5 Minutes Bible Study – The Crucible of Suffering
By Dr. Harold Sala Don’t be obsessed with getting more material things. Be relaxed with what you have. since God assured us, “I’ll never let you down, never walk off and leave you.” Hebrews 13:5, The Message. “No affliction would trouble a child of God,” wrote G. Campbell Morgan, “if he knew God’s reason for sending it.” But, of course, that is the difficult part–why does God allow some things to happen? “Take it by faith!” people say, but to take by faith the rest of your life in a wheelchair is no easy matter, especially if you are a young man or woman with the rest of your life before you. In July 1967, a young woman, who was then 17 years of age, dived into the water not realizing how shallow it was. Joni Eareckson Tada has come to be known and loved by thousands of people around the world since that day when she sustained a broken neck, an accident that left her confined to a wheelchair as a quadriplegic for the rest of her life. At the time, Joni was an energetic, athletic teenager with a real zest for living. That she might spend her life fighting physical handicaps never occurred to her until that fateful day that changed the course of her life. Instead of producing a bitter, angry person full of resentment and hatred towards God, who allowed the ordeal, Joni has matured and grown into a beautiful woman who has depth that would never have been possible had she not faced the confinement of a wheelchair. Says Joni, “Today as I look back, I am convinced that the …
Joni Erickson Tada is the best………..
There are always data still to be found, so making assumptions remain an intrinsic part of science. Objectivivity is a requirement for the methods, but assumptions are in the equation. Beliefs motivate assumptions. The truth achieved by science is logical truth, which is relative, as it pertains only to premises and conclusions, that all objectively depend on the assumptions that are made. Different conclusions may match the same data. Science cannot avoid having contradictory theories.
In science there are always assumptions. No man has full knowledge of something, so assumptions are always involved. The known data may match several different assumptions, individuals and groups may claim different theories to explain the data and claim they explain the facts. Even new data may still continue to match different assumptions. As assumptions are subject to what is believed, beliefs do matter in science.
Quoting from the Bible:
Hebr. 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith …
Rom. 10:17 faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Act. 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved …
Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.
The assumptions scientists make change because the data changes. There are beliefs in science, but they don’t last a second without facts to back them up.
Science does not care what you believe, only why I should believe it as well.
The scientific method does not care what you believe or want to believe. It cares about being as close as possible to objective truth.
Faith concedes that something cannot be taken by its own merit.
You have Your beliefs. You dont confuse Your beliefs with logic.
Trust does not require logic. You dont confuse trust with logic, do You?
Faith does not require logic. You dont confuse faith with logic, do You?
Dont confuse truth with logic. Truth is deeper and wider and higher.
Scientists are human beings, who exercice adherence and trust.
Scientists do have beliefs, which they may take into consideration in science.
Religion and science are not imcompatible. The fact that religious scientists exist demonstrates that, although not all share their faith nor accept their knowledge nor comprehend their thinking nor share their views.
Religion and science are not comparable. The fact that religious scientists live out their faith demonstrates that.
Scientists ought to be objective, so their personal views should be put aside as much as possible. But, what about those personal views, which are not put aside?
Scientists do have views. Scientists accept theories. Scientists accept facts. Scientists do make assumptions. Scientists can change the assumptions they are making.
In dialectic the exercice of trust in truth does not require logic.
In rhetoric the exercice of adherence to truth does not require logic.
Truth is even more than logic and rhetoric and dialectic combined.
Don’t confuse truth with logic.
“That’s just an excuse for…” That is not an excuse on my part.
From experience we learned that if something is illogical, it is usually also false. However, much of what appears to be illogical becomes logical, when we change the underlying assumptions we are making. This change leads to a logical explaination that we may accept. Then going carefully that way, we are continually making the same assumption that, as things became logical, so all the unexplained things should have a logic yet to be discovered, so logic should be the way. This is an assumption.
So, Your question was: “How can the truth be illogical?”
Illogical, meaning either, not following the logical principles, or having no logical content, does not mean untrue.
One may prefer logical truth. One may prefer logic, but cannot live with logic alone. If one demands logic everywhere or rejects everything that does not contain logic, then it might be an attitude.
There is truth, where no logic is found. Although logic is a method, in which the “truth value” of arguments and conclusions is determined and taken into consideration, it finds tautologies to be true, although they do not depend on any true fact, but cannot find contradictions to be true, although they are true fact. Contradictions are rhetorical, not logical. Affirmations may be true, although they do not have any logical content nor logical support. Affirmations are dialectical, not logical.
Professor Von Wright, a prominent analytical philosopher who has written about the very notion of analytical philosophy, and a specialist of logic, has clearly demonstrated that philosophy can never establish any reality, because by definition philosophy, although it may study reality, it starts always with the assertion of a presumptive proposition (hypothesis) and then develops from that.
Reality is more than relative thought developments based on presumptions.
Logic is not concerned to discover premises that persuade an audience to accept, or to believe, the conclusion. This is the subject of rhetoric, another branch of philosophy. What we have done through Youtube might be called dialectic, yet another branch of philosophy.
Truth is more than logic and rhetoric and dialectic combined.
Logic cannot determine the truth, as it is one philosophical method, which is limited to determine the “truth value” of a “compound statement” and it requires to know/observe the “truth value” of all its “simpler components”.
Illogical, not following the logical principles, does not mean untrue.
Accepting truth does not require logic as a means.
Logic is one method to determine the truth value (true or false) of a compound statement knowing the truth value of its simpler components. This is done through argumentation and leads to a conclusion.
Applied to pedagogy logic makes explicit our intuitions of good reasoning, such that we can distinguish between good reasoning and bad reasoning in terms of an explicit procedure that does not need to rely on intuitions.
The notion of support is further elucidated by the observation that the truth of the premises of a valid deductive argument necessitates the truth of the conclusion: it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The truth of the premises of a cogent inductive argument, on the other hand, confers only a probability of truth on its conclusion: it is possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.
If the premises are intended to provide conclusive support for the conclusion, the argument is a deductive one. If the premises are intended to support the conclusion only to a lesser degree, the argument is called inductive. A logically correct deductive argument is termed valid, while an acceptable inductive argument is called cogent.
Logic is a branch of philosophy.
From its very beginning, the field of logic has been occupied with arguments, in which certain statements, the premises, are asserted in order to support some other statement, the conclusion.
Science grows, because systematic knowledge and practices increase as there is a continual materialistic demand to find, apply and exploit repeatable phenomena (gov:ts, mil:ry, industry, commercial compet, investors, etc). Profitability has a major influence on the decisions. Profitability requires repeatability. In the end this development is materialistic as the demand is. This tends to affect research, education, mind sets and even cultures, but onlyism is something else.
How can the truth be illogical? That’s just an excuse for your god ideas.
dantub7 just because there are many unexplained things does not mean that there are gods. In fact, ignoring the idea that lightening is caused by Zeus allowed people to figure out electricity and so you and I communicate by youtube. no gods or magic is involved in this!
dantub7, let’s cut to the chase. You claim that you are having good effects from blood shed by a mythological figure 2000 years ago. While I think your interpretation of events is not sane, I am willing to listen to your experiences to evaluate them. Would you be willing to put up a video explaining what you experienced and continue to experience? Then we can see if it can be explained naturally.