Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational?

[Lance Muir]

Suggestions for reading(author's names only) reflecting two approaches: EVIDENTIALISM: Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Os Guinness (likely)(a sampling)   NON-EVIDENTIALISM:Leo Tolstoy (+many GOOD novelists), Lesslie Newbigin, Michael Polanyi, Frederick Buechner, Robert Farrar Capon, Soren Kierkegaard (a sampling)       Why make the above distinction? I believe that this reflects what just took place in this and, in other similar conversations.   ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 07, 2004 22:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational? In a message dated 12/7/2004 10:05:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Smithson wrote: >A one time experience is not logical for logic, >scientifically speaking, is the philosophy of right >thinking based on thoughtful comparisons  (of >what ALREADY EXISTS in our world) and >necessary conclusions drawn from those comparisons, A one time experience is fine in science.  We even have a name for it.  We regularly call such a report an anecdotal study.  They are more difficult to deal with in the matter of inductive inference, but they certainly play a role in rational thought, especially in terms of developing questions for further fruitful avenues of study. One time occurrences are called anomalies, David, and are not part of  a logical process , by definition.    Studied?   How does that occur from a scientific-method point of view?   Can you name any scientific studies involving single event occurrences? That anomalies play a role in "rational thought"  is not to say that they can be considered from a logical perspective.   The idea of "comparisons" is also a method of the Spirit, as explained in the following passage: 1 Corinthians 2:13 (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. So while the way in which revelation is communicated and taught differs from the logical methods of the world system, this does not mean that one system requires comparisons while the other system does not. You confuse reason with logic.  The two may be very different.    I do not pretend to logically understanding the parting of the Red Sea, but I have my reasons for believing in the historicity of that event.    The Spirit teaches as He compares the spiritual [concept] with the spiritual manifestation.   That does not mean the Spirit is governed by logic as we understand it.    But there is a problem, here.   You want to reject the logic of the world while creating and maintaining for a logic of the Spirit.   You really do not seem to be disagreeing with the above definitions from a worldly point of view.   I am only talking about logic as it is normally used  -- in this world as a philosophical tool for getting at the truth.   Worldly logic verses Spiritual logic is an issue as of your most recent response.    Before expanding the argument, could we arrive at some sort of consensus with the original subject.   When we move into the spirit realm,  I no longer know if your speaking ex-cathedral or not.  Both systems deal with anecdotes and both systems deal with comparisons, howbeit, in different ways.  Neither system abandons logic and reason.  Irrationality is not a fruit of the Spirit! The spirit realm is full of anecdotal claims and actualities.   Lets take an event  -- say, the healing of a hemorrhoidal condition.   The healing took place 15 years ago.   The event was shared in worship last Wednesday night.  The event is reasonable, based on the claims of the biblical message and other testimony --  but that particular event, well,   I accept it or reject it based on my personal bias, nothing more and nothing less.   Logic does not work in giving me an answer for this particular healing.   John Smithson wrote: >... science cannot offer logical proof for many of its >tenets -- so it postulates their existence and bases all >else on those postulated "truths." >... and ... >Important lessons are to be learned from this point of view. >Not the least of which is the first lesson of debate   --- >know what can be proven and what cannot.   We cannot >"prove" many aspects of our faith.   If this is true  --  how >then evangelism, conversion, perseverance in the faith, the >value of community (esp. the community of believers who >actually care for each other and draw from each others >strengths).   If none of this is established in mere logic, >how can we go one? Here you confuse the concept of "proof" with the method of logic.  Did it occur to you that I may have meant "evidence."   If not, read  "evidence."   My point stands as written with that revision in mind.  As I explained in the past post, proof is only the realm of deductive logic, but not inductive logic.  Science primarily operates by inductive logic and does not result in "proof" but in tentative conclusions based upon inductive logical inference.  Try and understand the difference here between deductive and inductive logic, and your objections will dissolve.  Saying that "proof does not exist" is not equivalent to saying that we must abandon logic. Man ! am I sorry I used "proof."   Trust me, it won't happen again !   Something else you do is confuse the idea of logic being the only source of truth with the idea that logic might still be intact in those areas where revelation was the source of the truth. Actually, David, I would say you are the one who makes this confused comparison.   I certainly do not believe that logic is the only avenue to truth, or even the best method.  " ....... that logic might still be intact in those areas where revelation was the source of the truth"  is a statement that is hard to argue since it is based on speculation.   