T
timotheos
Guest
If S-T-E-M account for everything that exists, then intelligence has no more relevance than two atoms bouncing off of each other.
Same goes for reason, compassion, moral values, and political platforms.
-Tim
- Status
Same goes for reason, compassion, moral values, and political platforms.
-Tim
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Exactly. All of the “proofs” against God are just electrical signals firing off through our synapses.
T
tobias
Guest
If only a deaf man is in the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, but the deaf man can percieve what is there, vibration. Again I would say intelligence makes sound, light, taste, hot, cold. Things that do not exist apart from beings to perccieve.
If there were no beings to percieve taste, there would be no existence of flavor, perhaps the contigency of flavor but not actuality.
On the most basic level, even minor forms of intelligence do not just react to stimuli, but also manipulate matter, utilize energy, make use of space and time.
(Have you ever had a concept in your mind that you were not able to word intelligably? I seem to be having that problem.)
If there were no beings to percieve taste, there would be no existence of flavor, perhaps the contigency of flavor but not actuality.
On the most basic level, even minor forms of intelligence do not just react to stimuli, but also manipulate matter, utilize energy, make use of space and time.
(Have you ever had a concept in your mind that you were not able to word intelligably? I seem to be having that problem.)
A
ateista
Guest
Do you comprehend the concept of emerging attributes?
J
JDaniel
Guest
I’m guessing that it’s a sort of "theory of “attribute evolution” and/or “attribute natural selection” that is necessarily necessary to athism?
Dan
A
ateista
Guest
No, your guess is wrong. Let me show you through a few examples (this will be long, please bear with me):
The different atoms all contain protons, electrons and neutrons. (Let’s forget about quarks and the rest). Different atoms have different numbers of these particles. Therefore different atoms have different attributes. In this case a quantitative difference results in a qualitative difference. In this case, the whole is not simply a mathematical sum of its parts. Yet, no one attempts to invoke some “supernatural” reason for explanation - because it is not necessary. No one argues - at least to my knowledge - that the hydrogen atom is both a physical entity (one proton and one electron) and an immaterial “soul” - which is its “essence”.
When atoms form molecules, a whole lot of new attributes “pop” up. Two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom forms a water molecule. The attributes of water cannot be reduced to the attributes of the constituent atoms. The whole again is more than a simple mathematical sum of its parts. Yet, again, no one argues that the “wetness” of water needs a “supernatural” explanation. No one argues that the water molecule has an immaterial “soul”.
When water molecules are added up to form a greater mass, nothing special happens, we just get a large body of water. In this case the whole is just the sum of its parts. On the other hand, if we pile up uranium atoms, and reach a critical mass, an explosion will happen. Up until that point, the whole is sum of its parts, but when adding the last atom the quantitative change will result in a qualitative difference. Yet, no one argues that some “supernatural” explanation is necessary.
Summary: These are just a few examples to show that the whole is sometimes just the sum of its parts, while other times it is not, it is more than just the sum of its parts. Hopefully, this is pretty obvious to all.
The critical point is that we do not need “supernatural” explanation for the water, even though the attributes of the water cannot be reduced to the atoms forming the water molecule. Yes, the water is just a bunch of atoms - in a very specific pattern, or arrangement, but the attributes of the water molecule cannot be explained by pure physics. We need chemistry to do that.
When considering carbon atoms, they can combine into different patterns. When the 6 carbon atoms form a planar structure, we get graphite. When the same 6 atoms reside at the vertices of an octahedron, we get diamond. The attributes of graphite are radically different from the attributes of diamond, even though they are both formed of the same carbon atoms - but their arrangement, their pattern is different. (Yes, they both burn identically.) Yet, no one speaks of the different “souls” for graphite and for diamond.
STEM does not attempt to overlook the patterns of the physical objects. The arrangement itself is not a physical ontological object, it is the result (in the case of graphite - diamond) of the physical properties (the chemical bonds). The patterns or arrangements are all part of STEM.
Now, finally “life”. What is “life”? Biologists only have a working definition: “life is when the complex entity maintains its homeostasis in a changing environment”. Usually life is considered moving, growing, propagating its structure (multiplying). Yet, biologists cannot agree where to draw the line between “living” and “inanimate” matter. Some consider viruses as living entities, others do not. The point is that “life” is not a clear-cut matter.
The properties of life cannot be fully reduced to chemistry - just like chemistry cannot be fully reduced to physics. We need biology over chemistry. With complexity we get yet another level of emergent attributes. Yes, living material is fully composed of inanimate atoms (in a certain arrangement) but the attributes are life are more than just the sum of its parts.
When we accept that sometimes the whole is more than just the sum of its parts (atoms, molecules, etc.) - without invoking “supernatural” explanation for it, then there is no need to do this in the case of “life”. Sure “life” is highly complex, and we are far from understanding all its intricacies, but to invoke some “supernatural” stuff is to invoke the “God of the gaps”.
