Is man just a pile of aroms?

[Richca]

Anyway, I think we’ve done this point to death now. I would say that unless we’re open to other philosophies and other worldviews, we cannot uncover the meaning of scripture or understand other people and cultures, since we will only see what we want to see. You have the last word.

I know your post here was in response to Linus, but I just wanted to make a few comments. In a sense, there is some truth to your above statement, though the philosophy, theology, and worldview of the inspired biblical authors is for a catholic, simply their faith, philosophical outlook taken in a wide sense, theology, and worldview. When we try and evangelize other peoples and cultures, we can take what is true and good in them and lead them to the fullness of the truth which is none other than Jesus Christ and the one God of the Trinity. In this process, that which is not in conformity with the truth and our faith is eliminated. For we know even in today’s world, many people hold false opinions. It is not necessary to know or understand in all aspects the philosophy or metaphysical thinking of Aristotle or Aquinas to know the truth about God. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and through divine revelation God has made known to us simply what is the Truth, why we are here, how we ought to live, and what is our end. Many christians in the world including catholics probably know nothing of the philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas and yet they are good, holy people, doing the will of God and on their way to heaven. In the Catholic Church, we have many canonized saints that knew nothing of the philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas. Of course, we would not hold that the philosophical system and theology of Thomas Aquinas has no value or is untrue. The Holy Spirit gives different gifts to each person and Aquinas was gifted with brilliant intellectual knowledge and wisdom and he was a theologian; theology was his work and philosophy is a handmaid to theology.

We wouldn’t expect an aboriginal in Australia to know modern physics and quantum mechanics. He may have his own scientific knowledge of nature which may be in contradiction to what modern physics tells us. Would we think that this aboriginal should not be educated according to what we now know about physics and that his knowledge of nature which may be in contradiction to modern physics is just as true? Probably not. I think the same could be said of the philosophical and metaphysical body of scientific knowledge of Aristotlelianism/Thomism in contrast to other philosophies which may hold contradictory opinions.

I think you can’t attack a philosophy without having first understood why it has adherents. The attractions of physicalism include its minimalistic simplicity and monism. It is basically the null hypothesis, the default position which has least to defend. I don’t think you can mount a successful attack against it with Aristotle’s categories, they are so complicated that even fans can’t agree on interpretation (as evidenced on this and the “How do we” thread).

I’m not sure what interpretation you give to physicalism but according to my understanding of it, I’m quite surprised since you are a baptist and thus a follower of Christ and I’m thinking that baptists hold to the biblical inspiration of Scripture, that you would hold such a view. God is a pure spirit, immaterial, and the most real of all things. Matter, for Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas is the least real of things. Matter in itself which is pure potentiality according to the above mentioned has no being or existence by itself. For Aquinas, it is the opposite extreme of that of God who is pure act. For Plato, the material world is much less real than his theory of the immaterial world of forms or ideas. The material forms are copies of the immaterial forms. In a sense, Plato was right. For God who is a pure spirit and an intellect is Being itself while His creatures participate in being. Augustine placed the immaterial forms or ideas of Plato in the Divine Mind which makes sense. For obviously, as God is the creator of the universe, the forms, ideas or natures of things must be in His knowledge prior to creating them unless we are to assume that God did not know what He was creating which is absurd. Since God is wholly immaterial, these ideas of things are immaterial in His knowledge. Accordingly, the Aristotlelian doctrine of the substantial forms of things which is known only by the intellect makes some sense.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

