T
tonyrey
Guest
Teleology is non-material - unless you regard intelligence as material.
Teleonomy is material - unless you regard biology as non-material.
What is your view?
- Status
Teleonomy is material - unless you regard biology as non-material.
What is your view?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
**
Then your “made in the image of God” is irrelevant. Evolution is part of biology and describes the formation of the physical human body. If our resemblance to God is spiritual, rather than physical, then that resemblance has no impact of the development of our physical bodies.**
Spoken like a true materialist. Is Buddhism also completely materialistic?
We are made in God’s image to the extent that God gives us a mind and a will. Like god, we can create. Like God, we can destroy. Like God we can plan and devise. Like God we can know the difference between good and evil. Like God we can reward good and punish evil. Like God Where we are unlike God is that we were made not to be perfect, as God is perfect, yet to aspire to the goodness of God as much as we are able.
Atheism wants us to die and be food for the worms. So much for atheism.
**
Then your “made in the image of God” is irrelevant. Evolution is part of biology and describes the formation of the physical human body. If our resemblance to God is spiritual, rather than physical, then that resemblance has no impact of the development of our physical bodies.**
Spoken like a true materialist. Is Buddhism also completely materialistic?
We are made in God’s image to the extent that God gives us a mind and a will. Like god, we can create. Like God, we can destroy. Like God we can plan and devise. Like God we can know the difference between good and evil. Like God we can reward good and punish evil. Like God Where we are unlike God is that we were made not to be perfect, as God is perfect, yet to aspire to the goodness of God as much as we are able.
Atheism wants us to die and be food for the worms. So much for atheism.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
The assumption in your argument is that current scientific instrumentation is the absolute measure of reason.
This ignores two plainly evident facts: a) technological advances are constantly increasing our ability to penetrate the deeper mysteries of the universe, and b) scientific instruments themselves are the product of human invention and are thus constrained by human knowledge, which is in turn constrained by human perception.
To a man who speaks no other language, the speech of a foreigner will sound like gibberish. Just because the workings of the quantum world are beyond our comprehension does not imply that they have no underlying structure.
Until one learns the syntax, grammar and vocabulary of a new language, it will remain mysterious and impenetrable. But just as we can observe two people speaking another language and deduce from their body language and actions that the sounds they’re making carry meaning, so can we reasonably deduce from the structure that emerges from quantum activity that it is itself fundamentally rational.
I also reject your conclusion that if could directly observe quantum phenomena, our idea of what is reasonable would be different. It would be more expansive. Understanding of quantum mechanics would not negate the mechanics of the observable universe any more than understanding the workings of an engine negate the workings of an axle.
R
rossum
Guest
Intelligence may contain a material element, as it does in humans, or it may not, as it does in gods.
Biology is material.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
No. Gods, kinnaras etc. are non-material.
Animals can create a honeycomb or a nest.
Animals can destroy, an elephant can trample a termite’s nest.
Animals can plan and devise. Squirrels store food for later.
Chimpanzees do the same, as do most pack animals.
How is this relevant to me?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
No. Reason was developed a long time before modern scientific instrumentation. That is why the two can sometimes come into conflict. The actual world is not subject to reason; the model of the world we build inside our heads is.
It is important to realise that our internal model is not an exact match with the external world. Mistaking one for the other is a source of error.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is your turn to answer my questions:
- Why do you insist on trying to detach spiritual development from physical development as if we consist of two disparate entities? (Your view is reminiscent of the “Ghost in the Machine” theory. )
- Do you believe there is no interaction between the body and the spirit?
- Are they related at all? If so how? By sheer chance?
- Are they parallel entities which proceed merrily on their way as if the other doesn’t exist?
- When you make a decision is the body responsible? If so how?
- Is the body entirely purposeless?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
** The actual world is not subject to reason; the model of the world we build inside our heads is.**
The actual world must be subject to reason or we could not reason about it.
