E
eggsbenedict
Guest
You can believe whatever you want to be leave. That’s your choice. I highly doubt that a Good God would deny you access to heaven, simply because you believed animals have souls.
- Status
G
greylorn
Guest
I’d like to apply for a job as your mechanic. I’ve rebuilt a few engines, transmissions, etc., and I can also change oil and replace plugs. I have my own tools. Please give me this job.
Next time you bring your car in to me for repairs, I will completely tune up and repair its “animating principle” at my normal hourly rates.
If you kindly recommend my services to other Catholic friends, I will mention you as reference when I give them my bill for realigning their car’s “substantial form.”
S
severus68
Guest
Well said eggsbenedict!
K
kk23wong
Guest
Partially Agree, but plants do not have souls.
Plants are living organisms inside a planet. Sunlight comes, plants transform it to the power of Birth. The only arrival from the space into a planet is “light”. Temperature is inside ones’ own bodies. The planets are living things.
To be more specific, sunlight is the power of birth. The power of God come with Birth. Good and Evil are built inside, so are we. They come from birth. Light is the origin of the power from the God.
Soul exists if Love is in your heart. Heart is not a heart in physical, but in your minds.
Plants are not concious. Natural mechanisms (similar to the Life cycles inside a planet) make it towards light. It survives without Love, but not animals.
Only Love can do, only love will do.
Supplementary Notes:
(1) The Power of God come from Birth. Silent may like Cancer grows.
(2) The validity of psychological therapies is being doubted. They may know one of the punishments by God.
(3) Temperature can be measured with a living thing.
A
Areopagite
Guest
Yeah, I know what you’re saying. The problem is that “animation” is a thing that’s been redefined as of late. Animation really just means “a thing that can move” or something, but that’s not how the ancients or medievals used it.
It’s also true that a car has a substantial form but (I think we can agree) that it does not have a** living **substantial form. It is not alive. Right?
So, the crux of the argument, in this case, is how do you define life (which is what, I think, the original meaning of “anima” was getting at)?
Well, Aristotle and Aquinas (and I think even modern scientists would even agree … maybe?) said that life had three characteristics:
- It reproduces itself.
- It grows.
- It eats.
Does that clarify things?
K
kk23wong
Guest
- It turns on.
- It turns off.
- It is dark.
- It turns off.
- It turns on.
- It is bright.
Lives are in different levels.
Open your eyes, free your minds.
We have Evoluntion proved by science. Now you have another one.
Soul is something else.
Love in heart, soul exists.
Quotations are tools. Minds use the tools.
Power of thinking will bring you to the front of God.
Plants are not concious.
Thanks.
G
greylorn
Guest
No.
Let’s suppose that we are discussing ideas in the context of current understanding, rather than the opinions of long dead ancients who did not know much. The “animating principle” they spoke of is as relevant to a 21st century discussion as is “phlogiston” in a modern physics course. Aristotle got everything about reality wrong, and his follower Aquinas contributed nothing of value to the subject of physics and how it might apply to life.
Chances are that if you could visit the past and give Aquinas a ride in your Ford, the next day he’d be explaining its apparent life in terms of his good old “animating principle.”
Vague, mystical notions are unnecessary to explain life. Our bodies are composed of many little molecular machines, including motors. We are just learning how they work, and when we have that figured out we will be able to design and build our own. The animating principles behind these machines are explained in microbiology books. They are entirely biochemical.
About a century ago Jules Verne wrote a far-fetched story about going to the moon, and within a few decades, there we went. The days of real Terminators, intelligent but soul-less machines capable of replicating and improving themselves, in factories instead of wombs, are coming within the expected lifetime of my grandchildren.
All components of plants and animals, and their activity, can be explained in the context of microbiology. Only one component of a human being does not fit into current scientific understanding or potential understanding, and religionists seem determined to keep it out of the hands of scientific purview or intelligent scrutiny forever.
I have no respect for anyone who claims to believe in a created universe, and who is determined to keep ideas about the Creator and his creations as far back in the dark ages as possible, as most posters to this site and thread seem determined to do.
