What can science tell us about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?

[balto]

Before we go any further, I do appreciate your non-confrontational style and also your line of questioning. This is the way we can (hopefully) learn from each other.

Yes, I’m glad we agree on this . It seems that too many people on both sides are just looking to “score points” which avoids a fruitful dialogue. I apologize if I came across as condescending in any way as it was not my intention. I have a tendency to come across as overly stern when I write.

I agree that this would be a false dichotomy. Science does not attempt to answer a lot of questions.

Some of those questions are subjective. An example: 1) “why does Joe prefer vanilla flavored ice-cream over the chocolate-flavored one?”. This question pertains to the objective, physical reality, and yet, science cannot answer it – and even if it could answer it, no one would care. But the knowledge is useful, if you wish to give Joe a present by inviting him to an ice-cream-parlor and wish to order for him.

Also, we need to exclude the questions pertaining to the axiomatic systems. One cannot experiment to decide if a proposition within an axiomatic is true or not. If it can be reduced to the axioms, then it is true, otherwise it is not true. (Observe: “not true” does not necessarily mean “false”).

I agree with the above, however I think sometimes there is a tendency to say that subjective experiences (I believe they are called qualia?) are really just illusions that are reducible to some objective physical process. But I think this tendency is unfounded and that subjective experiences are indeed real, pertaining to immateriality which I will discuss below.

The second problem is that the word “real” is undefined. What does “immaterial reality” mean? One could say that ideas, concepts, abstractions are examples of “immaterial reality” (and that is a philosophical assessment), but then some problems arise. Many critics of science operate under the false impression that materialism considers all reality to be “physical objects”. And that is not true. Physical objects have “immaterial aspects” to them. These are “properties” (“red” or “sweet” are not physical objects), “activities” (“walking” or “thinking” are not physical objects) and “relationships” (“behind” or “next to” are not physical objects). Yet, none of these properties, actions and relationships exist independently from physical objects.

Since I don’t know (yet) what you mean by “immaterial reality”, I will have to stop here, and wait for you to clarify.

Yes, this is more or less what I was thinking of when I brought up immaterial realities. I think we agree (correct me if I am wrong) that these immaterial realities are indeed as real as the laptop I am typing on. A lot of the contention between abstract-ness and materialism is a consequence of embedded Cartesian dualism in our thinking (i.e. matter and mind are separate, disjoint realities, leading to people either siding with one or the other to the exclusion of the other side). I’ve actually been meaning to start a thread on philosophical proofs for the existence of the immaterial human soul as demonstrated by our ability to exhibit immaterial reasoning. Maybe I should get around to that .

I would like to comment on the fairy tale point you made though. You raise a valid point that fairy tales may be internally consist but are not real. Although the physical events are obviously false, they do contain valuable truths in the story themselves (abstract immaterial truths?) For instance, I think G.K. Chesterton had a quote about fairy tales that said something like, and I am paraphrasing: “Fairy tales are real not because they tell us that dragons exist but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” He was very much into fantasy from what I could tell so I’m not sure how willing I am to go down that path with him, but it’s useful to think about maybe. I wonder if maybe the converse is true as well; that there are physical realities that, although true, offer no immaterial truths.

Continued…

 

[balto]

Sadly, it is insufficient. If you wish to exclude the physical “imprint” then there is no difference between a “seven-headed, fire breathing dragon” and a “demon”. How does one decide if one is “real”, while the other one is false? You need some actual, physical starting point upon which you build your conclusions. And here we arrive to the next stumbling block.

I see what you are saying and the angels/demons thing was a tough thing for me to swallow as a scientist who wants physical proofs for things. However, I think it pertains to the point I brought up from Chesterton. While yes, dragons don’t exist physically, what the artist or storyteller may be getting at is something immaterial. “Demon” and “dragon” may just be two words that people contrived to refer to the same thing, but then adopted different forms as they were represented artistically. But there can be a rational basis for it. For instance, take angels and demons. According to Catholic doctrine, an angel or demon is really an immaterial, bodiless spirit with the powers of intellect and will. Since we know that non-rational bodies exist (animals) and can establish (I think) that humans have both a body and a rational soul with intellect and will, it stands to reason that bodiless spirits also exist. Although I don’t expect you to buy this it can be defended rationally.

Yes, it cannot be tested experimentally, but the experimental method is unique to science because of the nature of what is studied, i.e. material realities that obey past causation and are therefore reproducible.

