"Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?"


#1

“Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

This question was posed on another thread.

Is all our reasoning truely devoid of all spirit if we rely on logic?

I would say that in order for anything to have meaning we have to use logic. For without it all our musing would just boil down to personal opinions and would cease to have any meaning.

I would also say that in order for things to have “spirit” they need to have meaning. Without meaning “spirit” would be irrelevant.

Peace


#2

[quote=dennisknapp]“Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

This question was posed on another thread.

Is all our reasoning truely devoid of all spirit if we rely on logic?

I would say that in order for anything to have meaning we have to use logic. For without it all our musing would just boil down to personal opinions and would cease to have any meaning.

I would also say that in order for things to have “spirit” they need to have meaning. Without meaning “spirit” would be irrelevant.

Peace
[/quote]


Dennis, ]“Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

Could that question have been asked by someone who avoided the question of " what is the origin of the first atoms of which the universe is made".

Did something (stars & planets) suddenly emerge from Nothing? We would have to say that is not Logical, based upon our obsevations from earth.

Which came first?..Are we mixing the meaning of these two words, “Spititual” and “Spirit”. Have we proven there is no spirit? The original question is simple in a complex sort of way.

If forced I would have to say that the answer to, “Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?” would have to be “NO!” If someone answered “Yes”, then how do they explain the resurrection of Christ?


#3

But on the same token thinks of the spirit may indeed seem irrational and illogical.God Bless


#4

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]But on the same token thinks of the spirit may indeed seem irrational and illogical.God Bless
[/quote]

Lisa,

Could you please elaborate?

Peace


#5

[quote=dennisknapp]Lisa,

Could you please elaborate?

Peace
[/quote]

Certainly:) We are Catholic Christians we believe that approximately 2000 years ago God was born of a virgin,He healed people rose people from the dead,performed miracles,was crucified,died and rose on the third day.We believe that Jesus comes to us in the Holy Eucharist,we believe that God still works miracles through the Saints,through prayers, and on a rational logical way of thought that would be an incredible claim.When Mother Teresa went to Calcutta that would not be a logical or rational decision to make.The spiritual in a person transcends and sometimes contradicts what would be considered rational or logical.God Bless


#6

Someone is thinking as a mystic.
Logic and rationality are gifts from God, but so much of God is mystical, (Did I say that? Stupid me…All things of God are mystical.)
Just consider the sacrifice of Christ for us.Just what part of that is logical and rational? Love…real love is not really rational…and God is Love.
Pax vobiscum,


#7

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Certainly:) We are Catholic Christians we believe that approximately 2000 years ago God was born of a virgin,He healed people rose people from the dead,performed miracles,was crucified,died and rose on the third day.We believe that Jesus comes to us in the Holy Eucharist,we believe that God still works miracles through the Saints,through prayers, and on a rational logical way of thought that would be an incredible claim.When Mother Teresa went to Calcutta that would not be a logical or rational decision to make.The spiritual in a person transcends and sometimes contradicts what would be considered rational or logical.God Bless
[/quote]

I would agree that there are mysteries that transend logic and reason, but does this make logic and reason meaningless?

It is one thing to say that human reason can take you so far, it is quite another to say that because of this we can believe contradictiory things.

God is mysterious, but also knowable. We know by logic that Krishna and the God of Christianity cannot both be God at the same time and in the same sense. We know that what Catholics and Evangelicals believe about the Eucharist cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. So, reason and logic have their place, just as tools have their place in the workman’s show.

Peace


#8

PEEK - AH- BOO,

The question was, “Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

A logical and rational REALITY ?
The only entity (thing) that man’s tools (measuring devices) can detect or measure are what man has called the “real world”.

There are no Angel Feathers on the floor of the laboratory. Therefore ,an’s tools cannot detect Angels. So Angels are not part of Science.

Angels are the “property” of metaphysics, not Physics.


#9

[quote=Exporter]PEEK - AH- BOO,

The question was, “Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

A logical and rational REALITY ?
The only entity (thing) that man’s tools (measuring devices) can detect or measure are what man has called the “real world”.

There are no Angel Feathers on the floor of the laboratory. Therefore ,an’s tools cannot detect Angels. So Angels are not part of Science.

Angels are the “property” of metaphysics, not Physics.
[/quote]

I was not talking about physics. I was talking about logic and reason which are tools we use to discern the validity of truth claims. My response has nothing to do with physics or any other science.

Peace


#10

I don’t really think that there is any contradiction between reason and mysticism. Thomas Aquinas tried to analyze theology in a systematic and logical manner. (So do modern philosophers such as Peter Kreeft.) Near the end of his life, he was granted a vision of God, which so overwhelmed him that he wanted to burn all his works because of their inadequacy. But what God said to him in the vision is “You have written well of me, Thomas.”