“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein
** The actual world is not subject to reason; the model of the world we build inside our heads is.**
The actual world must be subject to reason or we could not reason about it.
“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein
A
Aloysium
Guest
You are coming on a bit strongly in your views, which I must admit, I do not understand.
A few questions here to clarify things:
how does one know the actual world is not subject to reason?
if the actual world is not subject to reason, how is the reason inside our heads not nonsense?
if the internal model is not an exact match with the external, doesn’t that make it wrong?
how do you know you haven’t got it backwards and that you are not in error?
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
To further this debate, I’d like to take a step back and review your previous post again:
Now, here you have created a false distinction between reason and unreason by claiming that because the logical principles of one stratum of reality don’t uniformly correspond to its substratum, only one at a time can be perceived as reasonable. This is a completely unwarranted conclusion. We see gradations in physical laws all throughout nature, such as in the behavior of different forms of matter. We just have a better understanding of the properties of those things than we do the quantum world.
Returning to your other post, I think we are making the error of conflating reason with rationality. With that thought in mind, I propose that it is not that quantum reality is necessarily unreasonable, but that, more probably, our powers of reason are not yet sufficient to understand its rationale.
To wit, while it is obvious to anyone at all familiar with modern science that our perceptions are merely a model of the actual world, the fact remains that a careful analysis of our perceptions by and large paint a consistent and rational picture of that world. So far as we can tell, nothing (barring miracles) interrupts or disturbs its regular function. Thus we can at least safely suppose that whatever it is that escapes either our perception or our scientific aids is functioning in some coherent manner. The fact that some of the properties and laws of that mysterious layer of reality defy both our intuition and understanding does not mean that they are unreasonable. It simply means we lack the intelligence to understand its logic.
As God said through Isaiah, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
R
rossum
Guest
I do not. We consist of parts; some parts are material while other parts are non-material. Spiritual development involves both types of part.
What do you mean by spirit? In Buddhist terms, does your “spirit” equate to vedanā, samjñā, samskāra or vijñāna? There is interaction between the material and non-material parts of a human being.
They are related by cause and effect.
No, they are interrelated. It is a mistake to think of them as permanent entities; all entities are impermanent hence their interrelations are also impermanent.
Your question is meaningless. Any “you” is more than a body.
Each human being sets their own purposes. There is no reified Purpose floating around out there somewhere independent of anything else.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
We do not reason about the actual world because we have no direct knowledge of the actual world. Our senses are imperfect and so we only have an imperfect picture of the actual world. We build our internal models on the basis of our imperfect senses. Our models are reasonable, but they are not the real world. They are models.
Consider observing a horse. Light is reflected from the horse into our eyes. Our eyes convert some, but not all, of the light into electrical impulses in our optic nerves. Our brain receives a pattern of electrical impulses and matches that pattern to other patterns already stored. When it finds a match it recognises “a horse”.
Our internal model is a pattern of electrical impulses, it is not an actual horse. Our internal model differs from the real object outside our mind.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Quantum mechanics. A single particle can be in many places at once. A single object can be both a particle and a wave simultaneously. Events may happen without a cause.
The reason inside our heads is a pretty good (“reasonably good”!) approximation of external reality. It is a good enough approximation to allow us to function well in the world as it is.
In the sense that all approximations are wrong. It is right in that is is a close enough approximation to allow us to function.
Because I know my senses are imperfect. Can you smell reality as well as a dog? Then your model must be deficient in smell. Can you see reality as well as an eagle? Then your model must be deficient in vision.
Our visual model is better than the visual model of a mole, but less good than the visual model of an eagle. The external reality is the same for a mole, ourselves and an eagle.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
You are correct. The error I am trying to point out is to apply reason appropriate to one level to another level. In the macroscopic world something cannot be in two places at once. In quantum mechanics that is perfectly possible. Applying the wrong set of rules will lead to error.
Correct. We paint an internal picture of the world, what I call a “model”. A picture is not the same as the subject of the picture. Similarly our model of the world is not the world.
