Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Materialistic prejudice?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 38 (461428)
03-25-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jaderis
03-25-2008 3:02 AM


I think an interesting approach to testing your ideas in the OP would be to define or how you define what is material and what is spiritual? what is metaphysical and what is non-material?
What are the qualities that define each of those words?
You might be surprised to learn we have a great deal of evidence for what you think there is no evidence for.
Btw, I was raised in a secular oriented home fully accepting NeoDarwinism, but don't accept it now, based on the evidence.....not to debate that but just to point out you can come from the other side so to speak and come to believe the evidence does not support evolution.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jaderis, posted 03-25-2008 3:02 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 1:32 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 38 (461434)
03-25-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
03-25-2008 1:32 PM


Re: Starting Point
Doesn't really help because let's imagine for a minute that spiritual things are real. I believe they are real, but for sake of argument, even if you don't think so, let's test this idea that they might be real.
Then, let's say we come up with a way to test for the existence of something spiritual.
By your definition, the spiritual thing automatically becomes material once it's testable. So in reality, your definition of material and spiritual are just reference points for our level of technology.
A better definition for this discussion to prove or disprove whether there is evidence for spiritual, material, metaphysical or whatever things is to list the qualities and properties that make up something material, physical, spiritual and metaphysical, and then see if we see anything with those properties and qualities within the universe.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 1:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 1:59 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 38 (461435)
03-25-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
03-25-2008 1:32 PM


Re: Starting Point
It sounds as if you have followed an unusual path to reach your current position!!
That is true, but maybe not as unusual as I once thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 1:32 PM Straggler has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 38 (461449)
03-25-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler
03-25-2008 1:59 PM


Re: Starting Point
The term "spiritual" in a Christian context and many other religions relates to specific properties regardless of science and technology.
1. Spiritual things are generally invisible, at least most of the time. That's not an absolute statement but invisible to people.
2. The spiritual realm and spiritual things are considered visible, however, to a degree by people trained or gifted (or both) to see those things via their spirit.
3. The biblical concept, imo, of spiritual is something that is intimately connected to, interwined with and part of the universe, not something strictly absent from our world, but part of it.
4. The idea of spiritual in terms of the universe is that what is spiritual gives rise to and forms the material world. Material existence is sort of subset of spiritual reality. Material things therefore don't self-exist but only exist due to the reality of spiritual world sustaining and giving rise to the physical world. In that sense, from a spiritual perspective, the universe is not fundamentally and in reality a material thing. What is material about the world is secondary or derived quality.
5. If we are talking about the difference between spiritual and material, we need to discuss these terms as they would be understood pre-modern science since that's more the origin of those terms. Rightly understood in modern terms, spiritual is a mere description of the universe. In other words, material are things that are visible, physical, etc,....whereas spiritual is also considered within the realm of human experience and the universe, but are qualitatively different.
6. There are rules and principles governing spiritual things and the spiritual world, but these rules can appear to defy "the laws" of science based on older science at least. For example, through spiritual principles something like a miracle can happen. I would submit, however, that no real law is broken just a statistical likelihood of something never occuring.
7. I will add spiritual things have their own energy, layman's terms, and so can have real world effects, but since they do not consist of matter, they probably don't have energy as defined by physics.
8. The most basic spiritual thing I would talk about is the Logos and spiritual realm creating or giving rise to everything in existence. I think there is a ton of evidence for it, in fact.
How do you define material and spiritual in terms of contrasting the 2?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 1:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 03-25-2008 3:54 PM randman has replied
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 5:22 PM randman has replied
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2008 12:52 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 38 (461464)
03-25-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by bluegenes
03-25-2008 3:54 PM


Doesn't really matter for what we are talking about. The idea here is to define via contrasting the differences in properties between physical and spiritual.
In reality, it's even more nuanced than someone seeing something true as oppossed to an hallucination. Someone can perceive something real, according to the Bible, but still be wrong (seducing spirits), and someone can see something both real and true, but misinterpret it, and of course someone can think they see something or hallucinate even as well.
To get into discerning what's correct would be another thread and I think would be based on one's religious and spiritual beliefs concerning truth.
My point is that there is the claim that the spiritual is generally invisible, but can sometimes be seen or discerned. The idea is to distinquish what "spiritual" actually means to people like myself and others that accept there is a spiritual world, and then compare those ideas with the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 03-25-2008 3:54 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluegenes, posted 03-26-2008 1:38 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 38 (461465)
03-25-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
03-25-2008 5:22 PM