There is a minor misunderstanding here. Obviously you need to establish credibility. (How you do it, is a different question, to be explored later.) The question was “does the person offering a criticism have sufficient knowledge about the subject to be criticized”? How can you decide if someone has sufficient knowledge to make valid criticisms about Christianity (example only; it could astrology for all I care)? We deal with the problem of “authority” here.

Do you consider “A” who has a very thorough knowledge about Christianity and also believes it correct – to be a valid authority? Do you consider “B” who can demonstrate the same level of knowledge but rejects it – not to be an authority? You see, if the only necessary requirement is the level of knowledge, then you cannot decide between competing authorities. In such a case you need to resort either (1) to accept the one who supports you (subjectivism), or (2) tossing a coin (random selection), or finally (3) to the “dirty” verificationism to find out which one of the authorities can support his assessment.

Yes, there is an issue with authority which has led to so much division in the Christian world. Coming from a Catholic perspective, the teachings of the Magisterium and the Pope are protected from error by God Himself. Now this is a monumental claim and is either true, in which case you should listen to it, or false, in which case it is one of the most evil claims to have ever been made. At least for me the issue is establishing whether the Gospel accounts are historically accurate, in which case Christ was God and did establish a Church. This is an ongoing process for myself so there’s a little bit of Pascal’s Wager in my thinking unfortunately.

This is off-putting for a lot of people because then it’s “you’re just accepting what some old man in a robe says.” I find this analogy helpful though: the teachings of the Church are like the answers in the back of the book. Yes, you can just take the answers directly and get 100s on your homework but you’re going to flunk the test. You still need to understand how the answers are correct. So when I hear a competing argument from an atheist or Protestant or what-have-you I at least try to understand why they are wrong rather than just saying “you’re wrong because the Church says so.” Again, I don’t expect you to buy this but it’s where a lot of the people on this forum are coming from.

Wow, I’m getting long-winded again… I look forward to your response

 

[balto]

Yes, and historically the Vatican has supported science along the way, Galileo notwithstanding. The Vatican for centuries has had its own astronomer.

Dawkins is a longtime professional practitioner of either/or thinking. Either you are a scientist and an atheist or a bible-thumper and an ignoramus.

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly, but unfortunately a lot of the myths can be very deeply embedded into society’s thinking and are difficult to uproot. And then it’s even more difficult when some of the stories turn out to have some truth to them…

As I said to Jewel34 I think a lot of the current difficulties can be traced back to Descartes’ Cartesian dualism which separated mind and matter. As a result, you either end up on team “res extensa” with the materialists or team “res cognita” with spiritualists and there’s no middle ground. The middle ground, to my knowledge, had been widely held in the classical and medieval worlds and it might be beneficial to revisit some of those ideas.

 

[inocente]

But surely you know that certain aspects of Newtonian physics were superceded by Einstein.

Before Einstein any textbook would have treated Newton as the last word. Not so after Einstein.

This dogmatism you find in physics certainly has parallels in other realms of thought.

In ethics (a department of philsosophy) we see that the Golden Rule is fairly universally accepted as dogmatic morality (though certainly not practiced as such).

In politics (a department of philosophy) the world generally recognizes that democracy is superior to dictatorship.

In aesthetics (a department of philosophy) it is universally recognized that the arts have certain rules that must be followed in order to obtain the beautiful. Violate those laws with impunity and you get the ugly.

In physics (once called natural philosophy) there are simple dogmatic notions that are no longer debated (for example, that atoms exist). But the nature of the atom is still very much debated just because we do not know everything about it.

In biology (the philosopher Aristoitle was one of the earliest pioneers) today we hear of the dogmatism of evolution. But evolution does not apply to the origin of life, since there was no living being to evolve from. There is nothing dogmatic about the origin of life. You tend to side with the atheists who see pure chance at work. But there is no proof of pure chance, and the first living organism appearing all at once with all the functions of a living organism (including the capacity to evolve) seems a good deal more like it was intelligently designed than that it came into being without any rhyme or reason.

Dogmatism is built into our nature, yes. But your worship of the dogmatism of science is undeserved, as any good scientist will tell you.

Your objection is still a straw man. Newton’s law of gravity gives perfectly (and I do mean perfectly) correct answers for all everyday applications. Einstein knew that he couldn’t tamper with that and so his law contains an extra factor which is only significant outside the limits of Newton’s law. This is true of all physical law, correct results never become incorrect. That’s not dogmatism, it’s just a fact.

