Is Reason a Path? A Methodological Approach (A – On Religion)

• Author: Pedro Tellería
• Date: 12/18/25
• Website: PedroTelleria.com
• Topic: Critical-Thinking
• Series: Is Reason the Path? (Chapter-1)
• Version: v1.0 (2aEN)
• URL: pedrotelleria.com/article.php?id=36&lang=EN

Introduction

We live under a permanent tension:

• Freedom vs. authority
• Reason vs. dogma
• Personal autonomy vs. closed manuals (religious or ideological)

Some argue that life should be subordinated to a political or moral framework imposed by the group, the era, or the majority. Others claim that ultimate freedom — free will — comes from God.

I understand these positions. I even respect the human need for certainty. But my path has been different:

• I do not have the luck (or the comfort) of accepting any ideological manual as a whole.
• And, despite having tried, I have never received direct communication from any God.

So I use what I do have: reason, critical thinking, and method.

This article does not seek to dictate “the truth” about what cannot be observed, nor to offer a definitive model of society. It defends a simpler, more practical principle:

• When there is no shareable evidence, the only solid basis for living together is human reason — not revealed faith, nor unquestionable ideology.

Let us begin with the first territory where this becomes evident: religion.

1. Religious experience: intention vs. evidence

I grew up within Christianity. As a teenager, I took it seriously. I read sacred texts. I studied Thomas Aquinas. I immersed myself in Christian theology. Later, I broadened my scope: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. I also went through apocryphal gospels, papal statements, and conciliar documents.

I recognize the cultural and moral value this holds for millions of people.

But I have to be honest:

• I have never experienced direct communication with a God.

I have prayed, participated in rituals, searched — without an observable result, without a discernible message, without a verifiable revelation.

This is not mockery. It is a fact of my life: I do not have a channel of evidence that I can share with others.

2. The problem of intermediaries

This is where the real boundary appears.

The believer appeals to texts, inner experiences, and religious authorities. The non-believer appeals to reason, logic, and testable experience.

This clash is not academic. It is practical:

• How do we debate values when one side speaks from revelation and the other from evidence?
• How do we legislate in plural societies if part of the population invokes sacred authority?
• How do we build consensus if we do not share rules for validating claims?

I do not dismiss faith. I point out a limitation: faith does not offer universally verifiable criteria for everyone. This is not moral superiority. It is methodological clarity.

3. Autonomy of judgment: my toolbox

If I have no revelation, what do I have left? I have my mind. And that is enough to begin.

My approach rests on:

• Autonomy of personal judgment: each individual has the right to build their own criteria, without dogmatic imposition.
• Reason: our shared tool for organizing ideas, checking coherence, and detecting contradictions.
• Logic: not the property of any faith; it governs any coherent discourse in the real world.
• Critical thinking: questioning, doubting, contrasting; not accepting claims without evidence or solid argument.
• The scientific method, when applicable: not omnipotent, but the best tool we have for understanding the observable world.
• Revisable analytical models: nothing is final. Everything is subject to revision, falsification, and better evidence.

This is not a dogma. It is a procedure. And as such, it is revisable, self-critical, and fallible.

4. Fallibilism: humility without resignation

This point deserves its own space. Fallibilism is the stance I adopt:

• All knowledge is provisional.
• I can be wrong.
• I change my mind in the face of better arguments or data.
• I accept that my view is imperfect.

This is not relativism. It is not nihilism. It is, rather, epistemic humility paired with cognitive ambition.

Religious faith may offer inner certainty. But that certainty is not shareable outside the framework of faith. Fallibilism, by contrast, invites open discussion, continuous adjustment, and evidence-based revision.

5. Dialogue with believers: yes, but with clear rules

I do not seek to destroy anyone’s faith. I deeply respect those who believe and live their faith honestly.

Many religions have contributed valuable ethical frameworks, community practices, and narratives that sustain millions of people. I have no doubt about the many contributions and services religions have offered to individuals.

And I accept correction when many point out that I speak in the singular: Religion, God.

But there are limits:

• I do not debate inner revelations: they are not verifiable.
• I do not refute subjective experiences: they are not observable.
• I do not build universal norms from particular revelations.

So what kind of dialogue is possible?

A dialogue that acknowledges each framework for what it is. This implies:

• Identifying when an argument is based on faith and when it is based on shareable reason.
• Avoiding the confrontation of revealed truths with rational propositions as if they operated on the same plane.
• Building agreements on verifiable and debatable grounds.

There will be no total consensus. But there can be a minimal common ground.

Postscript

• In the next article, I will apply the same analysis to political ideologies and their closed “manuals.”
• After that, I will apply this methodology to key issues: freedom, morality, meaning, empathy, responsibility.
• Thinking together is uncomfortable. And that is precisely why it is worth it.