Sheep and Goats

Category: Critical Thinking

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 6

    For best results, start here.

    Of course we should think. Of course we should be reasonable. Of course we should (God help us) use “critical thinking” if that term does it for us. But don’t go thinking you’re getting to the bottom of anything that way. In the end, were stuck with what Solomon described at Ecclesiastes 8:17:

    “I considered all the work of the true God, and I realized that mankind cannot comprehend what happens under the sun. No matter how hard men try, they cannot comprehend it. Even if they claim that they are wise enough to know, they cannot really comprehend it.” 

    They can’t really comprehend it, no matter how hard they try. When people carry on that their thinking is so sharp as to put aside emotion, it just makes things worse. It “locks in human bias under a veneer of science.”

    Witness the “faith, hope, and love”—all emotions of 1 Corinthians 13:13, “but the greatest of these is love.” Contrast that with some of the baser emotions Paul mentions at 1 Timothy 6: 3-4: 

    “If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters.

    The power is in the emotions; faith, hope, love on one end and “pride, envy, strife, wicked suspicions” at the other. One can discuss either using all their powers of critical thinking, but that does not change that the first are noble and the latter are base. So use your critical thinking, but don’t let it go to your head. in matters involving God, it is like showing up at the job with a toolbox stuffed with wrenches when what is required is a screwdriver. And, by all means, don’t think it a virtue or even within your power to divorce emotions from thought. Humans are not built that way. They can blind themselves to think they are but they are not.

    Most Witnesses describe their faith as the most rational of religions. They have a sense with the Bible of having put a jigsaw puzzle together. But that doesn’t mean it will satisfy the standards of “critical thinking,” which considers only that which is provable. The stuff wouldn’t be called faith if it was provable. Says Luke Johnson, “The historian cannot take up anything having to do with the transcendent or the supernatural. Therefore, the historian cannot talk about the miraculous birth of Jesus, his miracles, his walking on the water, his transfiguration, his resurrection from the dead and so forth. Well, fair enough, the historian can’t talk about those things, but that methodological restraint . . . very quickly becomes implicitly an epistemological denial, that is the historian can’t talk about these things, therefore they are not real.”

    Consistently, we read that those who embrace stick with faith do so on factors other than their critical thinking. Acts 13:48 simply calls it being “rightly disposed for everlasting life.” (“When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word ofJehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers.”) It is hard to envision that as a function of their critical thinking.

    Even passages that do call for analytical thinking ability—call it “critical thinking” if you must—make clear that such thinking is not the motivator. Rather, it is the tool that one employs with motivation, but would not do so otherwise. For example, a choice was thrust upon the Boreans when Paul and Silas paid a visit in the first century: 

    “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica [where the two had been run out of town], for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

    That they were rational is evident in that they carefully examined the Scriptures daily to see that what Paul and Silas were telling them was so. But from where does the eagerness come? That one will be emotion, not logic. That one will be heart, not head. That one will be people conscious of their spiritual need, and so determined to fill it. That one will be people who intuitively know they have a spiritual need and that it is analogous to their need for vitamins, without which one gets very ill and never quite knows why. Nobody hungers for vitamin C or vitamin D. Instead, they make themselves conscious of that need. That those of Borea put such a premium on spiritual matters explains that they are called noble-minded. It’s a nobility that has nothing to do with the intellect, the head. It has everything to do with emotion, with what a person is at heart.

    It is high time to wrap up this series. It has spanned six parts. It doubtless includes redundancies which need be edited out if I ever combine the six. The stuff called critical thinking is fine as a seasoning, but disastrous as a main course. You would think that would be evident as the ship goes under while co-captained by luminaries all claiming to excel in such thinking. But it is not.

    Isn’t “critical thinking” the prime tool of those who “think they are wise?” The holy writings have no use for that type of person: “Have you seen a man who thinks he is wise? There is more hope for someone stupid than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12) Emphasis on critical thinking gives rise to the mantra that more understanding will solve all problems. How is that one working out? Humans don’t need more of the stuff. If anything, they need less. Moreover, they need it to stand aside so that higher qualities may shine through.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 5

    (for best results, start here)

    In recent years, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to imply increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today. Like “fake news” or declaring things “unacceptable,” it’s a term that came out of obscurity, if not nowhere, and becomes ubiquitous. I sometimes wish it would suffer the same fate as that politician whom everyone knew should be hanged, and finally he was. “Any last words?” they asked him on the gallows. “This is unacceptable!” he cried as the trap door swung open and the rope snapped taut.

