Religion and Science

[grannymh]

Blessings on you as well, Grannymh. I hope you are not referring to my statement as limiting the creativity of the biologist, or any other scientist, as it is clear to me that such activities require creativity on many levels. I also attribute such creativity to the same Source as any other creativity, from finding a new way to clean your house or car to the precipitation of some ethereal work of visual or performance art. Creativity knows no bounds, and the laboratory or field studies are no exception, nor can they be.

It is not your statements in post 141 which limit creativity of the biologist. I am referring to the statements on CAF which try to divide religion and science based on the subject matter while ignoring the truly marvelous human being.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

When people try to separate the material world from the spiritual world, they are actually attacking their own human nature which in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds. Citation: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. paragraph 355.

When it comes to religion/science discussions, the odd thing is that some people have convinced themselves that their only choice is an either-or proposition.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[tonyrey]

The CC does not deny that Adam and Eve may have evolved from earlier species. Nor does it deny the presence of early hominid species. Nor does it deny natural selection and genetic change over time.

It does deny that is a complete explanation.

 

[larkin31]

It does deny that is a complete explanation.

It does deny this, yes.

 

[Tonitz]

When it comes to religion/science discussions, the odd thing is that some people have convinced themselves that their only choice is an either-or proposition.

That entire statement was very well spoken, Grannymh. Thanks. In particular, it is my opinion that the part quoted above in this post is at the root of much misunderstanding and is a blockage to a great deal of inquiry and perception.Though not myself a scientist, in my terms this is what I refer to as the binary propensity of the mind. Unless we have done a requisite kind and degree of observation and questioning, there seems to be a tendency to think on this very low order of logic. It is what is commonly called, I think, seeing the world in black and white. And it is commensurately limiting in terms of experiencing the richness actually offered by the wonders of Creation. It is particularly so in terms of the Soul journey each one of use is privileged to undertake. Someone who primarily thinks in those terms may be said to have grounded their craft on a shoal, even if they are in contact with water and are being beaten by waves they do not take advantage of to free their craft.

I would go even farther and say that, in the same wise as we have experienced our history as freeing ourselves from various sorts of limiting “centrisms,” the current one being somewhere in the vicinity of ego through cultural cenrtism, we will as well come to widen our understanding of “soul” to be more inclusive of living things and eventually even of matter, while retaining the particular potential of teh human form of that astounding and undervalued Gift. That undervaluation, I am sad to say, exists, imo, even in religious circles and has its opposite in some non religious ones under the disguise of other names.

It is a pleasure to have made your acquaintance, Grannymh, whether or not our views prove ultimately to be congruent of not. Thank you for your astute comments.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I find that both religion and science are so broad in meanings that they are actually useless.

I would prefer comparing a biology human anatomy course and a general introduction to philosophy course. One comparison would show that they both seek answers to two essential questions about the human being. The two questions which are the same for both biology and philosophy are: 1. What are we? 2. Who are we?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Tonitz]

I agree, Grannymh, with your critque of those categories, and like your idea of comparing the introductory classes. I am also curious as to which you would assign the “what” and the “who” and why.

 

[grannymh]

I agree, Grannymh, with your critque of those categories, and like your idea of comparing the introductory classes. I am also curious as to which you would assign the “what” and the “who” and why.

The “what” and the “who” regarding the human being would go to both the biology human anatomy course and the introduction to philosophy course. Being somewhat an experiential learner – yes, I have burnt fingers – I would first see what I find out when applying both questions to both areas. Then, I would think about why I was doing all that intellectual work.

 

[Tonitz]

By what agency do you know that you are doing intellectual work, something you clearly do very well?

 

[grannymh]

By what agency do you know that you are doing intellectual work, something you clearly do very well?

cogito ergo sum

I consider the rational tool of self reflection as part of human’s non-material spirituality. In other words, because my human nature, in itself, unites the spiritual and material worlds, rational thinking is a given – even when it cannot be used due to brain damage.

Technically, science cannot place a sample of self reflection under the proverbial microscope. However, as science seeks the truth of human nature, it cannot rule out self reflection. From the biological anatomy position, we do put our anatomy under physical scrutiny such as a MRI which tells us what we are. Because who we are entails abilities, we have to consider both material ones like walking upright and immaterial ones like thinking and loving.

