Reason vs. Sacred Writings for Discovering Spiritual Truth
The Bookworm by Carl Spitzweg, c. 1850
Recently, a colleague emailed me regarding one of his findings among students at Dartmouth College, an Ivy League university. Most students appeared to believe, at the very least, in some type of monotheism but still chose human reason over sacred writings as the source of spiritual truth.
The question of spiritual truth is relevant to every human being—from atheists and skeptics to those who consider themselves “spiritual” or even religious. Even an atheist’s belief that there is no such thing as spiritual truth requires that one arrive at that conclusion through reason rather than through a blind leap into the darkness of non-reason. For those who are aware that spiritual reality exists, reason is still required to discern between spiritual fiction and truth.
Reason tells us that “reason vs. sacred writings” is a false dichotomy—it does not have to be an either-or situation. Reason without sacred writings is like having a set of tools but having nothing to use those tools on. Sacred writings without reason, on the other hand, are like a collection of possible blind leaps in the dark with no tools for guidance.
Regardless of whether one is an atheist or a devout follower of some religion, what ought to be the relationship between human reason, sacred writings, and spiritual truth?
First, we must clarify what we mean by “reason.”
Reason: Research involving toddlers and young children has shown that the ability to reason appears to be “preprogrammed” into our minds, giving us the ability to begin making sense of the things we perceive from infancy onward.(1) In the context of reason vs. sacred writings, reason can be understood as our ability, using basic rules of logic, to draw a valid conclusion from a collection of information. Notice that there are two essential components to reason: information and the rules of logical inference that we use to process that information.
So, what do we mean by “rules of logic”?
Rules of logic: There are eight basic rules of logical inference that we instinctively use every day.(2) But those rules are built on even more basic laws of logic, such as the fundamental law of non-contradiction.
For example, if I told you that I exist right now and that I do not exist right now, my statement would be nonsensical to you, and for good reason: it is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which was already preprogrammed within your mind from infancy. That immaterial law is also foundational to the laws of nature and material reality. The law of non-contradiction entails that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
We use these basic laws of logic to come to reasoned conclusions every day.
Example: If you saw 100 crows over a span of two weeks and all of them were black, you could summarize that information as follows: “Observations of 100 crows revealed that all of them were black.” Let us call this piece of information a “premise.” You can then use reason as follows:
Premise 1: Observations of 100 crows revealed that all of them were black.
Premise 2: If observations of 100 crows reveal that all of them are black, then most crows are more likely to be black than some other colour.
Therefore: Most crows are more likely to be black than some other colour. (from Premises 1 and 2)
Key point: Reason needs material to work with in the form of information or premises. It can then apply the rules of logical inference to process that information, arrive at a valid conclusion, and rule out wishful thinking and outright fabrications. The above use of reason is an example of a very common rule of logical inference known as modus ponens:
1. A is true.
2. If A is true, then B is true.
3. Therefore, B is true. (by modus ponens)
Using reason against spiritual truth: A very common argument against spiritual truth arises out of scientism—the belief that science explains everything. Scientism is based on the deeper belief that all of reality is material or “physical.” The argument from scientism against spiritual reality can be summarized in the following syllogism:
1. All reality is material.
2. If all reality is material, then there is no such thing as spiritual reality.
3. Therefore, there is no such thing as spiritual reality.
The argument is a valid example of modus ponens, but the first premise is simply an assertion that we know to be false. For example:
1. The cause of material reality must be either material or immaterial.
2. Just as it is logically impossible for a woman to give birth to herself, so it is logically impossible for the cause of material reality to be material reality.
3. If there are only two options, and one of the options is logically impossible, then the other option must necessarily be true (disjunctive syllogism). Therefore, the cause of material reality is immaterial.
Reason dictates, therefore, that the belief “All reality is material” is false. Furthermore, if the foundation of material reality is immaterial, then we have grounds for arguing that spiritual reality exists, and if the cause of material reality is immaterial, it should not be surprising if, on occasion, we observe events in this world that have immaterial causes. We might call such events miracles—events that have no material or physical cause.
Reason and 100% certainty: Reason tells us that even overwhelming evidence for the truth of a belief does not prove it absolutely. But it also tells us that if we must choose between two or more options, we should choose the one for which there is the best evidence. Simply to reject a proposition as false because we cannot prove it with 100 percent certainty is irrational if one does not provide a rational justification for doing so—and that must include a well-reasoned explanation as to why the evidence for the proposition is being rejected. Reason also requires that one provide a reasoned justification for the alternative.
Given the argument presented above for an immaterial cause and foundation for material reality, it would be very difficult to come up with an even better argument for the opposite conclusion—especially because one must make use of the immaterial axioms (or fundamental laws) of logic to do so.
Skepticism and reason: Reason requires that skeptics defend their skepticism when they reject a proposition which is backed by evidence. Being a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic is irrational if the skeptic fails to provide rational grounds for their skepticism that are even stronger than the arguments about which they are skeptical. The fact that almost nothing can be proved with 100 percent certainty is not grounds for rejecting a well-reasoned conclusion or one that is backed by significant evidence.
If one wishes to reject a premise, one needs some rational justification for doing so rather than simply asserting that it is false without providing any reasoning behind that assertion. That is precisely why a person who does not believe there is any spiritual reality must provide rational justification for that belief.
So, what about reason, spiritual truth, and sacred writings?
It does not logically follow that, because someone labels a collection of writings as “sacred,” they therefore contain spiritual truth. Reason and observation tell us that some religions appear to be obviously fabricated, with a god that is suspiciously simple, not to mention lacking anything within the so-called “sacred writings” that might point to a supernatural source for the information they contain.