We believe that human beings are both at once a corporeal and spiritual being. The soul is the form of the body. They are between two worlds, the corporeal /physical and the spiritual/immaterial. As such, human beings have knowledge of “intangible,” immaterial, and abstract ideas and concepts from their spiritual, intellectual soul. This is probably where Platonism or Aristotlelianism is least understood or comprehended. For them, their is more to reality and that which is than simply the material and physical. The beginning of our knowledge is derived from our senses and being that we are a soul/body composite and we naturally gain knowledge through our senses, we “feel” right at home with our senses and sense knowledge. But sense knowledge is not the same as intellectual knowledge though in our present condition our intellectual knowledge is derived from our sense knowledge. The distinction between sense and intellectual knowledge is one key I think to understanding scholastic metaphysics, the science of being as being, as metaphysics is the most abstract and immaterial human knowledge attainable as it deals with the ultimate causes and principles of things and more specifically, the ultimate cause, principle, and origin of all which is none other than God who is a pure spirit. It is also the most difficult to attain. The distinction between sense and intellect was a step forward in ancient greek philososphy which I think Aquinas lists Plato as the first or one of the first.

Modern science is not as simple as I think you may make it out to be. According to quantum mechanics, atoms are composed of protons, nuetrons, electrons; and these are composed out of quarks, anti quarks, tri-quarks, quad-quarks, fermions, bosons, we have gravity and anti-gravity, electical charges and electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, and a host of other bits and pieces I’m sure I haven’t named as well as new discoveries all the time. Since you don’t seem to believe that things have natures which can bring about some order and unity in things, if one combines the above with all the accidents of things as well as “intangible” behaviors, characteristics, and traits of things, one is left with a hodgepodge of a host of disconnected elements, parts and random mess of things with no order, unity, or some sense to make sense out of it. This is not my idea of simplicity.

 

[inocente]

I know your post here was in response to Linus, but I just wanted to make a few comments. In a sense, there is some truth to your above statement, though the philosophy, theology, and worldview of the inspired biblical authors is for a catholic, simply their faith, philosophical outlook taken in a wide sense, theology, and worldview. When we try and evangelize other peoples and cultures, we can take what is true and good in them and lead them to the fullness of the truth which is none other than Jesus Christ and the one God of the Trinity. In this process, that which is not in conformity with the truth and our faith is eliminated. For we know even in today’s world, many people hold false opinions. It is not necessary to know or understand in all aspects the philosophy or metaphysical thinking of Aristotle or Aquinas to know the truth about God. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and through divine revelation God has made known to us simply what is the Truth, why we are here, how we ought to live, and what is our end. Many christians in the world including catholics probably know nothing of the philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas and yet they are good, holy people, doing the will of God and on their way to heaven. In the Catholic Church, we have many canonized saints that knew nothing of the philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas. Of course, we would not hold that the philosophical system and theology of Thomas Aquinas has no value or is untrue. The Holy Spirit gives different gifts to each person and Aquinas was gifted with brilliant intellectual knowledge and wisdom and he was a theologian; theology was his work and philosophy is a handmaid to theology.

We wouldn’t expect an aboriginal in Australia to know modern physics and quantum mechanics. He may have his own scientific knowledge of nature which may be in contradiction to what modern physics tells us. Would we think that this aboriginal should not be educated according to what we now know about physics and that his knowledge of nature which may be in contradiction to modern physics is just as true? Probably not. I think the same could be said of the philosophical and metaphysical body of scientific knowledge of Aristotlelianism/Thomism in contrast to other philosophies which may hold contradictory opinions.

Broadly agreed, except to say (and you probably agree) that it’s for aboriginal tribes, not us, to decide whether they want to subscribe to our science or religion. If their way of life has value to them, I don’t see that we have any right to impose our values on them.

There is a movie called Koyannisqatsi, which wordlessly compares 1980’s America with the Hopi. They believe all things are sacred. They would not strip mine or pave over the world. The title is from their language and means life out of balance, but the movie makes no judgments. I bought the movie because the music is Philip Glass, but if you’ve never seen it, it always has an effect on everyone who watches it, even though there are no words. - youtube.com/watch?v=PirH8PADDgQ

Ultimately, I think there is no one philosophy, or path, or way of living which is objectively better for everyone than any other, even in principle, since none of us can step outside our condition to decide for others.