    It’s hard to get the point across that “critical thinking” is not the same as “thinking.” Nor is it the same as “criticism.” It is a particularly narrow brand of thinking that, when applied to biblical studies, means you can’t consider the virgin birth of Christ nor his resurrection since those things don’t happen today and are not repeatable, thus violating the scientific method. I admit that if I had not heard Luke Timothy Johnson describe its derivative “higher criticism” as a Trojan horse which outwardly impresses but inwardly carries the seeds of destruction, I might not have come to regard the expression as bull does a red flag.

    It morphs, however. It becomes a term that everyone likes for outward appearance—after all, nobody wants to be “sloppy” in their thinking—and so they adapt it to their own ends. Says an AI commentary, with regard to biblical commentary:

    “Some scholars use critical thinking and arrive at traditional views of authorship and dating

    • Others use critical thinking and conclude Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch
    • Conservative evangelical scholars apply rigorous critical thinking while rejecting many higher critical conclusions
    • The same critical thinking skills help you evaluate whether higher criticism’s assumptions are sound”

    Exactly. Everyone’s brimming over with the stuff, but it doesn’t help in resolving problems. It just results in more entrenched positions that are less open to agreement because everyone imagines their thinking is THE sound way to do it. It’s as though you can trump any conversation with a “Excuse me. I have concluded otherwise and I used critical thinking!” Since it can be applied any which way, just drop the term and stop being so pretentious.

    Increasingly, Witness literature doesn’t cater AT ALL to those who take pride in their critical thinking skills. Instead, they cater to those who feel like a gut punch the travesty of human rule, largely a product of that critical thinking. Few world leaders have not been trained in universities that specialize in it. Accordingly, people don’t need more of it. They need less of it.

    The heart makes a grab what it wants and then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale for it. This leads to the appearance that the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 4

    For complete results, start here

    It was irksome when atheists put up their ‘Let Reason Prevail’ billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene back in 2009; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on “reason?” Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of hope? Closer.

    It took a while, but I at last came across an experiment that blew that nettlesome Let Reason Prevail slogan sky-high. Reason cannot prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of several years back. Alas, it received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

    The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. “To show our thanks for taking part in our study,” she said, “we’d like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?”

    Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

    The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, “Yummy, cake!” wins out! “The astounding thing here,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for NPR, “is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It’s how easily it wins.”

    Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren’t world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that “reason will prevail” among the world’s policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

    That is what was so irksome about the ‘Let Reason Prevail’ slogan. Reason cannot prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

    Since that Baba Shiv experiment, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to impress with increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today.

    Now, if there is one thing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, it is for their insistence that humans do not have the ability to govern themselves. Their reason (critical thinking) will not save them. It is too easily trumped by other factors. Anticipating and announcing the kingdom hope, in accord with Jesus’ prayer, while it does require faith, is seen to be more “reasonable” than the “reason” championed by men.

    to be continued here

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 3

    (for best results, start with Part 1:

    Confounding all the wannabe Spocks who think pure thought can one day drive the world, unhindered by emotion (and what a wonderful day that will be!!) is a 1994 book by Antonio Damasio on neurology showing the two are inseparable. ‘Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain’ demonstrates that when emotion is knocked out in humans, ‘reason’ doesn’t work either. It still exists, but it can’t be harnessed for anything. It reduces to a nebulous force that critical thinkers worship but that always remains outside their grasp, especially so when they imagine that they have a lock on the stuff.

    Starting with a textbook case in history, then the author doctor’s own test patient, the book describes how who have suffered brain injury, so that that they cannot experience emotion, thereafter are unable to make even simple decisions in matters supposedly having nothing to do with emotion. Decisions as to what to wear, what to eat, what to buy—they cannot make them. Plainly, it is too simplistic to view emotion as the enemy of rationality, a contamination that must be ferreted out, lest it interfere with the quest for truth. 

    ***

    The authors of the scriptures were reasonable. They put serious thought into their writings. But the holy writings consistently put ever so many qualities ahead of critical thinking, or for that matter, thinking of any sort, beyond the barebones intelligence to comprehend the words.

    The Galatians 5:21 fruitage of the spirit that empowers people, for instance: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.” Nowhere is critical thinking on the list. Or take such passages as Proverbs 29:19, which are far more numerous than ones encouraging academic rigor:

    “A servant will not let himself be corrected by words, For though he understands, he does not obey.” 

    Is the problem here is lack of critical thinking? Or does the problem lie elsewhere?

    For this reason, social media is of limited value when it comes to expressing Christianity. Jehovah is making an estimate of hearts whereas the internet displays only the head. Of course, many express their Christianity online, because it is easy. Many Witnesses do it too, but they are not so deluded as to imagine it supersedes the physical ministry. The latter is hard, as opposed to the easy online ministry, but it more readily accesses and reveals the heart. 

    It becomes that common saying that “People do not care how much you know. Rather, they want to know how much you care.” The physical-contact ministry demonstrates the latter. People so contacted, even when they do not appreciate it, know that you’ve gone to some trouble to visit them. It has cost you something. 

