Malawi and MCP Cards?

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

You do know what you just wrote, right?

Not at all. But if find that when my writing takes me into a tunnel, by continuing to write I eventually come out the other end..

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

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 red herring. (Underling added) Your statement presupposes Eve would need know the answer to the question why not eat the fruit. 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.

@Many Miles So what are we disagreeing on? In order to have faith, we need to know who and what has authority, and what authority they have. Otherwise, it is each man for himself, and we’re rationalists by default. When Eve was faced with her choice in the garden, it wasn’t for her to determine for herself whose word was true (God’s or Satan’s), but in obedience to trust as true the One having the higher authority. That’s the whole purpose of faith in this present life.

 If we don't distinguish between truth and authority, then the danger is rationalism, because then you treat a statement as authoritative only if you can verify its truth. But when Jehovah speaks, we may not be able to verify (independently) the truth of what He says, but what He says is both truth and authoritative and binding on us, because He is divine. Abraham rightly obeyed Jehovah regarding the sacrifice of Isaac, because even though it is true that murdering the innocent is wrong, God's direct command to sacrifice Isaac is greater in authority. One truth can outweigh another truth in authority. Authority is not reducible to truth (where truth means correspondence between a proposition and reality). Likewise, when the Congregation spoke in the first century, they were not able to verify for themselves the truth of what the Congregation said, but because of her divine authorization to speak in Christ's Name, they accepted what she said on account of that divine authorization. The existence of authority greater than ourselves means that we are bound to accept claims that exceed the (present) capacity of our rational abilities to confirm or disconfirm.

Rationalism is the notion that human reason is the sole source and final test of all truth. The error of rationalism is its implicit denial of the distinction between nature and faith. It implicitly denies that there is anything supernatural. Anything exceeding the power of unaided human reason to verify or falsify. (It is in that respect a form of atheism, by making man the measure of all things, and thus the highest being.) Rationalism denies the possibility that more could be known with the aid of supernatural illumination. It acknowledges the natural light of reason, but denies the supernatural light from above, that elevates human reason to know beyond what human reason could know by its own light and power.

So the dilemma between rationalism and fideism is that we must choose between figuring out for ourselves everything about religion (and thus relying always and entirely on our own reason as our highest epistemic authority), or figuring out for ourselves nothing about religion (and thus relying always and entirely on an arbitrary choice of a (supposedly divine revelation). That dilemma is a false dilemma. We do not have to choose between faith being reduced to reason, and faith being entirely separate from reason. The third (and middle) position is that reason shows us the way to faith, but that then by faith we can see what we could not see or know by unaided reason. Faith is not irrational, but faith does elevate the intellect beyond its natural limits, and thus supernaturally perfects the intellect. (Perfects' in the sense of makes more perfect, not in the sense of correcting an imperfection.) We do not have to choose between remaining the ultimate interpretive authority of Scripture on the one hand, and being unable to determine the authority of Christ and the identity of His Congregation on the other hand. By reason (aided by actual faith) and evidence ( miracles, fulfillment of prophecies, appointment, etc.), we can determine with certainty that Jesus was sent from God, and locate the Congregation he established.
 

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Rationalism is the notion that human reason is the sole source and final test of all truth.

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.

[Many Miles]

50 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

We do not have to choose between faith being reduced to reason, and faith being entirely separate from reason.

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).

50 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

The third (and middle) position is that reason shows us the way to faith, but that then by faith we can see what we could not see or know by unaided reason. Faith is not irrational, but faith does elevate the intellect beyond its natural limits, and thus supernaturally perfects the intellect. (Perfects' in the sense of makes more perfect, not in the sense of correcting an imperfection.)

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.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

So what are we disagreeing on? In order to have faith, we need to know who and what has authority, and what authority they have.

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.

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

So what are we disagreeing on? In order to have faith, we need to know who and what has authority, and what authority they have. Otherwise, it is each man for himself, and we’re rationalists by default. [Bold added by Many Miles]

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.