I’m not sure what interpretation you give to physicalism but according to my understanding of it, I’m quite surprised since you are a baptist and thus a follower of Christ and I’m thinking that baptists hold to the biblical inspiration of Scripture, that you would hold such a view. God is a pure spirit, immaterial, and the most real of all things. Matter, for Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas is the least real of things. Matter in itself which is pure potentiality according to the above mentioned has no being or existence by itself. For Aquinas, it is the opposite extreme of that of God who is pure act. For Plato, the material world is much less real than his theory of the immaterial world of forms or ideas. The material forms are copies of the immaterial forms. In a sense, Plato was right. For God who is a pure spirit and an intellect is Being itself while His creatures participate in being. Augustine placed the immaterial forms or ideas of Plato in the Divine Mind which makes sense. For obviously, as God is the creator of the universe, the forms, ideas or natures of things must be in His knowledge prior to creating them unless we are to assume that God did not know what He was creating which is absurd. Since God is wholly immaterial, these ideas of things are immaterial in His knowledge. Accordingly, the Aristotlelian doctrine of the substantial forms of things which is known only by the intellect makes some sense.

I’m not a physicalist. I just think it is such a minimalist and simple philosophy that it can’t be attacked with anything as complicated as Aristotle or Thomas. For example, physicalism allows the world to always have existed, or to be created from nothing, or created from something else. It doesn’t mind if there’s matter and form or just form alone (as in some versions of string theory). It doesn’t even mind particularly if there is something beyond the physical world, it just says let’s assume not until there’s evidence to the contrary. It makes hardly any claims compared with either Aristotle or Thomas, who make so many that they are, in comparison, child’s play to attack, and (it seems) impossible to defend on grounds of reason alone, i.e. excluding religious faith. Or at least, religious belief is always invoked at some point.

 

[inocente]

We believe that human beings are both at once a corporeal and spiritual being. The soul is the form of the body. They are between two worlds, the corporeal /physical and the spiritual/immaterial. As such, human beings have knowledge of “intangible,” immaterial, and abstract ideas and concepts from their spiritual, intellectual soul. This is probably where Platonism or Aristotlelianism is least understood or comprehended. For them, their is more to reality and that which is than simply the material and physical. The beginning of our knowledge is derived from our senses and being that we are a soul/body composite and we naturally gain knowledge through our senses, we “feel” right at home with our senses and sense knowledge. But sense knowledge is not the same as intellectual knowledge though in our present condition our intellectual knowledge is derived from our sense knowledge. The distinction between sense and intellectual knowledge is one key I think to understanding scholastic metaphysics, the science of being as being, as metaphysics is the most abstract and immaterial human knowledge attainable as it deals with the ultimate causes and principles of things and more specifically, the ultimate cause, principle, and origin of all which is none other than God who is a pure spirit. It is also the most difficult to attain. The distinction between sense and intellect was a step forward in ancient greek philososphy which I think Aquinas lists Plato as the first or one of the first.

Modern science is not as simple as I think you may make it out to be. According to quantum mechanics, atoms are composed of protons, nuetrons, electrons; and these are composed out of quarks, anti quarks, tri-quarks, quad-quarks, fermions, bosons, we have gravity and anti-gravity, electical charges and electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, and a host of other bits and pieces I’m sure I haven’t named as well as new discoveries all the time. Since you don’t seem to believe that things have natures which can bring about some order and unity in things, if one combines the above with all the accidents of things as well as “intangible” behaviors, characteristics, and traits of things, one is left with a hodgepodge of a host of disconnected elements, parts and random mess of things with no order, unity, or some sense to make sense out of it. This is not my idea of simplicity.

We never got to the bottom of whether Aristotle says that the soul is essentially a property of the body, and therefore not spiritual, and whether Thomas disagrees on that point, and this again is indicative of the complexities of the claims. At the very least, dualism has two things to defend against physicalism’s monism.