A
Areopagite
Guest
I know it’s tempting to dismiss ideas of “long dead ancients” because they got several things wrong. The fact is, though, they got some things right. And I think at the end of the day, you would have to concede that. Many of them believed in evolution, for example. Would you take issue with logic too? Logic was developed by these long dead ancients, thus laying the groundwork for organized sciences. Rather than condemning ideas just because they were held by long dead people or by people who got some ideas wrong, one should actually address specific ideas. Just because I believe one wrong thing doesn’t mean all my ideas are wrong.
Aristotle got everything about reality wrong? What? Have you any idea how much Aristotle contributed to the scientific process? I’ll give you a clue … everything. He practically invented it. If it wasn’t for Aristotle, science would be nowhere right now. Aristotle’s writings were practically the ones to bring the world out of the dark ages. I take it, though, you’re using hyperbole … but still. Come on. Study your history. Most atheists would even concede this point (in fact, many intellectual atheists love Aristotle).
It may be true that Aquinas contributed little to physics … but that’s okay in my book. He did a lot of other great things in metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, christology, logic, ontology, etc. Things that are ultimately more important than physics.
Nope. That’s not true. Aquinas and Aristotle very clearly stated that life requires reproduction, growth, and nutrition. Just because they would see something move does mean it had a soul (they weren’t “animists”). The medievals at this time also had clocks and other surprisingly complex gadgets like that. But they didn’t think these things were alive … or had the animating principle that life had. They saw how the wind blew, and the rivers flowed, but, my goodness, they didn’t think those things had souls. Once again (and I am open to correction here) the use of the word “animation” had to do with soul and not merely mechanical motion.
You know, maybe to drive home your point here would be to create life from inorganic material and not from pre-existing organic material. Then you might have a point. But until that happens, the claim of life merely being machinery is not going to be convincing. Sure biological functions operate much like machines … but are they just machines? It has yet to be proved.
You have no respect for anyone who claims to believe in a created universe … wow, that’s a lot of people. Most scientists in history then would not gain your respect.
Hey, you might be right … every word. But much of what you say have not had proofs attached to them. In fact, most of them might even be unprovable/unknowable. So, until we see the demonstrable arguments, there is no reason for us to accept what you’re saying. There is no reason to get offended either. It would be unscientific of us to accept these things without proofs, right?
And lastly, what exactly is it about Aristotle’s metaphysics (screw his physics obviously) that you take issue with that you think is impeding scientific progress? Why are they necessarily in contradiction?
K
kk23wong
Guest
A scientific minds will bring you to the front of the God. Truth is always.
Expansion and Contraction, like a life cycle. Collisions of planets need proofs.
My heart will not collide with my tongue. My tongue is true-hearted.
Sciences need proofs. Existence does not.
The God will not prove herself exists, but some may want to.
Believers stay calm.
God Bless.
Teru
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Actually, a lot of modern physics also talks about form and substance, just like Aristotle and Plato did. They just use different words. The definition of life by the ancients and modern biologists is also substantially the same. Language is something we need to be careful with when looking at those who came before us - sometimes they use words differently. In the case of Aristotle in particular, he develops a very specialized technical language to describe the new ideas he is interested in. Dismissing it just because it doesn’t fit with what is commonly used today is like dismissing any technical language in any field.
The Church defines the soul as the form of a living thing. All things that exist have a form. In plants animals, humans and angels have a special type of form, the soul. Plants have what is called a vegetative soul, animals a sensitive soul, humans and angels a rational soul. Among the creatures that have bodies, there is a clear hierarchy, which the church considers important in understanding the nature of creation - vegetative souls have only a few powers, sensitive souls have those plus some others, and rational souls include yet more. But each contains what is beneath it in the hierarchy - they are linked. This is part of the reason why man is seen as a kind of fulcrum in creation, unlike angels, who are not part of the link, who do not join form and substance.
The Church defines the soul as the form of a living thing. All things that exist have a form. In plants animals, humans and angels have a special type of form, the soul. Plants have what is called a vegetative soul, animals a sensitive soul, humans and angels a rational soul. Among the creatures that have bodies, there is a clear hierarchy, which the church considers important in understanding the nature of creation - vegetative souls have only a few powers, sensitive souls have those plus some others, and rational souls include yet more. But each contains what is beneath it in the hierarchy - they are linked. This is part of the reason why man is seen as a kind of fulcrum in creation, unlike angels, who are not part of the link, who do not join form and substance.
