Can proving the immortality of the soul also prove the existence of God?

[4Horsemen]

I came across an article by Professor of Philosophy, D.Q. McInerny, in which he uses logic to prove the immortality of the soul. He didn’t take his argument further to use his line of reasoning to prove the existence of God. I was wondering if a connection from the immortality of the soul to the existence of a Creator can be made (outside of St. Thomas’ proofs). I attempted to make a connection in the last part and want to know if it makes sense. It may have been thought out on this forum before, but if anyone has any thoughts, be my guest.

The following reasoning is based on McInerny’s proof in short. First, it is understood that the word “immortal” means that the soul doesn’t die. Death is the separation of soul from body in that the body becomes a corpse, so is not a human being in the ontological sense. Here goes:

1. The soul is a spiritual entity unlike the body. Therefore, it is immaterial.
2. If the soul is immaterial, it is simple having no components and unable to decompose, so it can be considered an integral unit that is subsistent.

(In the second part, McInerny goes forward to prove the immortality of the soul. He interchanges the word “soul” with “mind” with the understanding that the mind is a “power of the soul.”)

1. A basic metaphysical principle is that “the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of it designated cause.”
   [*]The effect of the human mind as the “highest power of the soul” is the power of “ideas.”
   [*]Ideas are completely immaterial or they would be detectable (like sub-atomic particles).
   [*]Immaterial being displays a “higher mode of existence than material being.”
   [*]Therefore, the human soul, as the cause of ideas, must be immaterial (spiritual), or it could not be the cause of an immaterial entity.
   [*]Because the human soul is immaterial, it is simple.
   [*]Because it is simple, it is not composed of parts that can decompose.
   [*]Therefore, it is immortal.
   

Is it possible to progress with the following line of thought?

1. The human mind is capable of producing ideas.
2. Ideas are evidence of the intelligence of an immaterial soul.
3. Therefore, the human mind is immaterial and capable of reason (or intelligent).
4. Because the human mind is immaterial and intelligent, it is also on a higher plane of existence than material or mortal being, so it is also immortal.
5. Since the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause, there is a superior cause for the existence of the human mind.
6. That superior cause must be the ultimate in perfection and the cause of the continued existence of all souls.
7. Therefore, the Superior Cause is immortal and can only be the Creator (First Cause) of all immortal souls.

 

[meltzerboy]

I came across an article by Professor of Philosophy, D.Q. McInerny, in which he uses logic to prove the immortality of the soul. He didn’t take his argument further to use his line of reasoning to prove the existence of God. I was wondering if a connection from the immortality of the soul to the existence of a Creator can be made (outside of St. Thomas’ proofs). I attempted to make a connection in the last part and want to know if it makes sense. It may have been thought out on this forum before, but if anyone has any thoughts, be my guest.

The following reasoning is based on McInerny’s proof in short. First, it is understood that the word “immortal” means that the soul doesn’t die. Death is the separation of soul from body in that the body becomes a corpse, so is not a human being in the ontological sense. Here goes:

1. The soul is a spiritual entity unlike the body. Therefore, it is immaterial.
2. If the soul is immaterial, it is simple having no components and unable to decompose, so it can be considered an integral unit that is subsistent.

(In the second part, McInerny goes forward to prove the immortality of the soul. He interchanges the word “soul” with “mind” with the understanding that the mind is a “power of the soul.”)

1. A basic metaphysical principle is that “the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of it designated cause.”
   [*]The effect of the human mind as the “highest power of the soul” is the power of “ideas.”
   [*]Ideas are completely immaterial or they would be detectable (like sub-atomic particles).
   [*]Immaterial being displays a “higher mode of existence than material being.”
   [*]Therefore, the human soul, as the cause of ideas, must be immaterial (spiritual), or it could not be the cause of an immaterial entity.
   [*]Because the human soul is immaterial, it is simple.
   [*]Because it is simple, it is not composed of parts that can decompose.
   [*]Therefore, it is immortal.
   

Is it possible to progress with the following line of thought?

1. The human mind is capable of producing ideas.
2. Ideas are evidence of the intelligence of an immaterial soul.
3. Therefore, the human mind is immaterial and capable of reason (or intelligent).
4. Because the human mind is immaterial and intelligent, it is also on a higher plane of existence than material or mortal being, so it is also immortal.
5. Since the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause, there is a superior cause for the existence of the human mind.
6. That superior cause must be the ultimate in perfection and the cause of the continued existence of all souls.
7. Therefore, the Superior Cause is immortal and can only be the Creator (First Cause) of all immortal souls.

Is it necessarily true that the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause? Would it not be conceivable to build a computer that is, in a sense, “smarter” than its creator in certain respects, if not in all? Or for an average individual to inspire another, who has a superior mind? Or do these examples differ because they’re not talking about the concept of perfection but rather relative excellence? On the other hand, you are discussing degrees of perfection within different contexts.

 

[4Horsemen]

Is it necessarily true that the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause? Would it not be conceivable to build a computer that is, in a sense, “smarter” than its creator in certain respects, if not in all? Or for an average individual to inspire another, who has a superior mind? Or do these examples differ because they’re not talking about the concept of perfection but rather relative excellence? On the other hand, you are discussing degrees of perfection within different contexts.

What I was attempting to do was use the logic of McInerny and draw his conclusion that the soul is immortal and relate it to God. I wasn’t referring to material objects such as computers, Wii games, spacecraft, etc . . . All I’m concerned about is evidence for the soul and its immortality and the Creator, who in His perfection, contains all the perfection of all the genera. So the point still holds true that the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause. However, if the being of something is finite (computers, human beings, et.al), it must be limited by something other that is its cause which is on a higher level. (I don’t have all the semantics down as yet).

So your point that someone can build a computer so that it is “smarter” than its creator (relatively speaking because it cannot design itself), is not what I meant, but it’s an interesting point to bring up. Your computer thought reminds me of one such entity or being. He goes by the name of Hal. (Maybe you’ve heard of the old movie Space Odyssey 2001. Therefore, regardless of how well computers can perform, they cannot draw moral conclusion. Or if they are programmed to do so, the fact that they are programmed proves the point that an effect cannot transcend its cause. Your example about an average person inspiring another with a superior mind or higher I.Q. reflects back to effect and causes, but here we have the cause having greater inspiration skills (at least at a particular moment) than the higher intelligent effect. As you stated, this is a relative issue.

I’m not sure what you mean that I am discussing “degrees of perfection within different contexts.” I started out with the human mind (soul) which was shown by McInerny to be immortal and just tried to use his form of logical structure to conclude that the Creator of the human mind exceeds the perfection of the mind by being absolutely perfect Himself. A material entity cannot be the cause of an immaterial entity.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate any corrections or ideas…

 

[greylorn]

I came across an article by Professor of Philosophy, D.Q. McInerny, in which he uses logic to prove the immortality of the soul. He didn’t take his argument further to use his line of reasoning to prove the existence of God. I was wondering if a connection from the immortality of the soul to the existence of a Creator can be made (outside of St. Thomas’ proofs). I attempted to make a connection in the last part and want to know if it makes sense. It may have been thought out on this forum before, but if anyone has any thoughts, be my guest.