 

[Tonitz]

How about “Sum, ergo cogito possum?” Sorry if the grammar is bad; it’s been a while since Fr. Mike’s Latin class where we earned yardage (Latin 'football") by how far we got in a conjugation or declension.

For a long time now I’ve favored the top down view: If I’m not aware, whether or not there is an objective world, it doesn’t exist --for me. Whether it exists in another sense is very likely, but it takes that soul-mind-brain connectivity to experience it. So I enjoyed your statement, and when you mentioned brain damage I remembered this little tidbit, which I’m sorry I can’t link you to directly,as my membership thus far seems to be somewhat restricted in terms of tools I may use. It is something I’m guessing you’ve see, about Jill Bolte’s the brain physiologist’s experience with a stroke: youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU This video strikes very true for me, as I had a far less traumatic experience of a similar nature due to another non psychotropic agency.

For my part the self reflexive factor of human awareness is by far the least appreciated, most undervalued, and least explored. Some of the applications of prayer, contemplation, meditation, and adoration each may go in this direction, but few employ it with systematic persistence and therefore forgo some rather astounding results. But that is kind of how we are in general. I do feel that Gandhi’s jab about civilization fits here.

Anyway, I continue to enjoy your thoughts on these matters. You sound like a woman of some considerable accomplishment.

 

[JDaniel]

That entire statement was very well spoken, Grannymh. Thanks. In particular, it is my opinion that the part quoted above in this post is at the root of much misunderstanding and is a blockage to a great deal of inquiry and perception.Though not myself a scientist, in my terms this is what I refer to as the binary propensity of the mind. Unless we have done a requisite kind and degree of observation and questioning, there seems to be a tendency to think on this very low order of logic. It is what is commonly called, I think, seeing the world in black and white. And it is commensurately limiting in terms of experiencing the richness actually offered by the wonders of Creation. It is particularly so in terms of the Soul journey each one of use is privileged to undertake. Someone who primarily thinks in those terms may be said to have grounded their craft on a shoal, even if they are in contact with water and are being beaten by waves they do not take advantage of to free their craft.

I would go even farther and say that, in the same wise as we have experienced our history as freeing ourselves from various sorts of limiting “centrisms,” the current one being somewhere in the vicinity of ego through cultural cenrtism, we will as well come to widen our understanding of “soul” to be more inclusive of living things and eventually even of matter, while retaining the particular potential of the human form of that astounding and undervalued Gift. That undervaluation, I am sad to say, exists, imo, even in religious circles and has its opposite in some non religious ones under the disguise of other names.

It is a pleasure to have made your acquaintance, Grannymh, whether or not our views prove ultimately to be congruent of not. Thank you for your astute comments.

Tonitz;

Very astute remarks. There is one thing that you said that is, in my opinion, very critical to fully understanding the ‘soul.’ You said, ‘we will as well come to widen our understanding of “soul” to be more inclusive of living things and eventually even of matter’ . . . Centuries ago, Aquinas clearly made the ‘soul’ knowable to us. Whether or not we opt to make the effort to value his description of it, is another question. In his Summa, and in On Truth, St. Thomas describes the ‘soul’ from a fully developed definition of final cause, which he goes on to describe as the Cause of Causes (Summa Theologica, I, q. 5, a. 2, reply 1, and elsewhere). We are aware of four principle causes in nature, with a fifth one that is a sort of table-turner - but yet, points even more strongly to the principle causes: and that is, chance, the indeterminable cause.

In general, I think that formal cause is largely misunderstood as a ‘something’. It is not a ‘something’, rather it is in the potentialities found in matter itself. Matter, by itself, cannot undergo substantial change. Matter in combination with formal cause cannot, by themselves undergo substantial change. The taking of matter (the material cause) to that effect that we understand to be substantial change, is accomplished with the ineluctable aid of an efficient cause. So, rather than a ‘something’ imposed upon matter from its exterior, it is an absence, i.e., a potentiality, within matter itself. Further, the ‘soul’ is proposed to be the animating principle of matter, i.e., the formal cause. But, the formal cause is itself found within primary matter. Matter is, therefore, essentially that from which God forms each and every resultant soul. It cannot be divided away from the effect we call the ‘creature’. So, you are correct in your prophecies - except to the extent that St. Thomas had already been wise to it, but, most of us haven’t.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Personally, I find that both religion and science are so broad in meanings that they are actually useless.