Though your point is true of metaphysics. Many philosophers took Newton’s laws to mean we live in a clockwork universe, while after Einstein and quantum mechanics most philosophers say we don’t live in a clockwork universe. So schoolbooks of philosophy changed. But Newton’s law is still taught because it works in everyday applications and is easier to understand than Einstein’s.

btw I have trained as an artist and can tell you it is more or less a right of passage for every artist to violate the so-called laws of aesthetics and still make something beautiful. If there actually were inviolate laws of beauty then male frogs really would find princesses more attractive than female frogs, and all men of all ethnic backgrounds would find one specific woman’s face the most beautiful ever. Instead, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is a bit of science that every artist discovers.

Down with dogma!!!

 

[inocente]

As I said to Jewel34 I think a lot of the current difficulties can be traced back to Descartes’ Cartesian dualism which separated mind and matter. As a result, you either end up on team “res extensa” with the materialists or team “res cognita” with spiritualists and there’s no middle ground. The middle ground, to my knowledge, had been widely held in the classical and medieval worlds and it might be beneficial to revisit some of those ideas.

Sort of agreed although I’m not sure it is the middle ground as it seems so alien to many. I’ve asked Catholics to explain what the following means, and most give a Cartesian answer (especially when the quote signs around “form” are pointed out):

CCC 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body

 

[balto]

Sort of agreed although I’m not sure it is the middle ground as it seems so alien to many. I’ve asked Catholics to explain what the following means, and most give a Cartesian answer (especially when the quote signs around “form” are pointed out):

CCC 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body

Well to my understanding the form of some object would be the way the matter composing it is organized. For instance, a tree is not simply a collection of bark, leaves, sap, etc. but all those materials organized into a particular form. That would describe the soul of the tree. It’s interesting to note that it is taught that all life forms have souls, but humans differ in that their soul is rational and capable of expressing intellect and will.

This need not be a Cartesian answer as body and soul may be two sides of the same coin. I do admit that I am not as well-versed in these matters as some of the other posters, so I may not have answered to your satisfaction, but that was my understanding anyway. I remember reading a neurology review paper a while back that was linked to on a thread around here about life being at the intersection of entropic and syntropic processes, syntropy being order coming from chaos. Not sure how much of it I buy, but if true it may contain the answer to the body/soul paradox. It was interesting nonetheless.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But Newton’s law is still taught because it works in everyday applications and is easier to understand than Einstein’s.

btw I have trained as an artist and can tell you it is more or less a right of passage for every artist to violate the so-called laws of aesthetics and still make something beautiful. If there actually were inviolate laws of beauty then male frogs really would find princesses more attractive than female frogs, and all men of all ethnic backgrounds would find one specific woman’s face the most beautiful ever. Instead, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is a bit of science that every artist discovers.

Newton’s laws of physics don’t work at all in relation to nuclear physics.

“Down with dogma?” I thought you were saying Newtonian physics is dogma.

You may have trained as an artist, but I don’t think you believe scribbling is art.

Scribbling is ugly. Only a moron would say it is beautiful. So rules absolutely apply.

My wife and I agree that my handwriting is marginally acceptable. We also agree that her handwriting is beautiful. A moron might not be able to read either of us.

Up with dogma!!!

 

[tonyrey]

You are obviously unaware of the intense competition, rivalry and even dishonesty in the scientific community.

The correction of the false generalisation

While philosophers work alone and disagree on everything, scientists cooperate in teams and try to agree on everything.

is not an ad hominem.

However, the competition, rivalry, and also jealousy are the driving force of new scientific discoveries. Fallible people crave recognition, and fame, so they will try their best to poke “holes” into the ideas of others, so they can “win”. The rare, but occasional dishonesty among the scientists does no lasting harm, precisely because the rest of the scientists will discover the “massaging of the data”.

What you consider the “negative” side of the scientific method (provisional, temporary, selfish, etc…) are the factors which make the scientific discoveries valuable and useful. It is ironic that the “accusations” of science happen on the most advanced gadgets of science (computers) using the most advanced communication method (the internet).

“rare” begs the question because there has been - and still is - so much disagreement within the scientific community and so much corruption in the Establishment it is often years before scandals are revealed and the full truth comes to light. Nature is a prime example of favouritism and prejudice.

What can science tell us about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?
A lot. Of course such a random collection of unrelated abstractions is not a good idea to expect a meaningful conversation.