The following reasoning is based on McInerny’s proof in short. First, it is understood that the word “immortal” means that the soul doesn’t die. Death is the separation of soul from body in that the body becomes a corpse, so is not a human being in the ontological sense. Here goes:

1. The soul is a spiritual entity unlike the body. Therefore, it is immaterial.
2. If the soul is immaterial, it is simple having no components and unable to decompose, so it can be considered an integral unit that is subsistent.

(In the second part, McInerny goes forward to prove the immortality of the soul. He interchanges the word “soul” with “mind” with the understanding that the mind is a “power of the soul.”)

1. A basic metaphysical principle is that “the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of it designated cause.”
   [*]The effect of the human mind as the “highest power of the soul” is the power of “ideas.”
   [*]Ideas are completely immaterial or they would be detectable (like sub-atomic particles).
   [*]Immaterial being displays a “higher mode of existence than material being.”
   [*]Therefore, the human soul, as the cause of ideas, must be immaterial (spiritual), or it could not be the cause of an immaterial entity.
   [*]Because the human soul is immaterial, it is simple.
   [*]Because it is simple, it is not composed of parts that can decompose.
   [*]Therefore, it is immortal.
   

Is it possible to progress with the following line of thought?

1. The human mind is capable of producing ideas.
2. Ideas are evidence of the intelligence of an immaterial soul.
3. Therefore, the human mind is immaterial and capable of reason (or intelligent).
4. Because the human mind is immaterial and intelligent, it is also on a higher plane of existence than material or mortal being, so it is also immortal.
5. Since the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause, there is a superior cause for the existence of the human mind.
6. That superior cause must be the ultimate in perfection and the cause of the continued existence of all souls.
7. Therefore, the Superior Cause is immortal and can only be the Creator (First Cause) of all immortal souls.

I’m sorry to dash your hopes, but that dreadful philosopher needs to take a high school physics course before using physics terminology in a sentence. He is IMO a complete incompetent.

Consider the first two statements you quoted:

1. The soul is a spiritual entity unlike the body. Therefore, it is immaterial.

He makes an assertion based upon religious beliefs and definitions, without basis. That’s not philosophy. It is mindless dogma. He does not even define what spiritual means and does not connect this assertion with his subsequent, “Therefore it is immaterial.”

In other words, there is a gap without reasons or explanations between his first assertion and the conclusion he makes therefrom. Was this “article” just a copy of a paper he’d written in 8th grade, for which he received a C+?

But let’s suppose that he is correct, and that the soul is spiritual and immaterial. He goes on to state:

*2. If the soul is immaterial, it is simple having no components and unable to decompose, so it can be considered an integral unit that is subsistent. *

This is a stupid assertion, derived from abject ignorance of even rudimentary high school physics.

Among the things known to physics which are categorized as “immaterial,” meaning not made of matter, are the following:

• All forms of electromagnetic radiation, thermal energy, microwaves, radio waves, light, x-rays, and gamma rays.
• Electric fields.
• Magnetic fields.
• Gravitational fields.
• The strong and weak nuclear forces which bind the nuclei of atoms.
• Dark energy.

Several of these immaterial forms are known to decompose and transform into other forms as a regular part of how they work and interact with other aspects of the physical universe.

These immaterial manifestations of the physical universe are simple only to cats, dogs, and people who’ve not bothered to study them, most likely because they would be incapable of understanding them.

Cats, dogs, and ignorant people often have the grace not to write articles based upon principles which they cannot comprehend. If only this was so for philosophy perfessers.

This so-called “professor’s” culpability is inexcusable. He does not have a clue as to what the soul is, can do, or cannot do. “Subsistent” is not even a word. If the fool has tenure in some podunk college, may God help the poor students who have to take a course from him. With luck, he’s only a professor at some phony internet university, whose students are only papering over the ignorance they plan to cherish for the rest of their lives.

Any arguments he built upon his incompetently derived premises are worthless, so I did not bother to read them.

If you have quoted this lout with even approximate accuracy, Professor D.Q. McInerny is the poster child for a comment I made in my book, paraphrased here (with permission, of course!)

“This … shows why the study of philosophy has degenerated into, “Beer Drinking 101— How to Identify a Tavern,” for folks struggling to earn a mail order Ph.D.”

 

[4Horsemen]

I’m sorry to dash your hopes, but that dreadful philosopher needs to take a high school physics course before using physics terminology in a sentence. He is IMO a complete incompetent.

Consider the first two statements you quoted:

1. The soul is a spirtual entity unlike the body. Therefore, it is immaterial.

He makes an assertion based upon religious beliefs and definitions, without basis. That’s not philosophy. It is mindless dogma. He does not even define what spiritual means and does not connect this assertion with his subsequent, “Therefore it is immaterial.”

First, thanks for your response.

I should have explained that earlier in the article, he defines the spiritual, immortal soul as that which doesn’t die. The soul is the “life-engendering spirit”, he says. So he does define spiiritual. If something is spiritual, doesn’t it follow that it is immaterial?

But let’s suppose that he is correct, and that the soul is spiritual and immaterial. He goes on to state:

*2. If the soul is immaterial, it is simple having no components and unable to decompose, so it can be considered an integral unit that is subsistent. *

By subsistent is meant that the soul can exist on its own apart from the body. (From your own philosophy you also believe that having read what you stated previously).

Among the things known to physics which are categorized as “immaterial,” meaning not made of matter, are the following:

• All forms of electromagnetic radiation, thermal energy, microwaves, radio waves, light, x-rays, and gamma rays.

• Electric fields.

• Magnetic fields.

• Gravitational fields.

• The strong and weak nuclear forces which bind the nuclei of atoms.

• Dark energy.

Several of these immaterial forms are known to decompose and transform into other forms as a regular part of how they work and interact with other aspects of the physical universe.

Then they are not immaterial if something can decompose. Just considering that a magnetic field is produced by moving electrical charges (check Wikipedia) and the “intrinsic” magnetic field of elementary particles. Sounds material to me.

These immaterial manifestations of the physical universe are simple only to cats, dogs, and people who’ve not bothered to study them, most likely because they would be incapable of understanding them.

Cats, dogs, and ignorant people often have the grace not to write articles based upon principles which they cannot comprehend. If only this was so for philosophy perfessers.

However, the philosophy professor was writing about philosophy not physics. I know the study of philosophy is not really understood and even rejected by modernists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and the whole gamut of Village Idiots. But you, greylorn, say in your signature that you are an “enemy of the enemies of your beliefs.” How so?

This so-called “professor’s” culpability is inexcusable. He does not have a clue as to what the soul is, can do, or cannot do.

