Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

I don't see this. Suppose I had my doubts about the existence of Timbuctoo. There is this old and famous book that describes Timbuctoo in great detail, and there are these people who say they have been to Timbuctoo, and I see shows on TV about Timbuctoo. Still, I refuse to believe there is such a place.Is there anything "immoral" about such a stance? I don't think so. One might call my belief foolish, but not immoral.Or another example, perhaps better. Suppose a man is cheating on his wife. The wife does not believe it. There are various clues that crop up suggesting that he is in fact cheating. A friend informs her that he is cheating. It's really fairly obvious that he is cheating, though not overtly so. Is the wife immoral in continuing to not believe that her husband is cheating? Foolish, I grant you--but immoral?Such is the case with a religious system that considers belief in a set of doctrines a moral act and disbelief an immoral act. Such is the case with Christianity but in particular Calvinism.

A long time ago, Parasomnium wrote this great post in which he discussed consciousness. The question he posed was, if you wanted to describe to somebody what it was like to be conscious, what would you say? Parasomnium's brilliant answer was, "I feel like I am incorporeal."That's it, exactly. What does this have to do with the Confessions?Well, I am reading along in Augustine's book and trying to figure out what his problem was. Of course, he was leading this sensual and worldly life and feeling rather guilty about it, but there was some theretical problem as well. He could not believe in a corporeal God: that made no sense to him. On the other hand, he could not conceive of incorporeality either. How could something be incorporeal?Then he starts talking about memory--the power of memory to bring back the lost objects of the past: He goes on about that for awhile, and I'm thinking, what is this all about? And then it begins to dawn on me that this incorporeality that he could not conceive of is present there in his own mind. The objects of memory are incorporeal. The mind itself is incorporeal. Therefore, there is such a quality as incorporeality.Now we know what is meant by the term "supernatural." It means that which is incorporeal. The mind, says Augustine, is supernatural.I feel like I am incorporeal: the origin of religion.

Yes. Those are doctrines. A doctrine is just a belief. The Athanasian Creed is a set of codified doctrines. This is cryptic. Maybe so. If disbelief in these Christian doctrines is not only foolish but immoral, it means that foolishness is not innocent. I think you would agree that an innocent mistake cannot be immoral?What about other foolish beliefs, say a practical foolish belief?Suppose there was this man that had a decent job and his family depended on the income from this job. But one day he discovers an opportunity to hire on with another company which will not only pay him more but give him better job satisfation, he thinks. He goes to interviews and everything seems fine. The people are nice and the company looks great. Little does he know that all is not well with this company (say, some company like Enron). He innocently takes this job. The "doctrine" he believes in is, "This is a solid company."A few months later he has no job, and as a result his family suffers.Was his belief innocent--or immoral?

You're right. But it should be as before: a direct question.Your responses, Faith, were substantial and very good, but I can't respond just yet. Duty calls. Back later.

No, mostly shop-talk about teaching.

mind=soul.

This is over my head.

OK. Because if soul was something different from "mind," that would be a problem.

All of it.I suppose this would be chicken soup?

I found it surprising too, but he talks about it off and on throughout the first half. In Book VII, for example, his discusses the problem at length. Here's an excerpt: And here's a very telling passage: Note that last sentence. It tells us that he realized finally that his own thoughts were incorporeal, and thus incorporeality could exist in some form.I suspect that when you read it, you didn't pay much attention to such passages because your interest lay elsewhere. But this was what interested me.

I should mention that Parasomnium says that this aura of incorporeality is an illusion. I think his explanation is the same as Sidelined's. Parasomnium is a philosophical materialist. However, he is also careful to point out that consciousness is real. It's the aura or feeling that is an illusion.In fact, in order to accept TOE, one would almost have to be a materialist, I would think. More about this idea later, perhaps.

Okay. I might write down some more of my deep thoughts, of which I have many, but don't feel obligated to respond if you don't have time.

What I'm wondering is whether our minds are part of this Universal Mind. If so, that makes us part of God.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-16-2006 12:48 PM

The theory of evolution, I would think, would require a belief in materialism, since it's difficult to imagine a type of reality called "mentality"--that stuff of which God is made, you, Faith, say--evolving out of another type of reality called physicality.So there's nothing but physicality. What does this mean? I think it means that there is nothing but automatic reactions to stimuli, which is no different from water running downhill or, in a more complicated way, a bush leaning toward the sun.It doesn't seem that way to us. It seems to us that we have will, and that we perceive truths, such as mathematical truth, and these operations are not caused physically but are the result of logical, incorporeal thought.This atmosphere of incorporeality is due to a shortcoming in the brain, which is not good at "reflecting" itself. (I was reading this book about the brain some time ago, but didn't get too far. "Reflection" is an important word in brain-talk as is "plasticity," which means that different parts of the brain have multiple functions and that different parts of the brain operate collectively to do something).So how is this aura of incorporeality produced? Some say the brain is a computer-like device. But not only that. Some say that what matters is the algorithm, the set of instructions, not the medium through which these instructions are carried out. Computers use electrical charges, but according to this theory, you could use anything, such as in the following example: So if you could get enough eggs and people to move them around and just the right set of instructions, you could produce "consciousness."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-16-2006 01:36 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-16-2006 01:38 PM

You know what, Faith, you should write a spiritual autobiography like that Laura did (and Karen Armstrong and Augustine). You're a good writer. You went through a lot of changes. It would be interesting.I'd write one myself except that I have no spiritual history.