In an era when there is more information available than ever before, why
is disciplined reasoning so rare? Wouldn’t one expect this
to be reason’s golden age? Nevertheless, in political
contests and in the debates surrounding the most important moral,
social, and scientific issues of our time, there is a reasoning
deficit. All too often, important issues are reduced to
ad
hominum attacks, sloganeering, scare tactics, or attempts to
divide people by self-interest.
Even scientific debate, where one would expect to find a surfeit of
reason, often falls prey to sloppy reasoning, with questionable
extrapolation of data and poorly substantiated speculation. Often,
the progression from observed or measured phenomena to conclusions lacks
sound reason, reducing these conclusions to mere speculation. Sometimes,
self-interest is the culprit, but more often the reasoning skills of the
investigators, though trained scientists or engineers, are undeveloped
or poorly formed.
In the early twentieth century, debates between G. K. Chesterton and
George Bernard Shaw, philosophical opposites on most issues, thrilled
readers and listeners with their cogency and reliance on reason; where
are their modern progeny? Ironically, many of the modern bastions of
reason are Christians, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI being
prominent examples. In addition to exploring revelatory truths, works
like
Fides et Ratio (Faith and
Reason),
Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth)
and
Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) display rigorous
reasoning.
Reasoning relies on information, but more information does not imply
better reasoning, especially when the mind is so cluttered that there is
little time to reflect, or when the information that is admitted into
the mind is inaccurate, passion-laden, superfluous, or irrational.
The deconstruction of reason can be laid, in part, at the doorstep of
the psychological and social sciences, as these disciplines have reduced
reason to the now-commonly held view that one opinion is as good as any
other, my facts are as good as yours, my truths are as good as
yours. When such views predominate, what is the value of honing
reasoning skills? What is to be gained by pursuing truth when
truth is just a conditioned or subjective viewpoint?
There are plenty of other threats to disciplined reason in our culture:
a plundering mercantilism that believes economics trumps everything (an
economic equation instead of reasoned debate); socialists who desires to
make the state the arbiter of everything (letting the state do our
reasoning for us); a consumerism in which bovine indifference alternates
with irrational emotionalism; and even anti-intellectual believers who
scorn science and intellectual development.
Then, there are “rational” atheists, who disparage religious
belief and cloak themselves in a mantle of science and reason. Yet, they
believe in black holes, The Big Bang, and string theory, the mathematics
and physics of which even few scientists can comprehend. This is not to
reject these theories about the universe, but to point out that such
views require “faith” in theoretical physics (theories are
often proven wrong or incomplete), as there are no means for the
ordinary man to test these theories with his intellect or senses. We
ought not cede the ground of reason to atheists, many of whom practice a
superficial rationalism.
When one reasons, there is the possibility of experiencing breathtaking
intellectual vistas, even Truth. But how can we learn these
skills, especially when we are products of a culture that doesn’t
value authentic reasoning, and of an educational system that has largely
abandoned its application?
We begin by recognizing that objective truth exists, and by cultivating
an honest desire to pursue it wherever it leads; we can receive good
formation from what we read, listen to, and watch; we can challenge
ourselves to read profound reasoners like Aquinas, Lincoln, John Henry
Newman, Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis; we can be receptive to considering
new information, regardless of the source; we can plumb the information
we receive by going deeper, verifying with independent sources, and
taking time to test assertions that are being made; we can avoid making
debates personal or polemical, keeping to the high ground of first
principles and reason; and we can challenge conventional wisdom, even
when we are ridiculed. None of these practices are contrary to our
faith. Blessed John Paul II said, “Faith and reason are like two
wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of
truth”.
Reason works something like links in a chain. Each link in this
reasoning chain is essential, as the chain is only as strong as its
weakest link. Problem is, many today are willing to “buy” a
chain based on appearance alone, and with little consideration for the
strength of the individual links. Reason depends on factual information,
but reasoning is more than just lining up facts. Good reasoning
elucidates facts and gives them meaning.
We need more men and woman who are capable of engaging the public with
lucid reasoning, informed by faith, and buttressed by courage. There are
many forums where disciplined reasoning can be applied: letters to the
editor, blogs, op-eds, social media, and conversations with family and
friends. The Church needs this, and so does our culture.