I’m neither a rationalist nor an empiricist. I am, however, moderately rational and do hold that certain things must be experienced to be believed. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists, on the other hand, claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Now that I think of it, maybe I’m both a rationalist and an empiricist.
I’m also something else. Irrational.
I don’t mean transrational, a term often employed in speculative metaphysics and brought to charismatic respectability by the late John Wimber. Transrational implies beyond rationality, that something can be known apart from rational engagement. But this very term also implies that we can conceive of something which exceeds our capacity for conception. That’s rationalism with a contrived humility. If we mean by the term that we can experience something that we cannot rationally contextualize, then we’re empiricists whose brains are on indefinite standby.
No. I’m definitely irrational—and necessarily so.
One of my other favorite dead guys is French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). A devout Christian, Pascal considered the unanswerable chasm between the monolithic physicality of the universe and the pronounced ethereal nature of mind and spirit. Even as a man of faith, this prospect unnerved him.
This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet. If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny [Him], and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity.
Here is the empiricist Pascal failing the rationalist Pascal. The experiential evidence is simply not conclusive. Yet the rationalist Pascal doesn’t fair much better when it comes to saving the empiricist Pascal from the onslaught of the inexplicable and terrifying materiality of the universe.
He who sees himself thus will be frightened by himself, and, perceiving himself sustained… between these two abysses of infinity and nothing, will tremble… and will be more disposed to contemplate these marvels in silence than to explore them with presumption. For in the end, what is man in nature? A nothing in respect to the infinite, everything in respect to the nothing, a halfway between nothing and all. Infinitely far from comprehending the extremes, both the end and the beginning or principle of things are invincibly hidden in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the nothing whence he has been drawn, and the infinite in which he is engulfed.
Pascal is onto something. Against the backdrop of an immeasurable cosmos and inscrutable human self, both rationalism and empiricism are burnt toast.
But then what’s left to us? I suggest that the best, even the necessary reply is a well-considered irrationalism. By this I mean an approach to life not dependent upon the faculty of reason or the evidence of experience. This is not to advocate a disregard for understanding or experiential facts. Irrationalism acknowledges them as enriching and confirming phenomena, but it refutes them as determining ones. Of all people, the wise writer of Proverbs himself demotes the rational: “Do not lean on your own understanding.” And throughout the Biblical record, the Divine seems unconcerned about the tyrannical rule of the obvious. Often facts are unreliable; and they can sometimes even be stupid things. The reasonable and empirical approach to life are doomed to . . . well, rationality and experience. What a drag.
Søren Kierkegaard, another cool dead guy, believed that ultimately we simply have to jump. Whether there’s something soft to land on is a question beyond a priori knowledge or experience. We just have to pick an authority, take his word for it, and hope to hell he’s trustworthy.
Some may find this position uncomfortable and seek rational or empirical reassurances. Good luck. I’m putting my money on the maniac Messiah, the crazy Christ, the stark raving Savior. I may be irrational, but I’m pragmatic about it.
6 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Some really good thoughts. However, the sidetrack into “transrationality” was distracting and detracted from your main thesis. Furthermore, your off hand dismissal of “transrationality” seemed subjectively pejorative, and beneath your considerable intelligence and skill as a thinker and writer.
Au contraire, my fine island contemplative! My discussion of “transrationality” was in anticipation of a predictable objection to my thesis. I knew if I didn’t bring it up, somebody else probably would. I didn’t want somebody to suggest that “transrational” was a better term than “irrational.” The fact that I discussed it at all would suggest my dismissal was not “off hand” or “pejorative” but considered, though I readily admit that I find the term “transrational” virtually empty of meaningful content.
Besides, as a welcome visitor to this site, you should know by now that nothing is beneath me. I’m shameless.
I agree, distinguishing between irrational and transrational is an important point. I’ve never been completely at ease with the term “transrational,” which is an attempt to say that just because something is beyond our understanding doesn’t mean that it is irrational.
It would seem, as Kierkegaard stated, that belief in anything – even that the chair you are about to sit on will hold you up – is something beyond the purely rational. Our reason brings us to the chair; our choices, however, are always little leaps. But now I’m sounding like Morpheus talking to the Merovingian.
Hmm. I certainly believe you have considered the idea of “transrationality” to a satisfactory extent; but your lumping Wimber in with a notion you disagree with came off as a cheap shot. Had you simply dismissed “transrationality” it would have been just that–a dismissal–but your connection of Wimber to an idea you have obvious disdain for comes off as disdain for and a dismissal of Wimber… which may or may not be what you intended. I will say that I heard Wimber speak on a couple of occasions and can say that he spoke with an authority that I have rarely heard anyone speak with. Disagree with him or not, I would think the fruit of his life indicates his thinking should be treated with tremendous respect.
With much respect…
Eucalyptus.
A noble concern. You are right that I intended no slight on Mr. Wimber. I met him and have a high respect for him. In fact, about 15 years ago I realized that at the time he was the ONE prominent evangelical leader I implicitly trusted. (I can’t say that about anybody these days.) So a cheap shot it was not. It is true, however, that the notion of transrationality was indeed forwarded by Wimber in his widely-disseminated teachings on the Kingdom of God, a notion I don’t reject, only question as a practically meaningful term.
Thanks for developing your previous comment. I now better understand your response to the post.
Haha I am actually the only comment to your great read?