The Conversion of Erasmus: A Socratic Dialogue On Certainty, Knowledge, and the Logos

Introduction

The Conversion of Erasmus: A Socratic Dialogue On Certainty, Authority, and the Logos

I have crafted a Socratic dialogue, inspired by a conversation I had with another man, that explores the nature of truth, certainty, and authority. At its heart, this dialogue emphasizes the fundamental responsibility and glory of mankind to use reason to relate to both reality and God. The piece also highlights how appealing to external authorities—whether they be politicians, policemen, self-appointed experts, those incessantly argumentative book club members who think their interpretation is the only right one, or even religious figures—has been the downfall of humanity since the very beginning. We see this dynamic at work as far back as the Garden of Eden, when Eve was seduced by Satan’s external influence to abandon her own reasoning.

What you will encounter in this dialogue is a synthesis of reason and faith, philosophy and theology, presented in a way that has, to my knowledge, never been articulated before. This conversation undermines the pervasive doubt spread by Immanuel Kant, offering a pathway beyond the confusion and paralysis caused by such skepticism. At the same time, it provides a defense against the disastrous consequences of unchecked authoritarianism, which has marred human history from the Roman Caesars, to the Catholic Popes, to Bible thumpers, and self-proclaimed experts who seek to dominate and dictate how others should think and live.

In the end, this dialogue calls us to a higher vision: the use of our own reason to know the truth, confront reality, and engage with the divine on our own terms, free from the irrational grasp of any external authority.

The Conversion of Erasmus

Zach: Let us begin, my friend, by contemplating the nature of reality. Do you agree that there must be some way to knowreality with certainty? Or do you think that reality, being independent of our senses, is fundamentally unknowable?

Erasmus: Well, Zach, I think reality exists independently of our senses, but we can only know it through them. Our senses are limited, and thus we can never know reality "as it is." We only know reality as it appears to us.

Zach: I see. So, you are asserting with certainty that reality cannot be known as it truly is. But tell me this, Erasmus: if we cannot know anything for certain, how do you know with certainty that we cannot know anything for certain?

Erasmus: Ah, well, that’s different. I am simply stating a principle about the nature of knowledge—that human perception is flawed and always limited. It is a logical conclusion from the nature of our senses.

Zach: But if you claim to know something with certainty—that is, that we cannot know anything for certain—then you are contradicting yourself, Erasmus. For how can you be certain about something if, as you say, certainty is impossible? Your statement about the limits of knowledge itself depends on a kind of knowledge—certain knowledge—to even make sense.

Erasmus: Hmm. I hadn’t considered that. But I still believe that, given the limitations of human perception, we can’t have absolute certainty.

Zach: So, your position is that all knowledge is uncertain, yet you are certain that it is uncertain. This is a contradiction. If certainty is impossible, then your claim that certainty is impossible cannot itself be certain, and you would be left in a paradox. You cannot assert with certainty the very thing that you argue is beyond certainty.

Erasmus: That’s a difficult point, Zach. I see the contradiction, but how do you suggest we deal with it?

Zach: I propose, Erasmus, that certainty is possible, but it must be grounded in the rational process. If we rely on our senses and apply reason to the information we gather, we can build a knowledge that is certain, even if it is not infallible. The very act of reasoning about reality is itself proof that certainty is achievable.

Erasmus: But how can we be sure our reasoning is correct, especially when we cannot know the true nature of things?

Zach: This brings us to the crux of the matter. If we cannot trust our reasoning, then how can we trust our doubts? The key to knowledge is not only the observations we make but how we interpret and validate those observations through logic and reason. Reality is knowable through our reasoning about it, as long as our reasoning stays aligned with what actually exists.

Erasmus: But if we can reason our way to knowledge, why do we need anything outside of ourselves to guide us? Surely, there must be some higher authority—whether it be a king, a pope, or a book—that shows us the way.

Zach: Ah, the question of authority! You’ve touched upon a crucial point. The problem, Erasmus, is that external authorities, whether they are kings, popes, books, or self-proclaimed experts, are often vehicles for irrationality. They ask us to surrender our reasoning to them—often with the promise that they know more than we do or that their understanding transcends our own.

