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. 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. 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! 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