Re: Starting Point
What do people mean when they contrast spiritual with material? That's the defining point we need to cover. Spiritual isn't the same as imaginary. One can claim all spiritual things are imaginations, but the ideas are different on their own.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 5:22 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 03-25-2008 8:59 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 38 (461513)
03-25-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
03-25-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Starting Point
I disagree. Physics could deal with and imo, does deal with, immaterial existence and things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 03-25-2008 8:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-25-2008 10:17 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 38 (461536)
03-26-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
03-25-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Starting Point
I don't see what you are saying at all. The biblical concept of "spiritual" or "supernatural" is something physics should, can and does touch on. I don't think you have a good concept of what spiritual and supernatural mean from a biblical perspective. Note: of course the term supernatural isn't in the Bible, but I think I know what you mean...."above and beyond natural."
To define spiritual as something that cannot be described by physics or science, and then say anything real can be defined by physics or science is just redefining the term "spiritual" to mean imaginary and false and as such, cannot be used as a serious argument there is no evidence for spiritual things. It's just semantics avoiding the substance of the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-25-2008 10:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2008 8:20 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 38 (461537)
03-26-2008 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by bluegenes
03-26-2008 1:38 AM


inherent problems?
Yes, but I'm pointing out that there are inherent problems with that.
What inherent problems? All we are talking about thus far is what words mean in the hope we can discuss things like potential or inherent problems.
Yes, but we may automatically be straying into the territory of that other thread because the differences in those religious and spiritual beliefs leads to different definitions of spiritual.
Maybe so but I think before one can safely say there is no evidence for spiritual things, one should at least offer some description of what the word "spiritual" means, at least to them if not several religious camps. Merely saying, as some are, that spiritual means anything we don't have evidence for and that's the evidence for spiritual things not having evidence is absurd. Not saying you are doing that mind you, just discussing the thread so far. We need to get past the absurd into a meaningful discussion of what the differences between spiritual and material are.
Yes, but we may automatically be straying into the territory of that other thread because the differences in those religious and spiritual beliefs leads to different definitions of spiritual.
That may be true, but at the same time there are also widespread commonalities within most religious and spiritual traditions. There is no need to bring up the differences here. We can discuss the commonalities as a contrast to a materialist view of the universe and see where the evidence goes. I am quite certain it leads to a spiritual view of what the universe fundamentally is.
I think that the O.P. is more concerned with accusations of materialistic prejudice that are often made of the scientific establishment, and which those of us who defend methodological naturalism often experience here on EvC.
That's what I am seeking to address. Ironically, methodological naturalism has proven the materialist idea of the universe is wrong.
I have the attitude of always looking for natural solutions to mysteries,
What is natural? For me, spiritual principles are just as natural as anything else. They govern and control life just as natural principles do. I think the issue here is not whether one looks to "natural" answers, but whether one realizes that spiritual answers are within the domain of nature and so are really just as real and natural (in one sense) as anything else.
Let's say there is a string of unusual coincidences in one's life that seem highly related. The materialist perspective is they mean nothing, just random coincidences. The natural perspective is they signify some purpose. I would wager most people adopt the natural perspective and not the materialist one, at least to some degree. Although if they don't know the why, they chalk it up to coincidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bluegenes, posted 03-26-2008 1:38 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 03-26-2008 6:02 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 38 (461538)
03-26-2008 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
03-26-2008 12:52 AM


