John Smithson wrote:
>One time occurrences are called anomalies,
>David, and are not part of a logical process ,
>by definition.
I don't know why you think that that logical processes are forced to ignore
one time occurrences. Due to the nature and goals of inductive inference,
we want repeatable events, but that does not mean that we are forced to
ignore one time events.
No one took this position
John Smithson wrote:
>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.
I certainly do not mean to give the impression that science revels in one
time events. Clearly it does not. Anecdotal studies were much more
prevelant 100 years ago than they are now. Nevertheless, scientists have
entire publications that tend to devote themselves to these anecdotal
studies. Let me give you an example of how this works.
Sooooooooooo, I was right?
I was conducting a foraging study of a population of mangrove water snakes
that lives in Tampa Bay, Florida. Scientists had made some speculation
concerning how these inhabitants of a saltwater environment obtained
freshwater. These snakes are very closely related to a freshwater race
which cannot survive without fresh water. One night as I was out searching
for these snakes to collect the foraging data that I was interested in, a
thunderstorm came along and dropped some heavy rain. Within minutes of the
start of the downpour, I came across a mangrove water snake hanging down
from a mangrove tree. It was drinking the water that was flowing along its
body and running off its mouth. I could clearly see its jaws working and
drinking in the water. This was a one time event that had never before been
described in the literature, so it was considered important to both me and
my colleagues to publish. The problem is, of course, that most scientific
journals do not publish simple observations like this. However, we do have
one called "Herpetological Review" which does publish these kinds of things.
The observation provokes some questions about this snake's genetic
predisposition toward freshwater, so to make the report more interesting and
more readily publishable, I did some simple tests in our laboratory at the
university to add to the field observation. Basically I just tested the
tongue flick response of newborn snakes of this species (Nerodia fasciata
compressicauda) to cotton swabs dipped in freshwater versus swabs dipped in
saltwater. The report was easily published in Herpetological Review and I
had several scientists from around the world comment on it. It was no earth
shattering study and it would certainly not be published in another
publication we have like Copeia where I later published the foraging study
itself, but it answered the question of whether or not these snakes drank
freshwater in the field, and if so, how did they obtain the freshwater.
I am talking about one events. You are talking one time or first time observations. Not the same.
John Smithson wrote:
>You confuse reason with logic. The two may be very different.
How so? Reason is defined as thinking logically or to use rational
facilities.
Are you saying that there are no defintions of "reason" and "logic" that would present them as very different things?
John Smithson wrote:
>You want to reject the logic of the world while
>creating and maintaining for a logic of the Spirit.
No, I do not want to reject the logic of the world. What gave you that
idea?
" It only means that the logical premises needed for them to be convinced are hidden." Your words. Your are contrasting the logic of the world with the "logic" of the Spirit. In your thinking, certain "premises" are not available to the world (they are "hidden") rederding their rule of logic to be unworkable. This same logic can understand the world they (the pagans) live, but does not work for the Spirit realm.
I consider logic to be found in Jesus Christ. The world uses it only
because their Creator gave it to them. Whether a Christian uses logic or
the world uses it, it is all the same process. I see no distinction between
"logic of the world" versus "logic of the Spirit."
Of course you do. Certain "premises" are hidden from the world. The logic of the world, therefore, cannot be the same as the Spirit world. That was your argument in another post.
The reason the world and
the Spirit do not see eye to eye is not because of logic per se, but because
of their different premises and assumptions. Certain important premises are
hidden from those of the world.
Come on, David. You are just being difficult, here. Premises and assumptions figure into any discussion of logic -- certainly "premise."
John Smithson wrote:
>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.
What about the witness of the Spirit? Isn't that more than just personal
bias?
I was speaking of a particular healing. How do I know the truth of that? The Spirit is going to whisper to me, "Smithson, it is true." The room is full of Christian's Does this testimony become a test for the true Christian? Allowing that the testimony is true, those who accept the testimony have the Spirit and those who do not, have not? I don't think so.
What about rational thinking in terms of the following:
1. God is the Creator.
2. Therefore, God has the ability to heal.
3. Others who I trust have testified to God healing today and in times
past.
4. I myself experienced healings like this.
5. Therefore, God does at times heal.
6. This person seems to be sincere and honest.
7. There really is no motive for this person to lie to me.
Etc, etc. The point is logical and rational thinking similar to the above
considerations can determine what you do with this person's testimony.
No one said there is no reasonable way to arrive at a belief in an individual testimony of healing. But what you have presented above is not "logic." It is a reasonable way of arriving at a decision.
David Miller wrote:
>>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.
John Smithson wrote:
>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. "
What I was trying to communicate is that you were constructing this "straw
man" and knocking it down when the opinion I expressed was something
different. I had said that although logic and reason are not the sole
sources of truth, all truth will be found to be logical and rational. You
then jump on the bandwagon Lance started when he said that my statement was
false. You are arguing against something I already stated that I did not
believe.
I think you missed my point, but thanks for clarifying your criticism.
John Smithson wrote:
>"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 [sic]
>fully understood???
I only reiterate what I had originally stated, that truth always will be
logical and rational. I state it this way to clarify yet again that in
those cases where logic is not the source of a particular truth, that does
not mean that the truth apprehended is inherently illogical. From your
comments here, it seems to me like perhaps we agree to great degree. I'm
not sure why you felt compelled to disagree with me.
David Miller.