    The internet ministry, one the other hand, is dominated by those who like to hear themselves talk and who like to show off how much they know. Hopefully, the hearts of some have moved them also to be doers of the word (James 1:22) and not hearers only. But you can never tell it from their online personas, which reveal only the head.

    The head is not the deciding component, nor can it be among humans. One doesn’t want to be run on emotion. Instead, one wants to be in touch with one’s emotions. The notion one can divorce oneself from them is unattainable.

    ***

    “I promise to give your suggestion all the attention it deserves,” said the emotionless Mr. Spock to that hothead Dr. McCoy. He paused for just the tiniest split-second and then resumed his work. 

    to be continued here:

    ******  The bookstore

    …

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 2

    Luke Timothy Johnson, lecturer of the Great Courses series, ‘The Story of the Bible,’ likened the historical critical method (higher criticism) to a Trojan Horse. It is dazzling in appearance. Therefore, you let it right into your camp. Once inside, however, it releases the seeds of your own destruction. This is because the historical critical method is based entirely on ‘critical thinking,’ which is all the rage today.

    black and white photography of a wooden trojan horse
    Photo by Ayşe İpek on Pexels.com

    Probably, the phrase ‘critical thinking’ should be struck from the Christian vocabulary, since it defines the thought process of those who put all their trust in human science. Nothing against science here, but it is not something that should not be elevated over all else. It is also unsettling to hear modern calls to “believe the science,” since science is not a system of belief. Jehovah’s Witness published literature has never used the expression “critical thinking.” (nor any faith tradition, to my knowledge) Instead, it opts for biblical counsel to “let your reasonableness be known to all.” There’s no need to let narrow people define what it means to be “reasonable.”

    Plenty of Witnesses use the expression innocuously and good conscience, but it is technically a tool of the “enemy.” It is the exact opposite of the apostle’s directive that “we are walking by faith, not by sight.” Not only is “critical thinking” the epitome of “walking by sight,” but it is walking by provable sight, specifically scientifically-provable sight. It is not simply the opposite of being gullible. It is a too-narrow definition of what it means to be smart. It ensures that you will miss a lot.

    It has the effect of decimating faith because it examines only what is scientifically provable, and no tenet of faith is. Those who are trained this way in theology end up taking all spiritual beliefs off the table for consideration. They figure they have the tools to examine only the effects of faith on a person: that is, does a given belief system help or harm a person? Shelving the fundamental aspects of faith, it is left to examine only the secondary. The effect is to make religion an expression of human rights.

    Just as higher criticism rules out examination of the resurrection or the virgin birth of Christ as being scientifically unprovable, so it rules out any consideration of an afterlife, or (for Witnesses) the notion of living forever on a future paradise earth. Not scientifically provable. Can’t go there. Passages like 1 Timothy 6:19 (instructions to the young man on how to shepherd the congregations) become meaningless:

    “Tell them to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be generous, ready to share, safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, so that they may get a firm hold on the real life.”

    Since the “real life” is unprovable to the higher critics, and the present life is the only one they acknowledge, the Bible verse, at best, makes no sense, and at worst, becomes a harmful distraction from the present. Higher criticism vs traditional biblical reading are opposites. The “real life” to the higher critics is the present. The “real life” to the traditional Bible reader is the future. To the higher critic, pursuing the “real life” of 1 Timothy has relevance ONLY in how if affects a person in the present.

    This insistence on examining only the immediate aspects of faith puts it at the mercy of changing human values. For the longest time, Witnesses received a green light as to benefiting in the present. Witness beliefs enabled them to break free of addictions and enjoy stable marriages, for example. But now, these benefits are being overshadowed by modern demands for “inclusion,” as well as an added savoring of “independence.” Even breaking free of debasing addictions doesn’t count if “someone told you to do it.” Plainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses put themselves under the relative authority of congregation headship. The fact that Christians did it in the first century as well is irrelevant. Plainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not practice “inclusion” for some increasing popular lifestyles. The fact that they beat everyone for inclusion towards races, ethnicities, economic and educational differences doesn’t cut it.

    To be continued—here

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save us from Critical Thinking: Part 1

    Here in the U.S, when the media wishes to discredit someone, they say that he or she stated such-and-such “without evidence,” as if it were a god that they failed to bow down to. It is a relatively new expression, not more than 10 years old.

    In fact, meaningful “evidence” is extremely hard to obtain. Just distinguishing causal from correlated can spur endless studies and be squabbled over without resolution. Then, assuming people successfully obtain “evidence,” they come to polar opposite concussions regarding it, as determined by their preexisting backgrounds, experiences, education, culture, dispositions, etc.

    Then, in this country (U.S.), at least half of all people are on some sort of medication, many of which are said to alter mood and overall thinking ability. 

