Many Miles

Here I am. Send me. I'll do what I can. I'll use longer words for those who need longer words. I'll use shorter words for those who need shorter words. So long as the communication is clear all is good.

I want to say something more in response to that notion. Rationality does not have a main tool. Rationality is a tool. Things learned or advocated by science are no more or less useful to rationality than premises from any other source, including purely theoretical premises, even invented premises for sake of devil's advocacy to explore creative ideas. It's pure fancy to think of science as a main tool for rationality.

No. Rationality is a tool used by science, but it is not science. Science is a systematic process intent on learning about our universe. Rationality is a method of thinking intent on maintaining objectivity. As a hammer is not carpentry even though carpenters use a hammer, rationality is not science even though scientists use rationality. Rationality will not prove faith, but it can be used to test faith, and any faith worth holding is worth testing. As the biblical text suggests, the biggest difference between the "physical man" and the "spiritual man" is that one is willing to examine everything and one does not care to. Rational thought does not require lofty language, but it does require understanding how to avoid fallacy and how to be objective about evidence and inference. We should attain to speak to whatever audience is willing to learn. Also in the 1st to Corinth, "For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some." Many Miles does not look for the best market. Many Miles shares what he can where he can wherever that happens to be, to help whoever is there as best he can. In my experience, the hunger is there among all to learn a better way of life, which is what our worship is. I do not count converts on a report slip. God through his son Jesus are the ones who determine whose worship they accept, and I leave it to them.

Agreed. But it's real.

I just want to draw a circle about something you say here Juan. When discussing subjects with a view of learning from one another, it's productive to have a starting point based on things that are mutually recognized. Said another way, find what things are held in agreement and then construct deductive reasoning off of these as premises. For anyone who wants to learn, this is very helpful, because if they have any regard at all for sound reasoning, the person will yield to (or at least consider) the conclusion. There is always some common ground upon which to hold a conversation. But it's not always the case that each person in the conversation has regard for sound reasoning. That's the difficult part.

FACT

That is a statement that should be read, digested and responded to with great caution.

Atheists are humans who do not believe in God because they don't see evidence for God, or at least not the God of the Bible. These could fall into different categories in terms of spirituality. One could be an atheist because he's unable to see evidence though he is looking for it. This would put him in the category of spiritual man because he's looking, but in this case he'd be a person who has no helper (he's unable), and sooner or later, according to the Bible, God would help this person. Another could be an atheist because he doesn't want to look into everything and he doesn't want to bother to believe in a God. This would put the person in the category of physical man. Scientists are trained to use inductive reasoning to find probabilities and then narrow things down more definitively with deductive conclusions, if they are unable to find direct evidence. Mostly scientists are looking for direct evidence. When they do find direct evidence then they apply inductive and then deductive reasoning as either is warranted to further their exploration of all things. Based on what you posit above, I'd say of a scientist who's looking to the universe to examine all things without regard for what others may think of his search, that he's a spiritual man because, according to the Bible, the natural world is God's testimony too. Hence, though a scientist may not end up believing in the biblical God, he ends up obeying natural law like Cornelius did, and Cornelius was a spiritual man aside from Judaism and Christianity. As for acupuncture, I said it was false to say the practice is pseudoscience. In my response, which you quote above, I was careful not to say all claims by acupuncturists are scientific. I just said it's false to say the practice is pseudoscience. My reason for saying this is that, as I stated earlier, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method. [Emphasis added this go-round] A spiritual man would find themselves abiding by natural law. Hence, if "the deep things of Satan" are notions that defy natural law then there's nothing there to see, because they'd already know the information is contrary to nature hence rather than being information it would be disinformation. A person who looks into all things does not look where nothing is there to see. They go where the information is. Juan brought up Eve earlier, suggesting maybe she wanted to know why she was not supposed to eat of the forbidden tree. Satan coaxed her into eating of it. But she didn't have to look into "the deep things of Satan" to answer that why question. She already knew it was wrong to eat of the forbidden fruit. So all she needed to do then and there was abstain from eating the fruit. She could have inquired about the "why" by a method other than the proverbial "spark test" (clicking a lighter looking for a natural gas leak!). God bless you for having the patience to read that stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination. In public and private each has made it known they have no interest whatsoever in constructive dialogue. When it comes to them, and others like them, I find myself helpless due to limited time. I only wish each well. But they need more than I am able to give.