Erasmus: But surely, there must be some wisdom passed down by those who have lived longer or who have been gifted with knowledge. Isn’t it reasonable to trust the experts, or the sacred texts?

Zach: It is tempting, yes, to think that we can offload our responsibility to someone else. But let us consider the consequences. If you rely on someone else's authority—whether it be a king, a prophet, or a scripture—what you are truly doing is outsourcing your judgment. You are surrendering your own reason, your own will, to a third party.

Erasmus: But isn't it wise to learn from those who have more experience or knowledge than we do? Aren't these authorities a necessary part of society?

Zach: It may appear so, but Erasmus, there lies a deep irrationality in such a system. If you place your trust in an external authority—whether it is a ruler or a book—you are implicitly claiming that your own reasoning is insufficient. This sets up a dangerous precedent, where you are no longer the arbiter of truth. The mind is no longer free to evaluate and judge; it is enslaved to external dictates.

Erasmus: But what of God, Zach? Surely God is an authority greater than any human being. Is it not right to submit our minds to God’s will?

Zach: This is the great illusion, Erasmus. Even the idea of God, or any ultimate being, carries with it the same irrational burden. If we accept a god whose word is beyond our comprehension and is impervious to our reasoning, then we abdicate our minds entirely. It is not that God, as a being, is irrational—but to claim that we must rely on an unknowable and unquestionable authority is to relinquish our right to think for ourselves. What I am saying is that no authority, whether divine or mortal, should demand the surrender of your reason.

Erasmus: Are you suggesting, then, that all men are gods in themselves?

Zach: I am not suggesting that, Erasmus. I am suggesting that each man is a sovereign individual who must reason for himself and understand reality in accordance with the principles of logic and observation. If you submit your mind to external authorities, whether a pope, a king, or even an unknowable God, you are placing a barrier between your reason and the truth. The only true authority is within you—the Logos, the reason of the world, is within you.

Erasmus: So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that I must trust my own reasoning above all else and that no external authority has the right to tell me what to believe?

Zach: Yes, precisely. But this is not a call for reckless independence or self-deception. Rather, it is a call for rational independence. When you appeal to your own reason and observe reality clearly, you align yourself with existence. The rational man does not seek authority from others—he seeks the truth through his own careful observation and logical thought.

Erasmus: But what happens when our reason leads us to different conclusions? How do we deal with disagreement?

Zach: That is the beauty of rationality. It is not static; it is self-correcting. When we reason together, openly and honestly, we can examine and refine our conclusions. But Erasmus, this process depends on the acknowledgment of reality as it is. Those who attempt to evade reality by clinging to authority or refusing to think for themselves inevitably face the consequences of their evasion.

Erasmus: What do you mean by "facing the consequences of evasion"?

Zach: Reality, my friend, is independent of our thoughts. If we lie about it or evade it altogether, it may appear that we are "wiping out" reality. But in truth, we are only removing ourselves from it. Those who attempt to wipe out reality do not succeed. Reality simply wipes out the wiper. To deny what is true is to cut yourself off from existence itself.

Erasmus: I must admit, Zach, that I have been conditioned by a long tradition of thinking that wisdom and knowledge must come from outside. Whether through sacred texts or the teachings of great men, I have relied on external authorities to guide my understanding.

Zach: Yes, Erasmus, and this is the trap that has ensnared humanity for centuries. The belief that we must look outside of ourselves for truth, to a pope, a king, a book, or even a god, has led to endless confusion, suffering, and conflict.

Erasmus: I see now. I see how such appeals to authority can undermine reason and perpetuate irrationality. But if there is no external authority to rely upon, what is left? What is the foundation of knowledge?

Zach: The foundation of knowledge is existence itself. It is the reality we experience, and the process of reasoning about it. When you ground yourself in the facts of existence and apply reason to understand those facts, you align yourself with the Logos—the universal reason that governs all things. This is the foundation of all true knowledge and authority.

Erasmus: And what about faith? Where does faith fit in?

