Lower your voice and strengthen your argument.

- Lebanese proverb

Doubt everything at least once, even the proposition that two times two equals four.

- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

No, no, you’re not thinking, you’re just being logical.

- Niels Bohr, physicist

copied from entry on 2/23/2000:

Logic ≈ Deductive Thinking

• it can only work within a given set of rules.
• it cannot prove anything, it can only disprove.

My definition of “Rationalism” - the theory that Reason is able to recognize absolute truth, and that it is the only function of the mind which is able to do so (NOT Logic or sensory perception).

It is possible to conceive of something logically, yet unreasonably.

Reason ≈ Inductive Thinking

• intuition?
• cannot prove anything
• what “makes sense”

It is impossible to conceive of something that is reasonable, yet illogical.

• Logic is a function of Reason. Therefore, Reason is not accountable or obedient to Logic.
• No thoughts are “irrational”. That would imply that there is no reason for why we have these thoughts.
• Reason is founded upon absolutes.
• Counter-rational thinking is possible because we can conceive of things that are contrary to absolute truths.
• There may be absolute contradictions to absolute truths. But Logic, insofar as it operates exclusively on a deductive level, can never reveal anything but apparent contradictions.
• Correlate: Logic can never disprove a rational concept.

copied from entry on 2/20/2000, 3:30 AM:

1. Preface - explaining purpose, organization and reasoning behind organization.
2. Personal Definitions of Key Terms and Concepts
3. Intuited Concepts and Extra-logical Conclusions
4. Logical Conclusions within the paradigm of #3
5. Logical Conclusions within other paradigms (including Science and other philosophical approaches)
6. Logical Conclusions resulting from comparison and contrast of #3 and #5.
7. List of Issues to be covered in 3-6.
8. Collection of resources and references to resources pertaining to issues in #7.

2/23/00

All complex words and concepts must be defined in the simplest and clearest terms possible when writing my comprehensive philosophy. This must be done in order to tear down (as much as possible) the barrier that denies us direct access to and sharing of Reason, viz. Language.

(Am I reconstructing the Tower of Babel?)

1/32/00:

A good theory is one in which:

(A) Each premise is in complete agreement with each of the others.

(B) Each premise is necessary to the conclusion.

(C) Each premise is in complete agreement with available data.

copied from journal entry dated 1/31/00:

The key ingredient in all areas of applied organized thought - from theology to biology - is consistency.

It is impossible for the mind to accept two concepts that it recognizes as being mutually exclusive or contradictory. There may indeed be times when I act on or allow contradictory beliefs into my operative philosophy, but once I consciously recognize contradiction, I am not able to convince myself that both can be true. 

Moreover, I hold any actions taken according to contradictory beliefs to be cowardly and reprehensible. 

This idea of consistency is a major cornerstone of my personal philosophy of life, and many of my other beliefs are strongly influenced by it. 

One major problem is that it is impossible for us to hold up each concept presented to our minds and to check it against all those that we have formerly accepted. Therefore it often happens that we unwittingly operate by conflicting philosophies.

But, as if this were not a big enough problem, we also do this consciously, when we simply choose not to recognize these contradictions as such. If it is possible for us to sin against ourselves, then it seems to me that this may be the worst of such transgressions. 

I also think that it is important to note that, since our minds are not capable (as far as I know) of judging absolute truth, there are often concepts that are only in apparent contradiction with each other and, upon further examination, it may be proven that they are not. by this, I do not mean that our minds are capable of uncovering all such errors of judgment. Some of these we may never understand.

I think that one area of philosophy involving many such apparent contradictions is where religion and modern science meet. I, personally, accept most of the findings of modern science, and I also believe the message that is put forward in the Bible. Although many people now consider the two to be mutually exclusive, I believe that the concepts of science can make sense within the context of Scripture. Those scientific theories that do run in direct contradiction to  my theological beliefs I question thoroughly for error. But if I were to find one such concept of science to be completely consistent with the rest of my beliefs about science, and if I was unable to conceive of any alternative approaches, and if this idea were to be found completely inconsistent with my theological beliefs, then I would be forced to re-examine the latter for internal contradictions. I accept the teachings of both science and Christianity only to the extent that they contain neither internal contradictions, nor contradictions with each other. 

 

I post this entry here with a certain degree of trepidation because of how it might be taken by others, particularly in light of a lot of theological debate that has been going on in my current circles. I must note that my personal views on the nature of Scripture and its relationship to science have developed significantly since writing this entry. I post it here only to help myself and others to locate my present thinking within a trajectory and that I might be able to pinpoint when certain ideas first began to develop and why.
Feel free to critique what you read here and leave your comments. It will help me to continue to think about these things more carefully. But please do so knowing that this does not accurately reflect my present perspectives on the matter.