Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reason and Authority
I have a new book on Reason, Authority, and the Healing of Desire in the Writings of Augustine. What exactly are reason and authority? Let’s talk about that. Ok, not really. Let’s just overview what Augustine thinks.
We might define reason as rational belief and trust in authority as irrational belief—perhaps as having nothing to do with rationality, or maybe as in tension or conflict with it. But this is way off. Augustine explains that it’s rational to trust the testimony of authority. It is necessary for life, and even those who most protest against trust-based systems of belief readily trust their parents’ claim to being their parents, the claims of geographers about distant cities, and the claims of historians about ancient people.
We might even go so far as to suggest that reason is merely the operating of our minds in a rational manner in order to know the truth; we could further define trust in authority as one of reason’s necessary operations. This is closer to Augustine, but still not quite right. He emphasizes the distinction between reason and authority, not their sameness.
So what are they?
Reason is understanding, and authority is that which we trust.
To understand and to trust are two complementary ways of believing the truth. Authority gives us access to truth when we are not able to understand it. It gives us the truth that a thing is even if we cannot comprehend its essence. Reason goes beyond authority in giving us the ability to understand that essence.
Take one of Augustine’s examples, parentage, in light of modern science. By simply trusting his parents, a child may have a true belief about who they are. But through a study of biology and genetics, along with running a DNA test, he may come to understand this fact through reason and know it without relying solely on authority.
Augustine’s early writings suggest that faith accepts the mysteries of Christian theology, while the practices of the philosophers give us a way of growing towards an understanding of God and the soul.
Homeboy ain’t gonna write one book in which he relies on authority and another relying on reason. Both reason and authority are concerned with much of the same topics. When Augustine treats a particular topic he will employ whichever method seems to him best suited to the topic, to his own abilities, or to the abilities of his audience. One book relies, for the most part, on reason and another on authority; we can’t say much more than this.
The thesis of my book is that Augustine has a Platonically informed yet distinctively Christian theology of desire both in his texts relying mainly on reason and in his texts relying mainly on authority. I’ve worked out this simple strategy for mapping a cross-section of Augustine’s books:
|
Topic –> Method ↓ |
Apologetics |
Ethics |
The Problem of Evil |
God and the Soul |
|
Reason |
De Vera Religione On the True Religion |
De Natura Boni On the Nature of the Good |
De Libero Arbitrio On the Free Choice of the Will |
De Magistro On the Teacher |
|
Authority |
De Utilitate Credendi On the Usefulness of Believing |
De Bono Coniugali On the Good of Marriage |
Enchiridion Enchiridion / Handbook |
Confessiones Confessions |
As for desire, maybe more later. For now, here’s a link to a short post on THE MUCH, MUCH BIGGER CONVERSATION ON DESIRE that Augustine is a part of.
This post is drawn from the Introduction to Reason, Authority, and the Healing of Desire in the Writings of Augustine. The whole book comes out in February. Here’s an early look at the back cover:
Do you agree, though, that most people see government as a replacement for God? I’m not sure I agree.
I think that enough people who do not believe in God have replaced that belief with a belief in government, and that can create a problem.
You try to point out to them that government doesn’t typically solve a problem. All government usually does is change the parameters of the problem. Sometimes that spawns new problems.
I bet I can cite some people on Ricochet saying it, if that would be good.
Meanwhile, here’s an old post that cites some classical sources.
I think that’s about right.
Those who say trust in authority is irrational are following a double standard, as I explain in the opening post. They usually say trust in authority is irrational when they’re talking about religious faith and insist that it cannot be defined in such a way as to overlap with reason.
I recently talked about these matters at the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe. After spending an hour or so citing the dictionary and explaining the plain meaning of the New Testament and major thinkers representing the world’s religions–basically all the stuff Phil and Sophy talk about in this dialogue–I was surprised at how adamant most of the audience was that faith cannot be defined as overlapping with reason at all.
It’s a strange way of thinking: C. S. Lewis doesn’t understand Christian theology at all; neither does Augustine; and the Dalai Lama doesn’t understand Buddhism; they couldn’t possibly, because they think religion can be rational, and we’ve decided it cannot be.
Excellent remarks.
Probably a lot of weaving! A lot will depend on how exactly we define these terms.
I think it’s supposed to encourage humility, but pride is a slippery sin and sometimes finds an opening when we trust authority: I have the right authority, whom you have rejected, you poor fool, so shut up and do what I say!
Seeking reason can lead to pride, but it’s supposed to be about humility: There I was seeking reason and having a solid argument on the impeachment covfefe, and along comes Ricochet’s Spin and demolishes the argument’s operative premise with three solid arguments. Maybe a bit humbling, but very much a happy case of reason doing its work.
When one demands that all decisions should be based on reason alone and not on trust, one is definitely asking too much.
By Luther’s definition of an idol here (CTR+F for “The purpose of this commandment”), yes.
An idol does not have to be a statue or totem. It can be an idea. Sometimes those are far more dangerous — not only to the soul of the idolater, but also to the safety and well-being of anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way. You don’t want to be one of the eggs which need to be broken to make the omelet.