[Pudgy]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

I have mentioned before my wholehearted belief in the “Rainbow Bridge” as a bonus for resurrected humans and the pets they loved, and who loved them.

But I KNOW my rationality is not supported by Scripture, and presumes upon Jehovah God principles which he MAY find agreeable …. or not.

I have mentioned that here many times. I have expounded on that here many times, and that it is my firm belief that the New System will … because “eye has not seen, and ear has not heard what God has in store for those that love him …”.

The same reason I bought an exercise wheel for my pet hamsters. Not so they could get in shape, but to ENTERTAIN ME.

My heart believes it whole-heartedly, but my brain gives me permission to rationalize that, knowing there is no evidence whatsoever to support that idea.

Those who have “WDS” (Watchtower Derangement Syndrome)  - “… the sword that cuts both ways …” do this all the time.

WDS is that for those on the OUTSIDE the Watchtower is evil published large and has no redeeming value whatsoever, and

WDS is that for those on the INSIDE the Watchtower is the word of God and every word is sacred and wise, and relevant.

Watchtower Derangement Syndrome)  - “… the sword that cuts both ways …”

In all three cases Many Miles advice is directly applicable.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Rationalism is the notion that human reason is the sole source and final test of all truth.

 

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

Where does 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 fit in? Or does it?

“But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.”

Things that are “examined spiritually”—does rationalism help us to do this? 

Does the “spiritual man” hold an advantage over the “physical man?” Where does rationalism fit in? Are the results of things examined rationally superior to those examined spiritually?

[Many Miles]

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Where does 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 fit in? Or does it?

“But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.”

Things that are “examined spiritually”—does rationalism help us to do this? 

Does the “spiritual man” hold an advantage over the “physical man?” Where does rationalism fit in?

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.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, George88 said:

For if, wishing to fill up the number and measure of His creation, He had been afraid of the wickedness of those who were to be, and like one who could find no other way of remedy and cure, except only this, that He should refrain from His purpose of creating, lest the wickedness of those who were to be should be ascribed to Him; what else would this show but unworthy suffering and unseemly feebleness on the part of the Creator, who should so fear the actings of those who as yet were not, that He refrained from His purposed creation?

I think this guy [Clement] has been hanging out with the apostle Paul too much. 

[Many Miles]

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Where does 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 fit in? Or does it?

“But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.”

Things that are “examined spiritually”—does rationalism help us to do this? 

Does the “spiritual man” hold an advantage over the “physical man?” Where does rationalism fit in? Are the results of things examined rationally superior to those examined spiritually?

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.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

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.

Wouldn’t this put the materialist atheists who are scientists in the realm of spiritual men? Not only do they want to examine all things, but they insist that their tools, the tools of science, are the only means with which to do it. 

You spoke highly of acupuncture a while back.

On 11/26/2023 at 1:04 PM, Many Miles said:

Anyone today claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is uniformed. For instance, 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.

Practitioners of acupuncture will say it works by releasing/rebalancing the body’s chi, which they will describe as a life-force or energy. You will not be able to run this by the champions of science. They cannot detect any ‘chi’ with their science, so they insist it is pseudoscience. If you tell them of benefit of acupuncture, they will say that it is placebo. If you insist it is not, they will call you stupid.

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

the "spiritual man" wants to examine all things, and the latter does so without concern of whether this is popular among men.

Do you think the spiritual man should look into what is described as ‘the deep things of Satan’ in the spirit of examining all things?

Thus far, I’m a little partial to @George88’s two preceding comments. If I didn’t fear their mix / fortification with ChatAI functionality, I would upvote them. I don’t want to get stuck upvoting, only to find I have upvoted a  ‘Danger Will Robinson’ robot. But I should probably work to overcome my phobia, as @Alphonse has.

[Srecko Sostar]

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

 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/