and reason-- or scripture and reason-- are always opposed, I apologize. That isn't the case.

What I am arguing against is a privileging of feelings and/or scripture over reason. There are many who would say that if reason tells me that the world is billions of years old and the Bible tells me otherwise, it must be reason rather than the Bible that is mistaken. Similarly, some would say that if reason tells me the Book of Abraham is a modern document and feelings say otherwise, it must be reason rather than feelings that is mistaken. I am convinced from the general practical results produced by reason in the world (i.e. modern medicine, technology) that it is reliable. I am also convinced from the strife produced by different people's conflicting feelings (i.e. wars, divorce, unrequited love) that feelings can be quite unreliable. But to these classical arguments for the priority of reason over feelings, I am adding Coleridge's observation that if the logos/Reason is God, then to deny the logos/Reason is to deny God.

In short, if reason says choose door # 1, feelings say choose door # 2, and the Bible says choose door # 3, Coleridge would say go with reason. Anything else would be idolatry.

Blessings,

-Chris

Thanks Chris. I wish more discussion of this sort of thing went on here. I'm trying to raise myself from 'novice' to 'experienced' in between studying for my completely unrelated major. I'll get back to you once I've been able to do some more research.

Sargon

If you have access to the EBSCO database, Tobin's article is available there in full text. Alternatively, I could email it to you.

[Hammer]

Hello Hammer,

If my post suggested that feelings and reason-- or scripture and reason-- are always opposed, I apologize. That isn't the case.

What I am arguing against is a privileging of feelings and/or scripture over reason. There are many who would say that if reason tells me that the world is billions of years old and the Bible tells me otherwise, it must be reason rather than the Bible that is mistaken. Similarly, some would say that if reason tells me the Book of Abraham is a modern document and feelings say otherwise, it must be reason rather than feelings that is mistaken. I am convinced from the general practical results produced by reason in the world (i.e. modern medicine, technology) that it is reliable. I am also convinced from the strife produced by different people's conflicting feelings (i.e. wars, divorce, unrequited love) that feelings can be quite unreliable. But to these classical arguments for the priority of reason over feelings, I am adding Coleridge's observation that if the logos/Reason is God, then to deny the logos/Reason is to deny God.

In short, if reason says choose door # 1, feelings say choose door # 2, and the Bible says choose door # 3, Coleridge would say go with reason. Anything else would be idolatry.

Blessings,

-Chris

Hey Chris,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have had it come to me that you say logos is reason and in the greek venacular more particularly, light. Have I got that right?

Well if this scripture is correct:

Then, there really isn't any conflict between God/Spirit/feeling and logos/reason/light. Right? IOW the Holy Spirit confirming through light/reason? Or are you saying that it is only thought/thinking/logic? and not light?intelligence and truth?

You do understand Man's thoughts/reason isn't always God's? God says to gain we must give away-- men's logic/reasoning states that to gain one must go get, work to obtain, without giving.

God's reason/light/truth states that we must surrender to Him to be free. Man's logic/reason/knowledge states that we must never surrender or we won't be free.

Do you see why the word or even the idea of reason isn't necessarily workable in all processes and yet the light of God is?

[Chris Smith]

Hey Chris,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have had it come to me that you say logos is reason and in the greek venacular more particularly, light. Have I got that right?

Well is this scripture is correct:

Then, there really isn't any conflict between God/Spirit/feeling and logos/reason/light. Right? IOW the Holy Spirit confirming through light/reason? Or are you saying that it is only thought/thinking/logic? and not light?intelligence and truth?

You do understand Man's thoughts/reason isn't always God's? God says to gain we must give away-- men's logic/reasoning states that to gain one must go get, work to obtain, without giving.

God's reason/light/truth states that we must surrender to Him to be free. Man's logic/reason/knowledge states that we must be never surrender or we won't be free.

Do you see why the word or even the idea of reason isn't necessarily workable in all processes and yet the light of God is?

Hi Hammer,

I think you forgot to post your scripture verse.

