Where Do Universally Valid Rules of Reason Come From?
Kevin R. Henke
October 15, 2022
In Henke (2022b), I stated:
“No gods, angels, demons or a Bible are also needed to figure out how people should try to function in our environments. We should develop rules (morality) through reason and not Biblical dogma so that we can live peacefully with each other and our environment.”
Lundahl (2022j) then replies to my statements:
“The morality is here said to be rooted in reason. Now, the question is not whether an agency external to our reason is needed to enlighten it - it may be the case, and as Christians, both Lewis and I believe after the fall each has some kind of need of that. The questions are rather:
· where do universally valid rules of reason come from?
· does reason deal with any moral rules prior to its own developing of moral rules?
The point of chapters 3 and (I think) 4 is, the laws of chemistry and electronics and physics and the constraints of evolution do not put us into the reach of discovering what is universally valid. For our reason to do this, we need to be more than that. The sentence ‘[o]ur brains, thoughts and surroundings are all ultimately controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics,’ needs to be false, at least if implying ‘and nothing else.’”
In Henke (2022ay), I answered Mr. Lundahl’s question: “Where do universally valid rules of reason come from?”:
“The “universally valid rules of reason” that Lundahl (2022j) references are solely human discoveries. There’s no need for anything beyond human reason (Dennett 2006). The rules are “universal” because they happen to work in a variety of circumstances from generation to generation. In ancient times, humans learned to develop morals so that members of the tribe could get along with each other. Otherwise, the tribe would fall apart. People needed to cooperate with each other to survive. They also learned how to make spears, avoid the berries that were poisonous, develop strategies for hunting, etc. Both of their technological and socialization (moral) skills came from reasoning and they passed that knowledge onto their children. Their children added to the knowledge and passed that onto their children, etc. In other words, ancient people discovered morality in the same way that they discovered how to make a spear – through reason and trial and error.
In more modern times, we discovered that slavery was not a good idea from rational debate and empathy for our fellow human beings, and certainly not from prayer and the Bible (Avalos 2011). We also learned that it’s not a good idea to dump toxins into the atmosphere and oceans. Through physics, chemistry and biology, we learned that pollution may not just “go away.” Each generation learns valuable and often painful lessons through reason, trail and error, and debate, and we try to pass that wisdom and knowledge unto the next generation along with our positive technological advances. There’s no evidence that any of our advances in reasoning and technology came from God or something “beyond Nature.”
As for the Fall of Adam and Eve that Lundahl (2022j) and Lewis (1960) mention, there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. The young-Earth creationist version of the Fall is especially silly, where stars in distant galaxies supposedly become supernovae solely because Adam and Eve listened to a Talking Snake in Genesis 3, ate the wrong piece of fruit, and plunged the entire Universe into chaos and destruction.
When humans rationalize, we first observe and identify a problem or a mystery. We then thoroughly confirm our observations with more and independent observations from other humans. Did they really do or say that? Did that really happen? Over time through testing, trial and error, and being empathetic to our fellow humans, we developed “universally valid rules of reason”, which are the products of human activity. We then use the rules we’ve learned to solve additional problems and mysteries. The evidence indicates that we humans have no gods, angels or extraterrestrial intelligences helping us. We are alone and we are most effective in solving mysteries and problems when we work together and engage in science, evaluate historical data for accuracy, develop and use mathematics/logic, and strive to come to a consensus through rational debate and not through prayer, prophecy, astrology or other nonsensical methods.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022s) then only replies to the bolded section:
“And the proposition you were supposed to argue against was not that we needed anything beyond human reason. The proposition was that human reason needs to have other properties than nature could provide it with. And this is not dealt with.”
No, I dealt with the issue. I answered the question that you asked in Lundahl (2022j): “Where do universally valid rules of reason come from?” If Lundahl (2022s) had actually read my entire section and Dennett (2006) rather than just breaking up my comments and viewing them in isolation, perhaps he would understand what Dennett (2006) and I are saying.
Reference:
Avalos, H. 2011. Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship: Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 331pp.
Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking Penguin: London, UK, 448pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.