Reasoning about reason

Although people speak carelessly about 'reason' - in actuality there is no such thing. There is no abstract or generic reason. What we see in the world are people who reason; we do not see reason.

Quotes and comments;

A. In his book on Common grace, Cornelius Van Til discusses different approaches to apologetics. "It was also impossible to agree with the Old Princeton position to the effect that appeal must be made to reason without differentiating between a reason conceived of as autonomous and reason conceived of as created." [1.]

- At the heart of Van Til's theology is a creationist view of reason. In this view reason is neither normative or neutral; nor is it correct to reason from the basic assumption of human autonomy. Reason isn't an abstract or generic entity. There is no such thing as 'pure' reason. What man possesses isn't reason, but human reason (a complex of abilities created by God, for man, for specific purposes). What conclusions men come to when they reason depends almost entirely upon their starting assumptions - and their starting assumptions are never chosen without purpose and bias.
Van Til's position is that since man is a rebel against God he always chooses (as his epistemological foundation) assumptions that will lead him away from God and from any truths connected with God. (Man never reasons in a vacuum; and it's in fact impossible to reason in a vacuum.) This then explains the antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian. (The difference is not that one reasons and the other does not, but that they reason from different starting points.)

Also mistaken is the idea that 'reason' evolved somehow, and that if we could trace it back we would find its sources in the phosphorescence of pond scum. The entire idea of reason found in the dictionaries used by students in our day (and I feel sorry for them) is a delusion and a phantasm. [3.] It's only in biblical theology that we find a true conception of reason. Man is able to reason (think logically, clearly, and rationally) because God created him with this ability. Reason is in no way an independent and autonomous entity. It is dependent for its existence to its creator, and dependent for its operation on a personal agent.

B. Speaking of a valid method of apologetics Van Til says, "This involves interpreting human reason itself in terms of God. It involves saying that unless human reason regards itself as being what Scripture says it is, created in the image of God, that then it has no internal coherence. To this it must be added that it involves the fact of sin as darkening the understanding and hardening the will."

We hear people talk about reason in reified terms; that we must decide things by reason etc. But this is a false notion. Reason only exists when particular persons reason - and thus it never operates independently of the will, desires, ideas and biases of the person involved. People must reason from a basic starting point - and this makes all the difference. (It is crucial then which 'road' we go down when we begin to reason. It won't do us any good to reason if we're going down the wrong road.)

Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace p. 186
2. ibid p.190
3. Dictionaries in our day serve the purpose of defining God out of existence. In biblical terms, they are attempts to deny reality by substituting false ideas and conceptions for real and true ones. (You can see this process in operation by looking at older dictionaries and comparing them with current ones. Someone needs to write a history of the dictionary, or a philosophy of the dictionary.)
4. We end up with very different ideas of reason if we start out with matter as our basic starting point, or if we start with the Triune God of scripture. The Materialist has little basis for believing in the effectiveness or validity of an 'evolutionary' reasoning process. He has no basis for knowing what reason exists for, or for knowing where it came from. He has no basis for knowing how to employ reason, or to know what limits (if any) should be placed upon it. He has no foundation for reason other than randomness and chance.