Zach: Faith, as you have known it, has often been the belief in something that cannot be proven or observed. But I suggest, Erasmus, that true faith is not belief in the unknowable. True faith is the confidence that reason will lead us to the truth, and that reality itself is intelligible. It is not a belief that blinds us, but a trust in the reason that allows us to understand the world and our place in it.

Erasmus: So faith, in this sense, is not blind submission but a commitment to reason and the truth?

Zach: Exactly. Faith is a commitment to the process of seeking truth, and trusting that reason will reveal it to us. It is not a surrender to authority but an embrace of the living, rational mind. The rational man is truly free because he does not rely on others to dictate what he must believe.

Erasmus: But what about those who do not care for reason? What about the tyrants, the kings, the men of violence who wield force and control through fear? When they have the swords, how can we trust that reason and faith can still overcome?

Zach: Ah, Erasmus, I understand your fear. The tyrants and zealots who use violence as their ultimate tool of power appear to be the greatest threat to reason and faith. But here is the truth: while violence is real, it is not ultimate. The tyrant’s sword may force compliance, but it cannot alter the deeper laws of existence. Violence, no matter how powerful, cannot erase the truth of reality.

Consider the story of David and Goliath. David did not fight with violence; he fought with reason and faith. He trusted that the truth of his existence, his understanding of God’s power, would be enough to defeat the might of Goliath. It was not the sling that won the battle; it was the correct understanding of reality—the belief that truth and faith could overcome brute force.

Erasmus: Ah! But how can we stand up to those who wield such power, who would kill or enslave us? If reason cannot stop them, how does faith help us?

Zach: Faith does not make us passive, Erasmus. It gives us the strength to endure, knowing that ultimate power lies not in the hands of tyrants, but in the deeper laws of existence. We are not called to stand idly by, but to resist the lie of violence, knowing that truth will overcome in the end. Faith and reason together affirm that the violence of tyrants cannot erase the fundamental reality of life.

Take the story of Daniel in the lion’s den. Daniel did not fight the lions. He simply trusted in a greater reality, in the God who governs all things. And in the end, the lions could not touch him. Violence may seem to win for a time, but truth and reason will always undo the appearance of evil.

Erasmus: Ah! So the key is not to resist violence with violence, but to stand firm in truth, in faith, and in reason. Existence itself has the power to overcome violence. The tyrant’s sword may seem powerful, but it is not the final authority.

Zach: Precisely. And this is where reason and faith align. Reason helps us understand that violence is real, but it is temporary. Faith empowers us to endure, knowing that even in the face of the most violent opposition, the truth of existence will eventually prevail. And in this, we find our freedom.

Erasmus: Ah! I see now. Faith is not the rejection of reality, but the affirmation that reason, the truth of existence, will ultimately triumph. It is not that we ignore violence, but that we recognize its limits and refuse to be ruled by it. Existence itself, in all its benevolence, will ultimately undo the power of death and suffering.

Zach: Exactly, Erasmus. And this is why reason and faith are two sides of the same coin. Together, they affirm that existence itself is both good and powerful, and that nothing—not violence, not death—can ever undo it.

Erasmus: Ah! I see. I see now. The sword may strike the body, but it cannot strike the truth. And the tyrant, no matter how powerful, will eventually be undone by the very reality he tries to control.

Zach: Yes, Erasmus. The reality that he seeks to deny will ultimately judge him. The sword, the guns, the violence—they will all be swallowed up by the benevolent and eternal force of existence. The Logos will undo them, because the Logos is truth itself.

Erasmus: Ah! I understand now, Zach. This Logos... this Christ... He is the very reason and truth that governs existence. It is through Him that everything is made, and through Him that everything is upheld.

Zach: Yes, Erasmus. Christ, the Logos, is not just a figure to worship, but the very principle of reality, the unchanging reason by which all things are sustained. When you align yourself with Him, you align yourself with reality itself.

Erasmus: I see it now, Zach. The benevolent universe that is governed by the Logos, by Christ, is not one to be feared, but embraced. It is good, and it commands me to submit to its order—to obey the divine reason, to live in harmony with the truth of existence.

