The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual

I saw kowalskil trying to begin a discussion with his Can science and religion coexist peacefully? . It didn't look like it would get rolling there, but it got me rolling, so, here goes...Let me first state plainly my beliefs regarding this issue:

1. The spiritual created the natural, and thus, the natural is grounded in the spiritual.
2. The spiritual and the natural are not in contradiction with one another.
3. The spiritual is the source of the natural.
4. The spiritual governs the natural.
5. The natural has been corrupted.

For Bahnsen haters, I will concede here that I will speaking very presuppositionally in this message. In this case of creating a false dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual, I find no better place to begin with my presuppositions than Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."Assuming that God is indeed a spiritual entity (which is a reasonable assumption given the language of the rest of the Bible) we have here no insignificant statement: the writer ascertains that a spiritual entity created all the material that exists. Thus, a unique bond exists between the two, as ascertained by the Bible.Now lets go back to Plato to find where the beginning of this false dichotomy began (or at least was continued). Plato with his philosophy of forms fostered a hate for the natural, for the natural was merely the representation of a form. The form could only be understood spiritually (in the mind), and thus the mind, not the body, was the ultimate definer (or, creator), ruler, and savior of the physical world, for only in the mind could the world be understood. Thus, Platonian thought (specifically, dual-Platonian thought) fostered a disregard and disdain for the natural, and an exaltation and deification of the mind of man. Moreover, it creates a sharp dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual.This school of thought combines with empiricism and moral relativism to create the widespread view of religion and science that we now have today. This view creates two mutually exclusive spheres of truth: the truth of the spiritual world, and the truth of the natural world. These worlds and their truths do not interact, and exist both equally true and completely unrelated. Moral relativism then seeks to make these two worlds co-exist peacefully.But the truth of the matter is that this is impossible. This world must have some sort of ultimate source. The source must be natural or spiritual. If the source is natural, then the spiritual is strictly a product of the mind of man, and thus exists only in the abstract, thus rendering it irrelevant and ineffectual. If, on the other hand, the source is spiritual, the natural is strictly a product of the spiritual, thus rendering the spiritual and natural equally relevant and deeply connected.The effects of such a belief are readily apparent in law, science, the arts, education, etc. In law, if one believes the natural is the source of the spiritual, their law will necessarily be naturalistic, and will have a greater regard for case law than for principial (prin-ci-pi-al) law. However, if one believes the spiritual to be the source of the natural, their law will be principially based, and will use case law not as a source of truth but only as a proper interpretation of the principial law which is the wellspring of truth.To demonstrate specifically what I am getting at, lets examine a particular example in law. Consider trying to build a building in the United States. Granted, I have little understanding of all that would be involved in this, but it would certainly be a painstaking process of obtaining permits and licenses and having certain inspections and adhering to all the hundreds of regulations there are for construction of a building, and so on and so on. These regulations are in a sense case law, and being as there are so many of them, it is very difficult to adhere to them all perfectly and, if done, it will have been done only with a great amount of pain. The only means of obedience in this case is to follow strictly the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. But consider what the Bible has to say about building regulations: "When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it." (Deut. 22:8). The Bible being a principially based book (meaning that it is grounded in the spiritual, not the natural), this law is grounded in the broad principle of protection of life, and thus requires not only that a person build parapets on their rooftop, but that they take measures necessary to make life on their property reasonably safe....So, this post got a little bit long, and may be a bit too broad, so let me present the points for possible discussion:

• To the theist, such as kowalskil, what is the relation, if any, between the natural and the spiritual, and between science and theology? Are they divorced from one another, existing mutually exclusive of one another?
• To the atheist, what evidences are there in favor of a naturally grounded world as opposed to a spiritually grounded world (speaking in the philosophical sense)?

Let me state once more with regard to the theist that I believe firmly that spiritual and natural realities exist interconnected, and that theology cannot be divorced from science, and neither can the naturalistic scientist coexist peacefully with the pietistic theologian.And let me state finally with regard to the atheist that I believe strongly that the world is grounded in the ultimate spiritual reality of Jehovah God, and that a naturalistic world is unreasonable and impossible.Having stated broadly my beliefs, hopefully some discussion can get going on one of the controversial claims I made. I see no place for this but Faith and Belief. Unless, that is, some theist wants to pick it up as a Great Debate.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature content to smaller font. I had edited it to the "1" size at the sac51495 profile page.

---

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)

​

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

After re-reading my post, it doesn't really appear to be adequate for a Great Debate. So let me just say that I have a whole lot more I could say about this issue. I have a feeling that others do too. Maybe for this reason it could be a Great Debate, that is, of course, if anyone wishes to pick it up. I don't know if Buzsaw agrees with me or not. I know that kowalskil doesn't. jar probably disagrees with me too much to have a reasonable discussion. RAZD, or anyone else out there want to pick this up?...

Any admins out there? I saw Buzsaw's topic get accepted a day ago, and I also noticed that my first message didn't get posted on the "list all topics" page. Has anyone read it yet?