Perhaps you haven’t read enough of Professor McInerny’s literature to make such a claim. I find his argument that the highest power of the soul is its signal ability to form ideas evidentially reasonable. And that which is most characteristic about ideas is that they are completely immaterial. So wouldn’t they derive from an immaterial source? Mentioned in the OP is the metaphysical principle that the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause. That’s appears to be true in the physical world as well as in the spiritual. Maybe Professor Greylorn would explain “what the soul is, can do, or cannot do.”

Any arguments he built upon his incompetently derived premises are worthless, so I did not bother to read them.

So you read only the first sentence?

If you have quoted this lout with even approximate accuracy, Professor D.Q. McInerny is the poster child for a comment I made in my book, paraphrased here (with permission, of course!)

“This … shows why the study of philosophy has degenerated into, “Beer Drinking 101— How to Identify a Tavern,” for folks struggling to earn a mail order Ph.D.”

Have a glass of brew and take it easy!

 

[greylorn]

First, thanks for your response.

I should have explained that earlier in the article, he defines the spiritual, immortal soul as that which doesn’t die. The soul is the “life-engendering spirit”, he says. So he does define spiiritual. If something is spiritual, doesn’t it follow that it is immaterial?

Reply 1 of 2
You’re welcome! And my thanks to you for posting something that I can get ornery about.

The definition is inadequate. “Life engendering spirit?” By that definition, cockroaches and mosquitoes have souls. If you actually believe that, what is the point of this conversation?

Defining soul as “that which doesn’t die” is equally insufficient. Energy doesn’t die either. Rocks don’t die. Personally, I happen to believe that the soul (my revised concept of it, of course) can indeed die. I hope so.

Moreover, it is absurd to make the claim that something which has a beginning cannot have an end. You, and presumably the sorry perfesser, both believe that God created the soul. If He created it, He can destroy it.

I honestly do not think that any religions or philosophers have devised a concept of “spirit” which makes sense. Making sense demands consistency with the real universe, because the soul/spirit is believed to operate within this universe.

By subsistent is meant that the soul can exist on its own apart from the body. (From your own philosophy you also believe that having read what you stated previously).

I do believe that the soul can exist independently of the body. However, subsistent is not a word that appears in any dictionary I could find. This turkey is borrowing a fundamentally Cartesian concept. Where no new thinking is involved, no new word is needed, except to make people imagine that he has done some new thinking.

Then they are not immaterial if something can decompose. Just considering that a magnetic field is produced by moving electrical charges (check Wikipedia) and the “intrinsic” magnetic field of elementary particles. Sounds material to me.

The silly perfesser’s definition of “immaterial” seems to be “that which cannot decompose.” You are ill-advised to adopt the same definition. Here is a case where he seems to have invented his own definition of a term which is commonly understood by people smart enough to have taken a high school physics course.

In order to have an honest conversation, perfesser needs to use a different word than “immaterial,” one which isolates his personal definition from that which is commonly held by others.

You might want to learn a little physics yourself before talking about it. It would help your credibility. Matter is stuff like protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. Material means made from matter. Immaterial means not material, not made from matter. This is a clear and simple distinction. Why muck with it?

Wikipedia is great, but to make proper use of it, one must pursue related subjects. Yes, a magnetic field is produced by a moving electric charge. Electric charges are associated with certain particles, lumps of matter. But the field itself is not matter.

A magnetic field is also generated by a changing immaterial electric field (and vice versa),

To say that something is spiritual is meaningless in the context of physics. Therefore to say that if something is spiritual it must be immaterial is also meaningless.

Look at it this way. The vague religious definition of soul was intended to place the soul outside the physical universe. So, there it is, outside, irrelevant, and meaningless. Any proposed relationship between soul/spirit and material/immaterial is impossible, by definition.

You religionists do not get to relate the soul to the real universe until you adopt an understanding of it which allows that. You do not get to have it both ways.

Continued…

 

[greylorn]

However, the philosophy professor was writing about philosophy not physics. I know the study of philosophy is not really understood and even rejected by modernists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and the whole gamut of Village Idiots. But you, greylorn, say in your signature that you are an “enemy of the enemies of your beliefs.” How so?

Reply 2 of 3
Guess what? Perfesser was using physics-related terminology. That means that he was trying to drag his soul concept into the world of physics as if it was some kind of hybrid, half horse, half chicken. Doesn’t work.

About the only thing I agree with the Village Idiots on is their contempt of modern philosophy. (Great term, by the way! May I use it in the book? You know that permission is important for me.)

I am the enemy of the Village Idiots because I disagree with everything they believe, teach, and promote. I believe in a Created Universe. My concept of the Creator is not coincident with your understanding of the nature of God. It is coincident with all known principles of physics, however.

Dawkins, Dennet, and the rest accept no Creator, no intelligence behind the universe, and regard the continuity of human consciousness via an immortal soul as religious bunk. That is not my approach. This may not be readily apparent, since I regard almost the entire body of theological teachings as “religious bunk.” This is distinct from various behavioral teachings such as those of Christ and Confucius, which make considerable sense and are entirely independent of any theology.

Essentially I am a Christian who accepts the moral teachings of Christ, but rejects the theology accepted by various Christian denominations, in favor of one which is consistent with God’s own creation. Theology and religion are not the same thing.

My ideas begin with the acceptance that the old, medieval, ancient beliefs in God, Creation, and soul, were fundamentally correct, but that the properties and motivations which the well-intentioned old boys assigned to God were incorrectly defined. They make no sense in the context of physics. This is hardly surprising, inasmuch as physics was unknown to the ancients.

All I do is redefine the old concepts in terms of classical physics. I also re-examine God’s motivations for creation in the context of competent storytelling, which is the best that one can do.

When evaluating whether I am friend or enemy, look around the world and the state of religious and political affairs. Is the Catholic Church getting stronger, or weaker? Is the violent Muslim religion returning to political ascendancy, or teaching moral values to its members? Is the dominance of atheism in U.S. society affecting the beliefs your children are taught in public schools and universities?

Without me you have two choices— God or atheism. Atheism is winning, big time. I am its only serious enemy, Your beliefs cannot defeat it. My physics-based understandings of God, soul, and the human purpose can.

My insistence upon the correct use of logic and physics in conversations about creation and God carries the argument onto their turf, where the Pope and his theologians cannot competently venture.

continued…

 

[greylorn]

Perhaps you haven’t read enough of Professor McInerny’s literature to make such a claim. I find his argument that the highest power of the soul is its signal ability to form ideas evidentially reasonable. And that which is most characteristic about ideas is that they are completely immaterial. So wouldn’t they derive from an immaterial source? Mentioned in the OP is the metaphysical principle that the perfection of an effect cannot exceed the perfection of its cause. That’s appears to be true in the physical world as well as in the spiritual. Maybe Professor Greylorn would explain “what the soul is, can do, or cannot do.”

I haven’t read any of the perfesser’s literature. Why would I? From what you’ve presented in good faith, he has no imagination, misuses the language, and uses terminology about which he is completely ignorant. I’d learn more by reading a comic book.