These categories could and should be examined separately. But a few words can be told about them. Keep in mind that these words all have many, mutually incompatible meanings and so they can be studied by multiple branches of science.

1. Goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all based on truth.
2. Truth, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of goodness.
3. There is no dispute regarding the fundamental meanings of truth, goodness, freedom and justice in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1. Truth: Abstract concept, describing the equivalence between reality and its mental picture. (logic)

Science presupposes logic which is a branch of philosophy.

1. Goodness: A positive behavior toward others. (biology, sociology, interpersonal relations)

“Positive” presupposes human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

1. Freedom: A state of affairs which allow non-destructive behavior toward others. (politics, sociology)

“non-destructive behavior” presupposes human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

1. Justice: An abstract concept which describes a “quid-pro-quo” attitude. (politics. sociology)

a “quid-pro-quo” attitude” presupposes human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

1. Beauty: A subjective notion. (belongs to art, which is not a science)

Beauty is objective - e.g. the Golden Ratio - as well as subjective.

1. Love: A positive emotion. (biology, behaviors, sociology)

Love is primarily a personal commitment resulting from a rational decision to will the good of another. (Aristotle, Aquinas)

So, the different branches of science are applicable to these concepts. But, it is true that science is silent in the case of imaginary “entities”, like the seven-headed, fire breathing dragons, Sandy Claws, honest lawyers and politicians and other entities which are merely a figment of your imagination.

Science is totally silent with regard to the origin, value, purpose and significance of existence.

 

[Jewel34]

balto:

It seems that too many people on both sides are just looking to “score points” which avoids a fruitful dialogue.

We really are on the same wave-length here. Most encouraging!

balto:

I agree with the above, however I think sometimes there is a tendency to say that subjective experiences (I believe they are called qualia?) are really just illusions that are reducible to some objective physical process.

Our nervous system consists of many parts. It starts with the nerve endings, which register the physical interaction with the physical environment. We have different nerve endings, which register excessive heat, or cold, or pressure, etc… It is all physical. Then there is the nerve connection (neural pathways) from the nerve endings to the brain, and a fully physical signal is transmitted via these neural pathways. Finally, the brain has the pleasure/pain center, which “translates” the incoming electro-chemical signals into the perception of pain (or discomfort). Where is the need for assuming a non-physical part here? Consider those rats which had wires connected to their pleasure center, and they were allowed to stimulate that center (by pressing down a pedal). They kept on exciting themselves all the way until full exhaustion.

balto:

Yes, this is more or less what I was thinking of when I brought up immaterial realities. I think we agree (correct me if I am wrong) that these immaterial realities are indeed as real as the laptop I am typing on.

Ah, the first disagreement. The abstractions are dependent upon the physical objects, and sometimes even on an observer. The attributes (“red” or “sweet”) do not exist without the physical objects. Moreover, “red” does not exist without an observer with an eye (which can react to a certain electromagnetic radiation… light) and “sweet” does not exist without someone who has appropriate taste buds. I am aware that some people subscribe to the Platonic concept of “abstract objects” and they assert that the actual, physical representations are merely an imperfect replica of the perfect “abstract objects”. Let me know your opinion about this. I would like to know your approach.

Moreover, your laptop would continue to exist even if the whole humanity would disappear. On the other hand, the information in “Hamlet” would cease to exist, if humanity would cease to exist. Even if the written replica of Hamlet would continue to exist, without someone able to read and comprehend the text, there is no “Hamlet”.

And another objection: the concepts, abstractions themselves are “inert”. They cannot act on the physical reality. So, I disagree with your suggested “immaterial reality”.

balto:

I would like to comment on the fairy tale point you made though. You raise a valid point that fairy tales may be internally consist but are not real. Although the physical events are obviously false, they do contain valuable truths in the story themselves (abstract immaterial truths?)

That is fine. Stories, tales, etc… can contain very valuable ideas and information and teach us good, valuable lessons (and I include certain parts of the Bible here). They are “real” as stories, etc… However what they talk about, is not “real” in any sense of the word. As such I am still in the “dark” as pertaining to “immaterial reality”? The point is that God, angels, demons are supposed to “exist” apart from the physical reality and they are supposed to be active. They are supposed to be able to influence the physical reality, and they are supposed to be influenced by the physical reality. God is supposed to “respond in a positive manner” to prayers.

balto:

According to Catholic doctrine, an angel or demon is really an immaterial, bodiless spirit with the powers of intellect and will. Since we know that non-rational bodies exist (animals) and can establish (I think) that humans have both a body and a rational soul with intellect and will, it stands to reason that bodiless spirits also exist. Although I don’t expect you to buy this it can be defended rationally.