I recognize that reason has its limits, if that's what you mean. I would not advocate pushing reason beyond what it will bear. I have always been careful on this forum and in my own thinking to avoid drawing rash conclusions. Nor do I advocate an individualist approach to reason. Postmodern philosophers talk about truth being "the sum of all perspectives" rather than "things as they are in themselves", and I think for good reason. The more perspectives we get dialoguing with each other, the more likely we are to transcend our limitations and more closely approximate truth.

As for your assertion that "the idea of reason isn't necessarily workable in all processes and yet the light of God is," I think my objection would be twofold: 1) I don't think anybody is equipped to recognize the working of the light of God as distinguished from other forces, and 2) the interpretation of our interactions with the light of God has always posed a real difficulty.

As an example of these problems, both North and South in the Civil War felt certain that Providence was on their side, both clung to this idea down to the very end, and both felt certain that they saw clear signs of it in the events of their day. For the South, at least, this idea proved mistaken. Northerners also differed over the question of why Providence was on their side. Some saw it as a clear sign that the cause of abolition was a just cause. Others saw it as a sign that God wants our "redeemer nation" to remain united so that it can bless the world. Yet both groups were certain that their group had the right interpretation, and that the other group was mistaken.

For whatever reason, God's work in history is shrouded in mystery. His ways are not our ways; he remains hidden, and his work remains beyond our comprehension. He has never appeared to me no matter how I strain in prayer. I do think that God's Spirit is at work, guiding us and guiding history, but I do not claim to be able to see what he's up to. I may have suspicions, but I also encounter too many surprises to claim to possess any kind of certain knowledge about the Spirit's work.

And so, despite its limitations, I think that reason is the way forward for sincere truth-seekers. I certainly hope to find a community of faith with whom I can join hands and reason my way into the future of spirituality. As always, reason draws on understanding (i.e. the facts of our experience). If you have applied the principle "to gain we must give away" and found it to be true, and if I apply it and find it to be true also, then we can reason that it is probably true.

But as always, I would be remiss if I did not remember my priorities.

Reason, feelings, love.

The greatest of these is love.

Blessings,

-Chris

[Hammer]

Hi Hammer,

I think you forgot to post your scripture verse.

I recognize that reason has its limits, if that's what you mean. I would not advocate pushing reason beyond what it will bear. I have always been careful on this forum and in my own thinking to avoid drawing rash conclusions. Nor do I advocate an individualist approach to reason. Postmodern philosophers talk about truth being "the sum of all perspectives" rather than "things as they are in themselves", and I think for good reason. The more perspectives we get dialoguing with each other, the more likely we are to transcend our limitations and more closely approximate truth.

As for your assertion that "the idea of reason isn't necessarily workable in all processes and yet the light of God is," I think my objection would be twofold: 1) I don't think anybody is equipped to recognize the working of the light of God as distinguished from other forces, and 2) the interpretation of our interactions with the light of God has always posed a real difficulty.

As an example of these problems, both North and South in the Civil War felt certain that Providence was on their side, both clung to this idea down to the very end, and both felt certain that they saw clear signs of it in the events of their day. For the South, at least, this idea proved mistaken. The North also differed over the question of why Providence was on their side. Some saw it as a clear sign that the cause of abolition was a just cause. Others saw it as a sign that God wants our "redeemer nation" to remain united so that it can bless the world. Yet both groups were certain that their group had the right interpretation, and that the other group was mistaken.

For whatever reason, God's work in history is shrouded in mystery. His ways are not own ways; he remains hidden, and his work remains beyond our comrehension. He has never appeared to me no matter how I strain in prayer. I do think that God's Spirit is at work, guiding us and guiding history, but I do not claim to be able to see what he's up to. I may have suspicions, but I also encounter too many surprises to claim to possess any kind of certain knowledge about the Spirit's work.

And so, despite its limitations, I think that reason is the way forward for sincere truth-seekers. I certainly hope to find a community of faith with whom I can join hands and reason my way into the future of spirituality.

But as always, I would be remiss if I did not remember my priorities.

Reason, feelings, love.

The greatest of these is love.

