Many Miles

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.
 

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.
 

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.

At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

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.

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.

FACT

Agreed. But it's real.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case.
Let all the nations assemble in one place,
And let the peoples be gathered together.
Who among them can tell this?
Or can they cause us to hear the first things?
Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,
Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,
“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and have faith in me
And understand that I am the same One.
Before me no God was formed,
 

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

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.

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.