Replies

After the proof by Rap Music I admit defeat. I am vanquished. Look for me in a heated baptismal font in your neighborhood real soon now.

I think you are right, that my first response, at least rhetorically if not actually (but maybe actually as well) was too extreme.

But you are right. Yes, this is very much a pet subject of mine. I am no great athlete of reason. But the question of its relationship to what it is to be human and to how we can know (if at all, or maybe if one day) the divine is VERY important to me.

And that's true even though I'm the guy who says I'd rather look into my wife's eyes than think about her. But it's true that thinking about her does help me be a less totally useless husband.

(1.) Christ is God.
(2.) As the body is connected to the Head, so we will be like Christ.
(3.) We will be like God.
(4.) Ergo, we will be gods.

But that's not good reasoning. Just looking at the thing itself, we see that 'like' is an ambiguous term. It can be used to mean "Exactly like" or "somewhat" or "in many respects like."

Widening our view and looking at the entire data field, we find that our Lord (John 10:34 ff) seems to propose a radical interpretation of Psalm 82:6 "... 'You are gods ...'".

So we find a suggestion that saying we will be gods is not entirely off the wall, while from the very first verse of Genesis we 'know' that there is some unbridgeable difference.

So BOTH in the micro-sense of reason, in which something purportably able to be reduced to syllogisms is present, and in the macro-sense, which involves evaluating a conclusion in terms of the rest of what we know, that's not the best example to make your case, I think.

My curfew approaches, so I will say that this is BAD reasoning, and to the extent that errors and hubris can corrupt reason, I agree. It happens a lot. Especially it happens when people try to go for the simple answer. They don't check their work, and, even more important, they don't ask someone else to check their work.

And against your "reason must be set aside," I would say that reason rightly (and piously) used will reach a point at which it is speechless, and I refer to my earlier comments on the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Definition.

Reason, prompted and aided by grace, reaches a conclusion which, while not at all useless, is in some sense little more than a shrug, followed by a prostration.

Thank you SO MUCH for this conversation!

Oh! Quibbling footnote:
That presupposes the revelation to be true, which often is *not* the case. What you might believe is a misuse of reason, might well be a misuse of revelation.

The way I think (that's what we call it so as not to hurt my feelings) that's unclear. That is, the revelation is, by definition (yes?) true. But the use of it may be false. I think that may turn out to be an important difference.

Thanks again. I am thrilled to be trying to talk about this with such good minds.

Look for me in a heated baptismal font in your neighborhood real soon now.

They have those now? do they have cup-holders? Aeration? Water jets? A barbecue alongside, perhaps? Now, there's an ~~sacrament~~ ordinance I could get into! ***Note The pun is intended, and is free of charge.

Yes, this is very much a pet subject of mine. I am no great athlete of reason. But the question of its relationship to what it is to be human and to how we can know (if at all, or maybe if one day) the divine is VERY important to me.

I don't think you can get there by way of reason. Reason, in and of itself, is still a rather carnal process. It is discernment, or what you seem to be calling grace, that is the key.

[roamer_1:]
(1.) Christ is God.
(2.) As the body is connected to the Head, so we will be like Christ.
(3.) We will be like God.
(4.) Ergo, we will be gods.

But that's not good reasoning. Just looking at the thing itself, we see that 'like' is an ambiguous term. It can be used to mean "Exactly like" or "somewhat" or "in many respects like." [and etc. wrt your analysis]

First of all, I really don't wish to be sidetracked with this actual problem - I used it because some nice Mormons stopped by, and this was one of the main things we talked about.

The illustration is in the observance that a different people with a different "ruleset" can see something as quite reasonable, when you (no doubt) and I plainly reject it.

In anything but theology, that difference is not necessarily boolean (true/false).

I formed the argument hastily, and as an illustration only - I could defend it for the Mormons, break it down into syllogisms and properly assign a/e/i/o... But it is not important to me to challenge your argument. It is simply meant to show that reason is far from infallible.

But the fun part is in the conclusion:

[Mad Dawg:] So we find a suggestion that saying we will be gods is not entirely off the wall, while from the very first verse of Genesis we 'know' that there is some unbridgeable difference.
[roamer_1:] So, while we are made in His image, and it is written that we will be "like" Him, it is obvious that the similarity alluded to is certainly still (far, far) subordinate to the Infinite One, no matter what the outcome finally is. src

What is fun about it is that we arrive at a similar place using quite different methods.

And therein is another fly in the oinkmink (a little popeye lingo for ya there): There are many ways to skin a cat. When I have a problem, I tend to consult folks who don't think like me. That is possible because critical reasoning comes in many forms across many disciplines... And some methods work better than others on any given problem.

That may include proponents of classical reasoning, although I tend to find it inadequate in all it's forms for it's inability to deal with errata (erratic AND/OR error, rather than error only).

To summarize, then:

1.) Pure logic is unattainable as every individual is irrevocably tainted by a ruleset organically produced (like tomatos!) from environment/experience. That bias effects thinking explicitly and/or implicitly (cannot be overcome).

2.) No method of reasoning works efficiently across all problems: Conclusions vary, and there is no particular method which is TRUE in all situations... Each is sometimes better than others depending upon the data.

Reason, prompted and aided by grace, reaches a conclusion which, while not at all useless, is in some sense little more than a shrug, followed by a prostration.

...And then a Popsicle, if you're good... Brilliantly stated.

[roamer_1:] That presupposes the revelation to be true, which often is *not* the case. What you might believe is a misuse of reason, might well be a misuse of revelation.

[...] That is, the revelation is, by definition (yes?) true. But the use of it may be false. I think that may turn out to be an important difference.

Both, I suppose, but no. Revelation is often false. The devil appears as an angel of light," and all that... That is why one MUST have a universal standard.

My thinking calls that standard the Bible, because it is a closed and immovable ruleset, as standards (measurement) must be. You would seem to prefer tradition and whatnot. I cannot go there, as a dynamic, scalable ruleset is impossible to manage (weights and measures are not supposed to change).

Thanks again. I am thrilled to be trying to talk about this with such good minds.

Uhhh... Ummm... Yup! :D

This is great fun.