Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 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 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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 38 (461495)
03-25-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
03-25-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Starting Point
What do people mean when they contrast spiritual with material?
Changing things slightly to physicalism makes it clearer: physicalism is concerned essentially with that which can be described by physics. Ideas of entities that have an affect on things, but are not themselves describable or detectable through physics, could be considered 'spiritual' and not physical.
Thus, a soul is a spiritual concept but that the mind is the result of the workings of the brain is a physicalist concept. The latter posits entities that are describable in principle by physics, the former posits at least one entity that is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 03-25-2008 5:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 03-25-2008 10:10 PM Modulous 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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 38 (461514)
03-25-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
03-25-2008 10:10 PM


Re: Starting Point
I disagree. Physics could deal with and imo, does deal with, immaterial existence and things.
Yes, for certain understandings of material, physics describes the immaterial.
That is why I used the term 'physicalist', which includes all the things you call 'immaterial' that physics can in describe. This is contrary to ideas that are both 'immaterial' by your meaning and non-describable by physics. These latter ideas are more akin to the 'spiritual' or 'idealistic' or 'supernatural' that we refer to.
The bottom line, if your idea can in principle be described by physics, it is physicalist and not spiritual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 03-25-2008 10:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 1:42 AM Modulous has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 38 (461534)
03-26-2008 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
03-25-2008 3:14 PM


Re: Starting Point
I'd like to show why none of these ideas you brought up is in anyway helpful for someone trying to resolve the dividing line between "spiritual" and "material."
randman writes:
1. Spiritual things are generally invisible, at least most of the time. That's not an absolute statement but invisible to people.
"Invisible" does not apply exclusively to things that are "spiritual," so this is insufficient.
randman writes:
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.
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.
randman writes:
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.
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...
randman writes:
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.
So, if cosmologists ever find a theory for before T=0^-43, do they have to accept it as "spiritual"?
randman writes:
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.
Different, how? I don't think you're actually saying anything with this one.
randman writes:
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.
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?
Is this saying that, anytime something improbable happens (even if it is well within the range of error of physical laws), it was because of something "spiritual?" Flipping "tails" seven times in a row is then a spiritual experience?
randman writes:
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.
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.
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? 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?
randman writes:
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.
Translation: order in the universe arises from spirituality? See #7.
------
I think my conclusion from all of this is that nothing has really been defined by this post, and we still don't know what should be considered "spiritual" and "material." I'm a little confused by this, because, as a Christian, I'd like to know more about spiritual stuff, but nobody will define it.
Given the vacuous definition of "spiritual," I don't think it's fair to expect scientists (who thrive completely on "definitions") to incorporate this concept into their studies. How is it such a big wonder that scientists don't want to study something that they can't see, that follows rules nobody seems to know, doesn't statistically conflict with physical laws, and doesn't have any energy that we can recognize as such (despite it's being an intimate, integral part of the universe)? Maybe we are just being too close-minded and prejudiced against such things?
Why can't theists just let us first deal with things we actually have a change of figuring out?

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 03-25-2008 3:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 2:16 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 21 of 38 (461535)
03-26-2008 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
03-25-2008 5:55 PM


randman writes:
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.
Yes, but I'm pointing out that there are inherent problems with that.
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.
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.
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.
I see what you mean, but my point is that people like yourself "and others that accept there is a spiritual world" won't just fail to agree on details, you'll fail to agree on the definition of spiritual. There's an underlying reason for this inevitable widespread disagreement on matters spiritual and religious.
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.
I have the attitude of always looking for natural solutions to mysteries, and I could argue that everyone shares that attitude most of the time. If we see a mysterious damp patch on the floor, we tend to think of explanations like a leaking roof, or someone spilt something, or whatever, and not of acts of God, or that a poltergeist might be pissing there at night, or some other non-material explanation. This appears to be common sense, and the attitude certainly works to solve problems.
I see science as just being a systematic extension to this common sense pragmatism, and therefore would argue that there's no irrational "materialistic prejudice" involved. What could be described as "materialistic prejudice" is itself evidence based. All the useful explanations for natural phenomena so far have been natural, so a tendency to look for natural explanations for things that have not yet been explained is...err...perfectly natural, and unbiased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 03-25-2008 5:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 1:54 AM bluegenes 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

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 25 of 38 (461539)
03-26-2008 2:22 AM


hijacked?
While I can see that the discussion that has progressed thus far has a slight relevance to my OP, I would like to see it have it's own thread.
My OP concerns Beretta's assertion that people who accept evolution approach it with a "matter is all there is" mindset and that they are, therefore, prejudiced. The definitions of "spiritual" vs. "material" aren't really relevant here, especially as I would like to see some answers and the discussion as is, while potentially interesting, doesn't seem conducive to that end.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 2:37 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 03-26-2008 4:41 AM Jaderis 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