    It is enough to make one bridle at the expression “critical thinking,” as though humans are capable of it beyond a light seasoning. When applied to theology, it is a major detriment to faith, since it allows for discussion only that which can be scientifically proven. Fundamentals upon which faith depends, such as the resurrection of Christ or his virgin birth cannot be so proven. Therefore, they are off the table, as are most tenets of faith. All that remains for examination is the effects of faith upon a person, which is often in the eye of the beholder.

    With the beliefs of faith removed from discussion, critical thinking theology largely demotes religion to a forum for human rights. Everything else is taken off the table. That is all that remains. Nothing against human rights here, other than to point out that our own bodies do not respect them, failing us when we need them the most. But, surely faith in God must be more than such strictly human matters.

    Historian Allen Guelzo examines the modern-day emphasis on “critical thinking” in interpreting history. Does it make it better? If anything, he suspects it makes it worse, by “cloaking human bias in a veneer of science.”

    When it comes to politics, how are we to account for people aligning themselves in opposite camps, both of which claim critical thinking as their friend? I like to view it as “all human governments drop the ball. Usually it is a bowling ball. As people ponder the vulnerabilities of toes on their right or left feet, such is determined their politics.” The influence of critical thinking is not what seals the deal. It is mostly bias, formed through preexisting experience and training.

    The Bible stands in contrast. It doesn’t pretend that critical thinking is any significant component of meeting God’s approval. Jesus “draws” people. The “children” (not known for their critical thinking skills) are more likely than the “wise” (who are known for it) to get the sense of it. “Taste and see that Jehovah is good” says the psalm. Suppose someone thinks that beets taste bad. Will you prove to him through critical thinking that he is wrong?

    Covid 19 and worldwide response to it has proved the absolute inadequacy of critical thinking. It is not that the stuff is bad. It is that humans are incapable of it to any degree that would make a significant dent in life.

    (To be continued—here)

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Role of the Angels

    Here we are used to saying that Jehovah’s blessing is on this or that aspect of our ministry or related activity. How does one know that?
     
    Too, what about those who God ‘drew?’ (John 6:44) How does he/she differ from someone who just happened to be standing around—someone in the right place at the right time. The fact is, you can't prove any of it. We might be personally convinced, but that doesn't make it so.

    It’s enough, however. This notion that we have to prove things to other people—where does that come from? 4A03FA41-200D-44D4-97FA-9C533666A62ENot from the Bible, which is content with ‘may each one be firmly convinced in his own mind.’ (Romans 14:5) It must be a residual of the ‘critical thinking’ plague that persuades people they have far greater analytical skills than they really do—or that creation lends itself to their brand of scientific thinking. In some ways it does but in other ways it does not.

    (Photo: Ben White, Unsplash.com)

    At the moment I’m reading Frederick Douglass’s first autobiography. He wrote three, at different stages of his life, ever incorporating his most recent doings and sometimes modifying his original accounts just as the passage of time modifies ours in the spirit of ‘time heals all things.’ It is an excellent work, fully justifying the praise the Great Courses professor gave it, superior (in my mind) to a biography of him by a contemporary scholar who uses contemporary jargon. I am steamed that no one told me to read the book previously—just like the Joker was steamed that no one told him Batman had one of those . . .one of those . . . one of those things that could sweep his balloons out from the sky. Someone should have told him. “Bob—give me your gun!” he ordered, and the thug instantly complied.

    At any rate, the relevance here is that Douglass states that he has always believed his deliverance from slavery and course thereafter was directed by ‘divine providence.’ He writes this, although there were millions of slaves who never tasted an ounce of freedom and who suffered horribly. He further says he fully realizes some may view him as ‘superstitious,’ even ‘egotistical’ [as though he is anticipating our times] on this account, but he doesn’t care. Why doesn’t he care?

    “I should be false to the earliest sentiments of my soul if I suppressed the opinion. I prefer to be true to myself even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others rather than to be false and incur my own” internal disapproval.

    Furthermore, “this living Word of Faith and spirit of hope departed not from me, but remains like ministering angels to cheer me through the gloom. This good spirit was from God and to him I offer thanksgiving and praise.”

    He’s not worried lest others not accept his ‘proof.’ He’s not presenting it as proof to anyone, but to satisfy inmost fibers of his own being. The guy has more of a grasp on Christianity that does many a modern believer.

    *** And on angels directing the preaching work? It may not be helpful to say that I’ve declined calling yet again on a return visit that is never home, regardless of when I call, saying, ‘Well, the angels have to do something.’

    I have no problem saying that they do. Still, whenever I have throughly whiffed in service, such as the time when I explained how at death one has paid for his sin and the woman I was speaking with thought I was calling her deceased son a sinner put to death on that account, and consequently slammed the door on us, my companion’s angel winks at mine and says, ‘Boy, your guy sure is a dud, isn’t he!?’