On this side of eternity (as they say) our knowledge of the supernatural is admittedly limited  --  OF COURSE the miraculous (for example) will make more sense when we become a part of that destiny.   Why would you feel the need to say this.   Do you think this old divorcee thinks the mysterious things of God will never by fully understood???    Let me give you an example.  The molecular structure of benzene was discovered because the researcher had a dream where he saw monkeys holding hands in a chain, some of them doubled up alternately.  Although he did not arrive at this conclusion by logical inference, when he tested the revelation, he found that the conclusion was completely logical with the observable facts.  So while logic was not the source of truth in this case, the truth apprehended was logical and rational even to the point that atheists could accept his viewpoint. David  --  I am talking about things spiritual.   Logic applied to the spiritual realm.   Logic as defined by man.      Now not all truth arrived at by revelation will have all the logical connections to persuade atheists, but this does not mean that the logical connections do not exist.  It only means that the logical premises needed for them to be convinced are hidden. So we, you and I, have pretty much wasted the past several minutes.   What you have written is exactly my point.   What the atheist knows to be logical does not take him to the Christ !!!  It is the preaching of the gospel, the testimony of believers;  on occasion, the intervention of God, Himself, in the life of that unbeliever   -    this is what brings people to the Christ.     This is why Jesus said he spoke in parables, and why Paul says he speaks the wisdom of God in a mystery among those who are perfect.  If they did not, then all the intelligent would be saved by reason of their logical abilities because... you guessed it... truth is always logical.  What God does is keep certain premises hidden.  That's all. Wow.  An extremely poor use of scripture  --  but that will have to be for another post or thread.   What is a "postulate" David, if not an assumed "truth."   "Truth" in this case comes from mere observation, period.    Occasionally, God speaks to us, personally and directly.   "Truth" is, in this case, subjective and without  external evidence.  "Truth" may be only "anecdotal" in terms of source.  "Truth" may be an accepted claim of history, a friends counsel or testimony.    Such might be logical in nature, but not necessarily so.    "Truth" might be an internal and instinctive knowing, the product of our parents counsel, a cultural influence.   There are many venues for "truth."   One is logic.   All the others are reasonable.  John Smithson wrote: >In I Corinthians  1:22,23, Paul asserts that the message >is not logical, when he notes that the Greeks seek wisdom >and are given foolishness. Logic depends upon premises, and the premise of the cross is understood by Judaism but not so well by the Greek culture because of the premises that have been hidden from them.  What Paul asserts in 1 Cor. 1 &2 is not that the message of the cross is illogical, but that God has arranged the culture in such a way that it takes some effort upon the part of those hearing the message to rearrange their premises.  This is part of the wisdom of God to keep flesh from glorying in his presence.  It is part of his work of extending salvation to all on an equal basis and not just to the wise and intelligent.  In no way does this mean that logic and reason have no place in God's economy or that some truth is illogical. You are one confused puppy.   It is becoming more clear to me why some of the disagreements on TruthTalk persist.  If some of you don't believe that truth is always logical, you will ignore it when logic shows your viewpoint to be false.  There is no basis for communicating if logic is dismissed for some higher knowledge that comes only through irrational imagination.  When shown to be logically inconsistent, you only need to shrug your shoulders and say to yourself, "so what.  He just doesn't see what I see.  One day God might show it to him." Such a belief would put you in a position of never being able to be shown that you are wrong.  I don't think that is a good position to be in. You confuse "logic" with your ability to understand matters religious.  That is why you correct nearly everyone on this forum.    As a Prophet, how could you escape the responsibility of correcting those who think differently than you and are, hence, wrong.    That is not a slam, buy the way.    On the sacrifice of Christ  --  is past sin forgiven or all sin?  Which of us is right, David  --  you or I?   Out of body events...... do they happen?  How do we decide?    How can we on this forum, rest in the notion that you are actually a Prophet (as in "apostles and prophets")?  How do we make that decision?  Why should I ( a disciple of Christ) believe in Luke's account of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus?    Why should I believe that David Miller got hit in the head with a wooden bat, lived, and, in the end, changed political history in Florida?  How do I make that decision?   What are rules of logic on that?    When I speak of loving my savior and being accepted by Him   -      BEING ACCEPTED BY HIM    ---  what is used, logically speaking, to verify THAT?   God gives me work each and everyday of the week.   Can I establish that "fact" to the same degree that I can argue that I own a 2002 Silverado pick-up truck?   When it is all said and done, we believe what we want or have been conditioned to believe.    That is why "knowing" is NOT the criteria, rather, looking to the relationship we have with God   (I Co 8:1-4).        Smithson  --  out!!!!!!! Peace be with you. David Miller.