Be it some writing deficiency on your part and/or some comprehension deficiency on my part - Your message comes of as mumbo-jumbo to me. To me, the core point is uncertain. First of all, the 1st and 3rd items seem to be redundant. Perhaps also the 1st and the 4th.Anyway, perhaps should explain a little of what you mean by each of those items?Also, I'm curious about your thoughts of the relation between the concept of religion and the concept of spirituality. Are they one and the same, or are they different from each other?Adminnemooseus

I agree that it is perhaps some writing deficiency on my part. Let me lay it out clearly, first pointing out that I referenced kowalskil's proposed topic on trying to make theology and science coexist peacefully. I read the articles he posted, but since I have no intention of referencing outside material in trying to get discussions started, I tried to get a discussion started by stating my own views which were contrary to the views laid out by kowalskil in his article. With that said, here's a list of what some views are of the relation between the natural and the spiritual: [list=1,R]

Only the spiritual truly exists, while the natural is merely an illusion.

The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the spiritual being the source, ruler, and savior of both the spiritual and the natural.

The spiritual and the natural exist mutually exclusive, but both equally true, and exist unrelated and uninteracting, and perhaps contradictory.

The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the natural being the source, ruler, and savior of both the natural and the spiritual.

Only the natural truly exists, while the spiritual is only a figment of the imagination of man.
[/list=1,R]
The 1st is exemplified by Hinduism, and is probably not a view ascribed to by anyone on this forum. It is also somewhat Platonistic.

​

The 2nd I believe to be the only one that can possibly be true. It is a view that few living in modern day secularist society ascribe to.

​

The 3rd is held by kowalskil, and quite a number of theists.

​

The 4th is held by some on this forum, probably jar, and other such semi-agnostic theists.

​

The 5th is held by clear-cut atheists, such as Dr. A, of which there are many on this forum.

​

The five points I made in my OP were somewhat redundant, and were all general elaborations of point #2 in this post. To elaborate a little more, by spiritual I mean unequivocally Jehovah God, and by natural I mean all things created by Him, as asserted in Genesis 1 and 2. The natural has been corrupted, as asserted by Genesis 3, so that the world we see around us does not exist in a perfect state, and is thus not an ultimate source of truth. The heart and mind of man are included then in that class of things corrupted. They both then have a fundamental inability to discern properly what they see around them, and are in desperate need of a savior to be justified before their sovereign Creator. The standard which men must attain to be justified before God is shown in the Law of God. Perfect obedience to this Law being impossible, however, the punishment for sin (sin being disobedience to the Law) must be satisfied. This punishment is satisfied in the death of Christ, who not only satisfied the punishment for our sin by His death, but also renewed our hearts by His resurrection.

​

Once again, the discussion is hoped to be generated with a), those theists who ascribe to beliefs #3 or #4, or b), those atheists who ascribe to belief #5.

​

As to the relation of religion and spirituality:

​

Religion is not connected directly with spirituality. All people have a religion. Naturalism is the religion of some (or, more specifically, Envrionmentalism). The religion of a person determines how they view the world around them, and how they behave in the world around them, and what they produce in the world around them. Thus, the writings, actions, and cultural products (such as art, music, law, etc.) of a society are representative of the religious beliefs of that society. A spiritual society may, for example, sacrifice children on altars to appease the wrath of their gods. A naturalistic society may, for example, sacrifice children on the altar of radical environmentalism to appease the wrath of the environment. Yes, they do, and will. I have read quotes from environmentalists who propose abortion and birth control as the means of appeasing the environment, for the environment is being overpopulated by us humans, and we have to lower our birth rates to keep from over-stressing it. Such environmentalists claim to have grounded such beliefs in science. I hold then that science is an invalid way of determining ultimate truth, seeing that it results in such child-sacrificing environmentalists as these. Keeping in mind, or course, that this is just one example.

​

So, on the one hand, we have a man who believes that a spiritual being exists sovereign over the universe, and who also believes that this spiritual being requires in certain cases that he sacrifice his children to appease his wrath.

​

And on the other hand, we have a man who believes that the environment is sovereign over all (all meaning, in this case, the earth), and who also believes that this environment requires in certain cases (this particular case being one of overpopulation) that he sacrifice his children to appease its wrath.

​

So then, just as the beliefs of the former are labeled his "religion", so also are the beliefs of the latter his "religion".

​

Simply defined then, religion is the metaphysical beliefs held by a man, beliefs which influence his view of knowledge and of morality, and to which he pays homage in the form of institutionalized worship. Theism's institutionalized worship is of a god, while humanism's institutionalized worship is of man.

​

So, yes, the concepts of religion and spirituality are different from one another. Religion can involve a belief in the spiritual, but not necessarily, seeing as how naturalism is also a religion. Also, I believe that many person's view of spirituality is perverted, it being limited to a man sitting on a cloud in heaven (whatever that is). I believe no such thing. My God is incomprehensibly greater than that.

​

Hopefully you understood it that time, and hopefully you can see how this can generate discussion. Maybe I wrote it down a bit better this time! (?)

​

Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

​

---

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)

​

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

I do NOT find this proposed new topic (PNT) to be up to desired standards.I find message 1 to be gibberish, and subsequent messages did little to nothing to clarify things. I, however, don't see further admin efforts as being likely to improve things.3 options:1) Reject.
2) Release to "Free For All" forum.
3) Release to "Faith and Belief" forum.I'm tempted to go the "FFA" route, but I don't want to release this topic from moderation possibilities. Thus, it's going to "FAB".Adminnemooseus

Thread copied to the The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual thread in the Faith and Belief forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.