Reasons for Reason

In chapter 1, Stokes takes a good look at the father of skepticism, 18th century British philosopher, David Hume. Exploring Hume's philosophy would take volumes, but Stokes provides a great summary. For our purposes, let's just focus on one thing: the foundation of reason.

Hume focused on how do we know what we know. In non-religious models, there are only two ways to know things: reason or sense experience. In the following passage, Stokes describes how Hume questioned inductive reasoning, that is, reasoning or inference from prior experience:

Take a simple example: We all know - or at least seem to have very good reason to believe - that the sun will rise tomorrow. And we have induction to thank for our confidence. But Hume recognized that induction depends on our belief that the future will resemble the past (or more generally, that nature is uniform). Now, what reason do we have for believing that the future will resemble the past? Well, it's because in the past, the future has always resembled the past. (You wee where Hume is going with this.) The very basis for believing that the future will resemble the past, and therefore the basis for all inductive reasoning, is our belief that the future will resemble the past. But this latter belief is also the result of induction and so relies on itself. We have no (noncircular) reason for trusting induction. Like Hume, then, if we're going to follow the arguments where they lead, we too must be skeptics about induction. Again, Hume concedes that we can't help but trust induction. But again, we don't trust it because we have reason to; rather we simply can't help ourselves.

Of course, there are all types of reasoning: inductive, deductive, abductive. Hume would say, "How much can we trust any of these?"

Stokes points out a more troubling problem with reason: we do not have a noncircular argument for reason's reliability: "To offer any argument for reason is to use it [a reason for reason]. And to use it, we must first trust it. Credo ut intelligam - 'I believe so that I may understand.'" Sound familiar? Like faith? Stokes notes that "we have to take reason at its word, take it on faith."

I've heard it put this way: An atheist asks you why the Bible is authoritative. One response may be to open your Bible and read 2 Timothy 3:16. But then the atheist says, "No, you can't use the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible...that's circular reasoning." Then you ask him to prove that reason is a reliable foundation of knowledge. He says, "Ok, I'll give you five reasons." At that point, you reply: "Oh no, you can't give me reasons to prove the veracity of reason...that's a circular argument."

And so it goes. Every epistemic system - sense experience, reason, religion - begins with a faith commitment that cannot be proven:Credo ut intelligam.