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 27 of 38 (461542)
03-26-2008 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
03-26-2008 2:37 AM


Re: hijacked?
I don't feel like arguing this with you randman. Please take it to a new thread and maybe Beretta will tell you what he meant by that statement as it was his, not mine.
My topic has to do with the evidence for evolution and whether or not all those who accept it have some sort of materialist bias.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 2:37 AM randman has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 28 of 38 (461543)
03-26-2008 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jaderis
03-26-2008 2:22 AM


Re: hijacked?
Jaderis writes:
My OP concerns Beretta's assertion that people who accept evolution approach it with a "matter is all there is" mindset and that they are, therefore, prejudiced.
I swung round to your topic in the last section of my last post. I think we do have slight terminology problems if people like Beretta use the word "materialist" where many of us might prefer "naturalist".
For example, from Wiki:
quote:
Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of matter to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined.
Materialism - Wikipedia
Beretta is concerned about the apparent exclusion of his God from science, of course. The answer to such people is that science does not exclude Gods or Goddesses or anything else as possibilities, it merely looks for natural causes for natural phenomena because that's all it has ever found, and all that has ever proved useful. So, the increasingly dominant position of methodological naturalism in the modern world is due to observation and past experience, not to any philosophical bias.
Bluejay, a participant in this thread and a professional practitioner of methodological naturalism who is also a believing Christian, might be a good person to explain to the Berettas of this world that one does not need to be a metaphysical naturalist to be a methodological naturalist.
I've already tried to explain that to him on the thread that inspired this one, but I don't think he has replied yet.
What we might see illustrated on this thread is that believers in specific Gods will not accept the Gods of others. The Berettas and Randmans of this world will not agree with the Bluejays, and probably not with each other.
This discord could be explained if the many Gods believed in only exist in the heads of the individual believers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jaderis, posted 03-26-2008 2:22 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 29 of 38 (461550)
03-26-2008 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
03-26-2008 1:54 AM


Re: inherent problems?
randman writes:
What is natural?
Dictionary.com gives no less than 38 definitions! As we're discussing the spiritual, I'm using something akin to definition No. 8: "having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc."
For me, spiritual principles are just as natural as anything else.
Then there should be evidence that they exist outside your head, and I'm sure that you claim that there is.
They govern and control life just as natural principles do.
You're contradicting yourself with the way you use natural in that sentence.
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.
The quotes and the bracketed phrase sort of take away the contradiction. You may want ghosts and Allah to be described as natural phenomena, but conventional English language, which we should be using here, goes against you, and describes such things as supernatural. Some claim that such things cannot be studied by science, but I tend to the view (which you probably share) that they could be studied by science if there were any evidence for them.
Where I expect we differ is that I don't think there is any evidence for them at this point in time but you presumably do.
Which brings us neatly around to the topic. Do you agree with the claim that "mainstream science", which practises methodological naturalism, is operating a philosophical bias? If so, why, and what evidence is it ignoring?
Ironically, methodological naturalism has proven the materialist idea of the universe is wrong.
That would mean that Beretta is wrong in his view of methodological naturalists having a materialist bias, wouldn't it?
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.
The materialistic perspective and the naturalistic perspective are the same. Coincidences are coincidences by definition, and they happen in nature, and can be expected. In the sentence "the natural perspective is they signify some purpose", you are using the phrase "natural perspective" to mean something like "superstitious perspective".
If you start to use the word "natural" for things magical or supernatural or spiritual, all you are doing is starting to invent your own language. That doesn't help if you're trying to define terms for the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 1:54 AM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 38 (461559)
03-26-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by randman
03-26-2008 1:42 AM


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.
Then the Bible is, according your interpretation, is not dualist but monist - assuming by 'touch on' you mean 'completely describe'. 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.
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.
As a monist, obviously it is my position that dualism is false and illusory. If you are also a monist, then that is great - you aren't a dualist - I've often thought of you as a sort of neutral monist anyway. The concepts of 'spiritual' and 'soul-stuff' and the like are insisted (by dualists) to be different or separate from the world we can describe using physics. That this claim is barely coherent is not my problem fortunately, and maybe it isn't yours.
You propose that the Biblical concepts of spiritual are not the concepts of spiritual of the dualists, 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 1:42 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 12:33 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 32 by randman, posted 03-26-2008 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024