I would prefer comparing a biology human anatomy course and a general introduction to philosophy course. One comparison would show that they both seek answers to two essential questions about the human being. The two questions which are the same for both biology and philosophy are: 1. What are we? 2. Who are we?

Blessings,
granny

Granny:

Perhaps # 2 should be: What are we for?
God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Granny:

Perhaps # 2 should be: What are we for?
God bless,
jd

My preference is to keep my statement as it was originally written. The two questions which are the same for both biology and philosophy are: 1. What are we? 2. Who are we?

“What are we for?” is a subsequent inquiry which depends on the answers to the first two questions.

Blessings,
granny
:snowing:

 

[grannymh]

Tonitz;

Very astute remarks. There is one thing that you said that is, in my opinion, very critical to fully understanding the ‘soul.’ You said, ‘we will as well come to widen our understanding of “soul” to be more inclusive of living things and eventually even of matter’ . . . Centuries ago, Aquinas clearly made the ‘soul’ knowable to us. Whether or not we opt to make the effort to value his description of it, is another question. In his Summa, and in On Truth, St. Thomas describes the ‘soul’ from a fully developed definition of final cause, which he goes on to describe as the Cause of Causes (Summa Theologica, I, q. 5, a. 2, reply 1, and elsewhere). We are aware of four principle causes in nature, with a fifth one that is a sort of table-turner - but yet, points even more strongly to the principle causes: and that is, chance, the indeterminable cause.

In general, I think that formal cause is largely misunderstood as a ‘something’. It is not a ‘something’, rather it is in the potentialities found in matter itself. Matter, by itself, cannot undergo substantial change. Matter in combination with formal cause cannot, by themselves undergo substantial change. The taking of matter (the material cause) to that effect that we understand to be substantial change, is accomplished with the ineluctable aid of an efficient cause. So, rather than a ‘something’ imposed upon matter from its exterior, it is an absence, i.e., a potentiality, within matter itself. Further, the ‘soul’ is proposed to be the animating principle of matter, i.e., the formal cause. But, the formal cause is itself found within primary matter. Matter is, therefore, essentially that from which God forms each and every resultant soul. It cannot be divided away from the effect we call the ‘creature’. So, you are correct in your prophecies - except to the extent that St. Thomas had already been wise to it, but, most of us haven’t.

God bless,
jd

Did you really mean to say “Matter is, therefore, essentially that from which God forms each and every resultant soul.” If a soul is formed from matter, then there is no eternal spirit/spirituality in human nature. We might as well be onions in a petunia patch.

Blessings,
granny

:winter:
granny

 

[JDaniel]

My preference is to keep my statement as it was originally written. The two questions which are the same for both biology and philosophy are: 1. What are we? 2. Who are we?

“What are we for?” is a subsequent inquiry which depends on the answers to the first two questions.

Blessings,
granny
:snowing:

Granny:

Do you know who you are?

(Not snowing here in sunny Florida! )

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Did you really mean to say “Matter is, therefore, essentially that from which God forms each and every resultant soul.” If a soul is formed from matter, then there is no eternal spirit/spirituality in human nature. We might as well be onions in a petunia patch.

Blessings,
granny

:winter:
granny

Granny:

Did you read my entire, huge post? Remember, what I said was, "Form is found in the potentialities of matter. Form = soul. (St. Thomas) Unless you have another, better conception of what a ‘soul’ is?

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Granny:

Did you read my entire, huge post? Remember, what I said was, "Form is found in the potentialities of matter. Form = soul. (St. Thomas) Unless you have another, better conception of what a ‘soul’ is?

God bless,
jd

And then you went on to say: “Matter is, therefore, essentially that from which God forms each and every resultant soul.” My point is that the soul is entirely spiritual directly created by God Who is pure spirit. The unity of soul and body (what we are) is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (CCC 362-366) The spiritual soul is created immediately by God and thus is not found in the potentialities of matter. Nor does the attributes of a spiritual soul emerge from matter, i.e., from the material anatomy which eventually decomposes.

