Escape from Reason: A Reply to Dennis Prager

This is why the apostle can say in Romans 1 that men who suppress the truth are without excuse...

‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened’ [Romans 1:18-21].

What do you mean by self-revealed? It is most convenient for you to accept God’s self revelation without attempting to rationalize His existence.

Both Christians and non-Christians employ rationality and irrationality. The Christian rationality is found in what can be understood about God's word as it describes our world. The irrationality is the faith we must have when confronted the part of our world that we cannot understand.

Likewise, the non-Christian employs rationality and irrationality. The non-Christians use of rationality rests on his/her understanding of the regularity of the universe while the non-Christian uses chance/randomness when trying to explain change--that is when Chaos does not explain things. At least that is my understanding of it.

But I think it is counterproductive to talk about the arrogance of the non-Christian without acknowledging the arrogance of the Christian. Again, we need to look at the parable of the two men praying. The religiosity of the pharisee led him to believe that he was superior to the tax collector. It is an important lesson for all Christians to learn less we inadvertently imply that only the non-Christian is arrogant.

The idea behind self-revelation is that the revelation of God has come from Him at His initiative. The Scriptures do not originate in man; they originate in a God who has chosen to love man, not only through Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, but also in revealing Himself to man. God’s self-revelation is a sovereign act of love.

If religion that is not revelatory, and thus originates from man's reflection and meditation, is more properly called spiritual anthropology--this is what Gerhardos Vos called it in his book Biblical Theology.

But again, we Christians cannot afford assume that we don't have an arrogance problem too.

I am glad to be able to thank you for your recent comments to Jack regarding the Creation/Evolution debate. Perhaps, you will be more effective in your arguments; I hope so.

Regarding the irrational: Paul introduces his argument on human depravity with these words… ‘professing to be wise, they became fools’. This is not only a statement about arrogance, but irrational arrogance. Is there a better description of what is today called the ‘scientific community’?

Now regarding the parable: Luke 18:9 introduces the parable with these words, “He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others”.

It is a mystery to me how you cannot see the contrast here; the Pharisee represents the opposite of what it is to be a Christian. If we have given you the impression that we trust in ourselves for righteousness, then we have been misread.

Perhaps, what you take as self righteousness and arrogance is our confidence in Jesus Christ and His words. With regards to righteousness we identify with the tax collector; there is nothing in us to commend to God; we are totally dependent on His mercy and grace, as a brand plucked from the fire.

A true litmus test for our arrogance, and I mean ours, not just a few, is how we talk to others. When we talk down to others rather than talking to them as equals, it is a good indicator that we have an arrogance problem regardless of how much we are depending on God's Word. In fact, the Pharisees also depended on God's word, or claimed to, and yet their assumed holier than everyone else attitude merited Jesus's anger.

Again this is a problem that all of us must keep watch against.

The other fault of the Pharisee from Luke 18:9 was that he viewed others with contempt. This is how the religious view the Christians.

When Peter told them that there was no other name under heaven where by men must be saved, I’m sure they considered him arrogant, ignorant and viewed him with contempt.

We stumble in many ways, but love covers a multitude of sins. Let us press on, for God resists the proud, but gives grace to humble.

“Both Christians and non-Christians employ rationality and irrationality. The Christian rationality is found in what can be understood about God's word as it describes our world. The irrationality is the faith we must have when confronted the part of our world that we cannot understand.” – caday5


It is a rational faith which accepts the fact that we will not be able to understand all things about an infinite and transcendent God and His universe. To assume that we will be able to understand all things is the height of irrationality.

“Both Christians and non-Christians employ rationality and irrationality. The Christian rationality is found in what can be understood about God's word as it describes our world. The irrationality is the faith we must have when confronted the part of our world that we cannot understand.” – caday5


It is a rational faith which accepts the fact that we will not be able to understand all things about an infinite and transcendent God and His universe. To assume that we will be able to understand all things is the height of irrationality.

Nice post, Valiant. But I'm seeing the same sorts of fallacies that I've seen in many of your posts. The idea of any religion being based on reason or rationality goes against the very definition of a religion. This is what websters dictionary had as their definition for religion:

1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Notice that all these definitions relate strongly to the notion of faith, which is not conducive to what reason is. Faith is believing in something to be true without any hard evidence. It's basically an assumption. That is not rational or reasonable by any stretch. I've said it before and I'll reiterate it as often as I can. Reason, science, and rationality cannot have supernatural forces like god involved otherwise it ceases to apply.

When it comes to issues like the Big Bang, the theory of gravity, atomic theory (which nobody has seen either), quantum theory, or the theory of evolution these are all surmised with evidence, not assumptions. Scientists can deduce these theories based on what they observe in physics, math, cheistry, and what not. They do not make these statements on faith. Any scientists who does will not be a scientist for very long.

In regards to something being self-revealed, that is another esoteric term that seems to presuppose the same faith-based assumptions that all religion has. If you have a different definition, I apologize. But the same fallacy still applies. Religion is supernatural and reason is not and thus a rational, reasonable religion is not possible in this context.

Glad you are recovered from your illness.