Intelligence, mind, concepts, emotions are all the results of the highest level of complexity in STEM - the human brain. (Yes, there can be more complex forms, we just don’t know about them.) It is much more than just the hodgepodge of atoms thrown together into a pile. How the brain works, we have only a very vague idea. But there is absolutely no indication that the mind is the product of an immaterial “soul”. When the parts of the brain get electrochemically excited, it will produce thoughts, emotions. When a part of the brain gets damaged, the mind gets “damaged”, too.
Conclusion: STEM is sufficient to explain everything there is. There is no need for the assumption of “souls”. The “whole” is sometimes more than just the sum of its parts. It does not mean that we must “reduce” everything to the dancing of the electrons. It cannot be done, but that is not a problem nor it is a surprise.
Well, that is it, folks. I hope some will take pains and read it.
J
JDaniel
Guest
The predilection of some people to embrace systems of thought that take merely their partiality to render the systems true, with no deductive or inductive logic, or direct knowledge from observation, whatsoever, has always been unsettling to me.
STEM is not sufficient to explain “everything there is”.
With all due respect, my friend (hopefully), you have taken a huge leap from atomic and molecular aggregations to “life”, “anima”, “reason”, “intellegence”, the unique ability of humans to perceive “moral good”, and the “unique ability” of humans to choose “moral good” (or, not) - and not simply because of the sensory smell of roast turkey on Thanksgiving. In fact, the definition you provided, from science, for life, is only useful in providing a name to that which maintains the systems of the body during life.
When you start out a “science” with an invalid (or, misunderstood) first principle (or premise), your science will, in typical fashion, fail. In this case, you started out your science under the the postulated “assumption” that the “soul” is something “immaterial”: sort of an etherial “whatever” that floats around and inhabits the brain and maybe other parts of our bodies, from time to time.
The Catholic understanding (at least those Catholics for whom the TV is not their second god - no reference to you, as you are pretty intelligent), is that the “soul” is the combination of “form” and “primary matter”. The “brain” is an extraordinarily useful tool and part of the soul (and, BTW, so is the body). Our brains are informed in two ways, by our senses and by our souls.
This, to me at least, is a much more plausable premise than the quantum “leap” from aggregates of molecules to “reason”.
Although, I could be wrong. . .
Dan
STEM is not sufficient to explain “everything there is”.
With all due respect, my friend (hopefully), you have taken a huge leap from atomic and molecular aggregations to “life”, “anima”, “reason”, “intellegence”, the unique ability of humans to perceive “moral good”, and the “unique ability” of humans to choose “moral good” (or, not) - and not simply because of the sensory smell of roast turkey on Thanksgiving. In fact, the definition you provided, from science, for life, is only useful in providing a name to that which maintains the systems of the body during life.
When you start out a “science” with an invalid (or, misunderstood) first principle (or premise), your science will, in typical fashion, fail. In this case, you started out your science under the the postulated “assumption” that the “soul” is something “immaterial”: sort of an etherial “whatever” that floats around and inhabits the brain and maybe other parts of our bodies, from time to time.
The Catholic understanding (at least those Catholics for whom the TV is not their second god - no reference to you, as you are pretty intelligent), is that the “soul” is the combination of “form” and “primary matter”. The “brain” is an extraordinarily useful tool and part of the soul (and, BTW, so is the body). Our brains are informed in two ways, by our senses and by our souls.
This, to me at least, is a much more plausable premise than the quantum “leap” from aggregates of molecules to “reason”.
Although, I could be wrong. . .
Dan
J
JDaniel
Guest
Sorry for some misspellings. I was in a hurry and couldn’t take the time to edit.
Dan
Dan
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Do you believe that the properties or abilities of something is mandated by the constituent parts? For example, is the behavior of an atom determined by its composition (including phase and stuff like that)?
A
ateista
Guest
What do you mean by “mandated”?
A hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron. The properties of hydrogen (flammable, lighter than air, etc…) are the properties of the atom itself, and they cannot be reduced to nor explained by the properties of the proton and the electron.
Similarly, a water molecule has one oxigen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen is very flammable, and oxygen helps the burning process. Yet water cannot be put aflame, even though its constituent parts would “predict” that water could be burned.
As we go up the ladder of complexity, new and new attributes emerge, which require new branches of science to explore and explain them. Quantum physics is the “lowest” rung of this ladder (at least for the time being). Then comes “ordinary” physics. Then comes chemistry, then biology. Then the behavior of complex entities, medical sciences, sociology, economics, etc…
None of these sciences produces a “final” explanation. They are all changing, evolving as new discoveries are made. But, nowhere in the process is there a need for “supernatural” explanations.
A
ateista
Guest
You mean that philosophy is just an elaborate mind game? I agree with that.