I thought about this more. Answering the question asked is simpler than I expressed earlier, and it's presented as precursors within the text itself. Within the text we see what boils down to one person, the "physical man", that does not care to examine all things whereas the other person, the "spiritual man" wants to examine all things, and the latter does so without concern of whether this is popular among men. That would place a "spiritual man" squarely in the realm of a rational person because, as I said before, a rational thinker wants to explore possibilities. A rational thinker wants to examine all things, including identifying where he's wrong. A rational thinker is going to let rational thinking play out based on evidence and logical deduction whatever that process leads to without regard for what may or may not be popular among men. In this case, a spiritual man clearly has an advantage. Because his conclusions are not confined to exploring what is popular among men, and he looks for and draws sound conclusions based on evidence.

Answering that question depends on what Paul means by "a physical man" and "the spirit of God". The simplest approach would be to presume Paul is comparing non-teleological vs teleological. Alternatively, it could be a comparison of a person who looks just at the here-and-now vs the future. It could also be the difference between those whose perspective is “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die” versus those who live purpose driven. (Also 1st to Corinth) All these are pretty much the same thing. In each case, the latter has to do with rational thought as a method of thinking. Christians are purpose driven. Christians see a future. Non-Christians (read: atheist) tend to be fatalistic. Christians believe in a life after death, by means of resurrection. Non-Christians tend to think there is no hope for life after death. Aside from biblical theology, and purely as an anecdote, I once said to a non-church-going person "You're dad told me at death it's over. There is nothing." He immediately responded, "You don't know that!" He was right. I don't know that, and neither did his dad. The universe that we humans are able to comprehend has way, way more matter that we cannot observe than we can observe. Though humans are capable of learning, we are still very, very ignorant of the universe we live in. Hence it is futile to conclusively assert that life after death is hopeless. In this case, the notion of "the spiritual man examines all things" may include the person who understands how ignorant we are and accordingly looks for what I'll colloquially call "the bigger picture". A rational thinker wants to understand the universe we live in. That's why a falsifiable means of thinking was sought after and developed. A rational thinker wants to explore possibilities. A rational thinker wants to examine all things, including identifying where he's wrong.

I think where we disagree is that: - You chose to believe it is a necessity that there is an authority we must accept as representing God. - I do not chose to believe it is a necessity that there is an authority we must accept as representing God. Where I think we agree is that: - If there is a contemporary authority that God wants us to accept as His representative then we need to accept that representative as His authority. We have choice, and choices can be made either rationally or irrationally. All choices are not and should not be based purely on rationality. Today I did not choose my lunch based on a rational decision. I just ate what I wanted to eat. Yet, how we live our life is our worship, and eating lunch today was part of how I lived my life. And, subjecting ourselves to sound reasoning mitigates chaos of "each man for himself" because sound reasoning is an objective way to learn where we are wrong and need to change, not because we want to but because we choose to opt for soundness rather than unsoundness. Sound thinking is objective, and it is no respecter of persons. That said, the day will come when every man will have to stand for himself for how he has lived his life.

Reasoning is something that is done soundly or unsoundly. Reasoning is how a person thinks. But, not all conclusions (beliefs, decisions) are based on reason. Some conclusions (beliefs, decisions) are based on choice and choice is not necessarily subject to reason. But in a religious system whatever things (conclusions, beliefs, decisions) we opt to accept based on choice have to remain consistent as premises for what we end up using those choices to underpin in the way of deduced teachings (conclusions, beliefs, decisions). There is rational and there is irrational. If a thing (whatever that is) is not rational then it is irrational. If a thing (what that is) is not irrational then it is rational. As a logical construction it would look like this: not x then y and if not y then x More succinct it is expressed as either x or y When you speak about things that are irrational your speaking about things that boil down to choice alone. Yes. It's okay to have and hold irrational choices. But we must understand that this is what we're doing, and be responsible with how we hold and use whatever those choices are. That latter part is where being rational enters the room. If you speak about things that are rational then it boils down to method of thought. The notion that 'faith elevates the intellect beyond its natural limits, and thus supernaturally perfects the intellect' is as unevidenced assertion. Faith is a choice. That choice might have some sort of underpinning, but that underpinning is not necessarily fact or sound deduction. But whatever is held and asserted based on faith must, in order to be soundly projected, be held consistently as premises in whatever we deduce from them as peripheral beliefs (teachings, conclusions). Choices could be made strictly based on that which is rational. But when we chose to believe something that is not based on rational thought then we have an added responsibility to be cautious how we use and project our choices.