Well, obviously I do not “buy it” on words alone, but I am definitely open to see some rational arguments for it. Another loosely defined concept is a “rational soul”, which needs to be substantiated. As far as I am concerned, the electro-chemical activity of the brain (also known as “mind”) is perfectly sufficient to explain the intellect and the “will” of humans. Animals also exhibit a lower level of intellect and a certain level of decision making (or “will”) without any recourse to a “rational soul”.

But I have never seen an immaterial entity to be able to act on a physical object. Sure, some new-agers assert that one can perform “telekinesis” or “aura-reading” or some other esoteric immaterial force. But there has never been a successful experiment to substantiate it.

… to be continued

 

[Jewel34]

balto:

Yes, there is an issue with authority which has led to so much division in the Christian world. Coming from a Catholic perspective, the teachings of the Magisterium and the Pope are protected from error by God Himself. Now this is a monumental claim and is either true, in which case you should listen to it, or false, in which case it is one of the most evil claims to have ever been made.

Why would it be “evil”? It would simply be an inaccurate claim. People can simply be mistaken. Let me quickly reflect on the “liar, lunatic or lord” kind of approach. There is a fourth alternative called: “legend”. No one was deliberately distorting the events (liar), no one was a lunatic to misunderstand the events (lunatic), and there is no “lord”. People simply tell those stories and “some of them” eventually become convinced that the stories actually refer to real persons and events.

balto:

At least for me the issue is establishing whether the Gospel accounts are historically accurate, in which case Christ was God and did establish a Church.

There are many things the gospels “claim”. The approach that either all of them are true or all of them are false would be another false dichotomy. Some of them might be true while others might be false. Just because there are some historically accurate events it does not follow that other events “which are scientifically ridiculous” are also supposed to be accurate.

balto:

So when I hear a competing argument from an atheist or Protestant or what-have-you I at least try to understand why they are wrong rather than just saying “you’re wrong because the Church says so.” Again, I don’t expect you to buy this but it’s where a lot of the people on this forum are coming from.

This is another wonderful testimony to your intellectual honesty! I am very happy to have you as a conversational partner.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Newton’s laws of physics don’t work at all in relation to nuclear physics.

Just throwing in my small comment, but I thought that was addressed earlier.

Newton’s law of gravity will always be true within its bounds, the correct predictions it made before Einstein remain correct, just as the predictions made by Einstein’s law will also remain correct if and when it gets replaced.

Innocent’s comment seems to be applicable here also. What you seemed have done is identified one of the size domains that is outside of the range of Newtonian mechanics. This doesn’t show that Newtonian mechanics are wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would it be “evil”? It would simply be an inaccurate claim. People can simply be mistaken. Let me quickly reflect on the “liar, lunatic or lord” kind of approach. There is a fourth alternative called: “legend”. No one was deliberately distorting the events (liar), no one was a lunatic to misunderstand the events (lunatic), and there is no “lord”. People simply tell those stories and “some of them” eventually become convinced that the stories actually refer to real persons and events.

It is fantasy to suggest that the moral teaching of Christ, respected even by an adversary of religion like Richard Dawkins, originated in fantasy…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Innocent’s comment seems to be applicable here also. What you seemed have done is identified one of the size domains that is outside of the range of Newtonian mechanics. This doesn’t show that Newtonian mechanics are wrong.

I didn’t say they were wrong. I said they don’t apply to the umpteen trillions of atoms that make up all the stars and planets in space … in other words, the greater realm of reality that inhabits us but we cannot grasp except by a physics Newton could not even imagine because he came too early in history. Newton was enough of a genius to know that he was not the last and absolute word in physics.

innocente’s position is peculiarly contradictory. He is against dogmatism (especially in theology and philosophy) yet he is open to dogmatism in physics because, for example, the laws of physics discovered by Newton work.

Well, so does the Golden Rule, a law for the moral order, work if you follow it. That is both a dogmatic theological principle for religious people and a dogmatic philosophical principle for atheists if they are willing to try it and see that it works.