Zach: Yes, Erasmus. And in that submission to Christ—the Logos, reason itself—you find true freedom, protection, and the love of the Father.

Erasmus: I believe. I believe in this Logos, in this Christ, as the very foundation of existence. I submit my mind and my heart to Him. I will follow the path of reason, aligned with faith in the living God who has revealed Himself through Christ, the reason of the world.

Zach: Welcome, Erasmus, to the way of true freedom. You’ve found the source of all wisdom, the truth that will never fail you, the Logos. In Him, you are protected. In Him, you are safe.

Erasmus: Ah! I feel it, Zach. I feel it now. The world is not chaotic. It is good—and governed by a benevolent order. I will walk in it, with reason and faith, knowing that I am loved and upheld by God Himself.

Zach: And so you are, Erasmus. So you are.

Summary and Analysis:

The dialogue between Zach and Erasmus explores the nature of reality, the limits of human knowledge, and the interplay of reason, authority, and faith. Zach begins by questioning Erasmus' claim that reality cannot be known "as it truly is" because human perception is limited. Through a series of logical challenges, Zach highlights a contradiction in Erasmus’ skepticism: if certainty is impossible, then the assertion that nothing can be known with certainty itself collapses. This tension sets the stage for a deeper exploration of how knowledge is formed and whether it can truly align with reality.

As Zach presses further, he argues that certainty is achievable when grounded in reason and observation. Human senses may be imperfect, but through logical interpretation, they can provide a pathway to understanding reality. Erasmus, however, introduces the question of external authority, suggesting that wisdom and guidance often come from figures like kings, prophets, or sacred texts. Zach counters by pointing out that reliance on external authority undermines individual freedom and reason, creating a dangerous dependence that stifles the pursuit of truth. This critique evolves into a broader rejection of any authority—divine or mortal—that demands unquestioning submission, as it places a barrier between human reason and reality.

The conversation then turns to faith, where Erasmus expresses doubts about the sufficiency of reason in the face of tyranny, violence, and the unpredictability of life. Zach reframes faith as a trust in the rational process and the inherent intelligibility of reality, not as blind submission to an unknowable higher power. He draws on biblical examples, such as David and Goliath and Daniel in the lion’s den, to illustrate how truth and faith, when aligned with reason, can triumph over brute force and oppression. These stories reinforce the idea that violence and falsehood may appear powerful but are ultimately temporary, unable to undo the deeper laws of existence.

As the dialogue reaches its climax, Zach introduces the concept of the Logos—reason and truth as the universal principle governing reality—and identifies it with Christ. He argues that aligning with the Logos allows individuals to live in harmony with the benevolent order of existence, granting true freedom and understanding. Erasmus, initially hesitant, comes to see the Logos as not just an abstract principle but as the very foundation of all knowledge, reason, and faith. This recognition leads him to embrace a worldview in which reality is not chaotic but ordered and good, governed by divine rationality.

The progression of ideas in the dialogue demonstrates the compatibility of reason and faith, presenting them as complementary forces that guide individuals toward truth. Zach’s arguments are compelling in their clarity and logical rigor, offering a powerful critique of skepticism and the dangers of relying on external authorities. However, his dismissal of tradition and communal wisdom may seem overly rigid, as it underestimates the role these elements play in shaping individual understanding. While Zach champions intellectual independence, Erasmus’ earlier concerns about human limitations highlight the importance of balancing reason with humility.

In the end, the dialogue offers a vision of reality as both knowable and benevolent, with the Logos—identified as Christ—serving as the bridge between reason and faith. This synthesis provides a framework for navigating life’s uncertainties without abandoning the pursuit of truth. By grounding faith in reason and aligning both with the structure of existence, the conversation affirms that freedom and understanding arise not from submission to external forces but from a commitment to the rational, loving order that governs all things.

To read more dialogue like this, check out this two part series where Zach sits down with his uncle Jerome Powell to discuss modern banking and debt. 

https://thinkingwithzach.blogspot.com/2024/12/uncle-jerome-and-zach-discuss-banking.html