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Why do I think of that Superman movie where the Man of Steel is about to square off with his counterpart Super Villian and some plebe says, ‘This is going to be good!’

    It’s the play we’re watching, not the actors in the play. You don’t have to know the names of the actors to follow the play. It can even be a distraction if you do. Besides, naming a villain, or even a hero, creates the impression that removing that person will change matters. Instead, another actor who has all the lines down pat steps onto the stage and the play continues with barely a hiccup.

    So it is that the Watchtower seldom names names or points to specific schemes. I often follow suit. But sometimes the players and schemes are so intriguing that I go astray.

    So here is Scott Adams, the guy who draws Dilbert, tweeting that he is “skeptical of anything that can’t be explained in a sentence." He’s talking about the keynote address at the WEF (World Economic Forum) meeting in Davos: 'Master the Future.' "What exactly do they do?" he added. "And why?"

    To which tweet Elon Musk appended: “Master the Future” doesn’t sound ominous at all … How is WEF/Davos even a thing? Are they trying to be the boss of Earth!?"

    Scott Adams is happily playing second fiddle to Elon Musk these days. He had come to the defense of the Covid 19 vaccine previously, but now he has done a complete turnaround, coupled with an apology: "I would like to publicly apologize for continuously ignoring the "accurate data" on Covid that people sent me for three years," he tweeted (Jan 24th) 

    Musk and he are best buds now. Scott floats the idea of whether he could win were he to run in the California Senate race. "Please run; that would be awesome," Elon responds.

    Twitter is where it's at now that Musk bought it and let the dissenting voices back in that are still banned most anywhere else for going against prevailing narrative. Bernard Strawman will be ecstatic. There is now 'dialogue' on that social media site that there is nowhere else. Musk let Peter McCullough back in, for example. The guy is the top published cardiologist in the country, maybe in the world. He had thought his stature gave him an untouchable status to dispute the prime vaccine directive, but he was wrong. Not long ago he was sweating it that his medical license was about to be pulled, a fate he has so far avoided.  

    After Musk tweeted that it “isn’t clear whether, all things considered, a second booster helps or hurts,” Yahoo News (1/12) took to explaining "what studies show." They show he's wrong, was their verdict–as it is everyone's verdict who wishes to remain on social media–or was until Twitter went apostate on them.

    Elon Musk casts doubt on whether a 2nd COVID booster helps or hurts. Here’s what studies show. (yahoo.com)

    'Vaccine hesitancy' is a real problem today, Yahoo lamented. Musk shouldn't go pouring on the gasoline. True, "when bivalent boosters were first given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration, some were concerned about the lack of human clinical trial data, but updated information from clinical trials has since become available."  Pfizer provided it. They said their stuff was okay. Besides, "the CDC says serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely rare following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination.”

    Oh yeah? Well, it almost killed me, Musk tweeted. He "had major side effects from my second booster shot. Felt like I was dying for several days. Hopefully, no permanent damage, but I dunno." To which newly liberated, as though from Babylon, McCullough attached a name to what Musk had experienced and said that given his age and level of fitness he would probably be okay. Musk added to his first tweet, "And my cousin, who is young & in peak health, had a serious case of myocarditis. Had to go to the hospital."

    Speaking of going to the hospital: The Buffalo Bills home team's playbook incorporated the player who collapsed after arising from a routine tackle returning to the stadium and attempting to spur them to victory with his signature heart gesture. Alas, to no avail. They lost.

    I had seen the fellow fall three weeks earlier. He rose from making a routine tackle, then fell over as though dead, a startled Bengal jumping away. EMT worked on him near 20 minutes as teammates gathered around, some in tears, some in prayer, before taking him off to the hospital. After an hour of uncertainly, the game was suspended. Tens of thousands of fans were sent home. He is still said to be on oxygen in critical condition.

    There was instant speculation on social media that it was vaccine-induced myocarditis, same as with Musk's cousin. That occurred to me right away. Healthy athletes are dropping over dead right and left these days. The book that says it best is 'Cause Unknown: the Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,' by Edward Dowd, a finance guy who's used to spotting trends. In it are hundreds of young people who have, since 2021, died unexpectedly for no reason. Each is verified by QR code so you can go and check for yourself. Furthermore, he has gathered the life insurance charts that show a 40% spike in unknown-cause deaths in the final quarter of 2021, when vaccine mandates kicked in.

    Dowd avoids the 'Who' and he avoids the 'Why.' He does only the 'What' and the 'When.' He takes the low-hanging fruit that others go beyond and in the process step into land mines. Tackle the 'who' and the 'why' and you are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist. But anyone with an eye for detail and a knack for digging things up can tackle the 'what' and the 'when.'