You will be pleased to know that the professor “borrowed” his notion of the soul as forming ideas from Descartes.

Yes, that is a property of soul, but not its highest, since it is derived from a more fundamental property. Yes, ideas, or any form of conceptual information, are immaterial. That is exactly how I regard them.

I too assume that they come from an immaterial source, what you would call soul, but which I define as an entity which is strongly interactive with the physical universe.

Please don’t call me “professor.” I have only a B.S. in physics, math, engineering. The good guys I worked for or with who had a Ph.D. or two never called themselves “Doctor” or “Professor” except to list their credentials on their publications. However, everywhere in academia there is a coterie of nitwits who insist upon the use of their title in the most casual of conversations. For example, an astronomer grad student who I knew as “Chuck” and did not have much to do with became “Dr. Lilly” when, in return for being granted an unearned Ph.D., the utter nitwit took over an otherwise unwanted staff position at Goddard Spaceflight Center.

I made it a deliberate point to call him “Dr. Lilly” only when he did something notably stupid, which was too often for his taste. He was so dumb that he didn’t catch on for months, whereupon he invited me to just call him “Chuck,” (short for Chucklehead).

You’ll notice if you look around that really bright and imaginative people like Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose do not add a title to their names, and are referred to in popular scientific literature simply by their given names. My first clue that the writer of something is a pretentious nit is the Ph.D. after his name on the cover.

I’ve explained the soul before, but just for you, once again. It is an uncreated entity which possesses only one useful inherent property, the ability to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with impunity. It is kind of like a “Maxwell’s Demon.” Kind of, in principle. This ability leads to such secondary abilities as the power to acquire consciousness, and to genuinely create, although these properties are rarely manifested in actual human beings.

I understand that that definition may not have been helpful. That’s why the book.

So you read only the first sentence?

The first two presuppositions. He got them wrong, which guarantees that anything derived from them will be worthless. Life is too short to sort through some half-educated philosopher’s garbage pail in search of crumbs. I can grow better food.

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 1 of 2

The definition is inadequate. “Life engendering spirit?” By that definition, cockroaches and mosquitoes have souls. If you actually believe that, what is the point of this conversation?

His use of the “term” spirit disqualifies “cockroaches and mosquitoes.” The rational soul of a human being is superior to the sensory apparatus of any creature.

Defining soul as “that which doesn’t die” is equally insufficient. Energy doesn’t die either. Rocks don’t die. Personally, I happen to believe that the soul (my revised concept of it, of course) can indeed die. I hope so.

Rocks don’t die because they never lived. Energy is operational but can’t be a living thing, so it can’t die. (I recall reading that you hope the soul can die. Why?)

Moreover, it is absurd to make the claim that something which has a beginning cannot have an end. You, and presumably the sorry perfesser, both believe that God created the soul. If He created it, He can destroy it.

But God created the soul to be immortal. Should He change His mind and suddenly decide to destroy it?

I honestly do not think that any religions or philosophers have devised a concept of “spirit” which makes sense. Making sense demands consistency with the real universe, because the soul/spirit is believed to operate within this universe.

We are embodied spirits or souls. It isn’t correct to say that the soul is naturally immortal while the body is mortal. In a human being, there is one nature so the body acts or participates in some way with the soul. So the body is, in a certain sense, immortal. The soul imprints a form of immortality on the body. That’s why it must be resurrected to make us whole again.

I do believe that the soul can exist independently of the body. However, subsistent is not a word that appears in any dictionary I could find. This turkey is borrowing a fundamentally Cartesian concept. Where no new thinking is involved, no new word is needed, except to make people imagine that he has done some new thinking.

I think we discussed this before that the word “subsistent” means the soul cannot die and that it can exist on its own. Check out dictionary.com:

–adjective
1.
subsisting, existing, or continuing in existence.
inherent: subsistent qualities of character.

The silly perfesser’s definition of “immaterial” seems to be “that which cannot decompose.” You are ill-advised to adopt the same definition. Here is a case where he seems to have invented his own definition of a term which is commonly understood by people smart enough to have taken a high school physics course.

Nonetheless, it’s true that ideas are the product of something immaterial because they are immaterial.

In order to have an honest conversation, perfesser needs to use a different word than “immaterial,” one which isolates his personal definition from that which is commonly held by others.

The Professor advances his thought to that which is immortal. If you read #3 - #7, you’ll catch on. (Would the word “spiritual” work for you?)

You might want to learn a little physics yourself before talking about it. It would help your credibility. Matter is stuff like protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. Material means made from matter. Immaterial means not material, not made from matter. This is a clear and simple distinction. Why muck with it?

I understand the difference between material and immaterial and agree with what you said. How am I mucking it up? Besides, this wasn’t meant to be a physics discussion but a metaphysical one. Not a popular topic I guess.

Wikipedia is great, but to make proper use of it, one must pursue related subjects. Yes, a magnetic field is produced by a moving electric charge. Electric charges are associated with certain particles, lumps of matter. But the field itself is not matter.

A magnetic field is also generated by a changing immaterial electric field (and vice versa),

To say that something is spiritual is meaningless in the context of physics. Therefore to say that if something is spiritual it must be immaterial is also meaningless.

To materialists.

Look at it this way. The vague religious definition of soul was intended to place the soul outside the physical universe. So, there it is, outside, irrelevant, and meaningless. Any proposed relationship between soul/spirit and material/immaterial is impossible, by definition.

You religionists do not get to relate the soul to the real universe until you adopt an understanding of it which allows that. You do not get to have it both ways.

Continued…

The soul “outside the physical universe?” My soul is me which is my intellect and free will. My soul isn’t somewhere out in space or in another dimension outside the physical universe.

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 2 of 3
Guess what? Perfesser was using physics-related terminology. That means that he was trying to drag his soul concept into the world of physics as if it was some kind of hybrid, half horse, half chicken. Doesn’t work.

In what way? And so what? Can’t science and philosophy co-exist?

About the only thing I agree with the Village Idiots on is their contempt of modern philosophy. (Great term, by the way! May I use it in the book? You know that permission is important for me.)

Use it all you want! I don’t think I coined something all that creative, and it isn’t trademarked.

I am the enemy of the Village Idiots because I disagree with everything they believe, teach, and promote. I believe in a Created Universe. My concept of the Creator is not coincident with your understanding of the nature of God. It is coincident with all known principles of physics, however.

O.k., so you’re not a materialist. You’re a heterodoxical theist and physicist. But that’s not a religion. Actually, I guess you can call anything a religion nowadays. Tax-exempt too.

Dawkins, Dennet, and the rest accept no Creator, no intelligence behind the universe, and regard the continuity of human consciousness via an immortal soul as religious bunk. That is not my approach. This may not be readily apparent, since I regard almost the entire body of theological teachings as “religious bunk.” This is distinct from various behavioral teachings such as those of Christ and Confucius, which make considerable sense and are entirely independent of any theology.