Everything that can be observed, measured and tested. It does not attempt to explain souls, auras, paranormal phenomena.
The principle is the same, the specific methodology is not.
Not “my” definition. The biologists’ definition.
That is not accurate. Catholics maintain that the human “soul” is immaterial, and immortal. It is “infused” by God - today it is thought to happen at conception, in older times there were big debates about the point of “ensoulment”. Some thought it happened at “quickening”. The Bible says that God breathed the “soul” into the nostrils of Adam. Actually in some languages the word “soul” and “breath” are identical, or come from the same root.
There is a long and winding road between the two.
Can’t we all?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Well, not exactly.
As modified, I’m OK with it.
I’m not sure what you mean.
(I knew it was’t yours!)
As I said, “I could be wrong . . .” Can you show me where “Catholics maintain that the ‘soul’ is immaterial”?
Yes, and we know how difficult that concept has been to defend! Can you imagine if it was delivered to most in a more complex way?
And, along the way, there might be highwaymen - an infinity of them. And, obstacles - an infinity of them. And, wrong turns - an infinity of them. Etc., etc. etc.
Yes we can.Can’t we all?
Dan
S
Sarpedon
Guest
I mean that the properties of something are determined by the “parts” (in both quantity and type) that make up that thing. For example, different chemical properties of different atoms depend on the number of valence electrons in the atom. If that number changes, the emergent attributes of the atom may or may not change (depending on how the new collection of parts works together).
In short, the emergent attributes of something depend on that which they emerge from.
There is more to this then the sum of atoms. For example, consider phase in chemistry. Many different types of chemicals can change phase, regardless of construction. This does not mean that this property is independant of the different constructive parts. Presumably, all atoms have the ability to change phase, and this carries over to molecules regardless of individual constructive atoms.
Why not? If those properties do not emerge from the parts, where do they emerge from?
The parts interact with each other to change the end result. Such interactions are more complex than simple addition of properties.
You seem to think that properties can only be added. I don’t see why this is the case. In your water example, if flammability is “x” and the combustion catalyst is “y”, then:
x
does not equal x + y.Properties can interact with each other is many different ways, more than simply adding up the individual properties. If this were otherwise, water would instantly burn, as you pointed out.
This illustrates my point. If any constituent “part” of the molecule is missing, the emergent attributes may change. If the oxygen part is lost, then the emergent attribute of “non-flammability” is lost as well.
I don’t see anything to disagree with here. Of course, I would add theology.
Maybe your last sentence will change as well, once new discoveries are made.
I don’t agree with this. Natural science works well up to a point, but then cannot go any farther. Science cannot answer the question of why, or provide answers about reality that is not physical.
Scientism stops the advance of knowledge arbitrarily. First, it decrees that we only need to know how, not why. Then, it concludes that since theology does not concern the why, it is not necessary.
If one maintains that knowing why something is is a better explanation than simply knowing how, then science is not adequate to explain reality. If one maintains that knowing how is as far as we should or can go, then obviously science is adequate.
Is there any justification for the decision that we only need to know how?
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Yes, but a human person is composed of a body and soul. They cannot be completely separated from each other.
The church has not ruled on when the soul enters the body. However, we are required to treat embryos as if they have a soul. I think this is mainly because the body has already been created and thus should not be “denied” to the soul, since do to so would be to destroy a “person”. Honestly I don’t know a lot about this.
Now that we know how conception takes place, I think the consensus (not binding) is that ensoulment is at conception, because there is no biological or theological reason for it to be otherwise. Back when there was a lot of debate about this question, people had no good idea of how reproduction occured.
A
ateista
Guest
I gleaned this from the posts pertaining to this subject… many of them.
Yes, there can be… and will be. No question about that. However, the method of observation, hypothesis forming and checking for the predictablilty of the hypothesis has been tried and tested innumerable times. So far it worked. We all know that “past results do not guarantee future outcomes”, but in this case we can be very conficent that it will be so.
A
ateista
Guest
You answer this in your next part of your post. Both the physical particles and their arrangement (which is not a physical ontological object) are important. Just consider those 6 carbon atoms and their respective patterns. Both the physical atoms and their patterns must be considered to find out the attributes of the graphite and diamond.
Exactly.
Well said. But I don’t undersatnd what is your point. Is there a necessity of any “supernatural” assumption here?You seem to think that properties can only be added. I don’t see why this is the case. In your water example, if flammability is “x” and the combustion catalyst is “y”, then:
x
Properties can interact with each other is many different ways, more than simply adding up the individual properties. If this were otherwise, water would instantly burn, as you pointed out.
This illustrates my point. If any constituent “part” of the molecule is missing, the emergent attributes may change. If the oxygen part is lost, then the emergent attribute of “non-flammability” is lost as well.