(I’m recalling this story from memory, so I hope I have the details right)

What Aquinas had written was true and reasonable, but could not come close to the actual experience of God. Reading St. John of the Cross or other mystics is quite different from reading theology. They are complementary, not contradictory.


#11

[quote=dennisknapp]I was not talking about physics. I was talking about logic and reason which are tools we use to discern the validity of truth claims. My response has nothing to do with physics or any other science.

Peace
[/quote]

Well tell that to Tlaloc:nope: Because if he is an example of rational and logical thinking pattern then I am perfectly content being irrational and illogical.The arguments I have heard that claim these two traits are as devoid of spirit as anything I have ever heard.If you have something to combat the stuff like on Lisa’s truth thread and combat Tlaloc with what he claims to be using go get him! It would be refreshing to me to see them support spiritual things right now,as a results of so-called logical and rational arguments I have been left with a skeptical attitude.Give me some optimism Dennisknapp;)


#12

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Well tell that to Tlaloc:nope: Because if he is an example of rational and logical thinking pattern then I am perfectly content being irrational and illogical.The arguments I have heard that claim these two traits are as devoid of spirit as anything I have ever heard.If you have something to combat the stuff like on Lisa’s truth thread and combat Tlaloc with what he claims to be using go get him! It would be refreshing to me to see them support spiritual things right now,as a results of so-called logical and rational arguments I have been left with a skeptical attitude.Give me some optimism Dennisknapp;)
[/quote]

Tlaloc does a lot of question begging. If he can define something is a certain way and be consistant, he wins. This does not make it true but true to him. All he can truly do is spread skepticism. Go to our debate on the Buddhism thread and see what I mean.

We should never shy away from logic and reason because people use them in negative ways. We should have faith in the LOGOS, the WORD of God, who is Christ.

Peace


#13

[quote=dennisknapp]Tlaloc does a lot of question begging. If he can define something is a certain way and be consistant, he wins. This does not make it true but true to him. All he can truly do is spread skepticism. Go to our debate on the Buddhism thread and see what I mean.

We should never shy away from logic and reason because people use them in negative ways. We should have faith in the LOGOS, the WORD of God, who is Christ.

Peace
[/quote]

Oh I would never (with God’s grace) away from Jesus.I guess Tlaloc has just gotten me where I am sceptical of so called logic and so called rational thought,because in the light of Faith what he is portraying these things are negative to say the least and diabolical at worst.I guess what I am saying is if logical and rational thinking processes are turning out atheists and Tlalocs,I will be illogical and irrational;) I would like to read some things that you could send me though because you do have faith.Oh, Dennisknapp, I am praying for Tlaloc but his responses are just down right depressing:nope: I do not buy his responses,I feel bad for him as irritated as I am with his thought processes.For someone who is suppose to be an anthrapologist and put all his time in higher learning the result seems disasterous to me.God Bless


#14

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Oh I would never (with God’s grace) away from Jesus.I guess Tlaloc has just gotten me where I am sceptical of so called logic and so called rational thought,because in the light of Faith what he is portraying these things are negative to say the least and diabolical at worst.I guess what I am saying is if logical and rational thinking processes are turning out atheists and Tlalocs,I will be illogical and irrational;) I would like to read some things that you could send me though because you do have faith.Oh, Dennisknapp, I am praying for Tlaloc but his responses are just down right depressing:nope: I do not buy his responses,I feel bad for him as irritated as I am with his thought processes.For someone who is suppose to be an anthrapologist and put all his time in higher learning the result seems disasterous to me.God Bless
[/quote]

Go to www.peterkreeft.com

In this websites you will see reason at work in the frame of faith. Tell me what you think.

Check out his Featured Writings section, especially peterkreeft.com/featured-writing_more.htm

Peace


#15

[quote=JimG]I don’t really think that there is any contradiction between reason and mysticism. Thomas Aquinas tried to analyze theology in a systematic and logical manner. (So do modern philosophers such as Peter Kreeft.) Near the end of his life, he was granted a vision of God, which so overwhelmed him that he wanted to burn all his works because of their inadequacy. But what God said to him in the vision is “You have written well of me, Thomas.”

(I’m recalling this story from memory, so I hope I have the details right)

What Aquinas had written was true and reasonable, but could not come close to the actual experience of God. Reading St. John of the Cross or other mystics is quite different from reading theology. They are complementary, not contradictory.
[/quote]

I agree. They are complementary, as you example on Aquinas shows. As St. Thomas himself said, after being granted a marvelous vision near the end of his life:

Such things have been revealed to me, that everything I have written seems to me to be so much straw.
**
What St. Thomas wrote about God were extraordinarily eloquent manifestations of human logic and reason, written to explain and defend the faith, and the Lord Himself commended Thomas for his works. Yet, while they are correct, they were incomplete which is why Thomas mentioned that what he wrote seemed to be mere straw. Logic supports Faith, but the former should never be the latter’s master.

