Religion and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter cho_pilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Identify every individual leaf on every tree that has ever been: the moment each separated from the branch; its path and the active and reactive forces with its resting surface? The Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God can answer without effort. No probabilities please.

peace
 
JDaniel said:
What is Primary matter? I’m not sure anyone has a precise definition.
Click to expand...
Prime matter is a philosophical term signifying the underlying material substrate of all things, abstracting from any form it may currently have. Prime matter is thus the potency of matter to receive any form.
 
bettyg51 said:
Prime matter is a philosophical term signifying the underlying material substrate of all things, abstracting from any form it may currently have. Prime matter is thus the potency of matter to receive any form.
Click to expand...
In granny language. Does any of the above physically and independently exist outside my kitchen window?

I have started reading about hylomorphism and am wondering how that fits in with what was posted above. plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ and other links.

And then how all that fits in with the Catholic teaching about human nature, rational/corporeal, soul/body.

Seems to me that if one is going to discuss religion and science, one should be first grounded in human nature itself.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 1
 
grannymh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Granny:

St. Thomas’ doctrine is briefly as follows:

•the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;

•the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;

•though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;

•the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Soul.

URL: newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

I’m sorry, Grannymh, I thought you were interested in this stuff from a philosophical POV. Had you been, I would have gone further into your comments above, but, I’ll forgo anything more.

God bless :),
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Granny:
St. Thomas’ doctrine is briefly as follows:

•the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;

•the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;

•though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;

•the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Soul.
URL: newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

I’m sorry, Grannymh, I thought you were interested in this stuff from a philosophical POV. Had you been, I would have gone further into your comments above, but, I’ll forgo anything more.

God bless :),
jd
Click to expand...
Thank you for your help. It is appreciated. Small note: The Council of Vienne is referenced in paragraph 365 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In my humble opinion, this paragraph is one of the essential ones for explaining human nature to Catholics.

Blessings,
granny

:snowing:
 
cho_pilo said:
If there is something before matters. Something that is not organized in atom and therefore not part of the periodic table?
Click to expand...
Cho:

It is the ‘stuff’ that God is creating, as he rolls out Creation, that becomes the stuff of the periodic table. It is, in this sense, in the midst of fully being periodic-table-matter. Which, in the motion from privation to act, becomes at its end the gathering of atoms which have an ardent appetite for form. It is virtually simultaneously accomplished yet subject to that sequence that, in act, introduces it to ‘time’. That is my conception of it.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Cho:

It is the ‘stuff’ that God is creating, as he rolls out Creation, that becomes the stuff of the periodic table. It is, in this sense, in the midst of fully being periodic-table-matter. Which, in the motion from privation to act, becomes at its end the gathering of atoms which have an ardent appetite for form. It is virtually simultaneously accomplished yet subject to that sequence that, in act, introduces it to ‘time’. That is my conception of it.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
or “breathing” as in IDvolution -
 
bettyg51 said:
Prime matter is a philosophical term signifying the underlying material substrate of all things, abstracting from any form it may currently have. Prime matter is thus the potency of matter to receive any form.
Click to expand...
Except that it is ‘something’, which form is not.

God bless,
jd
 
No, JDaniel, it isn’t “something.” It is IS. What has form has as well the property of matter. God is not matter and has no form, except what we try to put on Deity to make it acceptable to our thinking. Our thinking and ideas are forms, ergo subtle matter as well.
 
grannymh said:
In granny language. Does any of the above physically and independently exist outside my kitchen window?

I have started reading about hylomorphism and am wondering how that fits in with what was posted above. plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ and other links.

And then how all that fits in with the Catholic teaching about human nature, rational/corporeal, soul/body.

Seems to me that if one is going to discuss religion and science, one should be first grounded in human nature itself.
Click to expand...
Grannymh:

In my view, I think that religion, as a more general science of nature (and meta-nature) is the precursor of ‘modern’ science, i.e., physics, chemistry and evolution. Religion is taken in the sense that it is that which is the fusion, so to speak, of the sacred with gathering. At first, we see ‘mobile being’, which we then begin to dissect. We tend to lose sight of the precursor as soon as we become enamored with our ability to transcend the experimental. We become, that is to say, many scientists become, less attracted to it as they become more god-like. And, I do not say this to be derogatory. It is a natural evolution. God makes us like Him. How little of his perfections and powers must we have to be like Him in our diminished way?

