Osler's Razor

I'm also sceptical about the power of reasoning because it's limited to its source: our fallible, finite minds. Now, we need to use our intellect and our ability to reason, but if we rely on them as our only way to discover Truth, I think we'll often go astray. In fact, a person can reason himself into believeing just about anything.

That's where the scriptures come in. As you imply, they're the gauge we can use to determine whether we err in our reasoning. So if our reasoning or a philosopher's reasoning run contrary to scripture, we can dismiss them as false.

Of course, that begs the question of how we know the scriptures are the True Gauge. Is it by reason or by revelation? Or both?
 

I am a little confused here...so you concede that "science" or rather deductive reasoning might give us a "glimpse" of revelation, but other endeavors of the human intellect don't?
I also do not quite understand
Craig's understanding of "that's where the scriptures come in." Unless you possess a belief in a form of biblical fundamentalism which posits that the meaning of the text only comes to us truly through a non rational illumination, the meaning of scripture as any other text essentially comes to us through use of our intellect (and one could also argue through the "collective" intellect of all the faithful, the interpretive tradition through the ages, and that which occurs today among scholars), accompanied by the spirit. Also, a person can claim that they approached a position by reason, but it does not mean that they used rational criteria. This is where the community's experience and interpretation is also helpful.

The scriptures are the revealed word of God that are interpreted by God's creation through the intellect, or reason.
Our fallible, finite minds are obviously on a continual journey to comprehend this revelation in various ways that adapt new knowledge that we obtain and at the same time remaining faithful to the
"core." Ultimately, this journey ends only upon death, when the fullness of what is revelation is made known to us.

Great minds like Augustine and Aquinas never claimed to possess the fullness of meaning in their writings, but I am happy to explore how they and other brilliant intellects through the ages have continued on the journey.
 

for some people faith is their reason, and i think that is more misleading than relying on intellect and reason as the only way to discover truth.
 

Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. I think that applies equally to every field of knowledge. In chemistry, for example, if your lab results don't align with your hypothesis (i.e., what you reasoned to), then you adapt your theory (assuming no mistakes in your lab procedure). Why? Because experience has proven more trustworthy than logic. That's an experiential argument for the trustworthiness of experience, but it's true. Logically, experience should be less trustworthy, but as we go about our daily lives, we place more faith in our experience than we do in our reasoning powers.

So does Holmes's idea extend to religious faith? I think so because, most importantly, God trumps logic. One example, among many, comes from one of the central tenets of Christian faith: the nature of Jesus Christ as wholly man and wholly God. Logically, it is impossible to be “wholly” of two opposite and exclusive natures. But, if you're going to believe in Christianity, you have to accept that. Sure, maybe the concept is metaphorical, but you have to start calling a lot of things metaphorical if you start calling the very nature of Jesus metaphorical. Experiential truth, then, trumps logical truth.

So I think reason temporarily fills in the gaps of experience. If new experiences don't jibe with how we thought God worked, then we have to adjust our theory. Just like in chemistry.
 

Anon. 12:54--

I'm not sure we disagree. Of course the views of others, historical or contemporary, can be "helpful." I fully agree with that. What I don't agree with (and you don't claim) is that they are authoritative.
 

Professor Osler:
Can you define "authoritative"?
Do you mean a voice that has a definitive interpretation, that shuts out all potential interpretations in the future?
Or, do you define authoritative as I do...learned, wise individuals like Aquinas and Augustine (among numerous others) who devoted their lives to meticulous study of classical philosophy, as well as church tradition? Individuals who contributed original scholarship to this endeavor, which has contributed to our understanding of tradition?
I do claim that these minds are authoritative. I do come from a different Christian denomination that you do, though, that has a very different attitude towards tradition and authority in terms of scriptural interpretation.
My sense is that your position is more typical of those from a Baptist tradition.