10. Argument from Reason

12 Arguments for the Existence of God by Prof. Caner Taslaman https://mim.mbirgin.com/?c=posts&id=276

10. Argument from Reason Making conversation about an unimportant event in the daily routine, contemplating future goals, doing science in a laboratory, developing sophisticated philosophical arguments… All these and many of our activities are only possible with our “reasoning” capability. We carry out these activities, simple or complex, often without particularly feeling our “reasoning” ability: something that makes us ourselves, which permeates so deeply in our lives and is perhaps one of the most important properties of our nature.

Our argument in this chapter is about the reasoning property, intrinsic and innate in every healthy person. Had the universe not possessed a rational structure, the mind would be unable to comprehend it (2nd chapter, argument from the existence of natural laws of the universe). On the other hand, regardless of the structure of the universe, had the mind not possessed pertinent capabilities, it would still be unable to comprehend it (argument from reason). The coherence between the outside world and the mind is a particularly noteworthy phenomenon. I also consider it important to note that the argument from reason is closely related to the next two pieces: “argument from will” and “argument from consciousness and self”, as those properties are tightly linked to the reasoning capability of the mind. Here is how the argument from reason will be presented:

1. In order to have the ability to reason, the mind should possess the following (along with others) properties: 1.1 Properties needed for will. 1.2 Properties needed for consciousness and self. 1.3 Possession of concepts of “right and wrong” and the ability to use them. 1.4 Possession of laws of logic and ability to use logical thinking. 2. There are two fundamental views to explain the emergence of these properties in the mind: 2.1 If materialist-atheism is true, these properties of mind should have been emerged through coincidental processes, via the laws of nature. 2.2 If God exists, as asserted by theists, these properties of the mind are created by God, who has absolute reason. 3. Theism better explains these properties allowing reason, because: 3.1 The properties needed for will is better explained in theism than materialist-atheism (to be detailed in Chapter 11). 3.2 The properties needed for consciousness and self is better explained in theism than materialist-atheism (to be detailed in Chapter 12). 3.3 The ability to use the concepts of “right and wrong” is better explained in theism than materialist-atheism. 3.4 The ability to use logic is better explained in theism than materialist-atheism. 4. As a result, theism should be preferred against materialist-atheism.

Anyone would agree that properties listed in item 1 above are indispensable for reasoning. If we reject will, all of our thoughts would be nothing but physical events, no different than the “blowing of a wind”; making reasoning impossible. Reasoning can take place if, and only if, there is will. Likewise, will is also impossible without reasoning (to be discussed in detail in Chapter 11). In addition, reasoning is also impossible without consciousness; it requires conscious awareness of what passes from the mind (to be discussed in detail in Chapter 12).

In this chapter, we will focus on the two points under item 1, which will not be discussed in the next two chapters. Let us consider a simple piece of reasoning: a pen is a tool used for writing. Such knowledge would not carry any meaning without the ability to make evaluations like “the pen being a tool for writing is right” and “the pen being something to eat is wrong”. Words gain meaning in our brains through evaluations in the framework of “right and wrong” (this is the property of human mind about the concepts of right and wrong). Likewise, we would be unable to reach the same knowledge if we were unable to evaluate the pen and writing through basic logic laws (such as identity and noncontradiction), and unable to conclude that the pen is for writing through numerous observations of pens in writing and making an induction (property of human mind about the use of logic). As a result, without much hesitation, we can claim that theist and materialist-atheists would be in consensus about these fundamental properties of the mind (there are other prerequisites for reasoning, such as language and memory; those will not be included in our discussions).

The second item in our argument states that there are two fundamental approaches to the explanation of the phenomenon of reasoning. The first is materialist-atheism, which regards the material as eternal and considers the emergence of the mind as an outcome of coincidental processes taking part within the framework of natural laws. The second is theism, which considers the mind to be a creation of God, who is eternal, all-conscious, all-powerful and also has the ability to reason to a much higher, absolute level, than humans. Please pay attention that we used the term “fundamental” for these two approaches. We do this to exclude many non-mainstream opinions, receiving little attention in the scientific community and society in general. One example for such vies is panpsychism, which claims that every part of matter contains conscious (and other) properties of mind.[103] This claim contradicts our experience that consciousness does not penetrate everywhere, but rather has a certain concentration. As possessor of mind-will-consciousness, each of us has thoughts and actions; so does everyone else. Our mind-will-consciousness belongs only in ourselves, and our actions, governed by our thoughts, have certain limits; that means there is no apparent indication of panpsychism in our experiences. In addition, even in panpsychism the need for explaining the emergence of mindful-willful-conscious human does not disappear: meaning that even in such an eccentric view, the main structure of our argument still remains. It is also possible to derive other thoughts for understanding reason-will-consciousness, akin to panpsychism, out of theism and materialist-atheism. Leaving aside the fact that views attributing consciousness to matter do not attract many proponents, in my opinion these, and similar philosophies, can only be supported via a theism-like approach, where a rational-willful-conscious God places these properties in countless particles of matter. Therefore, such philosophies do not stand against theism, but they do stand against materialist-atheism. Nevertheless, they cannot be attributed a status of a “fundamental” alternative view.