G
greylorn
Guest
Aristotle 's sentences are longer than mine, and his reasoning processes much more complex. Since you did not competently read and correctly understand my clear and straightforward sentence, yet freely misquoted it so you could present me as a some kind of nut, it is no wonder you are so high on Aristotle. If you actually read him, you probably did not understand what he wrote either.
Here is my original sentence, verbatim, including the conjunction. Must I explain what a conjunction is?
“I have no respect for anyone who claims to believe in a created universe, and who is determined to keep ideas about the Creator and his creations as far back in the dark ages as possible, as most posters to this site and thread seem determined to do.”
Interesting that you complained about my earlier declaration that Aristotle got reality completely wrong, yet implicitly admit subtle flaws in his physics. Last I checked, the science of physics is at the core of all knowledge about reality. Make up your mind.
No one’s understanding of reality can be better than his understanding of physics.
Aristotle neglected to check his assumptions, and adopted a conceptual error which originated in Egypt a few millenia before his time. The error is so widespread that it permeates all human thinking, and is at the core of every religion which I know anything about as well as cosmology.
The error is so obvious and simple that the clues provided elucidate its nature. However, I’ve learned the hard way that merely describing it in the seven words necessary does not produce understanding of the concept to anyone incapable of figuring it out on his own. With luck, I’ll be published in another six months. One chapter devoted to the concept seems to have interested a few reviewers and even convinced some. However, I suspect that it will be difficult, more likely impossible, to devise arguments that might convince any Christian of this error.
G
grannymh
Guest
Why reinvent the wheel?
A
Areopagite
Guest
Okay, sorry, I misunderstood the intended meaning. What I thought you were saying was …
“I have no respect for those who believe in a created universe” and “I also don’t have any respect for those who are determined to keep ideas about the Creator … etc.”
Oops, my bad, I guess. I thought you were using the conjunction in a different way. You are definitely not a “nut.”
Thank goodness.It’s interesting but not contradictory. Stating that Aristotle got reality completely wrong opposed to getting it slightly wrong are two different things. Right? Or no?
Well, I would ask where you last checked. The term “core” here can be a bit ambiguous. But my preferred use of the term would be more applied to metaphysics, since it is the universal science, which studies concepts without which no science would make any sense, for metaphysics studies being itself. Since metaphysics is then the “science of sciences” I would say that it is the core of knowledge … at least much moreso than physics. But perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you are using the term(s) “core of all knowledge” differently and perhaps in a better way.
Well, I disagree. I think there is more to reality than the physical material universe. I have an idea of what you might mean, but just in case, I’m going to first ask you to elaborate. I think I might almost agree with you more than you think … and maybe even more than I think, too.
Well, we’ll just have to wait for your book.
In the meantime, your “clues” you provided have eluded me rather than elucidate things for me. Is it stuff you said about the brain-mind problem? I’ve addressed that a little bit on another thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5515178&postcount=20, but not very well, so I can elaborate on it. Otherwise, I have no idea what those clues are, and I shall ask you, perhaps to your suffering, to restate them systematically.
Don’t give up. To comfort and encourage you, Christians fall away from their faith all the time. So, no need to despair. You’ll probably win some over too … provided that, of course, you tell us what this “obvious and simple” truth is. Or, you don’t have to explain it until you publish your book. Until you do, though, I’m not going to see what you’re saying, so … don’t blame me too much.
G
greylorn
Guest
No. By referring to your admission of “subtle errors” in Aristotle’s physics I was gently inviting you to see a contradiction in your own thinking. Since you seem resistant to subtle corrections, let me bring out a truncheon.
Aristotelian physics is egregiously incorrect. (Unless you count that he admitted that if an object is left unsupported, it falls to earth, he got everything wrong.) Some of his fans whine that this is only because he did not subject his theories to experimental verification. (They don’t explain why he did not.)
Aristotle did not even competently apply his own logic to the most basic observations of physics, the relative movement of falling bodies of different mass. He declared that heavy objects fell faster than light ones. Galileo used logic (presumably the same stuff Aristotle supposedly invented) to prove, independently of any experiment, that if heavy objects fell faster than light objects, iron would float in water and wood would sink.
IMO getting every fundamental physics concept wrong translates, quite fairly, as “getting reality completely wrong.”
