Irrationality of Reason

Irrationality of Reason

I recently watched the debate between Ken Hamm and Bill Nye. Promoted as a debate Creation/Evolution (I am sure that this was just a marketing ploy) the standoff prevailed as entertaining and somewhat informative. I didn’t tune in with the expectation of learning something new but to watch two respected men within a given field present opposing arguments from the same data. It was the craft I was interested in…no really it was the bout.
Attending a Bible College near Washington D.C. it always intrigued me when people would debate a topic, provide two opposing views, drawing from nearly the same data. In the context of the Bible College it was a matter of perspective based on the data. In the case of Hamm and Nye, like at the Bible College, it is their fundamental foundation of faith which provides each their basis of perspective.
Nye referred to himself as a “man of reason”, Hamm, unapologetically, a man of faith. Secularist rightly urged Nye not to subject himself to a battle the he was sure to lose, not because he was wrong, but because Hamm and his followers in Kentucky and abroad are “unreasonable” people, unwilling to accept reality.
I have not searched to many of the responses in the blogosphere. I did receive an email from Ref21 with a link to Rick Phillips’ article that brought a few good gleanings from the debate. I thought it was of value and he has a link to a secularist writer’s response in the article.
While the debate questioned the validity of what Nye referred to as “Hamm’s Model of Origins” ( really it was whether the Scripture’s story of the origins of man was valid ) in today’s modern scientific world, the real area of interest was in the relationship of Nye’s reason and Hamm’s faith.
Nye, as do many secularist, consider’s himself a man of reason. It is my understanding that in this context reason is set in juxtaposition to faith. I guess my question would be is it reasonable to assume that reason can operate completely separate from faith? In other words, is it reasonable to say that faith and reason or at opposite ends or are they in some way unique properties of the same DNA strand?
I get that science in the secularist world declares that there is no room in the “rational” real world for an unseen Intellect that supremely governs that which is known and that which is mystery. The reality of such a position requires faith. I as a believer in the declarations of Holy Writ can openly admit that I can not prove all that I have faith in, namely I cannot show you God whom I serve, but neither can the secularist prove that God whom I serve does not exist. Both positions are faith perspectives.
They may say that I am a fool for believing in what can never be proven. However, naturalism is based in a faith. Faith in a system of facts, many which are historical and that cannot be proven without reasonable doubt, it must be taken by faith – on some level. Sure most secularist would not agree that faith is necessary, I would only say that insisting that something is not necessary doesn’t make it true.
In Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 the Scriptures speak “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.” These are strong words from the Psalmist and difficult to receive apart from being a believer. The argument obvious, “if I don’t believe in God then I am unable to do any good? Then what about all the good things that people do that don’t believe as you do?”
With compassion I can say I understand the difficulty in this truth. It is this difficulty that fuels assertions that the text is irrational, charging archaism to raise skepticism. But does the age of something affect its trustworthiness or truth? Without falling down the rabbit hole of post-modernism I will simply suggest that there is nothing more irrational than the idea of subjective truth.
I am sure that neither I nor a secularist will be persuaded by one another. The only thing that I would ask is that my friends that oppose my view be honest about their faith in naturalism. Admit that there are things that they hold to that cannot be proven. I don’t have an issue with the belief that continued exercising of processes with someday provide understanding that did not previously exist ( that is a faith also ) but I do take issue with the irrationality of reason apart from the truth of faith.

Advertisements
Standard