Also, I think that 'transubstantiation" and ‘hypostasis’ are much more pertinent to our present subject. And, both, I’m sure, can be found in the New Advent Encyclopedia. These topics might make for a good thread. 🙂

God bless,
jd
 
Tonitz said:
No, JDaniel, it isn’t “something.” It is IS. What has form has as well the property of matter. God is not matter and has no form, except what we try to put on Deity to make it acceptable to our thinking. Our thinking and ideas are forms, ergo subtle matter as well.
Click to expand...
Not so, Tonitz. Form exists in the potentialities of matter, as St. Thomas teaches. It is educed from matter much the same way that in art, the statue is educed from the clay. In a discussion of final cause, Aquinas says it like this:

The final cause is not just one more cause among the others. It is the most important of the causes because it moves the efficient cause to educe form from the potentialities of matter. (Summa Theologica, I, q. 5, a. 4; emphasis mine).
It is the reason, Aquinas goes on to say, why the agent acts. In a more precise terminology, the final cause provides the pattern to be realized in matter by the agent; and unless we admit this pattern as somehow, somewhere pre-existing its physical realization, we have to attribute the order in our world to sheer coincidence. This tells us more about how that which is transormed into ‘spirit’ happens, without getting into structure.

God bless,
jd
 
Isn’t that statement part of the body of work that that same St Thomas wanted to burn because he regarded it to be “straw?” His final realization was different in kind as well as degree from his intellections, as astonishingly wonderful, detailed, and complex as they are. I submit that he took one more step that transmuted his entire understanding.

I fail to get why so many people cleave to St. Thomas when he himself cast a different light on what in view of his last days might rightly be considered preparatory work. so go with that if you like; I don’t, by dint of the author’s own words. I guess it is because those words are yet thi8nkable and can be applied to thinking to some high degree. But it doesn’t end there, as far as I can see. How do you see this dynamic? You appear to be completely invested in the portion of St. Thomas work before it was commented on by him after what had to be a very major shift. How do you explain that? Especially since he was not alone in such an action among the Saints?
 
JDaniel said:
Not so, Tonitz. Form exists in the potentialities of matter, as St. Thomas teaches. It is educed from matter much the same way that in art, the statue is educed from the clay. In a discussion of final cause, Aquinas says it like this:
The final cause is not just one more cause among the others. It is the most important of the causes because it moves the efficient cause to educe form from the potentialities of matter. (Summa Theologica, I, q. 5, a. 4; emphasis mine).
It is the reason, Aquinas goes on to say, why the agent acts. In a more precise terminology, the final cause provides the pattern to be realized in matter by the agent; and unless we admit this pattern as somehow, somewhere pre-existing its physical realization, we have to attribute the order in our world to sheer coincidence. This tells us more about how that which is transormed into ‘spirit’ happens, without getting into structure.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Not being educated in Thomism, had to look up educe in dictionary. Still having trouble with “statue is educed from clay” etc. etc. Seems that potentialities of material matter clay end up as a material statue without a spiritual soul. While understanding that the unity of the soul and body in human nature is so profound that the spiritual soul is considered to be the “form” of the body (Council of Vienne, 1312
–CCC 365) I do believe that the spiritual soul is directly created (not educed from matter) by God Who is pure spirit. Like comes from like.
 
@ Grannymh: Without comment either way, your “like come from like” sounds remarkably similar to “Atman is Brahman.”
 
buffalo said:
This is very good…

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE

CHAPTER IV
PRIME MATTER
Click to expand...
Natural science considers any human attribute which is similar to that of a spiritual soul to be an epiphenomenon, i.e., a result emerging from the material anatomy and not immediately created by God. Thus, it is important to be clear that our spiritual soul is different from the purpose of matter when it comes to our human nature, the unique unification of soul/body, immaterial/material, spirit/matter. It is important to be clear about Chapter IV, Prime Matter in link above.
Specifically this —

End of page 27, beginning of page 28

“In the generation of things, therefore, whatever corporal or seminal causes are employed by the operations of angels or of men, or of certain animals, or else in the mixture of male and female elements; also whatever effects in features and colors, the desires and movements of the mother’s soul are able to produce in the tender and yielding unborn babe, no one is absolutely the maker of these natures affected thus or otherwise in their kind, but the supreme God whose hidden power, penetrating all things by His presence, causes to be, whatever exists in any way, inasmuch as it
exists; because unless He made it, it would not be such a thing, or such another, but would be utterly incapable of existing.37”

While in ancient times, soul could also refer to an animating principle in animals, the soul in human nature is spiritual in which we are made in the Image of God. Because of our God created spiritual soul, we are able to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s life. As said in the link, God causes to be, whatever exists in any way.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
Tonitz said:
Isn’t that statement part of the body of work that that same St Thomas wanted to burn because he regarded it to be “straw?” His final realization was different in kind as well as degree from his intellections, as astonishingly wonderful, detailed, and complex as they are. I submit that he took one more step that transmuted his entire understanding.