The main objection from a materialist-atheist would come to the 3rd item in our argumentation. When the three points under item 3 are agreed on, the conclusion automatically surfaces. When the premises in the list are proven to be correct, the result becomes a requirement of logic. No materialist-atheist should object to this, either. They would agree that the correctness of the three propositions necessitates the conclusion, but disagree that they are correct. Therefore, the critical item here is the 3rd, and we will elucidate it below. We will treat certain notable properties related to the human mind and scrutinize the explanations provided by theism and materialist-atheism.

Point 3.1, the better explanation of the will by theism, is the subject of the next chapter; and point 3.2, consciousness and self are the subjects of Chapter 12. Since will and consciousness are prerequisites for reasoning, the next two chapters are essentially an integral part of the current piece. Now, let us delve into the two remaining properties. Evaluation of 3.3: The existence of the concepts of “right and wrong” is another prerequisite for reasoning; despite the fact that it is often overlooked due to its comfortable regular use by everyone. Most people spend their lives never contemplating this property, like a fish not knowing it is in water.

We reason through language, and the use of language requires knowing the meanings of words and sentences. Knowing the meaning requires understanding of whether a statement is “right or wrong”. Neither understanding nor reasoning is possible without the concepts of “right and wrong”. When we hear the word “chair”, the only way to imagine the actual object in question is to understand that it is “right” to call an object a chair if it is made to sit on; but it is “wrong” to call an object a chair if it is a round-shaped ball made to play with. Without such kind of distinctions, the concept “chair” cannot be understood. Even though we do not momentarily make such distinctions when we hear the word, the relevant processes about “right and wrong” are always running in the background of our minds. Concepts would not have any meaning without this awareness.

Looking at nature, we realize that there is no concrete counterpart of “right and wrong”; they are abstractions in our minds. Consider a botanist, set to determine the age of a tree; he/she is counting the rings in the trunk of the tree. If his/her estimation of the tree’s age is not equal to its actual age, we would say he/she is “wrong”. Now imagine for a moment that there is a fictitious bacterium that fades trees’ rings and causes wrong estimations. In such a situation, would it be possible to say that the “the tree is wrong”? Of course not! We might say that the structure of the tree is misleading but it is not the tree that is wrong; it is the botanist. For nothing without a mind in nature, no technological production of human, not even the most advanced computers, is there “right”, “wrong” or “meaning”. The calculations carried out by a computer can be attributed “rightness” or “wrongness” only via the evaluation of the mind. The computer itself is not aware of these concepts. This is similar to our ideas written on a piece of paper. Before been read by a mind, the thing on the paper is simply a spread of ink. The statements on the paper can be evaluated as “right or wrong” only after evaluation by a mind. Such fundamental and innate concepts cannot be reduced to physical, chemical and biological processes.[104] As stated by C.S. Lewis; “… it is nonsensical to say that one piece of matter is “about” another piece of matter. A tree is not about a rock, for example. Moreover, a piece of matter cannot be true or false; it simply is…”[105]

Materialist-atheist ontology faces grand difficulties in explaining these non-material, entirely mental concepts. Patricia and Paul Churchland (both materialist-atheists) stated this difficulty when they called for the need of readiness against the lack of concepts “right and wrong” in the brain. Referring to the claims of the Churchland couple, Victor Reppert stated that the price paid for eliminating the value of rightness is quite harsh, and that it is impossible to fill these concepts with any other alternative.[106] Most materialist-atheists, including the Churchland couple (one a neurologist and the other a philosopher), would find it hard to consistently accept the requisite of their philosophies; yet as correctly noted by the couple, it is impossible to find a place in the world of materialist-atheist ontology for the concepts “right and wrong”. It is nonsensical to think of rightness or wrongness as a biochemical reaction inside the brain (as in the example of the tree above). Therefore, the price to be paid for materialist-atheists to save their philosophies is to abandon the concepts of “right and wrong”, following a path the farthest possible distance away from commonsense.