Blessings,

-Chris

I see how you come to your conclusions. I will answer more tomorrow when my head is clearer-- I am getting a little tired. However, I must respond to one thing you stated. "He has never appeared to me no matter how I strain in prayer. "

It is a mistaken idea that the more we put into prayer, the more we get back. It is actually the more we relinquish ourselves, in total surrender to nothing, or everything, the will of the Father, in total love, embraced in love for Him, in praising Him, worshipping Him, that prayers are given answers.

Hope for all

[Monte Jefferson]

There's a superficial sensibility to prefering reason to feelings in most things, including religious matters. But does it really get you that much further? The intelligent design movement is severely dedicated to reason. But very few "emotionally" based religeous exercises are less annoying and misguided.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Hammer,

I cannot claim ever to have achieved a state of total love or total surrender. But I am not ignorant of the principle you appeal to, and these are virtues that I do strain to incarnate in my private piety and public conduct. If nothing else, I feel certain that the silence of heaven is not for lack of sincerity or real intent. Perhaps it is for lack of virtue, faith, or poverty. Or perhaps silence is heaven's way.

Blessings,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

There's a superficial sensibility to prefering reason to feelings in most things, including religious matters. But does it really get you that much further? The intelligent design movement is severely dedicated to reason. But very few "emotionally" based religeous exercises are less annoying and misguided.

Hello Monte,

I would suggest that sincerity and real intent are as necessary to the proper exercise of reason as they are to Moroni's Promise. In at least some of the Intelligent Design movement, I detect a lack of real intent. The movement does have things to offer, however, and the questions they have posed have often been productive of scientific advances. Consider, for example, Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. I doubt the validity of Dr. Behe's inferences, but not his sincerity. The questions he raised are being plumbed by scientists and strides are being made toward filling the "gaps" that Dr. Behe filled with God. The machinery of reason rolls on.

-Chris

[cdowis]

LOGOS means many more things that reason or word. It can mean a discourse, discussion, anything that has to do with words.

I agree with JS that it means the plan, the heavenly counsel, the gospel, the plan of happiness.

"Before the creation of the earth, there was the heavenly council". That is what John is talking about.

[Hammer]

I see how you come to your conclusions. I will answer more tomorrow when my head is clearer-- I am getting a little tired. However, I must respond to one thing you stated. "He has never appeared to me no matter how I strain in prayer. "

It is a mistaken idea that the more we put into prayer, the more we get back. It is actually the more we relinquish ourselves, in total surrender to nothing, or everything, the will of the Father, in total love, embraced in love for Him, in praising Him, worshipping Him, that prayers are given answers.

Hope for all

Hey Chris,

You were right, I didn't post the scripture-- LOL I was already very fatiqued from a long day. Sorry. Here is the scripture:

D&C 84: 45

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

When we are speaking about words used by the Lord through His prophets, we are speaking about language that transends singular meaning or use. We are in need of the Holy Spirit for this reason. One may be at one level of understanding and as he progresses in life and experience, grow to another. The scriptures are so intriquing in this manner; they meet you wherever you are and gives you what you to understand through the Spirit at that time and place.

Trying to pin down the meanings, only brings conflict and confusion.

However, reason, in Christ is as valid as feelings, in Christ. Neither can really be used to disuade the other, except in a limited mind. A limited mind comes only through the worldly manner of learning and gaining understanding.

I understand this, and the Lord does expect us to fill our well with knowledge, but He also expects us to use the Spirit to sort what we have learned so that we can learn more with greater understanding and spiiritual flexability.

Read Section 93 of the D&C. It can really expand your understanding of things. Or not, according to where you are.

How you see things is determined by who you are and who you are is determined by what you do. And visa versa.

Thanks for the discussion.

Hope you have a great day.

[Chris Smith]

LOGOS means many more things that reason or word. It can mean a discourse, discussion, anything that has to do with words.

I agree with JS that it means the plan, the heavenly counsel, the gospel, the plan of happiness.

"Before the creation of the earth, there was the heavenly council". That is what John is talking about.

cdowis,

Before I spend too much time responding, let me ask whether this has been argued at greater length by a Mormon author, or whether your source is only JS and the above is basically the gist of it. If it has been argued by a Mormon author, where can I read about it?

Best,

-Chris