Why do you leave out the doctrinal teachings and just consider moral truths? Doctrine is the solid foundation of faith. Morality is the mortar that holds it together. (I don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds good. ) IOW, we need both to live a life conformed to the teachings of Jesus Christ. (Confucius is interesting, but he didn’t die for the love of us).

Essentially I am a Christian who accepts the moral teachings of Christ, but rejects the theology accepted by various Christian denominations, in favor of one which is consistent with God’s own creation. Theology and religion are not the same thing.

My ideas begin with the acceptance that the old, medieval, ancient beliefs in God, Creation, and soul, were fundamentally correct, but that the properties and motivations which the well-intentioned old boys assigned to God were incorrectly defined. They make no sense in the context of physics. This is hardly surprising, inasmuch as physics was unknown to the ancients.

The “old, medieval, ancient beliefs in God” were partially true. God’s Revelation sealed what is actually true. Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas – the 4 A’s had a lot to say with much wisdom.

All I do is redefine the old concepts in terms of classical physics. I also re-examine God’s motivations for creation in the context of competent storytelling, which is the best that one can do.

Please produce an example.

When evaluating whether I am friend or enemy, look around the world and the state of religious and political affairs. Is the Catholic Church getting stronger, or weaker? Is the violent Muslim religion returning to political ascendancy, or teaching moral values to its members? Is the dominance of atheism in U.S. society affecting the beliefs your children are taught in public schools and universities?

Without me you have two choices— God or atheism. Atheism is winning, big time. I am its only serious enemy, Your beliefs cannot defeat it. My physics-based understandings of God, soul, and the human purpose can.

My insistence upon the correct use of logic and physics in conversations about creation and God carries the argument onto their turf, where the Pope and his theologians cannot competently venture.

continued…

So we have 3 choices: God, atheism, greylorn. Looking forward to seeing a catechism of greylorn. (So you’re finished with your last chapter of your book?)

 

[4Horsemen]

I haven’t read any of the perfesser’s literature. Why would I? From what you’ve presented in good faith, he has no imagination, misuses the language, and uses terminology about which he is completely ignorant. I’d learn more by reading a comic book.

You will be pleased to know that the professor “borrowed” his notion of the soul as forming ideas from Descartes.

No! He doesn’t view the soul as a separate entity from the body during a lifetime like the “ghost in the machine”. Only at death does God separate the spiritual part of our being from the material. (I know it sounds like two separate entities as Descartes thought). Only God can take the essence of the soul – intellect with its memory and imagination and ability to reason and the will. Since these are immaterial, only the material body (corpse) is left.

Yes, that is a property of soul, but not its highest, since it is derived from a more fundamental property. Yes, ideas, or any form of conceptual information, are immaterial. That is exactly how I regard them.

Looks like we can agree on something.

I too assume that they come from an immaterial source, what you would call soul, but which I define as an entity which is strongly interactive with the physical universe.

Then you consider the soul to be uncreated (as you mentioned before) and hanging out in the universe before it attached to a body. Yet, you hope that the soul has an ending in non-existence. Am I right?

I’ve explained the soul before, but just for you, once again. It is an uncreated entity which possesses only one useful inherent property, the ability to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with impunity. It is kind of like a “Maxwell’s Demon.” Kind of, in principle. This ability leads to such secondary abilities as the power to acquire consciousness, and to genuinely create, although these properties are rarely manifested in actual human beings.

You don’t exactly explain what makes the soul, in your definition, operate and, also, violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (I know we’ve gone around on this before, but your theory is complex. Grab a Catechism of the Catholic Church and a cup of coffee. Of course it doesn’t go into Physics, but it explains doctrine very well).

I understand that that definition may not have been helpful. That’s why the book.

The first two presuppositions. He got them wrong, which guarantees that anything derived from them will be worthless. Life is too short to sort through some half-educated philosopher’s garbage pail in search of crumbs. I can grow better food.

The best food is in God’s garden in which He tends souls and add a virtue to deserving saplings. (Like an old song says we’ve got to get back to the Garden – meaning Eden).

 

[oddball]

Sorry to intrude. Could the soul be the “only
product”,as a consequence in the ability to overcome this 2nd law idea. If thats a go, then maybe the soul relative to man, is the basic ability to comprehend the concept of recognizing , TO BE

Maybe recognition and awareness TO BE, is the raw deal, and then the biology comes along and says, guess what? your going to need to start breathing to be able to continue this little game. Then comes all the other junk. A bigger slice of cake, lots of attention for social security
beer, babes, snoozing, luxury cruz’s, crutch’s.

If thats a go, the life experience in only an idea knowing how it is TO BE on this freaky
planet. So we come in with a clean slate aware of existence TO BE, goof up trying to continue TO BE and are rudely told were no good. TO BE around !

Add to it, any group tells the other there no good TO BE as well. No one is any good TO BE
relative to any fundamental known on the freaky planet, except being good enough TO BE worth taking what does not belong to increase the takers extension of time TO BE

If thats a go, all we’ve got cookin in the kitchen is aware TO BE in chaos

If thats a go, and the individual aware TO BE does not get suckered into stealing time TO BE
he realizes the real self TO BE is more important simply TO BE without being a con-artist.

If thats a go, the integrity and comfort in awareness TO BE, is without trespassing on the
value of TO BE in others. The philosophy in the individual manages the potentiality of
the reality in aware TO BE. The potentiality is the reason for the chaos in the freaky world.

The self may only be the manager of the product called the soul, the awareness TO BE.
The self trys to protect and if the self tries cheating for extra time, the soul looses the understanding TO BE is really TO BE forever .The cheating then directs the soul by suggestion
that the TO BE soul is in existence for material things . Cheating and cheating but only causing
a more, or less QUALITY of awareness TO BE. The end result after the experience leaves the manager self for an extended snooze, and the hopefull quality in quantity of aware TO BE
in good standing , forever or what ever the big snazzy surprise will be.

Thanks sorry for interupting . The oddball club has a rule. Were only allowed to ask questions
and were not allowed to ask one after another like regular dudes. We have to use our noggins.

First post and here’s noggin at you respectful dudes, have a dudeeful day
.

 

[4Horsemen]

Sorry to intrude. Could the soul be the “only
product”,as a consequence in the ability to overcome this 2nd law idea. If thats a go, then maybe the soul relative to man, is the basic ability to comprehend the concept of recognizing , TO BE

Welcome to the forum! You need not feel sorry to add your thinking to our discussion. We welcome everyone, and the rule here is, you can jump in any time.

I think you have it right that the soul comes to recognize itself as the person with intellectual powers and free will. However, we come into the world as babies and learn about the world around us through our senses. IOW, the real understanding should be “I AM, THEREFORE I THINK” unlike Descartes famous pronouncement “I think, therefore I am.” It takes time for a little human to recognize s/he can think.

If thats a go, the life experience in only an idea knowing how it is TO BE on this freaky
planet. So we come in with a clean slate aware of existence TO BE, goof up trying to continue TO BE and are rudely told were no good. TO BE around !

