Philosophy: Incomplete without God

by Evan Stewart, May 9, 2006

If we are to know virtue Aristotle argues that we must determine virtue by reason. He argues that true and genuine happiness will come from a life of virtue and that every person can attain this virtuous life because we all have the ability to reason and determine what is virtue and what is vice. This seems to be true. For certain states of being, or activities of the soul, seem to be more common sense than learned. Surely, we can see this by interaction with others. In many circumstances dealing with right and wrong, correct and incorrect, even good and evil, most people seem to be in agreement that one is greater than the other. There are of course differences in respect to the application and achievement of the positive goal, but the goal always remains the constant for reasonable men (generically speaking). Even if the negative is actually pursued, the reasonable man pursuing the negative will probably consider himself to be seeking the positive and so he is merely misguided. But if virtue is the mean by which one may gain happiness, and I think most if not all reasonable minds when considering this point will agree, how is it that every one agrees on this point. How is it that every person from every part of the world can meditate on this point of argument and agree that Aristotle’s conclusion (the supremacy of reason) is correct? How does the reasonable mind know virtue? How is it that a mind trained in the habits of its particular culture may look to reason and discover the thing that we call virtue? As a matter of fact, how can each person access this source of reason; this ability to reason? The concepts and ideas are not and cannot be something that we teach ourselves, something that is created within the mind of man. Whenever any philosopher speaks of reason he or she assumes that every person hearing or reading the philosophical words will be able to understand what is argued by using reason and the assumption is made that if the argument posed by the philosopher is correct, then it will be in accordance with true reason and the readers and students will be able to determine the truth or falseness of the argument by appealing to reason. I find it peculiar that philosophy demands the existence of Reason, even relies on the existence of Reason, yet so few philosophers offer a sound and solid explanation as to where this Reason comes from.

In the same way, Aristotle argues for virtue in like manner, he assumes that the reasonable mind will confirm the existence of virtue. But where does this idea come from? If every mind on the planet is supposed to know and agree to this conclusion, then virtue and reason alike cannot be something created within and by man. They must be inherent to man and thus acquired at birth through no means of our own. From where do these abstracts come?

A brief examination of Aristotle’s argument that virtue is a mean of excess and deficiency provides insight into a standard of living that lies outside of and uncreated by man. Bravery, for instance, is a character trait or a state that is held as honorable by all reasonable persons and cultures. Of course there may be some small civilization some where in the present or in the past which did not or does not think much of bravery and would be inclined in the least to offer some kind of praise to a person whom acts bravely, but I argue that if this case exists then such a culture is hindered from full reason and if shown the fullness of reason and even the value of virtue then it would surely accept this virtue as honorable and praiseworthy. I have been told that some languages do not have a word for bravery and so one may wish to argue that bravery and any other virtue alike does not exist universally since the linguistic term is not known. However, virtue is not dependent upon a spoken word. Even if a culture does not own a spoken word or sound for the label of bravery, or any other virtue, the culture can and probably will still hold the concept of bravery and other virtues. For bravery is not a word in itself. The very English word “bravery” is a label that is given to an idea of virtue. Another language may label the idea differently or not at all, but the concept/idea still remains.

This is what I infer Aristotle to be arguing; that virtue is a universal, superseding, and perfect ideal/concept and the means used to reach virtue may differ within the context of person or culture. In other words, bravery, or any virtue, may be defined differently in regards to the means of achievement from context to context but the concept that is defined as a virtue is a virtue universally to all of human reason. No reasonable person or culture would argue that cowardice or foolishness is the highest most desired virtue. All would argue that they are vice, not to be pursued by any person. Every reasonable culture will agree upon the basic virtues of character. Of course, one culture may consider some character trait as a virtue and another culture may not offer any acknowledgement of such a trait, but the basic foundation of virtue will be agreed upon by any reasonable culture or person.

So, how is this true? How can every person hold the same idea and the same desirable standard of living and of action? If the concept of virtue were to be isolated to one community or one area in the world, then we could possibly argue that man created the idea of virtue and then taught this to his descendants. However, virtue and vice are not isolated to one part of the world nor can it be said that the two originated in any one culture of the world and then spread throughout. Aristotle answers that virtue is known by the use of reason, which is inherent in its most simplistic form to every human. He answers that reason is not created after birth but brought from birth. Human beings are born with the ability to reason. So, we are not taught that virtue is a most desirable end (although we are taught how and why virtue is to be obtained) but we know virtue is a most desirable end because reason confirms this.

But how do we all have reason? How is it that reason is a universal ability held by every person? How can there be some standard of thought and standard of decision and thus a standard of life inherent to us at birth? Is it not at least peculiar and at most mysterious that human beings all have some connection to a single standard and that this connection cannot be severed or created by another human being? I do not mean severed in the sense that a fully functioning person could be disabled through physical means from the ability to fully function. Any person can at one instance be injured in a severe car crash and lose all ability to fully function and thus be forced into a vegetated state. What I mean is the ability to reason is always present even though some hindrance may stop the use of reason. Is reason, then, some fluke in the living order of man; some pleasant coincidence that can not be fully explained? To be honest, I see the existence of reason as an indication that there is some thing or some One outside of us and over us. I am not implying physical alien life forms but I am implying a supernatural presence.

Before I continue, I will honestly admit that I may be making a rather large jump to my conclusion here. I may have not provided enough evidence thus far to make a claim that the supernatural or a god exists. Nevertheless, I do feel that, however inadequate my present argument may be, if my argument is developed further my conclusion will remain. And even if an alternative to a supernatural answer exists, I still argue that the evidence of life and the physical world will lean more heavily towards the existence of the supernatural.