Blessings,
granny – the human person who I am.

 

[JDaniel]

And then you went on to say: “Matter is, therefore, essentially that from which God forms each and every resultant soul.” My point is that the soul is entirely spiritual directly created by God Who is pure spirit. The unity of soul and body (what we are) is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (CCC 362-366) The spiritual soul is created immediately by God and thus is not found in the potentialities of matter. Nor does the attributes of a spiritual soul emerge from matter, i.e., from the material anatomy which eventually decomposes.

St. Thomas was speaking of ‘Primary matter’, not mundane, physical matter. What is Primary matter? I’m not sure anyone has a precise definition. It is easier to say what it is not. If one tries to say what it is, too many will conflate it with mundane, physical matter. Primary matter is not the natural, physical matter of physics and chemistry. It is someplace in between physical material and metaphysical material.

Although primary matter cannot produce the form of man, it can possess this form as its highest achievement; if it has an “appetite,” as previously argued, it ought to tend toward the highest perfection it can own, namely the human soul. - On the Power of God, q. 3, a. 6, reply 26.

In the purely physical sense, the soul of man is the most perfect form that prime matter can possess, and if the imperfect tends to the perfect, primary matter has for its highest end the form of man. It’s hard not to confuse prime matter with mundane matter, but, if they are merely the same, then you are correct: the soul could come from anything. Obviously they are not the same. The CCC is not going to go into a long exploration of the arguments of St. Thomas for obvious reasons. Re-read it and you will sense that within the words is the presupposition of Primary matter and Form. God creates the universe; he is the efficient cause of souls. There is no requirement that they be made where there was nothing before as is the case for the universe. In fact, we see that that is not the case for us humans. Our parents are cooperative and correlative efficient causes; secondary efficient causes, as it were.

Blessings,
granny – the human person who I am.

And thus, philosophical questioning comes to an abrupt end.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

St. Thomas was speaking of ‘Primary matter’, not mundane, physical matter. What is Primary matter? I’m not sure anyone has a precise definition. It is easier to say what it is not. If one tries to say what it is, too many will conflate it with mundane, physical matter. Primary matter is not the natural, physical matter of physics and chemistry. It is someplace in between physical material and metaphysical material.
Although primary matter cannot produce the form of man, it can possess this form as its highest achievement; if it has an “appetite,” as previously argued, it ought to tend toward the highest perfection it can own, namely the human soul. - On the Power of God, q. 3, a. 6, reply 26.
In the purely physical sense, the soul of man is the most perfect form that prime matter can possess, and if the imperfect tends to the perfect, primary matter has for its highest end the form of man. It’s hard not to confuse prime matter with mundane matter, but, if they are merely the same, then you are correct: the soul could come from anything. Obviously they are not the same. The CCC is not going to go into a long exploration of the arguments of St. Thomas for obvious reasons. Re-read it and you will sense that within the words is the presupposition of Primary matter and Form. God creates the universe; he is the efficient cause of souls. There is no requirement that they be made where there was nothing before as is the case for the universe. In fact, we see that that is not the case for us humans. Our parents are cooperative and correlative efficient causes; secondary efficient causes, as it were.

And thus, philosophical questioning comes to an abrupt end.

God bless,
jd

I am somewhat aware of primary matter or something similar to what Aristotle taught. Regardless, the spiritual soul is still created immediately and directly by God because only a pure spirit can create a spiritual soul. This soul is not produced by any action of the parents. The soul does not come from any thing physical or metaphysical. The soul comes directly from God. It is because of its spiritual soul that the body becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. (CCC 362-366). These paragraphs are not the only ones about the spiritual soul. I happen to prefer them because they are connected to the origin of the human species.

As for philosophical questioning, I consider myself out of the loop because I would read quotes like yours from a different perspective. For example I see the word “perfection” as the operative word while it seems that you see “own” as the operative word. In my view, both perfection and own contribute to the meaning. Thus, I agree with you that my contribution to philosophical questioning has been concluded. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[cho_pilo]

What is Primary matter? I’m not sure anyone has a precise definition.

If there is something before matters. Something that is not organized in atom and therefore not part of the periodic table?