By that bolded part, I’m presuming you mean that we discover we’re sinners? Isn’t it true though? Who “rudely” told us?

Add to it, any group tells the other there no good TO BE as well. No one is any good TO BE
relative to any fundamental known on the freaky planet, except being good enough TO BE worth taking what does not belong to increase the takers extension of time TO BE

If you mean there is no justice in this world, I certainly go along with that. That’s why we look to Justice, itself, in the next world.

If thats a go, all we’ve got cookin in the kitchen is aware TO BE in chaos

If thats a go, and the individual aware TO BE does not get suckered into stealing time TO BE
he realizes the real self TO BE is more important simply TO BE without being a con-artist.

If thats a go, the integrity and comfort in awareness TO BE, is without trespassing on the
value of TO BE in others. The philosophy in the individual manages the potentiality of
the reality in aware TO BE. The potentiality is the reason for the chaos in the freaky world.

Although there is “chaos” in this world, it is through Our Lord, Jesus, who makes things right. Read the four gospels one after the other to get to know Him better. He is the source of healing in this “freaky” world.

The self may only be the manager of the product called the soul, the awareness TO BE.
The self trys to protect and if the self tries cheating for extra time, the soul looses the understanding TO BE is really TO BE forever .The cheating then directs the soul by suggestion
that the TO BE soul is in existence for material things . Cheating and cheating but only causing
a more, or less QUALITY of awareness TO BE. The end result after the experience leaves the manager self for an extended snooze, and the hopefull quality in quantity of aware TO BE
in good standing , forever or what ever the big snazzy surprise will be.

The self is the soul not just the “manager of a product called the soul.” Self includes both soul and body. The soul is the form of the body, and being immortal, imprints immortality on the body so that one day it will be resurrected. So the body is not just animal life but human life due to its immortal soul. It is due to the Fall that our bodies die.

As for what you are saying about how the soul “tries cheating for extra time,” I’m not sure what you mean. One possible way is to steal from others, like taking their organs before they are truly dead. On another plane, I can understand you might mean that some rich take from the poor or governments take unfairly and leave their people without incentive to work and earn a decent living.

Maybe you can add another post and give us more information.

Thanks sorry for interupting . The oddball club has a rule. Were only allowed to ask questions
and were not allowed to ask one after another like regular dudes. We have to use our noggins.

First post and here’s noggin at you respectful dudes, have a dudeeful day
.

Start a new club. Maybe the Ever-Curious Intellectual Club?

 

[greylorn]

His use of the “term” spirit disqualifies “cockroaches and mosquitoes.” The rational soul of a human being is superior to the sensory apparatus of any creature.

Reply 1 of 2 or 3
The perfesser used the specific phrase, life engendering spirit, thereby declaring that the spirit was in some way essential to life.

The problem with reading people like the perfesser is that because they make so little sense, even their fans are forced to ignore some of what they say. This gives them an undeserved credibility. Critical thinkers read and consider all the words of passages which they consider important. You usually do this.

Rocks don’t die because they never lived. Energy is operational but can’t be a living thing, so it can’t die. (I recall reading that you hope the soul can die. Why?)

Because I wish to become personally extinguished upon my body’s demise.

But God created the soul to be immortal. Should He change His mind and suddenly decide to destroy it?

My point was that if God created the soul, He can destroy it. Therefore the soul cannot be immortal. Critical thinking, again.

God Himself can be logically regarded as immortal because He did not create himself and is not thought to have been created by a higher being. Not so for man.

We are embodied spirits or souls. It isn’t correct to say that the soul is naturally immortal while the body is mortal. In a human being, there is one nature so the body acts or participates in some way with the soul. So the body is, in a certain sense, immortal. The soul imprints a form of immortality on the body. That’s why it must be resurrected to make us whole again.

I regard this as a badly confused theory. Not something I care to take responsibility for accepting, and way too confused to even be worth trying to sort out and refute.
Sorry. If its important to you, consider a rewrite.

I think we discussed this before that the word “subsistent” means the soul cannot die and that it can exist on its own. Check out dictionary.com:

–adjective
1.
subsisting, existing, or continuing in existence.
inherent: subsistent qualities of character.

If I can’t find a word in Websters, I treat it as a non-word. Thank you for the definition. How many dictionaries did you have to search to find it?

BTW, the definition from dictionary does not support your personal definition, saying nothing about death.

Moreover, your definition for subsistent (which is not in the CAF dictionary either) conflicts with your previous statement that the soul and body must be combined. Why bother, if the soul can exist on its own?

 

[greylorn]

The Professor advances his thought to that which is immortal. If you read #3 - #7, you’ll catch on. (Would the word “spiritual” work for you?)

Reply 2 of 3 to Post #9
It is logically impossible to advance a thought which never was. I noted that the perf’s first two statements are absurd. If any of his following statements make sense (some do, and are similar to my own conclusions) that is an accident.

Here is a reprint of 3-6 (I missed 7), with comments.

3. Ideas are completely immaterial or they would be detectable (like sub-atomic particles).

They are detectable. We can observe ideas within brain patterns, but, like a mysterious foreign language without a Rosetta-stone equivalent, we cannot decipher the patterns.

Like sub-atomic particles, we can observe their existence with instruments, but cannot expand upon their content or meaning.

However, ideas and all other mental patterns are transmitted telepathically,as anyone who studies the relevant material (or any science, in the perfersser’s case) would know. This means that they are detectable by a suitably engineered detector, such as a brain. The perfesser is evidently too poorly read to know that.

Whenever you pray, your mind generates ideas which you expect to be detected by God.

If I had to guess, it would be that the perfessor read a Gary Zukav book and now imagines that he knows how physics and the soul interact. Nevermind that Zukav doesn’t know squat about that himself.

4. Immaterial being displays a “higher mode of existence than material being.”

And that nonsense is defined how, exactly? Or, who says so?

I would use the word “different” rather than make an unsupported value judgment.
IMO most human brains are superior to the souls connected to them.

5. Therefore, the human soul, as the cause of ideas, must be immaterial (spiritual), or it could not be the cause of an immaterial entity.

The problem here is that the perfesser seems to confuse the words immaterial and spiritual. They are not synonymous. His ignorance is inexcusable. I cannot imagine how you can admire his material while rejecting mine, but there is no accounting for taste. I cannot imagine how my last wife connected with the skunk she found after leaving me, either. (Nor can she, now.) Taste is always a personal thing, involving something which one person does not know and the other is not telling.

*6. Because the human soul is immaterial, it is simple. *

That’s like saying that because the perfesser is inadequately educated, he is simple-minded. Whereas both appear to be true, based upon the material provided, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. In other words, both premise and conclusion are probably true, but they are logically disconnected.

I only use the word spiritual to apply to attitude, as in spiritually-minded. I don’t apply it to any tangible aspect of reality.

I understand the difference between material and immaterial and agree with what you said. How am I mucking it up? Besides, this wasn’t meant to be a physics discussion but a metaphysical one. Not a popular topic I guess.