 

[balto]

Our nervous system consists of many parts. It starts with the nerve endings, which register the physical interaction with the physical environment. We have different nerve endings, which register excessive heat, or cold, or pressure, etc… It is all physical. Then there is the nerve connection (neural pathways) from the nerve endings to the brain, and a fully physical signal is transmitted via these neural pathways. Finally, the brain has the pleasure/pain center, which “translates” the incoming electro-chemical signals into the perception of pain (or discomfort). Where is the need for assuming a non-physical part here? Consider those rats which had wires connected to their pleasure center, and they were allowed to stimulate that center (by pressing down a pedal). They kept on exciting themselves all the way until full exhaustion.

I have no contention thus far. Sensation and imagination are relevant to all sentient life forms, including humans.

Ah, the first disagreement. The abstractions are dependent upon the physical objects, and sometimes even on an observer. The attributes (“red” or “sweet”) do not exist without the physical objects. Moreover, “red” does not exist without an observer with an eye (which can react to a certain electromagnetic radiation… light) and “sweet” does not exist without someone who has appropriate taste buds. I am aware that some people subscribe to the Platonic concept of “abstract objects” and they assert that the actual, physical representations are merely an imperfect replica of the perfect “abstract objects”. Let me know your opinion about this. I would like to know your approach.

I will admit that I am not as well-versed in philosophy as I should be, so I’m not intimately familiar with Plato’s thinking. I can say that I do acknowledge that abstract attributes such as redness, sweetness, triangularity, etc. and even higher level abstract concepts such as love, goodness, justice, etc. are real apart from the material objects that possess some of these attributes. I may need a bit more room to expound upon my understanding of it, so I think I will do that in another thread tomorrow so more knowledgeable posters can contribute. It is sort of related to your remarks below. I will say that I don’t think it necessary to possess a physical body to be aware of these abstract truths. Supposedly angels and demons, being bodiless spirits, can just “get” these truths whereas humans need to use physical sensation and imagination to get the understanding, but once the understanding is accomplished the senses and imagination are no longer necessary.

Moreover, your laptop would continue to exist even if the whole humanity would disappear. On the other hand, the information in “Hamlet” would cease to exist, if humanity would cease to exist. Even if the written replica of Hamlet would continue to exist, without someone able to read and comprehend the text, there is no “Hamlet”.

Now I think that we are on to something very significant. It is related to the reason why I accept rational immaterial human souls that other life forms lack: the ability to grasp abstract concepts. As you have rightly pointed out, the material words comprising Hamlet are not sufficient in and of themselves to determine for certain what the meaning of the story is. I don’t think that making recourse to human thinking necessarily solves the problem because then the problem is just kicked up to the level of Shakespeare’s material brain states. Granted that we know every bit of data about his brain states, it is not certain that we will produce Hamlet. Maybe something similar to Hamlet, but that finding would be consistent with a human which supposedly has a nature composed of material and immaterial parts.

That is fine. Stories, tales, etc… can contain very valuable ideas and information and teach us good, valuable lessons (and I include certain parts of the Bible here). They are “real” as stories, etc… However what they talk about, is not “real” in any sense of the word. As such I am still in the “dark” as pertaining to “immaterial reality”? The point is that God, angels, demons are supposed to “exist” apart from the physical reality and they are supposed to be active. They are supposed to be able to influence the physical reality, and they are supposed to be influenced by the physical reality. God is supposed to “respond in a positive manner” to prayers.

They may indeed be able to influence physical reality, although it is certainly not controllable by humans. You raise a valid point about prayer, and it is one that I have been considering recently. There were some other threads in the philosophy forum recently dealing with this issue and I think the consensus reached was one that I was concluding as well, namely that prayer is not intended to be something that gets God, a saint, or an angel to do something for the petitioner. Rather, the change is probably realized on the petitioners themselves, as they become more aware of the divine will for their lives through the course of prayer.

 

[balto]

Well, obviously I do not “buy it” on words alone, but I am definitely open to see some rational arguments for it. Another loosely defined concept is a “rational soul”, which needs to be substantiated. As far as I am concerned, the electro-chemical activity of the brain (also known as “mind”) is perfectly sufficient to explain the intellect and the “will” of humans. Animals also exhibit a lower level of intellect and a certain level of decision making (or “will”) without any recourse to a “rational soul”.

I’ll start a new thread tomorrow when I am thinking more clearly dealing with this topic so that we may discuss it more fully.

But I have never seen an immaterial entity to be able to act on a physical object. Sure, some new-agers assert that one can perform “telekinesis” or “aura-reading” or some other esoteric immaterial force. But there has never been a successful experiment to substantiate it.