Therefore, I see Aristotle’s establishment of virtue as an indicator that a standard of comparison exists outside of us and over us. Again, Aristotle points to reason as the standard of comparison in order to ensure proper and correct thought and conclusion. But even the existence of reason seems to point towards something even greater and higher; a source of reason, i.e. a god. So it then seems clear to me that the existence of reason proves the existence of a god or gods; some higher being of causation. Notice that I am not providing this idea of god with any definitive definition thus far. I do not think nor am I arguing that the reality of reason proves the reality of the Christian god, the Muslim god, or any other form of god for that matter. All I have intended to argue so far is that a god exists; a higher being or power. But while this evidence does not give any detailed knowledge of a god it certainly provides the opportunity for detailed knowledge and description. In other words, if god exists then he/she/it may be known.

Now we have two possibilities before us if a god exists. We may either know more information about this god or we may not know more information about this god. I do not mean that we may choose to acknowledge any given information, but only that the information may exist or it may not. In other words, if god may be known than he/she/it might be known. Of course, this god may certainly only offer the indication that it exists and no other details. If so, then we are left only with a mystery that can never be solved and nothing more. Certainly, we cannot use our knowledge of science (the natural) to provide any further details about god since god is supernatural. Science deals with the natural and so it is at once hindered in the complete analysis of god. Science can merely provide an indication of the existence of god but not the character or person or any personal information. Even if this god were to provide more clues to his/her/its character or person in the natural world, we would still be left with only an indication and not proof. For instance, we may look at the world as this god’s creation and knowing that man is the ruling body in this planet we may assume that god is very generous to provide such a marvelous creation to us. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not this assumption is true because for all we know this apparent generosity is not generous at all and our apparently wonderful world is a mistake of creation and our world is the least of god’s creative genius and power. The natural can only provide indication to the supernatural, but only the supernatural can provide detailed information about itself to the natural. In other words, if the existing god wants us to know about him/her/it then a direct and personal kind of revelation must be provided. In order to know god, we must be told of god by god.

If god may be known, then god might be known; and if god is to be known, then god must introduce this knowledge to us. As a result we are brought to theology, the study of god, and we are now presented with numerous documents claiming to be the revealed knowledge of god. Any writing or teaching that claims to be an accurate description of god is merited reasonable examination, although some may merit examination more than others. So, assuming that god might be known and that if god is to be known then god must provide a personal and direct introduction of this knowledge; is there some writing, documentation, or teaching that exists which offers the correct information about god? More importantly, is there evidence that supports the validity of any such claim?

It seems to me that some kind of external proof must exist in order to prove a particular thought of god to be correct. If we try to look merely at the philosophy presented within each individual theology, then I am afraid we will be left to determine truth by mere opinion. One theology is correct because it feels right. One theology is false because I disagree with it. One is false because I cannot understand it. This is no way to honestly determine the truth of a theological or even philosophical claim. Even if external and physical evidence is not necessary to prove the truthfulness of a certain god claim, if external evidence is provided I think that this will make the determination much simpler. Without going into an examination of every single theological claim, I think we can focus on one and allow it to be the end all evidence for a definitive definition of god, and so we will brought from a generic reference of the higher power to a single reference of God. If this evidence is not accepted then the only answer that I can see remaining is that either god does not exist or that god, although it may be known, cannot be known.

My evidence then is one event that defies both science and the accepted common human reason and it is evidence that is unique only to one theological position (Christianity) and that is the physical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The claim that a dead man rose from the grave to physically ascend into heaven is seemingly impossible yet the claim offers some remarkable and solid evidence. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead to ascend into heaven, as the eye witness accounts of the first century claim, then the claims that he made while here on earth provide the only information and detailed knowledge about who God is and what He is. Jesus Christ taught very exclusive doctrine and he if was correct then all other theological doctrines outside of Christianity are incorrect. Jesus directly claimed to be God and He said that if He rises from the dead, then this will be proof that what He taught is true. The evidence supports that He did indeed rise and therefore His claims about Himself, God, the universe, and life must be true. If any theology is correct, then the verdict reasonably lies with Jesus and Christianity.

My introductory question is now answered by the person of Jesus Christ. From where does reason come? God. How is God known? He is known through faith in Jesus Christ, as Jesus Himself taught (John 6:44). Aristotle stops at the beginning of the supernatural but Jesus Christ takes us to the end.

So why does this matter? What benefit is there in knowing that Jesus Christ is God, the claims of the Bible therefore true, and that we all have been created by a loving God who has defined and set in place the rules to life and even happy and blessed living? As stated in the beginning, philosophy stands on reason. Without reason we cannot possibly explore and discover the world around us and so we will be left to drift aimlessly through our existence on earth. Philosophy deals with the basic and fundamental questions of life and our lives are centered and conducted based upon the answers to these fundamental questions whether our answers be right or wrong. Since we rely on reason for answers, it seems necessary in order to improve our search for the answers to the difficult questions of life then we must become more acquainted with true reason. If a god provides us with reason, then in order to more fully understand genuine reason we must be taught by this god. And if Jesus Christ is God, then we must come to know Him in order to be taught the fullness of reason. The study of philosophy then is incomplete without the true knowledge of God. God is the cornerstone to reasonable thought and if we neglect the knowledge of Him then our answers to life will always be incomplete. This does not mean that the Christian philosopher is the only philosopher who can formulate correct answers, but it does mean that in the end the Christian, or the humble God believer, is the only one who can achieve the fully correct answers to life. Aristotle provides great insight and offers some truth in his arguments without being a Christian, but when any philosopher excludes the truth proven by Jesus Christ, the truth of God, he or she is immediately set on a course with a dead end.