The mental concepts of “right and wrong” are so fundamental that they cannot be reduced to or understood by material concepts. If you understand that the statement “People travel in cars” is right and “Everybody owns a car” is wrong, and if you think that the concepts “right and wrong” used here make sense, you essentially agree that concepts unexplainable in the materialist ontology have real counterparts. For theism, the existence of beings capable of reasoning is linked to God, who himself has reason; hence a theist faces no obstacle towards understanding the emergence of this fundamental property that is indispensable for reasoning capability. This property is explained more successfully in the theist paradigm, as compared to materialist-atheism.

Evaluation of 3.4: Another prerequisite for using our minds is the possessions of laws of logic and the ability to make logical derivations in the framework of these rules. It is this property of the mind that allows for the discovery of Higgs particle, all technological inventions or routine daily thinking. If the mind did not possess principles of identity and noncontradiction, statements like “this is a chair” would not carry any meaning. Had we not observed people sitting on chairs numerous times and thereby made an induction that chair is something used for sitting, we would not be able to reason that “a chair is for sitting”, and when we see a chair we would not be able to make a deduction to sit on it. As a result, reasoning is possible thanks to this property, along with others mentioned above.

Our minds are equipped with innate laws of logic. People from isolated tribes reason through the same laws of logic; the ability to use these laws starting from very young ages; the readiness for language acquisition from birth (use of language is impossible without reasoning in accordance with the laws of logic) etc. all point to this innate nature. As pointed out by Thomas Nagel, one who makes reference to reason finds a source of universal authority above himself and society. He also says even many educated people find it hard to use the particular way of reasoning “modus tollendo tollens”, yet this difficulty does not affect the binding universality of that law. This is one of the indications that the laws of logic cannot be reduced to social norms or psychological situations.[107] We can feel this universal authority in our minds when we consider e.g. “3+2=5” or other forms of mathematical or logical uses.

Laws of logic are non-physical, transcendental rules. Some thinkers reject the real existence of numbers, which have similar properties, since we cannot enter into causal interactions with them (numbers are abstract and abstract entities do not have causal interactions). Should a consistent materialist not claim the same for the laws of logic, as they are also irreducible to material processes and incapable of causal interactions (since they are abstract)? Indeed, he should; yet few materialists realize that this is the logical requirement of their belief. As noted by Aristotle more than a couple thousand years ago, the non-realism of laws of logic brings about several problems. Even to reject the laws of logic, one should first accept their truth.[108] The universe described by materialism does not seem to provide grounds for laws of logic. Consistent adoption of materialist philosophy requires considering these laws as an illusion. Ironically, if a materialist does this, he loses grounds to claim the truth of materialism!

We cannot reason without innate laws of logic. These laws, however, are different from physical laws: logically, it is possible to imagine a universe with a different set of physical laws (for example, one with no gravity or larger weak nuclear force). On the other hand, the laws of logic are considered to be transcendental, hence they remain exactly the same in any possible universe. “3+2=5”; large can include small, but not vice versa, are statements that would hold true in any possible universe. Logic principles such as identity and noncontradiction would remain unchanged in a fictitious universe governed by a different set of physical laws. In the material universe, no law of physics, chemistry or biology shares this property with logic; it is fundamentally distinct. Let us consider biological molecules in the brain, consisting of atoms and described by physics-chemistry; no state of these molecules necessitates a universally-binding principle of logic. In materialist-atheism, all states of the mind are nothing but biochemical states and reactions (hence their different forms are possible); it seems impossible to make the transition to universal laws of logics from these states. What matters here is the difference in kind: not in degree. When observed from a materialist-atheist angle, it is quite problematic to explain such a difference and to understand the emergence of properties that do not exist in a material form. No combination of atoms, no combination of molecules, regardless of how complex they might be, can form foundations of universal laws of logic. In theism, on the other side, since God has reason and He is the root of everything, there is a significant advantage in understanding the emergence of such properties of the reason.

In short, in this chapter, we focused on reasoning, one of the properties that defines us. We scrutinized whether reasoning is better explained by theism or materialist-atheism. The concepts of “right and wrong” and the laws of logic that we discussed above cannot be understood through the structure of matter or biochemical reactions in the brain. Even though such material interactions are necessities for the ability of reasoning, they are unable to explain the true nature of reason. Conceptual investigations and reflections on prerequisites for reasoning reveal that the properties we considered are radically different from material structures and properties asserted by materialism. Evidently, materialist-atheist philosophy is unable to satisfactorily describe the emergence of properties needed for reasoning. This handicap disappears for theism where the eternal and rational God is considered to be the Creator. The ability of reasoning, observed in every healthy person, indicates that theism is preferable over materialist-atheism.

12 Arguments for the Existence of God by Prof. Caner Taslaman https://mim.mbirgin.com/?c=posts&id=276