It dies with a whimper, not with a bang.

Building on the Renaissance and the Scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, often called the “Age of Reason” rocked the world by challenging traditional means of truth. Starting in the late 1600s, philosophers such as Locke and scientists such as Newton, began to change the way we approach knowledge. Knowledge, according to such thinkers, came not from some revelation of immutable truths “out there”, but were discovered through systematic observation and application of critical thought. During this time, philosophers began to treat observation and logic with the attention it deserved. In short, the world moved progressively toward reason.

Age of Reason

This change was epitomized in 1794 when Thomas Paine published the first part of his political and religious tome, The Age of Reason. In it, he argues that the Christian Church was corrupt, that knowledge came from reason, not revelation, and that the Bible amounts to ordinary literature, not divinely inspired. This deist approach to religion saw the world as moving and changing independent of any influence by God. Natural law provided the explanations of the natural world.

Revelation, Paine argues, can only be verified by the receivers of the revelation. But how can this be used for evidence of God’s existence to anybody who has not had this supposed “revelation”. Revelation demands faith rather than reason.

We are seeing again today explicit calls to this faith. Sure some people give lip service to reason, but the politicization of many seeming innocuous topics suggests the age of reason is dying.

Reason in Politics

Take for example our recent election. On the one hand, Trump and his hoards of fans claim the election was wildly fraudulent. This fraud gave the election to Biden. Yet, Biden and his allies claim the election results stem from one of the most honest and fair elections of all time. Both sides claim “evidence” to support their claims. Yet, neither challenge their supporters to try to understand the evidence, to think through what the evidence means, and to apply reason in such an analysis.

For example, in a November 19th press conference, Rudy Giuliani claimed to have affidavits from witnesses of fraud. Giuliani correctly pointed out during the press conference that these written affidavits are a type of evidence, so to say they don’t have evidence is wrong. Yet, the very next day, CNN published an article claiming that Giuliani’s claims were without evidence, despite the affidavits. CNN didn’t just reject the evidence as invalid, they pretended it didn’t exist. CNN rejected the use of reason to consider all the evidence, preferring instead to cherry pick sources that fit their “revelation” that Trump is wrong.

What is the correct way to determine if the evidence is legitimate? Fortunately, we have a system in place for judging evidence, our judicial system. And of the 40 or more cases the Trump team and his allies took to court, not a single one won. In other words, the evidence provided by the Trump was considered insufficient, ill-defined, or not appropriate for the claim they were making. In other words, there is no provable evidence of fraud. That’s not to say that some fraud did not occur. But given the tenacity with which the Trump team chased this idea, the striking failure in the courts suggests Trump’s claims are wrong. If their evidence of fraud was so compelling, then why did so many judges (some even appointed by Trump) reject that evidence. As someone who did not see the situation and am unaware of the intimate details of the vote counting process, I have to accept the judges’ conclusions, that massive fraud did not occur. The fact that Trump continues this “revelation” of massive fraud and that so many of his supporters still believe it, also shows how reason is failing.

Yes, both sides claim “evidence”. But both sides fail to use reason to judge the evidence. Granted, many smart people on both sides use reason to think about this issue. This is not meant to belittle either. What’s troublesome is that the leaders in each group appeal to “revelations” and “inherent truths” and that so many people simply accept the results without critical thought. Bias runs deep and too few question it.

That’s how reason dies.