Re: Starting Point
I think they are helpful, but more to the point I am telling you descriptions of what religious traditions think of as spiritual. You are welcome to add your own. Since the idea predates science, please don't expect it to be in a nice tidy form for science. It would be cool if someone can do that, but keep in mind science struggles to even define species in a clear, consistent way.
So let's discuss what the word "spiritual" means and then we can discuss whether there is evidence for it.
This is circular logic: "spiritual" describes things that can be "seen" by "spirits." You can't define a word by using another form of that word in the definition.
It only seems circular to someone predisposed to reject any concept of spirituality. Just as no one can catch a ball with their thoughts alone, they need a body.....so people cannot connect to and relate to spiritual things without their spirit....think of their spirit as a spirit body.....it's how they connect to God and spiritual things.
A lot of things are part of the universe. In fact, everything we know about is part of the universe. This also doesn't distinguish "spiritual" from "physical." Hydrogen is intimately connected to the universe...
Maybe you aren't listening. I am saying the spiritual realm gives rise to the material realm. That's different than merely saying a part of. Btw, one way to think of invisible is having no matter. That's not necessarily what religious traditions have always said since the concept of matter is as well-addressed but it seems like a safe inference.
So, if cosmologists ever find a theory for before T=0^-43, do they have to accept it as "spiritual"?
You missed the point again. I am talking about right nowand all the time and in every space and time. Time is part of space-time......of course, there may be another course of time in the spirit but that's getting ahead of ourselves.
Different, how? I don't think you're actually saying anything with this one.
I think it would be helpful if you tried to answer this......what do people think of when they say "spiritual" and "physical"? Is it so hard to grasp there is a difference here?
So, if no law is broken, then what happens is fully explanable by physical laws--doesn't this make such an occurrence "physical?" What are the rules governing spirits? Without knowing them, how could you distinguish spiritual phenomena from physical phenomena?
The word physical as oppossed to spiritual originated in a time where it's fairly clear what the differences are......physical is in the classic sense....the Newtonian sense.
I think if you define everything that is real as physical or material, then all spiritual laws and God Himself are material, but that's not very helpful. What are the differences and properties that distinquish the concept of physical/material from the concept of spiritual?
That's the question. Answer that and then you can try to distinquish whether material or spiritual principles are at work.
But, if they don't have energy-as-defined-by-physics, how do they have "real-world effects?" In the "real world," energy-as-defined-by-physics seems to be a prerequisite for anything to happen.
Really? What energy is involved that tells one entangled particle, for example, to "collapse" in a certain pattern when it's partner so to speak is observed? The particles are spatially separated with no physical connection between them. By physical, there is nothing obeying physical rules such as the speed of light to connect them. There are physically disconnected but informationally unified.
We could test this notion, in conjunction with your #3 and #4: if any phenomenon were to be found that proceeds without the input of "physical energy," we could therefore attribute it to "spiritual energy," which is fundamentally different, right?
Just gave one example above.
Additionally, if the "spiritual" indeed gives rise to and powers the "material" with non-energy, shouldn't we see natural processes happening in the absence of "real" energy input?
How does a particle know to become more wave-like or particle-like based on what can be known about it?
If the answer is it becomes both (many-worlds), where does the energy to create a new universe each time come from?
On the ideas of what spiritual means from a biblical perspective, one can add more.....things like sowing and reaping. That suggests that there is a connection between conscious thoughts and energy within the universe and direction within the universe and reality.
I think there is some evidence of this, but at the same time, we shouldn't expect science to catch up with the Bible overnite....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2008 12:52 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 38 (461540)
03-26-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jaderis
03-26-2008 2:22 AM


Re: hijacked?
"matter is all there is" mindset
Is there evidence that things exist which are not matter?
And what is matter?
Matter comes from particles, right? Particles are a wave function that exist without matter but have the potential to become and be matter, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jaderis, posted 03-26-2008 2:22 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 03-26-2008 3:49 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 38 (461583)
03-26-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
03-26-2008 8:20 AM