    So instantly I thought of the possibility–even though the Explainer explained that I shouldn't think it.

    EXPLAINER: What happened to Damar Hamlin? | AP News

    I was smart enough not to put it on social media, but there was fierce reaction to those who did:

    Vaccine misinformation surges on social media, Fox News after NFL player Damar Hamlin's onscreen heart attack | Fortune and

    Twitter Is a Megaphone for ‘Sudden Death’ Vaccine Conspiracies | WIRED

    They do pile on, but welcome to social media. No wonder the JW organization's not thrilled with it. The only caveat to the loutish behavior, which was not pointed out, was that the accusers had been pummeled for months, and even banned if they said the 'wrong thing.' ‘Step out of line, the man comes and takes you away.’ Now they are unleashed, and like those bees from the abyss, they are furious that it took so long.

    'It's despicable that conspiracy theorist wackos would knee-jerk bring up the Covid vaccine!' was the prevailing sentiment. But others responded that of course you would think of possible causes–the stuff is known to trigger myocarditis–just as for the longest time if you wanted to go anywhere you were queried over whether you'd been to the Far East recently. 

    The tackle that felled the Bills player, after he had first arisen "didn’t appear unusually violent," the Explainer explained. Maybe it was "a rare type of trauma called commotio cordis . . . [which] occurs when a severe blow to the chest causes the heartbeat to quiver, leading to sudden cardiac arrest."

    How rare is this? "Commotio cordis occurs “probably 20 times a year,” said the article, as it neglected to mention that the padded NFL gear is specifically designed to shield against such blows to the chest.

    Now Musk has let these dissenting voices like McCullough–and Dowd, he had been banned too–back in for the sake of dialogue. Just like Mr. Strawman, he thinks dialogue is good. He even says (Jan/16) he is tweaking algorithms so as to send opposing views your way, though you can tweak them away in settings if you want to live in an 'echo chamber.' Yikes! Does this mean Vic Vomodog and Larsen Ahithorolf are my reluctant new best friends? Twitter has become the cutting edge place to be. 

    Musk takes on the high and mighty: “We shouldn’t be obsessed with WEF/Davos, but they take themselves sooo seriously that making fun of them is awesome,” he tweets. And, "My reason for declining the Davos invitation was not because I thought they were engaged in diabolical scheming, but because it sounded boring af lol,” attaching an emoji wearing sunglasses.

    Elon Blasts WEF Effort to Run World, Tucker Finishes Them Off – RedState

    Yeah, well we didn't invite you anyway, they respond. He contradicts their narratives. “WEF is increasingly becoming an unelected world government that the people never asked for and don’t want,” he says. And herein lies the tie-in to the age-old biblical drama: it is about government.

    There's evidence he's getting under their skin. The EU Commissioner of Values and Transparancy, who of course is there attending, says:

    "I [once] had quite a high level of confidence when it comes to Twitter. I have to say that we worked with knowledgeable people, with the lawyers, with sociologists who understood that they have to behave in some decent way, not to cause really big harm to society. I always felt that this notion of responsibility was there. So this is what I don't feel from Elon Musk personally. . . " 

    and even issues an eerie–is it a warning?–"Our message was clear. We have rules which have to be complied with. And otherwise there will be sanctions."

    Why do I think of that Superman movie where the Man of Steel is about to square off with his counterpart SuperVillian and some plebe says, 'This is going to be good!'

    We is gonna get some dialogue! Newsweek is one of the first to break ranks. Don’t think that your critical thinking skills are going to navigate you through this chaos. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most vehemently advocate for it are apt to think they have a lock on the stuff. Critical thinkers appear pretty evenly split on Covid matters.

    As for JW HQ, they noted that you couldn’t do anything without getting vaccinated, and they did want to do things, so they complied along with most everyone else. They monitored the congregation, noted people weren’t dropping dead upon taking it, and gave the green light after an initial period of‘neutrality.’

    094B98F8-7057-4861-9122-7CD9FF684356Trouble is, this entire post will be obsolete is in month.* That's how fast-moving things are. But maybe it's all evidence that we are not in the last days and that we are not just hanging on by a thread.

    Meanwhile, the coalition of Frontline doctors, the ones who testified before Congress (I heard them) that they were having astounding success treating Covid-19 with Ivermectin, have released tips for how those suffering from vaccine injury, even long Covid, might benefit.

    *Obsolete in a month? Since the above post was written, Musk, who he wouldn’t go because it was dull and the WEC, who said no way would they invite him, have gotten together and he did speak:

    ***  The bookstore

  • Can One Prove the Faith?