By all means, let’s add it.
I am ready to do that.
Well, you mixed two questions here. The question of “why” and the problem of “not physical”. Indeed the question of “why” is dubious. In science one does not ask “why” is the water “wet”, one simply describes that one of the attributes of water is “wetness”.
As far as non-physical reality goes, we must be more precise. The realm of concepts is within certain parts of science, for example logic or linguistics. We can talk intelligently about the concepts of “above”, “beyond”, “color”, “dragons”, “fairies”, “leprechauns” etc… we can even talk intelligently about the concept of “God”. These are all existing concepts, abstractions or ideas. Whether they have a corresponding counterpart in reality is another matter.
But you seem to indicate that there is another kind of “reality”, not physical but not conceptual either, which nevertheless “exists”. Unfortunately this is where we start to have problems. Even the word “exists” in undefined in this instance. It is not physical existence and not simply conceptual existence - and these are the only types of existence we are intimately familiar with.
Why is that “arbitrary”?
When we try to speak of the “third” type of existence, the believers cannot even explain what that means. Non-physical (conceptual) existence is “inert”, it cannot interact with physical reality.
The “third” type (Godly) existence is simply magic. Something that cannot be described accurately, something that cannot be confined into a coherent definition, yet something that can interact with actual, physical reality… that is pure magic. And, yes, science does not care about the unexplainable, does not care about magic, There is nothing “arbitrary” about that.
It is your right and prerogative to maintain that the “why” is important. I happen to disagree. But that does not infringe on your right to assert that your view is correct and mine is deficient. We can peacefully coexist - as long as your view does not infringe on my rights to conduct my life as I want to.
Yes. Practicality. The physical world as we know it is so amazingly complex and wonderful that one should not waste time on pondering the “hypothetical” third type of existence - especially since it cannot even be defined in a coherent manner.
A
ateista
Guest
What happens at the point of death, when the electical actvity of the brain stops?
Actually, if we look beyond the humans, there are lots of questions to be answered. Bacteria and other one-cell organisms do not “die”, they simply split and multiply. Since they are alive, theists maintain that they have some kind of a “soul”. What happens to their “soul”? Does it also “split”? Or a new one is “created” by God? Which one will have the “original soul”? Or does the original soul “die” and two brand new ones are created ex-nihilo?
Questions like this make the concept of soul simply incoherent and speculative. Moreover this concept does not explain anything. It is on par with the question: “how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle”? And that was a serious theological question in its own time…
S
Sarpedon
Guest
We may have been talking past each other. I agree with the above. I would say that, if a 6-atom configuration “lost” a part (an atom), then the emergent attribute would change. Thus, specific emergent attributes depend on both the presence of certain parts and their arrangment. Do you agree with this?
S
Sarpedon
Guest
The question is dubious because science does not answer it?
Your post is absolutely correct. Science answers “how” or “what”, rather than “why”
We need to be “intimately familiar” with something in order to study it?
Just because we may lack first hand experience of something does not mean that that thing is not real. Reality exists independent of us.
Because science cannot provide any reason for it.
If science managed to explain why knowledge of the**“why”** question is not necessary, that would be quite unusual.
Yes we can, read newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
You also might want to check out the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
The summa link has a section on angels, if you want info on spiritual existence other than God.
Your last sentence is mere assertation, and something Catholics do not maintain.
Read the above articles. The entire Summa can be read through the link, which defines such matters over the course of many, many pages (students hate it for a reason
)Of course agree with this. However, if it is simply a personal preference on whether “why” is important, is this a very scientific assertion? Very few if any things in science are left to subjective opinion.
We can examine such existence in a coherent matter, as per the links above.
Catholics believe that studing the complexities and intricacy of the world is a way to appreciate God and His creation. After all, creation is God’s gift to us, and we should value it and study it.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Eventually, the body will be resurrected at the last judgment.
I see two possibilities:
- Since heaven and hell are outside of time, perhaps we are never truly separated from our body. Perhaps as soon as we die we are timelessly reunited to our body. Without time, people would not sit around in heaven waiting for the last judgement.
- The body cannot be completely separated from the soul, for a person is a union, but perhaps physical separation does not constitute complete separation.
What I said initially only applied to humans.
Bacteria have material souls, which are not at all like the spiritual souls we typically think of. A material soul is an umbrella term for that which makes an organism alive, in a material sense. This is not really a spiritual term, because it only deals with matter.
I admit that the terms are confusing, but they were probably less so back in the 13th century when St. Aquinas brought them to prominence.
Although now we know the absurdity of that question, it is only because men and women have labored over the years to study God and His creation. Theology stands on the “shoulders of giants” too. God reveals truth through His church, but He also guides us in studying it.
Anyway, remember that the question of whether flies spontaneously formed out of meat was once a serious biological question. Does this make science incoherent?
- Status