That's false, and thinking that way is a trap. It does not take reason (logical construction) to know the truth that fire hurts you when you touch it, and so on ad infinitum. Some things are self-evident. What's not self-evident we need to experiment to discover, or deduce from what we have already learned.

Rationality is negated by an act of trust in a higher authority without very, very good reason to do so. - Abraham had good reason. God literally spoke to him. Presumably, when God literally talks to a person they are supposed to act accordingly or else. - Eve had good reason. She would die. BTW, saying "rationalism would require Eve to figure out for herself the reasons why or why not eating the fruit would be good/bad for her" is a red herring insofar as this discussion has progressed. (Underling added) Also, your statement presupposes Eve would need to know the answer to the question why not eat the fruit, other than she would die if she did eat it. Nothing prohibited Eve from exploring "why" but exploring "why" would not require eating the fruit, and not eating the fruit did not require Eve to understand the "why" of not. In Eve's case, the why of not could be as simple as because her husband had told her God said so, and God literally spoke to Adam.

Reason (logical construction) is an objective method of deducing whether some notion is true, or at least sound to the extent evidence supports the notion. It is true we may choose to accept things beyond our understanding (e.g., that God has no beginning). But to assert something is true supposedly based on deductive reasoning is something that is subject to reason and therefore falsifiable. We do not say we can demonstrate through reason that God has no beginning, because we can't. Instead, we tell the truth and say we accept that God has no beginning because the Bible says so and we accept that as evidence. This is an instance where we accept something as true though we have no means of logically deducing it. Either a person accepts this or they do not. But, again, teachings (assertions) supposedly the result of deductive reasoning is something that is subject to reason and therefore falsifiable. The society has done a lot of this. A lot! And there is plenty that has been falsified. Plenty! Of course, we all know that all of us are imperfect. So are Presbyterians, ad infinitum.

That's a misconstruction. 1) Reason is not an authority. 2) Reason is not something that belongs to anyone. 3) Reason is a method. What you write above is as misconstrued as me saying, - Mathematics does not recognize a higher authority than one's own math.

You may or may not have noticed a recent topic I started about what we need for belief. (It's probably part of that river you alluded to) As a purely logical matter, it presents as presumption what others would say is etched in stone. I wrote, "1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will." As a logical function all this does is establish a premise for sake of making a logical construction. It's my way of saying, "For argument's sake let's just agree that the Bible is testimony of God's will." I put it that way because, as you say above and I agree, "our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written." There is no disagreement there. But there's that other thing you mention. You write, "submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized". There is a whopping difference between those two items, so big you could sail a super jumbo freight carrier through it. - One is left for people to make of what they will, with potential future effect. - The other can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now. That said, if you would have others accept that a particular "GB is in fact divinely authorized" then you have very heavy burden of proof to bear. Individuals will likely be more willing to accept that a work they are left to make of what they will, with potential future effect is the word of God and less willing to accept that a particular GB is in fact divinely inspired that can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now. Which means the veracity of evidence in support of the latter will have to be much greater. This reminds me of Thomas who, though surrounded by men he knew and trusted, was unwilling to accept on trust alone a particular thing unless he had a way to better measure the veracity of the claim. Jesus made sure Thomas got what he needed. Thomas needed something measurable. Jesus gave it to him. If, as you suggest, there is a particular GB that is divinely authorized (whose will we should submit to as the word of God) [the latter are my words], what's your evidence? And, should we accede to it no matter what? Remember, you didn't check the box saying: - We should believe teaching "x" because the society says so.