Re: Starting Point
assuming by 'touch on' you mean 'completely describe'.
Why add so many words to straightforward comments from me? No, "touch on" does not mean completely describe. I am not sure anything has ever been completely described, and it's an interesting question whether that's even possible.
If by 'touch on' you mean something like we should find a point of contact between the soul and the brain or something, but the soul is something so different that physics will not be able to describe it, then you've gone back into dualism.
Well, we don't know what physics will be able to detect and describe, but regardless you are leaving out a more likely possibility, and that is some spiritual things may be detected and described to a degree and others not. We may detect the workings of the Logos order within the process of the creation of matter, for example, but not the soul....or perhaps we can one day determine what the soul is from a physics point of view.
You propose that the Biblical concepts of spiritual are not the concepts of spiritual of the dualists
Actually, I think you are confusing the issues with labels here. The dualists of theology would have little problem with what I am saying. In fact, many modern dualists suggest similar things. On the other hand, so does the other side.
The idea the spiritual realm is intertwined and gives rise to the physical realm does not negate the distinction between spiritual and physical.....distinction can be understood as separateness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2008 8:20 AM Modulous has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 38 (461584)
03-26-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
03-26-2008 8:20 AM


Re: Starting Point
and I presume that means you conclude that ultimately God and the soul can be described using sufficient physics and mathematics. That ultimately, there is no 'certain something' no 'type of stuff' which cannot be described thusly.
It's a little more nuanced than that. I think there is cross-over. Take the concept of God in the New Testament. Paul says "In Him, we live and move and have our being" when preaching to the Greeks in the New Testament. So "we" here refers to all people, both saved and unsaved. He's not talking about the in-Christ experience of being born-again, but something more ordinary, our existence stems from the substance of God we live in.
So from that theological perspective, I would expect to be able to detect an aspect of God, as it is the basis for all things coming into and maintaining their existence at all times.
However, even if math or physics could describe the love and intent of God, I would question if it wouldn't be easier and better to describe it in everyday language.....Note: it might though be possible to detect spiritual love as a substance at one point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2008 8:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2008 1:02 PM randman has replied
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2008 1:02 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 38 (461677)
03-27-2008 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
03-26-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Starting Point
We all seem to be a little lost as to what it is exactly that you are proposing should be considered spiritual as opposed to material.
I am saying in seeking to know if there is evidence for spiritual things, you cannot define spiritual as anything you have no evidence for and the opposite, material things, as things you have evidence for. That's an absurdity which completely ignored the descriptive meaning of the terms.
It is incumbent on anyone claiming there is no evidence for spiritual things to consider the descriptive aspect of what those that believe spiritual things exist. In other words, you have to work with the ideas of "spiritual" given by the other side in the debate if you are approaching the debate with intellectual honesty and integrity.
One way to distinquish between the 2 is that physical things generally have matter or matter-like qualities (photons for example) whereas spiritual things are not physical...they lack matter.
In the absence of any human consciousness at all (or alien or any other physical being that can be said to be conscious) do you agree that the physical material world would continue on obeying the laws of physics regardless? Stars would form, galaxies collide, particles exist etc. etc. etc.
Frankly, I don't know and doubt anyone does. Is consciousness a prerequisite for the formation of matter? I think the jury is out on that one, but I suspect based on theological grounds the universe would exist regardless of human beings and consciousness.
Maybe it would be a different universe in many respects though.
Is your idea of spiritual reality therefore dependent on human (or other) consciousness already being in place for it to exist?
No.
Is consciousness at the the heart of what you would call "spiritual" or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick?
No. I think spirituality plays a role in consciousness, and in some respect, it's true consciousness is required but not human consciousness. God's consciousness, imo, is required but that gets off into a theology discussion.
I think the fundamental plane or realm, the fundamental field of the universe, is spiritual and behaves in a manner consistent with the descriptions of spiritual. It has no matter. It acts regardless of space and time (see entanglement), and that matter and physical existence is merely a derived property of an immaterial realm which in spiritual traditions is labelled "spiritual."
The Bible calls this field the Logos. Men of science label it something else.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2008 1:02 PM Straggler has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 38 (461678)
03-27-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
03-26-2008 1:02 PM


Re: monism vs dualism
So, at any point your theology posits something which is not describable using physics, the essence of this sustaining force or whatever, that is a 'spiritual' concept.
Where have stated that?
I don't really follow your point on the rest of your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2008 1:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2008 4:49 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024