Reason: A sign pointing to God

Have you ever been in a formal debate, or even in just a friendly discussion with a friend over the validity of something: the morality of abortion or the effects of same-sex unions on society? Or what the true story scientific studies tell regarding God's existence - does science support the existence of God - yes? no? Or even a discussion where a degree is functionally irrelevant, such as which brand of coffee is better? Jamaican Blue Mountain or Maxwell House. If you have then you should know the first two commandments of debating are:

1. Thou shall define thy terms; this is the first and greatest commandment in debating.
2. And the second is: thou shall not equivocate; in other words if the word you are using has multiple nuances, don't interchange between nuances to mean the same thing.

In this era of materialism and skeptism the term *evidence* is more often than not associated with the physical and historical sciences. For many scientists rock layers and rock dating is *evidence* of this universe being billions of years old. In paleontological studies there is disagreement between scientists regarding the validity of the Biblical flood of Noah (cf. Genesis 6-8) based on dinosaur fossils; some say that the fossils support the assertion of gradual accumulation of dirt over millions of years while others assert that the same fossils support the claim of a flood that engulfed the earth a mere few thousand years ago. In the same way historians are at odds with what the historical data, *the historical evidence* says about many famous historical claims: the holocaust in WW2 and the resurrection of Christ over 2000 years ago, to name two examples. In sum the physical and historical sciences are visible signs of something and what the 'signs' point to is open for interpretation. However *evidence* is more than "a visible sign of something[i]" as how Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as; Merriam-Webster also defines it is as: 

"something which shows that something else exists or is true"[ii] 

The term *evidence* covers more than history and the natural sciences. When someone makes the assertion that DNA is a sign that points towards an intelligent creator or dinosaur fossils point to the assertion of a global flood (or accumulation of millions of years of dirt) it begs the question: How did you arrive at that conclusion? ANSWER: Reason! 

A sign: reason:

However how do people *reason* that X is evidence of Y? Reason is itself a sign. The two terms *reasonable* and *unreasonable* describe an identifiable division between each other; if X is determined to be reasonable then it cannot be unreasonable. This is the logical law of excluded middle. It is true that in many cases reason is subjective (so X can be reasonable and unreasonable; but its ontology would depend on the situation);  so a reasonable decision for my life might be a very unreasonable move for yours; but for objective data, *reason* is founded on the objectivity of an axiomatic premise, (a premise that is assumed to be true.) Creationists *reason* that the scientific data is a sign that points towards God; they interpret the data from the assumption that God exists. Atheists are no different - atheistic scientists interpret data in light of the presumption that there is no God. But what many atheists will argue is that *the evidence* does not point to towards God and say that it is the use of *reason* that brings them to their conclusion; however the creationists will also say that *reason* is what aided them to their conclusion.  

Reason is itself a sign. Where does this sign point? Towards the existence of necessary preexisting factor - God. On what grounds does someone conclude an interpretation of data-X is reasonable or unreasonable? ANSWER: A determining factor: God. However, God is subjective in our culture: Yahweh, Allah, Elohim (Mormonism), Vishnu, Hare Krishna and so on; with atheists we are *God*, the one who makes our own decisions and judgment calls of right and wrong. The Atheist Experience co-host, Matt Dillahunty argues:

When we talk about why secular morality is superior its because we say so ... we have been able to build off of the foundations that other people have left us and learned what works and what doesn't.[iii]

So today's morality is subjective, a morality that has been developed by the subjective views held by people of our past. Regarding objective morality, Dillahunty believes that there is such thing; he states:

...there is no one moral answer that addresses every situation; but within a specific situation I think there are absolutes. This is because within any given situation there is a finite pool of possible actions one could take. We can compare the results of those actions with each other; some of them are going to be better and some of them are going to be worse, which by definition there is some subset of actions that represent the moral pinnacle for that particular situation.[iv]  

Dillahunty's objective morality is very subjective. The subjectivity of his morality consist of a number of options and the option that is chosen is done based on the situation. Therefore abortion is wrong based in one situation, but it is justified in another situation: what is the conclusion? Abortion is not objectively wrong.

As such one's 'God' is their foundation of reason. The difference between moral subjectivity and moral objectivity (something that Dillahunty I assert is willingly ignorant of) is moral objectivity deals with the object - abortion, charity, etc. Moral subjectivity, deals with the subject - the person by which the objective move is applied to. An issue like abortion may be the best move for someone's situation (in their view), but that doesn't mean that it is the right move. 

So the question then is, whose God is right? The atheist's, 'self'? The Christian's, Yahweh? The Muslim's, Allah? The Hindu's, Vishnu? When we say: "It's reasonable that abortion is good or bad or morally neutral."; which God are we pulling that judgement call from? Reason is a sign that points to the morality or immorality of something and a rational conclusion of ones analysis of the sciences, history, philosophy, ethics, etc.; and so it is reasonable to pull our reasoning from a logical foundation - a naturally reasonable source will give reasonable results by necessity. So the relationship between reason and its origin is the answer to the age'ol question: "Which came first the chicken (reason) or the egg (reasoning person)?" The answer is: that is the wrong question. What then is the right question? "Which came first the rooster (God) or the chicken (reason)?" ANSWER: Both. However it is important to clarify that God and reason are not two separate entities; they don't merely coexist any more than fire coexists with a flame - a flame is the very nature of fire and in the same way reason is the nature of God. As such this universe is structured on reason - its creator: 

Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. - Job 25:2

So who is your God? How could the right God be determined? In short the God of the worldview that is consistent with reality in-toto. 

__________________

[i]  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence - accessed March 13, 2014
[ii] Ibid., - accessed March 17, 2014
[iii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4 - accessed March 17, 2014
[iv] Ibid., - accessed March 17, 2014