You'll have to explain what that means. Perhaps there's a typo or perhaps I've misread something. Pursuing truth through reason does, by definition, make one a rationalist. So what does it mean when you say, "the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists"?

Juan, I just saw your response. I haven't read it yet. But at first glance I saw this, and I want to say how much I respect a person who's willing to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Now, based upon the above response, I'll read your thoughts on how: We should believe teaching "x" because of some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so". Should be an interesting read. But, I already respect the straightforward answer and wanted to put that out front!

I would be more generous. I'd say some individuals find themselves atheists not because they want to be an atheist but, rather, because they find themselves incapable of doing otherwise. If, for instance, someone has examined evidence to the best of their ability, and they honestly come to the conclusion "there is no god", when in reality there is a god, what difference does that make to a almighty and benevolent god? An almighty and benevolent god would look for no more than any given human is capable of. How could he do otherwise? In the case that God exists, and He's almighty and He's benevolent, the most He could possibly look for in any human is their best effort. Each human is unique and has their own capabilities. If, as it turns out, an honest person finds they are incapable of believing there is an almighty and benevolent God, then they have done their best. In this case the almighty and benevolent God would look upon an individual as one having no helper, and God would be their helper when the time came. In the meantime the individual would be held accountable for no more than abiding by natural law. All that said, we're still left with a variable we cannot account for: what is or is not benevolent is entirely at the option of an almighty god.

You do know what you just wrote, right? You just wrote that God permits evil because He wants to permit evil. The sole reason would boil down to God is going to do what God is going to do, because He can and He wants to. After cooking the soup, that's what you just said. How does that fit conceptually into any human perception of a court case?

But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who was called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were telling him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May you have peace.” Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop doubting but believe.” In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.” To be sure, Jesus also performed many other signs before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name. (John 20) We have an object lesson in that written account. One of Jesus' original twelve apostles was unwilling to believe something just because other men he knew and trusted said it was true. Thomas was the one. Though Thomas was eyewitness to some of Jesus' supernatural miracles, in this particular instance Thomas needed something more than the word of men he knew and trusted. Jesus was not the one telling him what he was told. Men who knew Jesus were telling Thomas what he was told. Even though he knew and trusted these men, trusting what men said was not enough in this instance. He needed something objective, something measurable. The man from Nazareth gave Thomas what he needed. There is a proverb saying "Do not hold back good from those to whom it is owing, when it happens to be in the power of your hand to do it." Jesus did that for Thomas. So today, when accepting the word of men we know and trust is not enough for us to accept a certain piece of information, a certain teaching, what do we have to help them that is objective; that is measurable? We don't have supernatural power to demonstrate Divine authorization. Moses was given this. Jesus was given this. Some among Jesus' earliest followers were given this. But with their deaths that manner of demonstration was gone, at least until some future point where it might again be given. So what do we have for person's who fear God and want to do right by Him yet need more than trusting our beliefs to accept a particular teaching as God's will? We have three things. 1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will. 2) Presumption that the object record of the natural world around us is testimony of God's will. 3) Our brains capable of forming sound conclusions (logical conclusions). If we want someone to accept a belief we hold dear is solidly based on God's will, then we have that third item to make it measurable. The man from Nazareth gave Thomas what he needed because it happened to be in his power to do so. Today, if someone needs more than trusting us to accept a particular teaching as God's will, we have the power of sound reason to measure the veracity of that teaching. But, like it or not, sound reason is a double edged sword of sorts. It's objective, and no respecter of persons. Because sound reasoning measures the veracity of a belief does not mean it will always demonstrate a particular belief we cherish is true. This is because, by means of sound reason, we may discover a teaching we cherish is at best unsound, and maybe even false. But even in that case, we got what we needed for belief.

15 smackers is a good deal for that read. I spent way, way more than that in time and resources to finally find and get a copy a few decades ago. But that was before folks were turning everything into digital stuff.

Really? On Amazon? Kindle? I'm going to have to look that one up. My hardcopy is a first edition and, though I've read it, the binding is getting a bit cranky with age, and I want to take care of it.

It's worth having in your personal library; that's for sure. But you can also ask whatever library you're affiliated with to loan a copy from another library for you.