# Trusting Human Reason Without God: A Complex Inquiry
Written on
Chapter 1: The Dilemma of Reason and God
Can humans rely on their reasoning abilities if God does not exist? This question challenges the core beliefs of many, especially within the Christian community, who assert that our capacity for rational thought is inherently tied to divine existence. They argue that without God, the foundation for reason collapses.
Under a purely materialistic worldview, the notion of trusting our thoughts becomes problematic. Why is that? Because, in this perspective, thoughts are merely the results of chemical interactions. If our reasoning is just a byproduct of chemical processes, how can we trust it to yield truths about reality?
Photo by Jeremy Thomas on Unsplash
Some Christians respond to this skepticism with statements like, “I can’t fathom how a random process could produce that” or “I find it hard to believe that mere chemicals can have such capabilities.” These responses, however, reflect an argument rooted in personal incredulity, a logical fallacy. Just because one cannot grasp how something works does not imply its falsehood.
Section 1.1: Emergence of Properties
When Christians voice their doubts about whether mindless chemical reactions can lead to abstract thought, they are typically grappling with two key ideas. First, they tend to reject the notion that matter can evolve to possess reasoning capabilities. In their view, consciousness and thought are exclusive to souls rather than material substances. But what justifies their certainty that matter cannot be organized in a way that fosters such functions? This question remains unanswered, as it too is based on personal incredulity.
If we examine the world around us, we find numerous examples of emergent properties in matter. For instance, individual hydrogen or oxygen atoms do not possess the property of wetness, yet when they combine to form water, that property emerges.
Photo by Linus Nylund on Unsplash
Similarly, individual bricks lack the ability to provide shelter, but when arranged thoughtfully, they can form houses. Consider a USB drive: it can hold data equivalent to thousands of books. If someone from the Middle Ages were told that a device the size of a thumb could store 10,000 books, they would likely deem it impossible, yet we know better.
Does a USB drive require a soul to contain vast amounts of information? Does a calculator need a soul to perform arithmetic tasks accurately and instantly? The answer to these questions is a resounding “No.” Thus, there is no compelling reason to conclude that matter cannot be structured to produce reasoning abilities.
Section 1.2: The Illusion of Design
Another skepticism held by some Christians is the belief that random natural processes cannot assemble matter into complex functionalities. While they may accept that devices like USB drives and calculators operate based on chemical properties, they insist that such devices require intentional design.
Although USB drives and calculators indeed need designers, not everything complex requires conscious creators. Biologists widely agree that evolutionary processes account for the diversity of life without necessitating a designer. The human brain, for instance, is not merely a random amalgamation of chemicals. It has evolved over millions of years, developing skills crucial for survival. Natural selection is not random; only the fittest organisms endure.
A model of a fossil of a giant toothed platypus from the Riversleigh fossil fields. Photo by David Clode on Unsplash
For those struggling to understand how natural processes can yield complex functionalities—like a chameleon changing its skin color to blend into its environment—I recommend delving into biology literature, which provides substantial evidence for evolution.
If disproving evolution is essential for Christians to assert that atheists cannot trust their reasoning, they face a formidable challenge—one that is hard to overcome.
The first video, "What If God Doesn't Exist?" explores these deep philosophical questions and examines the implications of a godless existence on human reasoning.
Chapter 2: Reasoning Across Beliefs
Christians often hold the belief that, in a world devoid of God, neither atheists nor theists can trust their reasoning. Yet, they must confront the paradox: How can they trust their reasoning to assert God's existence? They cannot merely claim, “I can trust my reasoning because God exists,” as that would be circular logic.
This fallacious reasoning can be articulated as follows: We can trust our reasoning because God exists, and we know God exists because we can trust our reasoning—an argument that is only valid if one assumes God's existence from the outset.
In a conversation with Arnau Perez Ninot, he expressed that he trusts his reasoning ability based on his experiences. He evaluates the existence of God through this reasoning and feels confident in his conclusion. He is correct; our experiences shape our trust in our reasoning abilities. We can assert that 1 + 1 = 2 because we have consistently observed this principle in action.
Photo by Anoushka Puri on Unsplash
When reasoning is applied practically, it yields tangible results—such as successfully launching a rocket into space. We don’t place blind faith in our brain’s neural activities; we trust our reasoning because it produces reliable outcomes.
Belief in God does not dictate whether we can trust our experiences. Should an atheist doubt that 1 + 1 = 2 simply because they lack belief in God? That notion is absurd. Do theists believe that 1 + 1 = 2 due to the existence of God? It makes no sense.
Section 2.1: Evaluating Double Standards
If Christians like Arnau find their reasoning justified through personal experience, why shouldn't atheists feel the same? Why are atheists deemed unworthy of trust in their reasoning while theists are granted that same trust, both of which are based on experience?
This double standard becomes more apparent when Christians are asked if they would allow me to trust my reasoning—grounded in my experiences—when concluding that God likely exists. I believe no Christian would argue that I should not trust my reasoning in forming that conclusion.
God’s existence does not automatically ensure the reliability of our reasoning. It’s conceivable that while God possesses perfect reasoning, that does not imply he equipped every human with a reliable cognitive process. The existence of God and the dependability of human reasoning are two distinct issues.
If Muslims assert that their belief in God justifies their trust in reasoning—leading them to conclude that Allah is the true deity—would Christians agree that Muslims are justified? Likely not, revealing a double standard among Christians.
Section 2.2: The Complexity of Human Reasoning
The question of our brain's reliability is not straightforward. Regardless of God’s existence, there are clear matters we can trust our minds to resolve, such as predicting the sunrise. However, complex issues, such as forecasting the stock market, require cautious approaches.
Photo by Ruben Sukatendel on Unsplash
We must recognize that our brains are subject to various cognitive biases, including confirmation bias and the Dunning-Kruger effect, which can hinder sound judgment. Mental illnesses also complicate this issue; for instance, individuals with schizophrenia may struggle to differentiate reality from hallucinations—indicating that their brains can mislead them.
In summary, belief in God does not inherently justify trusting one’s reasoning or senses. The critical factor in determining our reasoning’s reliability should be the objective outcomes we experience.
Conclusion: Trusting Reason in a Godless World
The dependability of our reasoning is not contingent upon belief in a divine entity. Both theists and atheists base their trust in reason on personal experiences and the tangible results that reasoning yields. This trust should be flexible, as cognitive biases, mental health issues, and the inherent complexity of certain topics necessitate careful consideration.
Ultimately, we should allow the objective outcomes of our reasoning to dictate our confidence in its reliability, irrespective of one’s belief in God.
The second video, "Does God Exist? A Dialogue Between a Christian and Skeptic," provides an insightful discussion on these themes, examining the perspectives of both sides in the debate.
If you found this exploration insightful, consider supporting my writing with a tip.