I think also you’re conflating physicalism with science here. The physicalist doesn’t care how many particles there are, and doesn’t need to go back to the drawing board every time a scientist redraws the map of the particle zoo. Her only essential mantra is that everything is physical. The physicalist doesn’t even have to believe that the world should make sense to us. Nevertheless, order is found, as in the periodic table of the elements, and the notion of emergence (credited to Aristotle) provides for new patterns at higher levels.

Adam encountered God right there in the Garden, and so didn’t need any philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I too, like the vast majority of Christians, encountered God, and we’re all perfectly happy believing with or without knowing any Aristotle or Thomas, so it must be something other than A or TA which helped us believe.

AKUS - youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs

 

[Richca]

We never got to the bottom of whether Aristotle says that the soul is essentially a property of the body, and therefore not spiritual, and whether Thomas disagrees on that point, and this again is indicative of the complexities of the claims. At the very least, dualism has two things to defend against physicalism’s monism.

Aristotle taught the doctrine of hylemorphism. Every material substance is a composite of form and matter. For Aristotle then, the human soul is the substantial form of the body, this is what he taught. The soul is what makes the body a living body and for human beings it is also the principle of intellectual activity. The substantial form is not a property of a body. Properties of bodies such as quantity or size, qualities such as shape are accidents. We can find this in Aristotle’s ten categories of being; the first category is the substance (the substantial form and matter belong to this category as they are the two principles of a material substance), the rest are accidents of the substance. Following Plato, Aristotle also held the intellect in man is wholly immaterial for he held that understanding is not possible through a corporeal instrument or organ. Thomas Aquinas taught the same thing.

 

[Richca]

We never got to the bottom of whether Aristotle says that the soul is essentially a property of the body, and therefore not spiritual, and whether Thomas disagrees on that point, and this again is indicative of the complexities of the claims. At the very least, dualism has two things to defend against physicalism’s monism.

As far as physicalism’s monism, if this is understood that all reality at least in the physical universe of which human beings are a part is a product of matter and the forces of nature, this I hold to be impossible to defend demonstratively but is only an opinion and I think an imaginary one at that. For example, we have concepts of truth, falsity, being, goodness, evil, morals, universal natures, beauty, etc. There are some scientists or people who hold that human concepts such as these are simply the product of the mindless chemical interactions of matter and the forces of nature. Human understanding, knowledge, and intelligence is a product of that which has no intelligence. That which is more noble springs from the less noble. Life springs from that which has no life. Well, fine, nice theory, but how do you go about proving this as a certain truth? Indeed, what is truth and knowledge?

Aquinas, following Aristotle, says (and does demonstrate) it can be philosophically demonstrated that the intellectual principle in man is immaterial. Human knowledge and the human soul is not a product of physicalism. St Thomas is on the right track because this is verified by divine revelation, Holy Scripture, and the teaching of the catholic faith which we hold to be the truth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ultimately, I think there is no one philosophy, or path, or way of living which is objectively better for everyone than any other, even in principle, since none of us can step outside our condition to decide for others.

There can be a way of life that “is objectively better for everyone than any other” without our having to step outside ourselves and decide for others.

It is Christ who decides for us by showing us the way. And then he urges us to show others the same way.

 

[inocente]

Aristotle taught the doctrine of hylemorphism. Every material substance is a composite of form and matter. For Aristotle then, the human soul is the substantial form of the body, this is what he taught. The soul is what makes the body a living body and for human beings it is also the principle of intellectual activity. The substantial form is not a property of a body. Properties of bodies such as quantity or size, qualities such as shape are accidents. We can find this in Aristotle’s ten categories of being; the first category is the substance (the substantial form and matter belong to this category as they are the two principles of a material substance), the rest are accidents of the substance. Following Plato, Aristotle also held the intellect in man is wholly immaterial for he held that understanding is not possible through a corporeal instrument or organ. Thomas Aquinas taught the same thing.