    The notion of living forever, minus the woes of this present life, appeals to many. The notion of gratitude to a Creator, who has superior wisdom, appeals to many. All one needs is to clear up misgivings about the existence of evil, and that can be done in a reasonable manner. It’s not something you can prove, but it makes sense. Conversely, the notion that humans will have the answers does not appeal to those whose entire existence argues that following that course will just incur `one disappointment after another.

    These qualities might be described as those of heart. Head has little to do with it. The heart chooses what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This may lend the appearance that the head is running the show, but it is the heart all along.


    The heart chooses what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This may lend the appearance that the head is running the show, but it is the heart all along.

    The downside to being as cocoon-like toward news events is that one may miss that people everywhere select the facts they like, that support their belief/value/political system, then use them to castigate those of different persuasion. They are like sports fans today, who cheer and boast when their side scores a point, wince and do damage control when their side suffers loss, but almost never will they examine the merits of the other side. There are no end of combative  ‘other sides.’ But we miss much of this due to lumping them all together as ‘the world.’

    “People are like sports fans today, who cheer and boast when their side scores a point, wince and do damage control when their side suffers loss, but almost never will they examine the merits of the other side.”

    Critical thinking as a tool in the toolbox will work. Critical thinking as an overarching philosophy will not. Humans are not capable of it. Heart trumps head every time. Historian Allen Guelzo spoke of critical thinking’s tendency to “cloak human bias in a veneer of science.”

    Think ‘activism’ against the Witness organization is something unique? It just demonstrates that Witnesses stand for something. Everyone that stands for something triggers activism from those of conflicting persuasion. The one way not to trigger ‘activism’ is to be bland and toothless. Then, since your movement doesn’t really matter, since it doesn’t meaningfully stand in the way of predominant secular values, no one has anything to object to.

    There is little sense in trying to prove the faith to anyone other than yourself. ‘Prove to yourselves,’ Romans 12:2 says. ‘Taste and see Jehovah is good,’ says the psalm. Taste is subjective. If someone can’t stand the taste of beets, how are you going to prove to them that beets taste good? These days I just present the Bible hope. It appeals to some and does not appeal to others.

    Should people squawk about Adam and Eve being fairy tale, and all that derives from it, advise that they treat it as they would a jigsaw puzzle. When you put together a jigsaw puzzle you do not concern yourself at all with whether the picture on the box cover is real or not. Upon assembling the puzzle and replicating that picture, sometimes that in itself triggers a reassessment of the picture’s validity. 

    But if you know the box cover picture is of Josh Grobin, 

    and you do not like Josh Grobin because after you picked up your wife and her girlfriend from his concert, you learned in a sudden storm that bridge surfaces really do freeze before road pavement, then you will not attempt to put that puzzle together. So it is with the ‘God, prayer, everlasting life, man dominates man to his injury’ puzzle. Some are intrigued to put that puzzle together. To others, the box cover is a turn-off. 

    Similarly, prayer is not a topic that you seek to prove to someone else. Does the Bible ever suggest that course? It is personal back and forth with God, without regard for how someone else might view it. If one person thinks such-and-such is an answer to prayer, what business is that of anyone else? Besides, even believers have grown comfortable with saying that, while God answers all prayers, sometimes the answer is no.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Jesus and Socrates—the Parallels

    We don’t know much about Socrates. If we’re called upon to read his name aloud from print, we say what an embarrassed Michael Jackson said, that he had heard the name many times but had never seen it spelled out. How was he to know it was three syllables and not two? So, what do we know about So-Crates? We know he died from hemlock poisoning. We know he drank it himself, that he had been sentenced to die. And that’s about all we know, plain ‘ol people that we are.

    22831E0C-15F6-4966-8358-60D356D7A8EFOf course, if we have had some training on the topic, then we know more. We also know enough to say his name correctly. But most people are rank and file, unconcerned with Socrates because Socrates does not touch upon their daily lives—or if he does, they don’t know just how. They do know about Jesus, however, because Jesus is the lynchpin of the major religion. To be sure, much of what they know about Jesus is wrong, but they do have a lot of wannabe-facts at their disposal, some of which are true, whereas for Socrates they have almost nothing.

    Simplify Greek history exponentially by knowing his relationship to other big names of the era. Socrates was one-on-one teacher to Plato, Plato was one-on-one teacher to Aristotle, and Aristotle was one-on-one teacher to Alexander the Great. There, doesn’t that help?

    I was already delving into the unlikely. I was already drawing some parallels between Socrates and Jesus. Both had a way of buttonholing people, prodding them to think outside the box. Both attracted a good many followers in this way. Both were outliers to the general world of their time, and were looked upon askance for it. Both infuriated their ‘higher-ups’—so much so that both were consequently sentenced to death. Their venues were different, and so we seldom make the linkage, but linkage there is. As a result of auditing the Great Courses lecture series, I was beginning to play with the idea.

