Got Questions?

[Ed Hurst]

In keeping with my blog post for today, I was wondering if there were any issues I haven't covered to your satisfaction. Aside from refusing to feed trolls, there's nothing I won't discuss. Sometimes it takes a good question to provoke something I never gave conscious consideration. All you get is my own answer to any particular issue, but if you've had something pecking at you in the back of your mind, this is a good time to ask.

[jaybreak]

This is a good opportunity, Ed. Allow me to think on this for a bit and post when I have some idea(s).

[IainH]

Why do bad things happen to good people? NO! That is a joke. Let's see, what is a question worthy of exploration that I might actually face... or already have okay I've got one-
Q. How come (why) your way (rf) is right and the beliefs that have been passed through the centuries since the time of Christ wrong? And, it's sister question 
"Why now, where has all this "heart led" mumbo jumbo you keep spouting been for 2000 years?"

[Ed Hurst]

I would tell someone outside that our (my) way is right for us (me), not necessarily right for everyone. Summarizing the rest: The beliefs passed down were not from the Apostles, nor consistent with the Bible as a whole. Until we study and think like the Hebrew people who brought us the gospel, we can't really understand it.

Heart-led was not a phrase they used because, in Bible times, everyone did it without having to think about it. (Refer to studies in Ancient Near Eastern civilizations.) We lost touch with that after the First Century as the leadership of churches fell increasingly into the hands of Westerners who knew no such thing. Also make note of the influence of the Judaizers and what that meant in terms of perverting revelation by preference for reason.

[IainH]

I would tell someone outside that our (my) way is right for us (me), not necessarily right for everyone. Summarizing the rest: The beliefs passed down were not from the Apostles, nor consistent with the Bible as a whole. Until we study and think like the Hebrew people who brought us the gospel, we can't really understand it.

Heart-led was not a phrase they used because, in Bible times, everyone did it without having to think about it. (Refer to studies in Ancient Near Eastern civilizations.) We lost touch with that after the First Century as the leadership of churches fell increasingly into the hands of Westerners who knew no such thing. Also make note of the influence of the Judaizers and what that meant in terms of perverting revelation by preference for reason.

True. I've found that sort of resistance and I came to understand that God will put the appropriate people in my path. When I first began to tell people what I was learning, I still had that "ya gotta tell everybody" attitude. That was the lingering effect of being in an Evangelical environment for so long. Even though I wasn't fully "with the program", I did get the passion for sharing the gospel albeit without the decision part, I had too much Presbyterian in me for that. My position today is let the other person ask the questions. They will take what they need, what they can handle. Every interaction imparts something to the other person no matter how small. For example; last summer there was a college kid who worked checkout at Walmart and every time I went in I would, if she was working, go through her line and have a few words, this went on throughout the summer. I may have given her a starting point, I don't know and I don't need to. It's about as far from the Evie template as I know. Evies MUST know because they keep score.  
   The question I posted was an condensation of a series of conversations I had with someone a few years back. It accurately summarizes their position with regard to mine, ........reread yes. That's about right.
  To be honest I don't see myself getting into similar situation again. I learned my lesson; those who appear to be the most committed to following Christ in a church are just that, committed to American Christianity.

[Ed Hurst]

With people whom the Lord wishes to bless, there is always a drawing point. For some, the doorway is Red Pill men's stuff. For others, it's the issue of miracles or something else. We stand ready to offer whatever part of Biblical Law they can handle, as you say, and let God worry about whether they join our merry band or not. Every little thing they can snatch back from Satan is better than nothing.

[jaybreak]

What are your thoughts on the proper role of science? I have mine but I have a hard time articulating it in my head. I'm hoping something you might offer would knock enough pebbles loose.

[Ed Hurst]

Part of the issue is that "science" as we know it is an artifact of our civilization. As Sheldrake notes, the sociology of how scientists do science is nothing like the common perception. It was never the thing we are taught to believe it is. I recall reading the book (1970s) on how DNA was discovered and the petty rivalry between the various scientists, competing for funding, trying to be the first to publish so as to get the credit for it. I've never seen anyone acting selflessly in academic scientific research in universities, nor even heard of it.

I suppose if we decided to talk about inquiry into the mechanics of life, the universe and everything (heh), and call it something other than "science," it might be easier to answer the question. Then we would say that God calls and drives people to investigate such things. In that sense, there is no proper role to articulate. Each of us is called to attend or ignore such things as it fits our mission. Since I entertain serious doubts about our ability to perceive reality in the first place, I'm not sure it makes that much difference. I don't think it's necessary to lay down some common perception of the nature of reality. We can't prevent people from trying it, but there's not much point in us trying to advise others on the matter.

I would expect that heart-led people would know not to take themselves too seriously. If someone's mission in life is scientific research, there's no real conflict. Materialism is just a model, not ultimate truth. It's appropriate in some realms of investigation because we know that the people who fund such research want only certain kinds of results. We don't tell everyone everything we discern. There's not a lot of use in me trying to submit for wide publication my experiences in computer tech support using the heart-led approach. I can record my findings, but my hacking methods won't make sense to most computer enthusiasts.

So I think we can just take what we can use and let folks who don't understand our approach just go and do what they do. In the long run, it won't make much of mark in eternity, anyway. Maybe someday we can watch scientific inquiry take a different approach, but I'm not expecting it in my lifetime.

[jaybreak]

Part of the issue is that "science" as we know it is an artifact of our civilization. As Sheldrake notes, the sociology of how scientists do science is nothing like the common perception. It was never the thing we are taught to believe it is. I recall reading the book (1970s) on how DNA was discovered and the petty rivalry between the various scientists, competing for funding, trying to be the first to publish so as to get the credit for it. I've never seen anyone acting selflessly in academic scientific research in universities, nor even heard of it.

I suppose if we decided to talk about inquiry into the mechanics of life, the universe and everything (heh), and call it something other than "science," it might be easier to answer the question. Then we would say that God calls and drives people to investigate such things. In that sense, there is no proper role to articulate. Each of us is called to attend or ignore such things as it fits our mission. Since I entertain serious doubts about our ability to perceive reality in the first place, I'm not sure it makes that much difference. I don't think it's necessary to lay down some common perception of the nature of reality. We can't prevent people from trying it, but there's not much point in us trying to advise others on the matter.

I would expect that heart-led people would know not to take themselves too seriously. If someone's mission in life is scientific research, there's no real conflict. Materialism is just a model, not ultimate truth. It's appropriate in some realms of investigation because we know that the people who fund such research want only certain kinds of results. We don't tell everyone everything we discern. There's not a lot of use in me trying to submit for wide publication my experiences in computer tech support using the heart-led approach. I can record my findings, but my hacking methods won't make sense to most computer enthusiasts.

So I think we can just take what we can use and let folks who don't understand our approach just go and do what they do. In the long run, it won't make much of mark in eternity, anyway. Maybe someday we can watch scientific inquiry take a different approach, but I'm not expecting it in my lifetime.

Thanks for this response. I suppose I meant the scientific method itself, or the philosophy of science, not necessarily the really bizarre industry of modern science itself. Modern science has wonderful PR that hides a lot of the nastiness and garbage methods and assumptions that go on in the stockroom. Vox Day has some good breakdowns on his various past posts that bring this to light. I wish he'd write more on that topic.

It was probably more tolerant in the mid 1800s until Einstein, when science was referred to more as "natural philosophy." There weren't perverse incentives and . The squabbles were still there but it was more often about the ideas than grabs for fame and money (though that was part of it, too). A lot of those folks put themselves at great financial/practical risk to prove out their cockamamie ideas.