Thanks. I’m not sure what to make of “immaterial” here. The issue from previous threads is whether Aristotle thought the soul can exist without any body (earthly or heavenly). I don’t have any axes to grind here, just trying to clarify it in my own mind. The Wiki article quotes Aristotle and cites an SEP article to say no, Aristotle thought the soul cannot exist without a body:-

*For Aristotle (384–322 BC) mind is a faculty of the soul. Regarding the soul, he said:

It is not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what is properly so spoken of is the actuality.
— De Anima ii 1, 412b6–9

In the end, Aristotle saw the relation between soul and body as uncomplicated, in the same way that it is uncomplicated that a cubical shape is a property of a toy building block. The soul is a property exhibited by the body, one among many. Moreover, Aristotle proposed that when the body perishes, so does the soul, just as the shape of a building block disappears with destruction of the block.*

 

[inocente]

As far as physicalism’s monism, if this is understood that all reality at least in the physical universe of which human beings are a part is a product of matter and the forces of nature, this I hold to be impossible to defend demonstratively but is only an opinion and I think an imaginary one at that. For example, we have concepts of truth, falsity, being, goodness, evil, morals, universal natures, beauty, etc. There are some scientists or people who hold that human concepts such as these are simply the product of the mindless chemical interactions of matter and the forces of nature. Human understanding, knowledge, and intelligence is a product of that which has no intelligence. That which is more noble springs from the less noble. Life springs from that which has no life. Well, fine, nice theory, but how do you go about proving this as a certain truth? Indeed, what is truth and knowledge?

Aquinas, following Aristotle, says (and does demonstrate) it can be philosophically demonstrated that the intellectual principle in man is immaterial. Human knowledge and the human soul is not a product of physicalism. St Thomas is on the right track because this is verified by divine revelation, Holy Scripture, and the teaching of the catholic faith which we hold to be the truth.

Philosophically though, we should ignore your last sentence since other religions don’t share that view. There is no universal acclaim of Aristotle’s conclusions either.

I think one physicalist approach would be to take your list (“truth, falsity, being, goodness, evil, morals, universal natures, beauty, etc”) and say these are all ideas, and as far as we know, ideas only exist in human minds, and human minds are between our ears. (We might quibble about whether they even exist in all human minds, for instance I suspect I don’t have any notion of universal natures in my mind, or at least not one which matches yours).

As far as proving emergence, we’re speaking of an experiential theory here, so it can’t be proved, only disproved, which as far as I know is a general rule in philosophy.

It could be disproved by just one counter-example though. As far as life emerging from non-life, Genesis has “for dust you are and to dust you will return”. To disprove that, I think you would need to find evidence for a specimen which could not possibly have emerged from non-life, and so was alive even in the big bang, which seems like a bit of a tall order. (The physicalist would probably argue that life is a question of metabolism and so on, and so not different in kind from non-life anyway).

 

[inocente]

There can be a way of life that “is objectively better for everyone than any other” without our having to step outside ourselves and decide for others.

It is Christ who decides for us by showing us the way. And then he urges us to show others the same way.

But other religions don’t agree. There are many different beliefs and schools of philosophy. I think unless we are prepared to force all others to submit to our own beliefs, there is no way we could ever get agreement on what is objectively best. Perhaps that means there cannot be an objectively best worldview. After all, utopias always seem to lead to rebellion.

 

[Richca]

Thanks. I’m not sure what to make of “immaterial” here. The issue from previous threads is whether Aristotle thought the soul can exist without any body (earthly or heavenly). I don’t have any axes to grind here, just trying to clarify it in my own mind. The Wiki article quotes Aristotle and cites an SEP article to say no, Aristotle thought the soul cannot exist without a body:-

*For Aristotle (384–322 BC) mind is a faculty of the soul. Regarding the soul, he said:

It is not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what is properly so spoken of is the actuality.
— De Anima ii 1, 412b6–9

In the end, Aristotle saw the relation between soul and body as uncomplicated, in the same way that it is uncomplicated that a cubical shape is a property of a toy building block. The soul is a property exhibited by the body, one among many. Moreover, Aristotle proposed that when the body perishes, so does the soul, just as the shape of a building block disappears with destruction of the block.*