It may be the case that it is possible to contact spirits via these mechanisms, but even if it is possible it is highly unlikely that it is controllable by the humans involved, which is probably the reason it is prohibited by Catholicism. I don’t have any interest in trying it out though, as that would put me in a state of mortal sin and I would have to remember that at confession .

Why would it be “evil”? It would simply be an inaccurate claim. People can simply be mistaken. Let me quickly reflect on the “liar, lunatic or lord” kind of approach. There is a fourth alternative called: “legend”. No one was deliberately distorting the events (liar), no one was a lunatic to misunderstand the events (lunatic), and there is no “lord”. People simply tell those stories and “some of them” eventually become convinced that the stories actually refer to real persons and events.

Well presumably somebody would know that the claim is false and the magnitude of the difference between the claim and reality would make it truly evil indeed if it were a lie. As to the claim of the Gospels being legendary, there are a couple of points that I consider to be relevant. One is the dating of the manuscripts, many of which date to the lifetimes of the authors who were contemporaries of Christ. Cult followings tend to die out because the legendary claims can be easily refuted by first-hand observers. Another important point to consider is the motivations of the early Christians. They stood to gain nothing and lose everything. I understand that Jim Jones-type cults occasionally occur, but again the fact that the same fervor was sustained for 2,000 years is remarkable to me at least.

There are many things the gospels “claim”. The approach that either all of them are true or all of them are false would be another false dichotomy. Some of them might be true while others might be false. Just because there are some historically accurate events it does not follow that other events “which are scientifically ridiculous” are also supposed to be accurate.

Yes, you are correct. Ironically enough the two most important claims to validate are “is Christ God as He claimed” and “did He establish a Church.” Then it would need to be established that the Catholic Church in my case is that church. Then the rest is easier to validate or accept due to the fact that the canonicity of the Scriptures was established by a church started by God. Historical evidence was integral to my accepting these fundamental claims.

This is another wonderful testimony to your intellectual honesty! I am very happy to have you as a conversational partner.

Thanks, you too! I think this has been a useful discussion.

 

[Jewel34]

balto:

Thanks, you too! I think this has been a useful discussion.

These conversations tend to create more new threads and questions than resolving the issues. This is not a problem, of course. We may select some questions and explore them further if you so choose.

[/quote]

Just for the fun, let me reflect upon this smiley. The original, Roman meaning of the “thumbsup” was the exact opposite than what people think today. The thumb, when lifted up meant: “raise your sword and kill the opponent”. The inverted thumb (pointed downward) meant: “lower your sword and spare his life”. Very few people know this today. Funny, how words and signals tend to change their “meaning” as time goes on. Another “abused” word is “liberal”, which originally meant: “someone who cherishes freedom / liberty”, and which became a political “cuss-word” today. (What a shame!)

The reason I brought this up to give an example that “abstractions” or “meanings” do not have independent existence. They are all dependent upon the societies and their prevailing understanding. (I consider this a very important point.)

One more remark about the existence of “abstractions” and their connection to those alleged “rational souls”. Not all humans are able to deal with abstractions. And I do not just mean the infants, whose brain is insufficiently developed to deal with them. There are some autistic people (very smart and bright individuals) who cannot think in “abstractions”. For them there is no “abstract dog”. When they hear the word “dog”, they quickly think of ALL the dogs they encountered in their life, and it takes a conscious effort to stop their internal “movie-reel”. So let us not over-emphasize the ability to think in “abstractions”.

Anyhow, if we do not meet before the holidays, I wish you a merry Christmas. (Of course, if we talk again, it will not invalidate the well-wishes! ) See you later!

 

[balto]

Just for the fun, let me reflect upon this smiley. The original, Roman meaning of the “thumbsup” was the exact opposite than what people think today. The thumb, when lifted up meant: “raise your sword and kill the opponent”. The inverted thumb (pointed downward) meant: “lower your sword and spare his life”. Very few people know this today. Funny, how words and signals tend to change their “meaning” as time goes on. Another “abused” word is “liberal”, which originally meant: “someone who cherishes freedom / liberty”, and which became a political “cuss-word” today. (What a shame!)

The reason I brought this up to give an example that “abstractions” or “meanings” do not have independent existence. They are all dependent upon the societies and their prevailing understanding. (I consider this a very important point.)