Our models are a good approximation because evolution will weed out any models that are less good an approximation. A model which says, “That large hungry tiger is not dangerous to me,” will tend to be eliminated by natural selection.
Relating that to the subject of this thread (we are a long way from the original topic here) it accounts for the prevalence of, “it looks designed to me,” in the biological design argument. Our internal models are designed, designed by ourselves. If we mistake those designed internal models for the external reality then external reality also looks designed. The error is in mistaking the model for the real thing, and assigning the properties of the model to the real thing.
People can create models/pictures of God. Those models/pictures are obviously designed, but they do not mean that God is designed.
Does this:
mean that God was designed?
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
Our internal model is a pattern of electrical impulses, it is not an actual horse. Our internal model differs from the real object outside our mind.
This is to beg the obvious.
But as Thomas Aquinas said:
“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.”
“Nothing enters the intellect that was not first in the senses.”
**Each human being sets their own purposes. **
This really doesn’t make any sense. You cannot set your own purpose. You can set your own goals, but goals are not purposes. The hammer does not get to set its purpose. Its purpose is set by the person who created it.
There is no reified Purpose floating around out there somewhere independent of anything else.
And you believe this only because you want to believe it, not because you know for a fact it is true. There is nothing in science or philosophy that strongly argues a purposeless universe. When you affirm something as a fact, don’t you want to offer evidence?
Our internal model is a pattern of electrical impulses, it is not an actual horse. Our internal model differs from the real object outside our mind.
This is to beg the obvious.
But as Thomas Aquinas said:
“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.”
“Nothing enters the intellect that was not first in the senses.”
**Each human being sets their own purposes. **
This really doesn’t make any sense. You cannot set your own purpose. You can set your own goals, but goals are not purposes. The hammer does not get to set its purpose. Its purpose is set by the person who created it.
There is no reified Purpose floating around out there somewhere independent of anything else.
And you believe this only because you want to believe it, not because you know for a fact it is true. There is nothing in science or philosophy that strongly argues a purposeless universe. When you affirm something as a fact, don’t you want to offer evidence?
N
ngill09
Guest
Actually, it’s not the creator of the hammer that decides its purpose, it is the person who owns and controls the hammer. We own and control ourselves - our own bodies and minds, therefore we set our own purposes.
A
Aloysium
Guest
to:
just because it does not make sense to someone does not mean that it is not how it is;
these are ways in which nature behaves
about your statement that events may happen without a cause,
I would assert that they do, but you are unaware of what that cause is
you respond:
there is a structure/something our reason can understand - and that is, as you say, “Quantum mechanics”
just because it does not make sense to someone does not mean that it is not how it is;
these are ways in which nature behaves
about your statement that events may happen without a cause,
I would assert that they do, but you are unaware of what that cause is
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
A distinction is due: There is, first, intrinsic purpose. The dimensions, density, and other properties of a hammer are as such precisely because its creator had a specific purpose in mind. Ergo, this purpose is intrinsic to the hammer. Without this purpose, the hammer would not exist. Then there are extrinsic purposes. These are ends towards which a thing may be directed after the fact of its creation.
The question is whether the universe and, consequently, human beings have a creator and thus an intrinsic purpose, above and beyond our individual whims.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
**
Actually, it’s not the creator of the hammer that decides its purpose, it is the person who owns and controls the hammer. We own and control ourselves - our own bodies and minds, therefore we set our own purposes. **
You just don’t get it. The person who owns and controls only gets to set goals for the use of the hammer. Its the creator of the hammer who decides its purpose … pounding.
**
Actually, it’s not the creator of the hammer that decides its purpose, it is the person who owns and controls the hammer. We own and control ourselves - our own bodies and minds, therefore we set our own purposes. **
You just don’t get it. The person who owns and controls only gets to set goals for the use of the hammer. Its the creator of the hammer who decides its purpose … pounding.
- Status