The intellect for Aristotle is one of the powers [faculties] of the soul. I’m not sure for certain whether Aristotle held the intellect to be incorruptible or corruptible or left this question unresolved. Aquinas appears to think that Aristotle held it to be incorruptible (SCG, Book 2, chapter 79). I think we can say for certain that he did not hold absolutely that the intellect in man is destroyed when the body perishes. In De Anima I,4, he says “But intellect would seem to be a subsisting essence implanted in the soul, and not to corrupt…But perhaps intellect is something more godlike and unalterable.” And in metaphysics, XI, 3, he says: But we must examine whether anything also survives afterwards. For in some cases there is nothing to prevent this- the soul, for example, may be of this sort, not every soul, but the intellect." According to these and other texts of Aristotle and, in general, Aristotle’s philosophical doctrine, Aquinas appears to believe that Aristotle did hold that the human soul remains after the body, and is a certain substance (SCG, Book 2, chapter 79). So, where ever one reads that Aristotle held that the human soul, or more specifically his/her intellectual faculty, perishes with the body, appears to be incorrect.

As I said in another post, the soul is not a property of the body. Whoever is saying this doesn’t understand Aristotle. The soul is the substantial form of the body, not a property of it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But other religions don’t agree. There are many different beliefs and schools of philosophy. I think unless we are prepared to force all others to submit to our own beliefs, there is no way we could ever get agreement on what is objectively best. Perhaps that means there cannot be an objectively best worldview. After all, utopias always seem to lead to rebellion.

I wasn’t talking about forcing others to submit to our own beliefs, but rather persuading others that our beliefs, since they come from Christ, are the best possible beliefs.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-rare-new-letter-benedict-xvi-seeks-shepherds-for-the-whole-world-59940/

To the best of my knowledge, the only religion in the world today that is coercing others to believe in their way as the best possible way is radical Islam.

 

[Richca]

Philosophically though, we should ignore your last sentence since other religions don’t share that view. There is no universal acclaim of Aristotle’s conclusions either.

Well, philosophically they are in error then. We hold as a matter of catholic faith which we hold to be the truth that God immediately creates the souls of every human being at conception and that these souls are spiritual, immaterial, and immortal. We hold this to be the truth regardless of whatever other religions or philosophies hold. If these other religions or philosophies hold some other belief, then they are in error. As there is one God, there is one Truth; and Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

 

[Richca]

Broadly agreed, except to say (and you probably agree) that it’s for aboriginal tribes, not us, to decide whether they want to subscribe to our science or religion. If their way of life has value to them, I don’t see that we have any right to impose our values on them.

Jesus commanded us “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15). So, while we cannot force people to except the Good News of Jesus Christ, evangelization is intrinsic to being a christian. Jesus commanded us to love one another and leaving your neighbor in the dark is not a mark of love. Evangelization is charity towards your neighbor. Jesus is the universal redeemer of all mankind and the whole meaning of His coming is that we might know the truth and spread it to others. This is why Jesus picked apostles and founded a Church. St Paul says “it is the will of God that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” Jesus himself said “this is why I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.”

Ultimately, I think there is no one philosophy, or path, or way of living which is objectively better for everyone than any other, even in principle, since none of us can step outside our condition to decide for others.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In line with your thought here see: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/05/lewis-on-transposition.html#more

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The intellect for Aristotle is one of the powers [faculties] of the soul. I’m not sure for certain whether Aristotle held the intellect to be incorruptible or corruptible or left this question unresolved. Aquinas appears to think that Aristotle held it to be incorruptible (SCG, Book 2, chapter 79). I think we can say for certain that he did not hold absolutely that the intellect in man is destroyed when the body perishes. In De Anima I,4, he says “But intellect would seem to be a subsisting essence implanted in the soul, and not to corrupt…But perhaps intellect is something more godlike and unalterable.” And in metaphysics, XI, 3, he says: But we must examine whether anything also survives afterwards. For in some cases there is nothing to prevent this- the soul, for example, may be of this sort, not every soul, but the intellect." According to these and other texts of Aristotle and, in general, Aristotle’s philosophical doctrine, Aquinas appears to believe that Aristotle did hold that the human soul remains after the body, and is a certain substance (SCG, Book 2, chapter 79). So, where ever one reads that Aristotle held that the human soul, or more specifically his/her intellectual faculty, perishes with the body, appears to be incorrect.