That’s interesting, although I feel like I should have known the thumbs up trivia. Maybe I learned it in Latin class in high school. Anyway, I see what you mean but I think it may be an issue of semantics, i.e. the specific semantics are indeterminate as they relate to abstract meaning but the abstract meaning is true nonetheless.

One more remark about the existence of “abstractions” and their connection to those alleged “rational souls”. Not all humans are able to deal with abstractions. And I do not just mean the infants, whose brain is insufficiently developed to deal with them. There are some autistic people (very smart and bright individuals) who cannot think in “abstractions”. For them there is no “abstract dog”. When they hear the word “dog”, they quickly think of ALL the dogs they encountered in their life, and it takes a conscious effort to stop their internal “movie-reel”. So let us not over-emphasize the ability to think in “abstractions”.

Yes, this is an interesting consideration. I wonder if it just has to do with how the internal physical processes work, i.e. there’s different ways to get to the same abstractions. I’ve also heard that autistic people can be super intelligent, as in doing postdoctoral astrophysics at 12 and thinking in 4 or more dimensions. I can’t even fathom that. To me it’s all an abstraction .

Anyhow, if we do not meet before the holidays, I wish you a merry Christmas. (Of course, if we talk again, it will not invalidate the well-wishes! ) See you later!

Thank you very much! I hope you have a merry Christmas as well. I hope I haven’t used up too much of your time.

 

[Jewel34]

balto:

Anyway, I see what you mean but I think it may be an issue of semantics, i.e. the specific semantics are indeterminate as they relate to abstract meaning but the abstract meaning is true nonetheless.

The point is that the physical objects can have attributes (or properties), relationships and activities – some of which can exist independently from the observer. For example there is a “distance” between two objects, even if there is no one to measure it. However the concepts of “in front of” and “behind” cannot even be defined if there is no observer positioned at a proper place. There is “weight” as an attribute of a body, but it depends on the object it happens to reside upon (so it is variable). However, “light” or “heavy” presuppose not just the object, but also someone who attempts to lift that object.

All abstractions presuppose a “someone”, who can make those abstractions. In a universe without conscious beings there can be no abstractions, even though the properties are “there” which make the process of abstracting possible. Using a variant of the old question: “if a CD player is operational in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it… does it make music?” The answer is simple: No, there is no music, however there are the vibrations of the air, which might be taken as “music” if there was someone who could hear it and whose mind would perceive it as “music” rather than “noise”. (Or to use a cute version of it: “If there is a guy in the forest, who says something… but there is no woman around… is he still wrong?”

To assert that “abstractions” have independent “immaterial existence” brings up some very serious problems. Just consider a few examples. Some people say that the “abstraction” of “2” exists independently of us, and people merely “discovered” it, rather than “created” it. It might even seem plausible at first glance. But if someone takes this seriously, then the sound of “middle A” also exists independently of us. From this it follows logically that Beethoven did not create the Ninth Symphony, rather “discovered” it. Also Shakespeare did not create the Hamlet, he “discovered” it. What about the translations of Hamlet? Do they refer to the same “abstract object”, or are the versions in German (or French…) also “discovered”? What if there is a typo in an edition? Did the typesetter “discover” a brand new “Hamlet-look-alike”? What about Picasso’s Guernica? Is it “copied” from some “abstract object” which existed (forever!) independently from humans?

This is the road to the insane asylum. There are no abstract objects. We create abstractions.

balto:

Yes, this is an interesting consideration. I wonder if it just has to do with how the internal physical processes work, i.e. there’s different ways to get to the same abstractions. I’ve also heard that autistic people can be super intelligent, as in doing postdoctoral astrophysics at 12 and thinking in 4 or more dimensions. I can’t even fathom that. To me it’s all an abstraction

Don’t forget that there are many different varieties of autism. Not all people having that condition are unable to think in abstractions. My point was that the ability to create abstractions does not need a “rational soul” – whatever it might be. And, of course, the infants are totally unable to “think” in abstractions. It is quite a learning curve for them. And yet, some people assert that they (as part of the human species) do have a “rational soul”. So the conclusion is that thinking in abstractions is independent from the “soul”.

balto:

I hope I haven’t used up too much of your time.

No chance of that. I find your posts interesting and invigorating. If I find someone boring (or worse!!) I simply disregard them.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **Jewel34**

It is always satisfying to reduce an adversary of religion to silence by a reductio ad absurdum!

 

[tonyrey]

…
This is the road to the insane asylum. There are no abstract objects. We create abstractions…

To deny **truth **exists is the high road to insanity!