Gerry :slight_smile:


#16

[quote=dennisknapp]I was not talking about physics. I was talking about logic and reason which are tools we use to discern the validity of truth claims. My response has nothing to do with physics or any other science.

Peace
[/quote]


I know you were not talking about Physics Dennis. But will you excuse me for trying to divide “existance” in the SEEN and the UNSEEN? I have a difficult time meshing the two. I have very good Reason to believe there are Unseen entities all around us, i.e., God and all the spirits , plus the Angels. But we can’t see or measure them in our finite inadequate humaness.

Your original question was:“Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

That question reminds me of some of the Greek Philosophers who debated what was real and what was unreal. Their vocabulary was limited. So when you have now asked if everything ( all that we can see) is apparant to us because of our ability to reason, that in it self eliminates the need for a spirit. Did I interpret the question correctly?

To have an idea, to put it into words as symbols ( letters) and have another person read what we wrote and then for them to have the very same idea we had is a most Difficult job. Communication is hard to do.

I believe that I have said that for the atoms of the universe to just pop into existance from nothing is ILLOGICAL, therfore there must have been a spirit precursor as the cause for the universe.

Am I correct in saying St Thomas Aquinas used deductive and inductive reasoning to meld the seen and the unseen?


#17

[quote=Exporter]*****************************************************************************
I know you were not talking about Physics Dennis. But will you excuse me for trying to divide “existance” in the SEEN and the UNSEEN? I have a difficult time meshing the two. I have very good Reason to believe there are Unseen entities all around us, i.e., God and all the spirits , plus the Angels. But we can’t see or measure them in our finite inadequate humaness.

Your original question was:“Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

That question reminds me of some of the Greek Philosophers who debated what was real and what was unreal. Their vocabulary was limited. So when you have now asked if everything ( all that we can see) is apparant to us because of our ability to reason, that in it self eliminates the need for a spirit. Did I interpret the question correctly?

To have an idea, to put it into words as symbols ( letters) and have another person read what we wrote and then for them to have the very same idea we had is a most Difficult job. Communication is hard to do.

I believe that I have said that for the atoms of the universe to just pop into existance from nothing is ILLOGICAL, therfore there must have been a spirit precursor as the cause for the universe.

Am I correct in saying St Thomas Aquinas used deductive and inductive reasoning to meld the seen and the unseen?
[/quote]

I understand your concern. This question is not mine but one another poster asked on another thread. I was just seeking other opinions on the issue of reason, logic and faith.

Peace


#18

[quote=Church Militant]Someone is thinking as a mystic.
,
[/quote]

Hey poncho!

That would be me. :smiley:

Peace!!!


#19

[quote=Exporter]***************************************************************************
Dennis, ]“Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?”

Could that question have been asked by someone who avoided the question of " what is the origin of the first atoms of which the universe is made".

Did something (stars & planets) suddenly emerge from Nothing? We would have to say that is not Logical, based upon our obsevations from earth.

Which came first?..Are we mixing the meaning of these two words, “Spititual” and “Spirit”. Have we proven there is no spirit? The original question is simple in a complex sort of way.

If forced I would have to say that the answer to, “Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?” would have to be “NO!” If someone answered “Yes”, then how do they explain the resurrection of Christ?
[/quote]

Correct, not everything is logical and rational. Jesus Christ raising from the dead is not rational. Mary, a virgin, giving birth to Christ is not logical or rational. The incarnation of God to flesh in the person of Jesus Christ is not logical or rational.

I would define logical and rational as something we can test, see, validate or reason in some way. The above instances fall out of that realm as I see them. I brought these points up on another thread because I see logic and reason to be the phenomenal aspect of reality with spirit and unknowables in the noumenal realm. I believe there are two realms of existence.

We use characteristics of phenomena to describe noumena. Which is okay, as long as we realize that the two are different realities. If we are defining dogma, then we have a problem. If we can’t separate the two, we end up not understanding either.

Hope that makes sense. I’m with you Exporter :wink: .

Peace…


#20

[quote=ahimsaman72]Correct, not everything is logical and rational. Jesus Christ raising from the dead is not rational. Mary, a virgin, giving birth to Christ is not logical or rational. The incarnation of God to flesh in the person of Jesus Christ is not logical or rational.

I would define logical and rational as something we can test, see, validate or reason in some way. The above instances fall out of that realm as I see them. I brought these points up on another thread because I see logic and reason to be the phenomenal aspect of reality with spirit and unknowables in the noumenal realm. I believe there are two realms of existence.

We use characteristics of phenomena to describe noumena. Which is okay, as long as we realize that the two are different realities. If we are defining dogma, then we have a problem. If we can’t separate the two, we end up not understanding either.

Hope that makes sense. I’m with you Exporter :wink: .

Peace…
[/quote]

So, you are reasoning about phenomena and noumena to come to your conclusions about phenomena and noumena. Therefore, you are proving the need for reason and logic in regards to faith.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.