What Authority is left if Emotions and Science Can't be Trusted?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, I'm not surprised, but sadder now: I checked out the link(s) above and other works and such related to Hildegard,
and it looks like a lot of idolatry instead of God's Word.
Very much leading away from God's Word in fact,
so much so I had to stop from reading more about her and the errors.

Per the TITLE of this thread,

" What Authority is left if Emotions and Science Can't be Trusted? "

test everything, don't trust anything no matter how seemingly innocent nor even if (especially not?) if popular... The results/ the reality/ is often not what is advertised. No, in fact, most often not.

 

[mkgal1]

I checked out the link(s) above and other works and such related to Hildegard,
and it looks like a lot of idolatry instead of God's Word.
Very much leading away from God's Word in fact,
so much so I had to stop from reading more about her and the errors.

Hmmm....I would think the church wouldn't have declared her a saint if she were "leading away from God's Word". Maybe she's just far from YOUR perception/image of God?

I'm curious....can you offer just one example of what you found so contrary to God's word? That goes back to my original question.....what do we have as "authority" if personal instincts and reality of the world around us are dismissed? What do we use to hold up against these things to use as a "test"?

 

[Paidiske]

I haven't read everything of Hildegard's - she was prolific - but I've been very impressed with what I did read. This parable is a favourite:

“Listen: there was once a king sitting on his throne.
Around him stood great and wonderfully beautiful columns ornamented with ivory, bearing the banners of the king with great honour.
Then it pleased the king to raise a small feather from the ground, and he commanded it to fly.
The feather flew, not because of anything in itself but because the air bore it along.
Thus am I, a feather on the breath of God.”

There is reason; and then there is reason. The logic framework of the bible is DIFFERENT than that of Aristotelian logic that most of us are familiar with.

Did you study Logic in seminary - specifically Hebrew Block Logic?
aka Adductive reasoning?

http://theologylog.8.forumer.com/a/hebrew-block-logic_post8.html
2 Adductive Logic in Torah
BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index
Judaic Logic

Not a lot, no. But one of your links describes it thus: "Adduction: the formation and tailoring of postulates, as well as their testing and confirmation or elimination, with reference to rational-empirical considerations."
Which sounds an awful lot like the scientific method to me.

 

[Dave-W]

Which sounds an awful lot like the scientific method to me.

It is similar in some ways, but varies in others. So at times it will look the same.

But once you get to the guts of it, you will find it is somewhat circular, and can easily maintain what in aristotelian logic is seen as mutually exclusive options as being simultaneously true. Not understanding this logic framework has led theologians to call these instances in scripture "mysteries."

 

[Paidiske]

A "mystery" isn't something which isn't understood. It's something which must be in some sense experienced to be properly understood.

And I am well appreciative of both/and positions in theology (and science). In fact I think appreciating, for example, that light is both a particle and a wave, set me up quite nicely for some of the both/and tensions in theology!

 

[Dave-W]

It's something which must be in some sense experienced to be properly understood.

Indeed. And by experiencing it, you are taking steps into Hebrew Block Logic.

My intro to that subject was a book by a rabbi that I read about 25 years ago. It was a long read, made longer by the approach of the subject matter. I am an engineer by training and his approach was SOOOOO different I found it mind boggling. Read a page or 3 and wait a day or 2 to process it. But it was worth working thru.

The book is "God in search of Man" by Abraham Joshua Heschel. He was in line to be the head of the Apter sect of Chassidic Judaism, being the great great grandson of the founder of the movement. That sect was all but wiped out in WW2 while a young A J Heschel was studying in London. After the war he became a major Jewish author and theologian in the Conservative movement. He passed in 1972.

 

[mkgal1]

can easily maintain what in aristotelian logic is seen as mutually exclusive options as being simultaneously true.

This is pretty far out of my realm of knowledge, but isn't that better described as a "paradox"?

 

[buzuxi02]

The patterns of those images are refered to the fibonacci spiral, even sea shells are said to have thus spiral like image. Based on the fibonacci sequence and is even applied to reading stock market charts.

 

[mkgal1]

Based on the fibonacci sequence and is even applied to reading stock market charts.

Really? How does that work? This isn't my area of expertise, but I found it really fascinating (and disappointed that it's all dismissed by fundamental Christians).

 

[Dave-W]

This is pretty far out of my realm of knowledge, but isn't that better described as a "paradox"?

That is how western (aristotilian = pagan greek) logic puts it.
Hebraic logic can hold that as normal.

 

[mkgal1]

Hebraic logic can hold that as normal.

Well....I consider it "normal"--even necessary--to embrace paradoxes when it comes to the reign of God.

"To live we must die"~Galatians 2:20

"To save our life, we have to lose it"~Luke 17:33

"To reign, we must serve"~Matthew 20:26

"The last will be first, the first will be last"~Matthew 20:16

....etc

 

[Dave-W]

Well....I consider it "normal"--even necessary--to embrace paradoxes when it comes to the reign of God.

Indeed. Hebraic logic.
They are NOT "paradoxes."

 

[mkgal1]

Indeed. Hebraic logic.
They are NOT "paradoxes."

Things don't have to be one or the other. These seem to be both "Hebraic logic" (and I'm leaning on you for that definition) AND paradoxes. This is the definition of a paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
"in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it"

Embrace the idea of breaking away from dualistic thinking (either/or), Dave ....."both/and" is where freedom is.

 

[mkgal1]

I just learned about this guy ("Science Mike"): Mike McHargue Work

I help people make peace between science and their faith.

Everything I do is about helping the spiritually homeless and frustrated find peace. I'm a former Baptist and a former atheist, so I really understand the tension people feel between science and God.

 

[Dave-W]

These seem to be both "Hebraic logic" (and I'm leaning on you for that definition) AND paradoxes.

Paradoxes under aristotelian logic, but not under Hebraic logic.

http://theologylog.8.forumer.com/a/hebrew-block-logic_post8.html

2 Adductive Logic in Torah

BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index

https://books.google.com/books?id=L...-Ch0Z6Q7G#v=onepage&q=adductive logic&f=false

 

[mkgal1]

Paradoxes under aristotelian logic, but not under Hebraic logic.

http://theologylog.8.forumer.com/a/hebrew-block-logic_post8.html

2 Adductive Logic in Torah

BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index

https://books.google.com/books?id=L-wI8OGpvTUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=adductive+logic&source=bl&ots=VhVhFLJrl7&sig=R7UfqoH4cgeggsbpgG7KGT0EpmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIvsi0mOT7xwIVh4I-Ch0Z6Q7G#v=onepage&q=adductive logic&f=false

I'm not going to continue to debate this with you.

 

[JoeP222w]

complementarian theology

Please define what you mean by this.

 

[Dave-W]

No debate.
Just giving you some reading material in case you want something more than just my definition of Hebrew Block (aka Adductive) Logic.

 

[mkgal1]

Please define what you mean by this.

By "complementarian theology"....I mean the theology that's preached by men like Wayne Grudem and John Piper---the Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood theology that emerged in the late 80's and doesn't seem to be losing any momentum. Complementarianism | Theopedia

 

[JoeP222w]

another characteristic of those that follow comp theology is that they seem to have a disdain for science, so what's left?

This is a fallacious representation.

They dismiss or demonize emotions ("the heart is deceitful above all things...and desperately wicked") AND have contempt for science.

False.