‘All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.’

Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason)

Last week I joined a gathering of local clergy, and one of the subjects for discussion was how to engage more effectively with young people. The conversation quickly turned to the challenge of meeting together in person, when so much attention is taken up by social media and online gaming.

It was suggested that the young can only express opinion in byte-size chunks, and that the ability to construct and follow through an argument or debate is very limited.

Is it really the case that our intellectual capacity has been stunted by electronic media, in just one generation? I think not: the problem is more lack of exercise for the brain rather than lack of capability.

This week we'll take a look at exercising logic and reason, and how wider debate can lead to a wider sense of purpose and fulfilment.

In our first commentary of September last year, we argued in favour of reason and logic with references back to John Locke, a 17th century political philosopher, and Richard Hooker, a 16th century Anglican theologian: he did much to encourage John Locke’s approach to economics and peaceful co-existence. This is one of the comments we made at the time, ‘If only the Anglican church had learned more from Richard Hooker’s 3-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason: but in practice its ‘Tradition’ leg is about ten times higher than that of Reason’.

Our society has moved forward with such a pace that it's increasingly difficult to rest on tradition. The teaching of history is very selective in schools, and the need to maintain balance across society, not discriminating in favour of ‘white Anglo-Saxon’ legacies, is making studies of the past even more difficult.

It was George Santayana who said, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it’, but it would appear that the challenge of presenting a balanced view of history is forcing us into that position.

It's therefore really important to encourage the role of logic and rational discussion, so that the generations that follow us can plan better for the way forward and can work through issues, not in isolation but in discussion.

In-person debates enable this in a structured way which allows everyone to contribute. We tend to think of debate only in a political context these days, but they have a much wider role to play and we should encourage their resurgence.

Let's take a look at some of the issues which we might consider, not expecting them to result in decisions or conclusions of course, but focusing on the intellectual exercise of sharing ideas about them. Here is an array of subjects which don't have a faith context:

  • Where did the laws of Gravity, Light and Time come from?
  • Using the human life cycle as the basis for inter-generational rebalancing
  • Conscience: where does it come from, how can we use it better to steer our decisions? Also, is it shared by animals?
  • Should our care for our ‘neighbour of tomorrow’ be discounted in comparison to our care for our ‘neighbour of today’?
  • How do we learn to love our enemy, and can restorative justice work?
  • What should be the balance between individual freedom and intermediation?
  • As communication, migration and trade bring people together across the world, is there any long-term logic in maintaining national boundaries?
  • How should the logic for universal welfare be balanced against targeted care for the most disadvantaged, when it stretches the resources available too thinly?

and here are a few which do have a faith context:

  • For those who accept that there is a spiritual existence beyond life on earth, is it logical to think that our memory resides in our brain rather than our soul?
  • Why should there be any gender differentiation in heaven?
  • Does the existence of pain, suffering and wrongdoing, combined with faith in a perfectly good God, allow for any view of creation other than continuous evolution?

Now let's say that we were to invite young people in their teenage years to come together, say once a month, in order to express their views on one of these (or many more) subjects and listen to the views of others. It would be interesting to see how many were prepared to leave their electronic devices at home and share the experience, and whether such a movement could catch hold.

One of the reasons why mental instability and inactivity have seen such an increase over the past few years is isolation brought on by both the pandemic and social media. We must work harder at building bridges across society, at encouraging a more considered view of logic and reason, and at sharing the enjoyment of in-person social relationships.

Gavin Oldham OBE

Share Radio