Reason suggests that spiritual truth should stand out in some rational way from mere human imagination. Perhaps we should look for an anomaly in human history and in the material world for which human imagination would be an improbable explanation.
Reasoning through the spiritual options: The purpose of the following questions is to use reason to discern between spiritual truth and falsity in so-called “sacred writings.”
Question 1: Is the god of that religion relatively easy to explain and understand, or is it something that challenges our ability to comprehend? It would be absurd to fabricate a religion with a god one could not explain to potential converts. Thus, most religions, from Hinduism to Islam, have a god or gods that are simple to explain and understand–an indication they are products of human imagination. On the other hand, a being who is a trinity of three persons who exists as a single, three-in-one entity, strains our ability to comprehend, something more likely to be expected of a real God who transcends time, is the origin of space, time, matter, energy, and the axioms of mathematics and logic, and is the source of every good thing and every perfect gift. A human-invented religion uses Ockham’s Razor (the simplest explanation that suffices) when fabricating a god. The real God is unlikely to have any kind of simple explanation.
Question 2: Is there anything about the sacred writings that suggests they contain information that comes from a non-human source? The sacred writings of some religions might include beautiful poetry, but there are many talented atheists who can also compose beautiful poetry. There is a set of sacred writings, however, that is unique in human history. The Old Testament, written centuries before the time of Christ, made numerous statements about a future coming Messiah, or Christ,(3) which history could falsify or verify. Thus, the Old Testament portion of the Bible contains information about the future that would have had to come from a source that transcends time—a mind that sees the past, present, and future simultaneously and can reveal information about the future (relative to us) to people in the past, who then recorded those revelations to be fulfilled centuries later.(4) Even if one begins with the assumption that the prophecies contained in the Old Testament were fabricated, that assumption becomes difficult to defend when the historical evidence shows they were actually fulfilled in the first century by Jesus Christ against impossible odds.
Question 3: Is there anything unusual about the founder of a particular religion that would rationally justify the belief that he was a source of spiritual truth? A survey of the world’s religions reveals only one founder who made extremely unusual claims about himself. Jesus of Nazareth stated that he is “I AM,” the one who transcends time and who is the creator of all things that have been created. Of course, reason requires us to ask why we should take that claim seriously. In response, there are two highly unusual lines of warrant for believing that he might be who he said he is. First, we observe that he is the only person in human history for whom numerous ancient prophecies were made centuries in advance and subsequently fulfilled. Second, there is also highly unusual historical evidence that he physically rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion, which provides a rational explanation as to why, within weeks, thousands believed he had risen from the dead and why that belief exploded across the Roman Empire within a few decades, despite fierce political and religious opposition which continued for almost the first three centuries.
My own conclusion: As a philosopher and scientist trained in logic and reason, I have found that there comes a point in our investigations when we must decide whether we will trust the conclusions toward which reason points. It is the same with spiritual truth—there is a point at which we must make a decision regarding sacred writings.
As for me, after several decades of live, often hostile, informal peer review that came with presenting the well-reasoned case for the spiritual truth of Christianity at many universities in various countries, through hundreds of lectures and debates and hundreds of hours of questions from audiences spanning the full range of spiritual perspectives and academic expertise, I have arrived at the well-reasoned conclusion that the Bible is God’s message to humanity. Spiritual truth was revealed through human writers who made no attempt to apply their own interpretation to what God revealed to them as they wrote, (5) and it provides us with true spiritual knowledge upon which we can stake our mortal lives and future eternal destinies.
Reason and faith: I cannot prove with logical and evidential certainty that the sacred writings of Christianity are God’s message to humanity or that Jesus Christ is the timeless “I AM” upon whom the eternal destiny of each person hangs. But, using reason, the most rationally defensible position to take is that the case for the spiritual truth of these things is stronger than that of any other position across the full range of beliefs, from atheism to theism, and it is strong enough to justify the step of faith whereby I can say that I have complete confidence that Jesus Christ is “the truth”—defining both spiritual and material reality–and our eternal destiny hangs on whether we receive or reject his offer of purification from our moral violations and his gift of life.
Having taken that step of faith to the point of placing myself completely in the hands of Jesus Christ, my subsequent, personal experience of the presence of God in my daily life has brought me to the place where I can say with complete confidence that I know God exists and that Jesus Christ is God. Reason provides the justification for taking that step of faith.
We can never know with 100 percent certainty if the water in a pool is warm. But when, on the basis of the evidence available to us, we take that step of faith, dive into the pool, and actually experience it’s warmth, we go from thinking it is probably warm to knowing that it actually is.
If you would like to talk confidentially with an online mentor about how to grow closer to God and life after death, follow this link.
References:
Spelke ES. Précis of What Babies Know. Behav Brain Sci. 2023 May 30;47:e120. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X23002443. PMID: 37248696.
There are eight basic rules of inference, including modus ponens, modus tolens, disjuctive syllogism, simplification, simplification, conjunction, hypothetical syllogism, addition, and constructive dilemma. These rules can be used within larger proofs such as the conditional proof and the indirect proof. See Kahane, Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction, or The Basic logical inference laws (Statement logic). https://philosophyalevel.com/posts/basic-logical-inference-laws/
The English word “messiah” comes from the Hebrew word meaning “anointed one”. The English word “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos meaning “anointed one” … two different words for the same person.
See also ‘The religion that began before its founder appeared in history’ https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/2019/2/25/the-religion-that-began-before-its-founder-and-central-figure
“No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2025).