G
greylorn
Guest
Today’s readings were from Roger Penrose. Other studies preceded this. I did not use the word “core” ambiguously. I meant, simply, that all understandings of the nature and purpose of the universe depend upon an understanding of physics. Anyone who seeks to understand the universe, or consequential aspects of it, independently of physics will fail.
While I believe in a Creator, I do not believe that the men who told us what to believe and disbelieve about His nature, properties, and purposes knew enough physics to competently address those issues.
I am not proposing that physics resolves all questions. In fact, physics has brought to light questions which it cannot answer. I propose only that any questions too interesting to be answered in “People” magazine depend, directly or indirectly, upon physics for an answer.
Don’t mistake my appreciation of physics with belief. IMO the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is dumber than Darwinism. Varieties of physics de jour such as string theory, gravitons, etc. are merely artifacts, the droppings of clever mathematicians without a trace of insight who were merely earning their tenured physics professorship.
“Preferred use” of terms (i.e. redefinitions) are common to people who want to be right but don’t really care about the rules of rational engagement.
Metaphysics is not a science. Both components of the word are badly used. As you know, “meta” is Greek for “after.” Yet Aristotle’s ideas that were categorized as metaphysics are about: what might have come before physics. Antephysics would have been a better word for these ideas, but how could we expect better of followers of someone who got his physics wrong?
Metaphysics is not science, just as Aristotelian physics was not science. These are just philosophical ideas. Anyone who can write can make up whatever he, she, or it wants and call it metaphysics. (It’s true! I was stuck for an hour in a metaphysical bookstore.) Metaphysics does not require a single physical experiment. Perhaps you think it is a science because you are confused by the physics component of the word, or because you are a science camp follower wanna-be who knows that calculus is the crud a dentist scrapes off your teeth every bi-annual cleaning.
A better word for the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics would require the Greek prefix necessary to mean “without physics,” since that is where all metaphysical writers seem to come from, beginning with Aristotle.
G
greylorn
Guest
Of course you disagree, since your misquote of my simple sentence indicates that you don’t understand a word of what I wrote.greylorn:
Well, I disagree. I think there is more to reality than the physical material universe.
Anyone who understood enough physics to ace a high school science class would know that the term “physical material universe” is an expression of severe ignorance. The word “material” pertains to matter, which comprises but a small component of the physical universe.
I would be the first to say that there is more to reality than matter. However, the science of physics encompasses all components of the universe which interact with matter and other forms of energy. If the human soul exists in some sort of interaction with the brain, it is physical. If God can use His mind to tweak the path of a single electron, He is physical, by definition.
I honestly do not think that you will appreciate it. Although I explain the necessary physics, I see from these few simple exchanges that you substitute your own opinions in place of ideas expressed by others. This is a tendency common to highly intelligent people who are accustomed to being more knowledgeable than others. Nothing forms a stronger barrier to alternative ideas than true and certain knowledge— especially knowledge which is irrelevant to the subject under consideration. . .
You have some homework to do before we have a serious conversation about these subjects. Please regard this as an invitation, not an insult.
Expecting to jump from “metaphysics” into a serious understanding of the structure and purposes of the universe is like playing a few years of pee-wee football and expecting a contract with the Green Bay Packers.
I’ll forgive the touch of patronization, this time.Don’t give up. To comfort and encourage you, Christians fall away from their faith all the time. So, no need to despair. You’ll probably win some over too … provided that, of course, you tell us what this “obvious and simple” truth is. Or, you don’t have to explain it until you publish your book. Until you do, though, I’m not going to see what you’re saying, so … don’t blame me too much.
I’ve no interest in winning anyone over, or even converting them, as you have implied I might. I’d as soon not contribute to fallen-away Christians, since I find considerable value in belief in God. My cherished ladyfriend is a devout Catholic who does not review my works. She is a good person whose beliefs serve her well enough. I do not want her to adopt my ideas because she has no need for them.
However, atheism is the most rapidly growing belief system. This is important, in my opinion, because percentages tell but a small part of the story. The most intelligent people on the planet are atheists. These are our scientists, philosophers, engineers, and most importantly, our educators.
These are the people with whom I worked, from whom I’ve learned, who I would dearly love to convert. When your homework is completed, you might even want to help.
- Status