I fail to get why so many people cleave to St. Thomas when he himself cast a different light on what in view of his last days might rightly be considered preparatory work. so go with that if you like; I don’t, by dint of the author’s own words. I guess it is because those words are yet thinkable and can be applied to thinking to some high degree. But it doesn’t end there, as far as I can see. How do you see this dynamic? You appear to be completely invested in the portion of St. Thomas work before it was commented on by him after what had to be a very major shift. How do you explain that? Especially since he was not alone in such an action among the Saints?
Click to expand...
Tonitz:

The Church has not distanced itself from Aquinas. In fact, the reverse is true. The Church overall has embraced Aquinas’ work on the causes, the 5-ways, Primary matter and Form, etc. I do no more than, as best I can, parallel Aquinas. Aquinas lived only a short time after making his famous remark about the Summa Theologica. From accounts of the end of his life it appears that he was experiencing what some have called “mystical experiences.” Perhaps that’s the right manner of putting it. I think he was having God experiences, i.e., mystical experiences with God as the subject.

The term, mystical experience, has, in recent years, taken on a more specific meaning, unfortunately. That being akin to Buddhist contemplative experience. This is not particularly bad, but, probably creates some unnecessary emotional baggage for us Westerners. The mystical tradition is not a tradition restricted to the East. It has been a long tradition within Catholicism and in Western poetry, for example. Most likely most, if not all, humans have had mystical experiences without realizing it. If St. Thomas’ thought trained his mind to become ever increasingly aware of such exigencies, that would not necessarily be anything that could be understood to be a repudiation of his Summa by him. It would merely mean that all of the hard work does not compare with the Face of God, even if he only got a momentary glimpse of it.

God bless,
jd
 
grannymh said:
Not being educated in Thomism, had to look up educe in dictionary. Still having trouble with “statue is educed from clay” etc. etc. Seems that potentialities of material matter clay end up as a material statue without a spiritual soul. While understanding that the unity of the soul and body in human nature is so profound that the spiritual soul is considered to be the “form” of the body (Council of Vienne, 1312
–CCC 365) I do believe that the spiritual soul is directly created (not educed from matter) by God Who is pure spirit. Like comes from like.
Click to expand...
Grannymh:

(As difficult as it might be to wrap yourself around, you must try, because it is Church doctrine.)

Aquinas means by this that what was intended as end is realized as form. The final cause causes things by being a source of their order. The causality of the end, i.e., final cause, is that of a pattern or a plan. Ultimately, this plan exists in the mind of God, as the Supreme Artist (analogically). Now, this is not said to be metaphysical. It is said to expose final cause as a cause, in nature. Metaphysics has to do with being. And beings are what God ultimately produces. There is no precept that says that the spirit of God is the principle of spirit production. It just so happens that it is coincidentally true, but, there is no such axiom.

Our essences (spirits, perhaps) will wander about within the realms like the exigencies called Angels, until the final judgment, when we are to be re-united with our bodies. This part is very important, as it is the re-uniting with our bodies that makes us whole again, i.e., a ‘soul’. Perhaps there are some metaphysicians around here who can better explain this.

“Educe” means to draw out of, or, more precisely:
**Origin:
late Middle English: from Latin educere ‘lead out’, from e- (variant of ex-) ‘out’ + ducere ‘to lead’. ** - Oxford Dictionaries.

“Now the proximate end of the human body is the rational soul and its operations; for matter is for the sake of the form, and instruments are for the actions of the agent. I say, therefore, that God fashioned the human body in that disposition which was best according as it was most suited to such a form and to such operations. If defect exists in the disposition of the human body, it is well to observe that such defect arises, as a necessary result of the matter, from the conditions required in the body in order to make it suitably proportioned to the soul and its operations.” - Summa Theologiae, I, q. 91, a. 3, and answers to objections.

The above from Aquinas is philosophy, not metaphysics. It is, however, inevitably tied to the metaphysical description of ‘soul production’. By continuing to believe, “that the spiritual soul is directly created (not educed from matter) by God Who is pure spirit” leaves Creation open to major difficulties such as, if God directly produces the soul/spirit what goes wrong when there arises an imperfection? Are we then to say that God produces imperfection therefore he must not be much of a God? Are we to blame God, so to speak, for those who are born with a parasitic twin, for example? Or, anencephaly? Or, are we to rightly blame matter?

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top