Will you not address the irrationality of order originating from an explosion? As you probably know the Big Bang theory has other irrational ideas propping it up. I will be posting soon on the myth of Dark Energy.

Religion is indeed based upon irrationality. Read, for instance, Psalm 115:4-8. However, the subject of our discussion is not religion; it is Biblical Christianity. Religion is man’s attempt to justify himself before God, but Christianity is the narrative of God having reached out to save hopeless, rebellious and disinterested creatures.

The apostle addresses the autonomous philosophers in Athens. He exposes their religious irrationality and declares to them the true God…

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being…’ [Acts 17:22-28]

Thanks for the concern Valiant. I'm feeling much better.

In regards to the Big Bang, it is a common misnomber that it was just a big explosion. It wasn't. It was actually a rapid expansion of space-time. This expansion of space time is still observable today. The mechanism behind it is still not entirely known, hence why they use terms such as dark energy to describe it. But emerging science is casting a clearer light onto the nature of space. It is now understood that space has much more energy packed in it than previously thought. It's often called zero-point energy and it does fit into the Big Bang model.

I don't understand how you can distinguish religion from biblical Christianity when both the bible and Christianity are religious concepts. The bible is a known religious text with religous teachings and religious undertones that include supernatural forces, miracles, and all sorts of impossibilities that can only be assumed on faith and not rationalized. I don't see how Christianity being something that's supposed to humble mankind makes it any less a religion than Islam or Bhuddism.

As for the passage from Acts, Paul again appeals to the same presumptuous faith that I mentioned earlier. He said that god is the maker of everything and is not contained in temples or something concrete. This leaves god only as a subjective interpretation, much like the Bachti Hindu's who believe in personal gods. It's still a matter of faith that has to be assumed to be believed. That is why it is irrational.

Thanks for the concern Valiant. I'm feeling much better.

In regards to the Big Bang, it is a common misnomber that it was just a big explosion. It wasn't. It was actually a rapid expansion of space-time. This expansion of space time is still observable today. The mechanism behind it is still not entirely known, hence why they use terms such as dark energy to describe it. But emerging science is casting a clearer light onto the nature of space. It is now understood that space has much more energy packed in it than previously thought. It's often called zero-point energy and it does fit into the Big Bang model.

I don't understand how you can distinguish religion from biblical Christianity when both the bible and Christianity are religious concepts. The bible is a known religious text with religous teachings and religious undertones that include supernatural forces, miracles, and all sorts of impossibilities that can only be assumed on faith and not rationalized. I don't see how Christianity being something that's supposed to humble mankind makes it any less a religion than Islam or Bhuddism.

As for the passage from Acts, Paul again appeals to the same presumptuous faith that I mentioned earlier. He said that god is the maker of everything and is not contained in temples or something concrete. This leaves god only as a subjective interpretation, much like the Bachti Hindu's who believe in personal gods. It's still a matter of faith that has to be assumed to be believed. That is why it is irrational.

In the NT Christ is revealed as the Logos…

The Greek word, logos, is used about 330 times in the New Testament, but it is particularly significant in John chapter one, for here the apostle uses it to describe the Son of God. By using the simple word, Logos, as a title, John implies volumes concerning the character of Christ.

The Greek logos is the root of the English logical. A form of the Greek word is used in Romans 12:1, where Paul refers to “your logical service of worship.” Biblical worship and ministry is the logical consequence of understanding that Christ Jesus is the Logos, the source of all reason, logic and rationality.

The same divine characteristic is seen in Isaiah’s revelation:

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool” [Isaiah 1:18].

A merciful God calls His people to reason together with Him, that He might cleanse them of their sins. Reason is opposed to sin. The result of reasoning together with God is that sins are cleansed. There is something fundamentally irrational about sin. Paul illustrates the fact in Romans 1:18 by writing how ungodly men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Sin drives men to irrationalism. [Pastor George Seevers]

Valiant, I fail to see how Paul's use of logos and it's use throughout the bible somehow earns it the merit of reason. Part of the other quote you mentioned still said "A merciful God calls His people to reason together with Him." But god is a supernatural being. He can't be reasoned with anymore than any other supernatural force. You could just as easily replace the word 'god' with any supernatural deity.

Reason operates in strong constraints. You cannot force it or logic into domains it does not belong otherwise it fails to bear fruit. The reason described in this passage you mentioned seems to imply a discourse between believers in regards to how they make sense of concepts like sin and interpret it through their beliefs about god. I don't see much reason there other than a normal debate on spirituality. But if that wasn't your point, forgive me for not picking up on it. You don't always make the connections as clear as I'm sure you hope them to be.

As I stated before, putting reason, logic, and rationality into a supernatural context goes against their very purpose. Perhaps reasoning in the context of the authors of the bible carried a different connotation than it does today. But the reasoning you presented in your article was in a modern context. In that manner, the notion of religion adhereing to reason is irrational. It just goes against what reason is understood to be.

Valiant, I fail to see how Paul's use of logos and it's use throughout the bible somehow earns it the merit of reason. Part of the other quote you mentioned still said "A merciful God calls His people to reason together with Him." But god is a supernatural being. He can't be reasoned with anymore than any other supernatural force. You could just as easily replace the word 'god' with any supernatural deity.