You sometimes do not make clear distinctions between terms which mean different things. The perf fails the distinction test regularly; with you it is only occasional. When done deliberately, this is known as neurolinguistic programming (NLP), an art mastered by Democrat politicians and smarmy Republicans like John McCain and John Boener. You don’t do it deliberately. The perfesser is not smart enough to do it deliberately, but whatever the motivation, the result is the same: Fuzzy ideas that can not be logically pinned down, Confused concepts represented by vague statements that lack clear meaning, and can always be spun in different directions. The finest NLP I’ve ever read is in the new Catechism of the Church. True mastery of the art, by men who live by it.

Check out the word, metaphysics, and note its root.

Metaphysics and physics are intimately connected, like a hair to its follicle. They are as dependent upon one another as muscle is to bone.

If one is incorrect, so will be the other. For example, modern physics cannot explain atoms, stars, galaxies, or much else beyond our immediate ken. It can manipulate quantum effects but the physics behind them is a complete mystery. That is because its metaphysics consists of Big Bang theory, the silliest physics belief since phlogiston.

 

[greylorn]

The soul “outside the physical universe?” My soul is me which is my intellect and free will. My soul isn’t somewhere out in space or in another dimension outside the physical universe.

Reply 3 of 3 to Post #9

I don’t think that my comment was incompetently worded, but you are not in the habit of misreading, so I’ll assume that I neglected to make my point clear. Retry:

The Church defined God, soul, and all things spiritual to be outside the physical universe. It did that long ago when the universe was the earth, orbited by the sun and planets, contained within a great iron sphere dotted with tiny lights. Then, the Church needed to separate its core concepts (God, soul) from the material world. Perfectly understandable, and reasonable in the context of extreme ignorance.

However, the Church failed to adjust its beliefs in the context of post-Galilean physics, which discovered that the material component of the universe, matter, is only a small percentage of the stuff from which the universe is composed. In effect, it still treats God as being outside the universe, and independent of its physical laws. As I argue in my book, the Church has left us with an incorrect God-concept.

Its detractors figured this out, but instead of taking my approach, which is to modify the God-concept to match scientific reality, it took the exact same approach as the Church does, which is, effectively, as sensible as the country song, “That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!” IOW, they assumed that the Church’s definition of God was the only possible definition. Instead of rethinking the old definition and improving the God-concept, pinheaded detractors discarded the idea of God entirely.

I define an atheist as someone who disbelieves in the wrong god.

So, I’m with you, except for some modification of terms. The term “my soul” is incorrect. You are a soul, and you have a body/brain system to run around the planet and learn stuff with. You, soul, are absolutely stuck in the physical universe, So is God.

But atheists still deal with God as the Church still teaches about Him. That God is by definition non-physical, and whether you like it or not, that means unattached, outside of, and disconnected from the physical universe. Yep, that’s a bizarre concept— but to the best of my knowledge it represents the current dogma of the Church.

If you pursue this argument, please maintain the distinction between “physical” and “material,” Else you will become as muddled in your thinking as those who do not make conceptual distinctions.

My theories hold that God, soul, and all aspects of the universe are intimately interconnected, and ALL are physical, operating within the physical universe.

I’ve not pursued the possibility that God or any soul might be able to exit the matter-energy space that our universe pervades. I cannot even guess as to what any of the important terms in the previous sentence actually mean. At the moment we are not capable of pursuing the concepts represented by these words to the core of their meaning.

 

[CollegeBoi1985]

Reply 3 of 3 to Post #9

I don’t think that my comment was incompetently worded, but you are not in the habit of misreading, so I’ll assume that I neglected to make my point clear. Retry:

However, the Church failed to adjust its beliefs in the context of post-Galilean physics, which discovered that the material component of the universe, matter, is only a small percentage of the stuff from which the universe is composed. In effect, it still treats God as being outside the universe, and independent of its physical laws. As I argue in my book, the Church has left us with an incorrect God-concept.

Its detractors figured this out, but instead of taking my approach, which is to modify the God-concept to match scientific reality, it took the exact same approach as the Church does, which is, effectively, as sensible as the country song, “That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!” IOW, they assumed that the Church’s definition of God was the only possible definition. Instead of rethinking the old definition and improving the God-concept, pinheaded detractors discarded the idea of God entirely.

I define an atheist as someone who disbelieves in the wrong god.

So, I’m with you, except for some modification of terms. The term “my soul” is incorrect. You are a soul, and you have a body/brain system to run around the planet and learn stuff with. You, soul, are absolutely stuck in the physical universe, So is God.

But atheists still deal with God as the Church still teaches about Him. That God is by definition non-physical, and whether you like it or not, that means unattached, outside of, and disconnected from the physical universe. Yep, that’s a bizarre concept— but to the best of my knowledge it represents the current dogma of the Church.

If you pursue this argument, please maintain the distinction between “physical” and “material,” Else you will become as muddled in your thinking as those who do not make conceptual distinctions.

My theories hold that God, soul, and all aspects of the universe are intimately interconnected, and ALL are physical, operating within the physical universe.

I’ve not pursued the possibility that God or any soul might be able to exit the matter-energy space that our universe pervades. I cannot even guess as to what any of the important terms in the previous sentence actually mean. At the moment we are not capable of pursuing the concepts represented by these words to the core of their meaning.

I have to say, your tone and exaggerated sense of self importance and condescension is so off-putting, it is difficult to get past the tone, to the main crux of your reasoning on any of these issues. I begin to suspect that you suffer from some delusional ego inflation with messianic tendencies as you seem to suggest that your philosophy (wait you may start a war of semantics over that term to, perhaps I should include “worldview” “outlook” “thought-process” or a few other synonyms so you don’t have a fit) and yours alone will attempt to rectify the gap between catholicism and physics (if ever there was one). Nevermind two-thousand years of christian thinkers whom have weighed in on these issues and more. No no, us of “little minds” have Greylorn the magnificant to come “set us all aright.”

You have highjacked this thread to push your views in such a harsh way, it seems that any rational discussion has long gone out the window. With those so enmeshed and assured of their highly suspect views, it is ill advised to continue a discussion and I fear would only result in an exercise in futility. I only feel bad for the original poster…and if i was your wife, I’d choose the skunk, or no one, over such a seeming attitude of condescension and radical self-assuredness.

 

[greylorn]

I have to say, your tone and exaggerated sense of self importance and condescension is so off-putting, it is difficult to get past the tone, to the main crux of your reasoning on any of these issues. I begin to suspect that you suffer from some delusional ego inflation with messianic tendencies as you seem to suggest that your philosophy (wait you may start a war of semantics over that term to, perhaps I should include “worldview” “outlook” “thought-process” or a few other synonyms so you don’t have a fit) and yours alone will attempt to rectify the gap between catholicism and physics (if ever there was one). Nevermind two-thousand years of christian thinkers whom have weighed in on these issues and more. No no, us of “little minds” have Greylorn the magnificant to come “set us all aright.”

