Why Fundyism is Irrational

by jgnat 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  Lately I've been putting a lot of thought in to what is rational and what must be relegated to faith alone. Ever since the scientific method was discovered, humanity has attempted to put it to work in so many areas. After all, discoveries exploded once we were set free from the shackles of tradition.

  The problem is, Scientific Method, to be true to itself, must be testable. It does not lend itself to the study of morality or philosophy, for instance, because how do we test if a hypothesis is true? How do we judge in the end what is "good" and what is "bad"?

  Words alone just don't do the trick. Words can be tangled and misinterpreted. Words can trip us up. When I want to express a process clearly to my audience, I draw a process map. So that's what I've done. Here's a "mind map", rather simplified, to describe how a person using reason comes to a decision.
• 

  jgnat

  You will notice that the questioner constantly loops back on himself/herself. People who reason out a problem do not expect to come to an absolute answer. Everything must be open to question. Every established position must be PROVEN to be unassailable, by testing it.
• 

  jgnat

  Now, let's compare that mind map to a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is expecting to be talking to people who are either under godly influence or satanic influence. So their primary goal is to discover if the question at hand is heavenly or evil. This results in polarized thinking, and consequently, polarized arguing.
• 

  jgnat

  I liken the cycling and re-cycling of ideas in the reasoning model to that of a distiller. The more times we run through an idea through our tests, the more refined it becomes, like refined gold, or salt. We never quite reach 100%, but 99.999% pure is pretty darn close.
• 

  jstalin

  I like the "speaker is from Satan" conclusion. I'm gonna print that one out. I think that perhaps you should have another arrow going from Provide Scripture back to Speaker Refutes Bible, so as to create a loop of quote, argue, quote, argue - then an eventual conclusion of Speaker is from Satan.
• 

  kid-A

  Jgnat,

  Where did you find that circuit map of "shining-ones brain"??? LOL
• 

  jgnat

  I am only halfway through my argument, I have two more maps! JWD is failing me. Jstalin, glad you liked it. I was not sure if my diagrams helped with clarity or not. I'll make the suggested changes once JWD-XP mode straightens itself out.

  Kid-A, you outed me! LOL. I was hoping for a SLOW uptake as the object of my criticism ran his finger through the diagram.
• 

  Shining One

  >Let's Reason with Jgnat, how about that first and foremost?
  
  You claim that you can use the 'law of love' to arbitrarily deny scripture by putting it through a filter of your own making.
  1) You claim to be a Christian.
  2) You deny scripture as being inspired.
  3) You say that Jesus words have been more or less preserved but that the Bible is itself unreliable and errant. It is not infallible.
  4) Jesus taught and clarified scripture using the literal and metaphoric aspects of the Old Testament.
  5) The apostles continually cited the O.T. and Jesus interpretation of the same 'law and the prophets'.
  6) The apostles taught using the literal and metaphorical aspects of the O.T.
  
  By points 1, 2 & 3 you are in a state of contradiction by virtue of points 4,5 & 6. In addition to that you dismiss any efforts at clarifying scripture in the methodology of hermeneutics. This is the science of studying scripture! You speak directly AGAINST rational thought, therefore you are using an irrational method to expound on the very God that you claim to worship! Jesus Himself oftentimes even said, 'thus saith scripture', 'thus saith the word of God', as did the apostles.
  "Man does not live by bread alone but BY EVERY WORD that proceedeth from God."
  Forget the rest of your drawings. They another attempt to 'save face'. More than your face has been exposed, my dear. LOL
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Dear Mr Research Scientist,
  Why should I not insist that Jgnat use the established scientific method (hermeneutics) to justify her faith? Do you deny 'scientific method'?
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  >Now, let's compare that mind map to a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is expecting to be talking to people who are either under godly influence or satanic influence. So their primary goal is to discover if the question at hand is heavenly or evil. This results in polarized thinking, and consequently, polarized arguing.
  
  Now, let's compare that mind map to a dogmatic naturalist. A dogmatic naturalist is expecting to be talking to people who are either under religious influence or scientific influence. So their primary goal is to discover if the question at hand is factual according to their own presuppositions. This results in polarized thinking, and consequently, polarized arguing.
  Rex