Reason operates in strong constraints. You cannot force it or logic into domains it does not belong otherwise it fails to bear fruit. The reason described in this passage you mentioned seems to imply a discourse between believers in regards to how they make sense of concepts like sin and interpret it through their beliefs about god. I don't see much reason there other than a normal debate on spirituality. But if that wasn't your point, forgive me for not picking up on it. You don't always make the connections as clear as I'm sure you hope them to be.

As I stated before, putting reason, logic, and rationality into a supernatural context goes against their very purpose. Perhaps reasoning in the context of the authors of the bible carried a different connotation than it does today. But the reasoning you presented in your article was in a modern context. In that manner, the notion of religion adhereing to reason is irrational. It just goes against what reason is understood to be.

Valiant, I fail to see how Paul's use of logos and it's use throughout the bible somehow earns it the merit of reason. Part of the other quote you mentioned still said "A merciful God calls His people to reason together with Him." But god is a supernatural being. He can't be reasoned with anymore than any other supernatural force. You could just as easily replace the word 'god' with any supernatural deity.

Reason operates in strong constraints. You cannot force it or logic into domains it does not belong otherwise it fails to bear fruit. The reason described in this passage you mentioned seems to imply a discourse between believers in regards to how they make sense of concepts like sin and interpret it through their beliefs about god. I don't see much reason there other than a normal debate on spirituality. But if that wasn't your point, forgive me for not picking up on it. You don't always make the connections as clear as I'm sure you hope them to be.

As I stated before, putting reason, logic, and rationality into a supernatural context goes against their very purpose. Perhaps reasoning in the context of the authors of the bible carried a different connotation than it does today. But the reasoning you presented in your article was in a modern context. In that manner, the notion of religion adhereing to reason is irrational. It just goes against what reason is understood to be.

Valiant, I fail to see how Paul's use of logos and it's use throughout the bible somehow earns it the merit of reason. Part of the other quote you mentioned still said "A merciful God calls His people to reason together with Him." But god is a supernatural being. He can't be reasoned with anymore than any other supernatural force. You could just as easily replace the word 'god' with any supernatural deity.

Reason operates in strong constraints. You cannot force it or logic into domains it does not belong otherwise it fails to bear fruit. The reason described in this passage you mentioned seems to imply a discourse between believers in regards to how they make sense of concepts like sin and interpret it through their beliefs about god. I don't see much reason there other than a normal debate on spirituality. But if that wasn't your point, forgive me for not picking up on it. You don't always make the connections as clear as I'm sure you hope them to be.

As I stated before, putting reason, logic, and rationality into a supernatural context goes against their very purpose. Perhaps reasoning in the context of the authors of the bible carried a different connotation than it does today. But the reasoning you presented in your article was in a modern context. In that manner, the notion of religion adhereing to reason is irrational. It just goes against what reason is understood to be.

‘I fail to see how Paul's use of logos and it's use throughout the bible somehow earns it the merit of reason. Part of the other quote you mentioned still said "A merciful God calls His people to reason together with Him." But god is a supernatural being. He can't be reasoned with anymore than any other supernatural force. You could just as easily replace the word 'god' with any supernatural deity.’ -Jack


Jack, does it surprise you that your definition of God is different than God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible? You are arguing for the uniqueness of Christianity and the self revealed God who is personal and has chosen to love men in spite of their sin. This love is revealed in Christ. You are arguing for the Biblical doctrines of depravity and grace. Sin has so marred us that we are unable to see Christ for who He is. God must reveal Himself to us personally to overcome our blindness to our irrationality because of our sin.

If there is anything more irrational than a sinful man attempting to justify himself before a holy God through the exercise of religion, then it is this: men of science who deny that there is a God and attempt to justify their existence apart from Him.

“Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? [Job 38…]

Absolutely! He proves His existence in the natural order through intervention or divine action. "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord our God His presence fills the earth," said Isiah. Signs of His presnece are everywhere.

I didn't understand your comments on dark energy, but we can agree on this. Thanks for your input.

"Jack, does it surprise you that your definition of God is different than God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible?"

No, Valiant, it doesn't surprise me because the god of the bible isn't all that different from the many other gods throughout the ages. Gods and goddesses have come in many shapes and forms, but they all have similar properties. They operate in a supernatural realm and can't be proven or experience unless a believer is pre-disposed to believing in the first place. It works like hypnosis. I studied in in psychology and surprisingly, it does work on people. But it only works if those people are pre-disposed to believing it.

The same phenomona occurs in the imaginary friend studies. I studied that in college as well. It operates on the same mechanism. The imaginary friend appears only to those who have revealed themselves to the person that believes them. They are entirely subjective without any real basis in reality.

I'm not arguing for or against any biblical doctrines. I see a lot of good messages in the bible and I see a number of messages that are immmoral by today's standards. Saying god is self-revealed is an unprovable claim because it's entirely subjective. If it seems real to you, fine. That's great. But don't expect others to believe on the same level.