I’ll just say, for me, religion is most rational.
Spin, Percival’s answers are mine also.
Note: He said, “pretty much”. We can talk about that if it becomes an issue. For my part: there’s a subtle and problematic assumption in your words “who know better”.
Also, there are two subtly different forms of authority here, one involving an obedience relationship, and one simply involving indirect knowledge: I can know it’s raining either because I’m outside, or because I know you were just outside and you inform me that it’s raining: you are an authority on the question “is it raining?”
[EDITED after 1 Like by St. A. I made it clear that I meant two distinct replies. The second follows “Also”. Under the rules, he can remove the Like since it’s not the same Comment anymore.]
[Second EDIT: I see I’ve lost track of time and ought to join the Brown-Eyed Beauty upstairs. Happy New Year, All, and Good Night.]
Before we get any further, I refuse to stipulate the existence of New York City.
That’s fair.
Morning Aug, or whatever time it is for you,
When you suggest that authority gives us access to truth when reason runs into a stumbling block, one might think of Job. God proves worthy of our blessing because He laid the foundations of the world and this is true even if we can not make sense of a God who gives and takes away. Is this the aspect of authority on which you would like to focus? I think there is the other, human are mimics of success, followers of the successful, part, the skeptical, practical part. When God frees the Israelites and they escape Egypt, God’s authority has not been locked in place, the Israelites are fearful, “have you brought us out here to die”, they romanticize the past where leeks and fish were plentiful. One could say that this is part of God reteaching us that we are dependent on Him and He will keep His promises, and this teaching is ongoing. So perhaps to the Israelites God has proven Himself the authority of freedom but He has yet to prove that He is the authority on dessert survival. I would also note that humans in general look to those who are successful as worthy authorities and they will follow them and copy their behaviors. The best stock picker or arrow maker become the go to authority, and we copy what they are doing including what clothes they wear, their mannerisms, and other tangential traits. It looks as if we base our choice of authorities on evidence and practical proof, this is not a experimental proof or one that demands a logical explanation. I don’t have to know why putting a fish head in the ground where I plant something works, I do it because I have seen it work. Is this that much different that a reason based choice? Another aspect about the recognition of authority, is that it is a demonstration that someone else has a better idea, in that sense, we recognize our limitations and the superiority of talent in others. This can keep us humble, and by looking to the success of others so that we can copy from them we are not gazing always inward.
My critique of reason as a tool for the understanding of truth, falls back on Heilein’s description of humans not as rational animals but as rationalizing animals. So we have our understanding of “truth” and we look for reasons that support this understanding and we also look for reasons why other understandings can’t be right. In the end we become the arbiter of truth, this is where we are tempted into prideful behavior. We claim that we know what is right and just. I think that is a bit ambitious, I think our desire to reason our way to the truth is really our desire to be God, we want to define what is true and good.
I remain unconvinced of two things:
That most people think trust in authority is irrational, generally speaking.
That most people have turned to government as a replacement for God, generally speaking.
On the second point, for sure I see pretty much everyone trusting government as a purveyor of fact, instead of God. That’s why we always cite government statistics when we want to make some point. But I do not think people have, consciously anyway, decided that they trust government to provide them with the things that God provides them with. That is, a sense of meaning and purpose, of well being, etc.
No one does. That’s the point; that’s how Augustine teaches us to refute them.
When they say that trust in authority is irrational as an objection to Christianity, you refute them on their own terms because they trust the authority of parents, geographers, historians, and scientists.
I’m not sure anyone thinks most people have. I thought the claim was that a number of leftists have.
Technically, no; but that’s just because I’m not really focusing on anything in particular, unless it’s something I notice Augustine talking about.
That’s a fine aspect of authority on which to focus. (Augustine probably talked about it somewhere!)
I wouldn’t say so, but Augustine might. I’m fine with taking good results as evidence of trustworthiness and calling that “reason.” Augustine will probably reserve a word like “reason” (Latin ratio) for what we understand for ourselves.
Definitely something to look out for. I don’t think Augustine would disagree. But it doesn’t mean we abandon reason; we just have to be super careful, and trust in reliable authority to complement reason.
No fair. Now you’re getting quantitative.
I like it when Arthur Dent tries to cope with the destruction of Earth by thinking of what’s gone. But thinking of no more New York doesn’t work–he’d never really believed it existed.
I know that it’s a typo, but if it isn’t….
Here’s a protip: That’s not almonds you’re tasting.
Morning Hank,
I am not sure which will get worse in 2020, my spelling/typing or my love of chocolate. Thanks for the heads up.
But your point in the OP was that people do think of trusting authority as irrational.
The other Mark called it the dominate religion of democracies since the 1920s…
My original point was that his argument was a strawman. “Some people think this, and here is why they are wrong.” But then he says that no one thinks that. So…I’m confused.
It’s all in the OP, second paragraph, last sentence.
No one thinks that consistently.
But plenty of people do say trust in authority is irrational, particularly when they critique religion.
You’re right! Someone did say it was most. I stand corrected.