    Imagine my satisfaction when I come across one of those professors, J. Rufus Fears, who has not only begun but has fully developed the idea in his lecture series entitled ‘A History of Freedom.’ Happy as a pig in mud I was, for it proved I was not crazy. Nearly all subsequent points are taken from his lecture, “Jesus and Socrates:”

    They were both teachers, for one, Jesus of the spiritual and Socrates of the empirical. They both refused pay, a circumstance that in itself aroused the suspicion of the established system. (Victor V. Blackwell, a lawyer who defended many Witness youths in the World War II draft days, observed that local judges recognized only one sort of minister: those who “had a church” and “got paid”—“mercenary ministers,” he called them.)

    7CAC7F61-0CCF-44E9-BF12-876C94793101Fears may be a bit too much influenced by evolving Christian ‘theology’—he speaks of Jesus being God, for instance, and the kingdom of God being a condition of the heart—but his familiarity with the details of the day, and the class structure social mores that both Jesus and Socrates’ transgressed against, is unparalleled. Jesus reduces the Law to two basic components: love of God and love of neighbor. This infuriates the Pharisees and Sadducees, because complicating the Law was their meal ticket, their reason for existence. After his Sermon on the Mount, “the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching, for he was teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes.” Depend upon it: the scribes didn’t like him. Socrates, also, did the Sophist’s work—the paid arguers who ‘made the weaker argument look the stronger,’—better than they. They were jealous of him.

    Neither Jesus nor Socrates encouraged participation in politics of the day. Jesus urged followers to be “no part of the world.” Socrates declared it impossible for an honest man to survive under the democracy of his time. Both thereby triggered establishment wrath, for if enough people followed their example, dropping out of contemporary life, where would society be?

    Both Jesus and Socrates were put to death out of envy. Both had offended the professional class. Both became more powerful in death than in life. Both could have avoided death, but didn’t. Socrates could have backtracked, played upon the jury’s sympathy, appealed to his former military service. Jesus could have brought in witnesses to testify that he never said he was king of the Jews, the only charge that make Pilate sit up and take notice.

    Both spoke ambiguously. In Socrates case, he was eternally asking questions, rather than stating conclusions. His goal—to get people to examine their own thinking. In Jesus case, it was “speak[ing]to them by the use of illustrations” because “the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.” He spoke ambiguously to see if he could cut through that morass, to make them work, to reach the heart.

    What if Jesus were appear on the scene today and enter one of the churches bearing his name, churches where they don’t do as he said? Would they yield the podium to him? Or would they once again dismiss him as a fraud and imposter, putting him to death if he became too insistent, like their counterparts did the first time?

    If Jesus is the basis of church, Socrates is no less the basis of university. His sayings had to be codified by Plato, his disciple, just as Jesus’ sayings had to be codified by some of his disciples. Thereafter, Plato’s student, Aristotle, had to turn them into organized form, founding the Academy—the basis of higher learning ever since. Professor Fears muses upon what would happen if Socrates showed up on campus in the single cloak he was accustomed to wearing, “just talking to students, walking around with them, not giving structured courses, not giving out a syllabus or reading list at the start of classes, not giving examination” at the end. Would they not call Security? And if by some miracle he did apply for faculty, which he would not because he disdained a salary, but if he did, you know they would not accept him. Where were his credentials? Yes, he had the gift of gab, they would acknowledge, but such was just a “popularity contest.” Where were his published works?

    Similarly, where were Jesus’ published works? Neither Jesus nor Socrates wrote down a thing. It was left for Jesus’ disciples to write gospel accounts of his life. It was left for Plato to write of Socrates’ life. If either were to appear at the institutions supposedly representing their names, they would not be recognized. Shultz, the chronicler of early Watchtower history, recently tweeted that when he appends a few letters to his name, such as PhD, which he can truthfully can, his remarks get more attention than when he does not. He says it really shouldn’t be that way, but it is what it is. Both Jesus and Socrates would have been in Credential-Jail, neither having not a single letter to stick on the end of their name. It wouldn’t help for it to be known that each had but a single garment.

    Today people are used to viewing “career” as the high road, “vocation” as the lower. Vocation is associated with working with ones’ hands. Fears turns it around. “Vocation” represents a calling. Jesus was literally called at his baptism: the heavens open up, and God says, “This is my son in whom I am well-pleased.” Socrates had a calling in that the god Apollo at Delphi said no one is wiser than he. Socrates took that to mean God was telling him to go out and prove it. “Career,” on the other hand, stems from a French word meaning “a highway,” a means of getting from one place to another, considerably less noble than “a calling,” a vocation.

    We who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are quite used to pointing out that religion has run off the rails. What is interesting from these parallels is the realization that academia has no less run off the rails. Both have strayed far from their roots, and not for the better. Both have devolved into camps of indoctrination.

     

    ******  The bookstore