You have highjacked this thread to push your views in such a harsh way, it seems that any rational discussion has long gone out the window. With those so enmeshed and assured of their highly suspect views, it is ill advised to continue a discussion and I fear would only result in an exercise in futility. I only feel bad for the original poster…and if i was your wife, I’d choose the skunk, or no one, over such a seeming attitude of condescension and radical self-assuredness.

Hijacked? I was the 2nd to reply to 4H’s OP. My conversation has been on point.

Hijacking is when some annoying, ignorant nit shows up on a thread, offering nothing of interest, not contributing to the conversation, simply bellyaching and whining over personality issues, like a simpering teenager.

Hijacking and complaining is about all that fools who are incapable of contributing an original thought can do by way of making their narcissistic little selves feel important.

Don’t you have some comic books to study for an upcoming exam?

 

[greylorn]

In what way? And so what? Can’t science and philosophy co-exist?

Reply 1 of 2 to Post #10

4H—
I’d just spent two hours on a reply to your post and was about to hit “send” when Bubba hit a power pole downline. All lost. This rewrite will be shorter.

Beforehand, if last night’s (this morning’s, actually) reply to Post 9 was excessively ornery, please accept my apologies. My complaints were directed to the perfesser, and not intended to be taken personally by you. (Feel free to forward them to the perfesser, so that he can take them personally.)

The perf used the physics-related term immaterial (not material) and slipped in a reference to detection of particles in atomic physics.

Science and philosophy can co-exist in the same way that scientists and high-school students can. Any decent scientist can philosophize quite competently, but few, if any, philosophers have the ability to contribute to science. Until someone has solved a couple of problems involving integral and differential equations, he is not competent to discuss physics. One who has solved such problems is overqualified to discuss philosophy.

A philosophy Ph.D can be easily obtained for a few thousand bucks to an internet university and a year of casual time. Multiple-choice exams comprise most of the work, plus a trivial paper cobbled together from Wikipedia sources. My brother-in-law has one. It has earned him easily an extra million dollars, with more to come. Smart man!

Looking at the perf’s specious reasoning, I’m guessing that they were classmates.

Use it all you want! I don’t think I coined something all that creative, and it isn’t trademarked.

Then thank you for inventing it. I appreciate a pithy turn of phrase. There is always a good mind behind its invention.

O.k., so you’re not a materialist. You’re a heterodoxical theist and physicist. But that’s not a religion. Actually, I guess you can call anything a religion nowadays. Tax-exempt too.

I am not a physicist, despite a B.S. in physics. I’ve only used physics to develop instrumentation in other scientific areas, astronomy, neurology, biochemistry. The penultimate chapter of my book allows me to declare myself to be a theoretical physicist, but it would be presumptuous to do that, especially when physicists with titles and university chairs are certain to label me a religious nut and science crackpot.

My writings are and will be formally published by a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization designated as a church. Doing this has cost me a Large sum of money. It will not save me any money down the road, because I make my own subsistence living independently of the church, which pays me nothing. I support it. Should anything I write be successful enough to earn money, some of that will be tax-exempt. All earnings will be used to print and market more books, and if it comes to that, the writings of other thinkers looking for theological and scientific compatibility.

Some income may be diverted to hiring an apprentice mechanic who can help me resurrect the church’s 1978 Honda, which needs to have the exhaust system repaired, since I can no longer lean over an engine compartment long enough to remove the exhaust manifold bolts.

Why do you leave out the doctrinal teachings and just consider moral truths? Doctrine is the solid foundation of faith. Morality is the mortar that holds it together. (I don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds good. ) IOW, we need both to live a life conformed to the teachings of Jesus Christ. (Confucius is interesting, but he didn’t die for the love of us).

I trust the moral teachings, and distrust the doctrine. Study some other religions. You’ll find that they have mostly the same moral principles, except for Muslims, whose so-called principles include running bus tires over the arm of a six year old for some religious transgression, and stoning rape victims. Their principles make Mexican drug lords look like angels, IMO.

Among reputable religions, there is no relationship between moral principles and doctrine. I once visited Thailand and stayed with a family of Buddhists. We discussed theological ideas openly and without rancor, over dinners laden with the elegantly prepared corpses of freshly killed animals (despite the fact that Buddhist doctrine forbids the killing of animals). We could do this because they shared the same moral values as mine.

Moral values among people are as universal as the ability to count. They need no doctrine. Doctrines are more commonly used to support immoral values, such as those of modern Islamists, or the Inquisitors, than to support moral values.

Honest moral values don’t require a doctrine. They only require common sense. It does not take a rocket scientist or guru to realize that if you don’t want someone to steal your goods and sleep with your wife, keep your hands off his property and your eyes away from his wife.

The “old, medieval, ancient beliefs in God” were partially true. God’s Revelation sealed what is actually true. Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas – the 4 A’s had a lot to say with much wisdom.

I have my own term for the four A’s. It rhymes with something found in donuts. Between the 4, they set theology, philosophy, and science back at least two millennia.

Please produce an example.

As one of the few to whom I’ve entrusted my website URL, you have plenty available to you.

 

[greylorn]

So we have 3 choices: God, atheism, greylorn. Looking forward to seeing a catechism of greylorn. (So you’re finished with your last chapter of your book?)

I’d put it otherwise. Since greylorn and God are pals, sort of, the distinction between them is a bit too complex to explain easily.

Try these choices: Conventional theology, atheism, and greylorn.

Remember that greylorn’s ideas are isolated and have so far found the approval of only one person. Should they escape that state, they will be tempered by sissies who find them too extreme, much as Christ’s original tough teachings (I come not to bring peace, but the sword) have been made palatable to the shmoo masses. It’ll work out.

Incidentally, during the power outage I read Chapter 9 of a book, Insights for the Age of Aquarius, by Gina Cerminara (I think she has a Ph.D-- but no matter, she is truly a brilliant, insightful philosopher.) The book is about religion. She handles the topic with more insight than I could learn in a dozen lifetimes. Unlike the perf, her logic is nearly impeccable. Through Chapter 9 I’ve found only one statement with which I disagree. Plus, she’s easy to read, entertaining and well organized.

I strongly recommend this book to you, personally. Chapter 9 stands on its own. Her gentle, but straight-up style of writing is akin to yours. Unlike my writings, she gives no offense but offers the opportunity to expand your understanding and acceptance of your own beliefs.

If you do not find her book to be as I’ve described it, I’ll buy it back from you at twice what you paid for it.

Finally, you have the first 8 sections of greylorn’s “catechism” right under your fingertips. No need to wait for the book unless you want its conclusions.

I finished the last chapter last week. It and the penultimate chapter are awaiting the services of my editor, who had a rough July, either having a lot of fun or taking care of sick friends and family, or both. When she finishes her critique, I’ll rewrite and resubmit for a final approval. In the meantime I’ll be doing grunt work, getting the material ready for my printer (no agent or publisher would touch it with a bomb-squad robot).

I’m curious as to why you would care, although it is none of my business.