As I said in another post, the soul is not a property of the body. Whoever is saying this doesn’t understand Aristotle. The soul is the substantial form of the body, not a property of it.

The SEP article is about Aristotle’s psychology writings and is by a professor at Notre Dame and Oxford, who writes “Hylomorphism, by itself, gives us no reason to treat souls as separable from bodies, even if we think of them as distinct from their material bases. At the same time, Aristotle does not appear to think that his hylomorphism somehow refutes all possible forms of dualism. For he appends to his denial of the soul’s separability the observation that some parts of the soul may in the end be separable after all, since they are not the actualities of any part of the body (De Anima ii 1, 413a6–7).”

So perhaps Aristotle himself was not sure on this point. There seems to be a lot of interpretation involved!

Well, philosophically they are in error then. We hold as a matter of catholic faith which we hold to be the truth that God immediately creates the souls of every human being at conception and that these souls are spiritual, immaterial, and immortal. We hold this to be the truth regardless of whatever other religions or philosophies hold. If these other religions or philosophies hold some other belief, then they are in error. As there is one God, there is one Truth; and Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

And every other religion could say, with equal conviction, that you are in error.

Jesus commanded us “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15). So, while we cannot force people to except the Good News of Jesus Christ, evangelization is intrinsic to being a christian. Jesus commanded us to love one another and leaving your neighbor in the dark is not a mark of love. Evangelization is charity towards your neighbor. Jesus is the universal redeemer of all mankind and the whole meaning of His coming is that we might know the truth and spread it to others. This is why Jesus picked apostles and founded a Church. St Paul says “it is the will of God that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” Jesus himself said “this is why I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.”

Sure but that seems to agree with what I said, which was “it’s for aboriginal tribes, not us, to decide whether they want to subscribe to our science or religion. If their way of life has value to them, I don’t see that we have any right to impose our values on them.”

*If this were the case, then when Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” this would be false. As there is one God, there is one Truth from which descends all other truths and which lead back to Him. As far as the different traditions and cultures of people, the truths of the christain religion can be accommodated to the different “external” traditions and cultures in so far as these traditions and cultures are not in conflict with it. *

Again though, every other religion could make a similar claim.

 

[inocente]

I wasn’t talking about forcing others to submit to our own beliefs, but rather persuading others that our beliefs, since they come from Christ, are the best possible beliefs.

I think every religion has it’s own equivalent though. A Buddhist might claim that his beliefs are the best possible since they come from Buddha.

 

[inocente]

God wanted to make a material world, he wanted to make men, animals, and inanimate materials. What was he supposed to make them of if not atoms, molecules, and genetic material?

Looking at the headlines today, it seems you might be going after the wrong target. The poll linked below, of 35000 people, indicates that organized religion is still strong but losing ground in America, not to atheists / physicalists but to people who believe in God yet don’t belong to any religion.

pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Looking at the headlines today, it seems you might be going after the wrong target. The poll linked below, of 35000 people, indicates that organized religion is still strong but losing ground in America, not to atheists / physicalists but to people who believe in God yet don’t belong to any religion.

pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

I don’t think this report has anything to do with the O.P. I was simply trying to establish the fact that God created beings, each with a different nature. But man, he created in his own image and likeness, a material being with an intellectual, spiritual, immortal soul. In other words, we are much more than the sum of our material constituentws - atoms or whatever.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

In other words, we are much more than the sum of our material constituentws - atoms or whatever.

That’s very physicalist of you.