"What is life" debate, inlcuding viruses

[ContegoFides]

If you believe that I should be open to the possibility of existence of soul based on how you define it, that openness must also extend to belief in the possibility of the existence of fairies, Santa Claus, etc…

I believe I addressed the straw man argument of fairies, Santa Claus, etc. above. I’ll summarize it again, in terms of your statement here.

I agree that if you are open to the possibility of the existence of God and of a spiritual soul, then that openness should logically extend to acknowledging the possibility that other unmeasurable things might exist. However, the critical error made in your line of logic is the underlying assumption that, if we accept this premise, we must abandon all reason in discerning what is likely real and what is myth. Reason still applies, even if we do not require scientific proof for belief.

So, let’s return to fairies. No one has ever shown us any physical proof that they exist. (Strike 1). There is no cross cultural belief in fairies (Strike 2). There are no logical conclusions based on observable things that fairies are the cause or result of any observable process (Strike 3). Our conclusion is, then, that while fairies might possibly exist, we have no reasonable basis to believe that they exist. We can go one step further by recognizing that stories about fairies always come Human culture, either as entertainment or to explain things that were not formerly understood. Based on this reason, we may say that it is more likely than not that fairies actually do not exist.

We may use the same line of logic for Santa Clause, elves, etc.

However, these examples are a straw man argument compared to the arguments for the existence of God, and for the soul. Why? Because we can observe things that we cannot explain or define, which are likely never explainable, which give us reasons to believe that they exist even though that they cannot be measured.

1. First Cause. No Atheist, not even Stephen Hawking, has successfully dealt with first cause. Even he asked, in the conclusion to A Brief History of Time, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” What is that fire? Logically, that fire must exist outside of time and be unchanging - and itself must have no cause. Hmmm.
2. Something animates living bodies of truly immense complexity. Pure physical processes cannot explain it, because some people die in the same situations where others live through force of will. People in vegetative states exhibit no behaviors and no “mind” - yet we perceive them to be alive. Besides, once someone “dies,” they cannot be revived - why? More importantly, why do some people “die” and then “come back” when others don’t? Sociobiologists claim that these matters result from neurotransmitters, but they offer no proof! Ironically, they take it on faith. Hmmm.
3. Miracles. Miracles are documented, particularly healings. I can find examples if you like. Ironically, the Catholic Church likes to hire atheist scientists to document that a cure or some event has no scientific explanation. Naturally, the atheist believes that some scientific principle is at work, not God, but they can say that they can’t explain what is seen. Hmmm.
4. Constancy and Endurance of the Catholic Church. No human institution, not one, has both lasted for 2000 years and not had any core teachings change. The Catholic Church went through extremely tumultuous times, including 3 people claiming to be pope, and numerous scandals and sins by people in high places, and external threats. Yet, it endures unchanged. Hmmm.
5. Lives of the saints. Every single saint declared by the Church has been deeply happy, usually even in the midst of great suffering. Hmmm.
6. Industrial complexity in life. signatureinthecell.com/ Science has no adequate explanation for how industrial complexity arose, just unsubstantiated faith. Hmmm.
7. Cross cultural universality in belief in spiritual reality. The vast majority of all humans in all cultures believe in a spiritual reality higher than themselves. Those that truly, in their hearts, adhere to the natural call towards this spirituality are demonstrably happier and better adjusted than those who do not. Hmmmm.
8. Many people of enormous intellect and reason believe in God. I pointed out some to you before, but the list goes on and on. Hmmm.

I can go on. Matter after matter, time after time, there’s something that makes you go “Hmmmm.” Indeed, when the sum of these “indicators” are considered as a whole, the reasons for faith are greater than any individual argument. Even if you think you have refuted one argument, or are skeptical about one, there are so many that all point to the same thing - God.

This is what gives us reasons for belief! Are they “proof” in the scientific sense? No, not at all. Can I compel your belief through logic alone? No, I can’t.

However, I can say that belief in God is reasonable given the weight of reason based on what is observable, and that lack of belief in God is not reasonable given the weight of reason based on what is observable.

So, to come full circle, there are HUGE differences between belief in God and belief in fairies. Belief in fairies has no reasonable basis in observable things. Belief in God does. That makes the whole fairy argument simply a straw man attempt at misdirection, in a fairly obvious attempt to belittle those who do believe in God without actually addressing the arguments at hand. In the study of debate, this is considered an “ad hominem” attack and is not considered persuasive.

I’m not saying that you’re intending to do that - but that is the purpose of the fairy argument given the differences between the arguments for God’s existence and for those of fairies.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Hmmmm a theory that explains everything explains nothing.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that “soul” is a somatic phenomenon.

Regarding the study showing that 85% of all disease is rooted in our emotions, I have little time in my hands so I can’t do a heavy research. But don’t assume that if I can’t provide the facts today, can’t be provided in the future.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Here’s the study of Ian R. McWhinney, M.D., FRCGP, FCFP, FRCP; Ronald M. Epstein, M.D.; and Tom R. Freeman, M.D., CCFP from Centre for Studies in Family Medicine The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada to support the contention that majority of all diseases is rooted in our emotions.

uwo.ca/fammed/ian/somatizationmain.htm

 

[ContegoFides]

Hmmmm a theory that explains everything explains nothing.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that “soul” is a somatic phenomenon.

Regarding the study showing that 85% of all disease is rooted in our emotions, I have little time in my hands so I can’t do a heavy research. But don’t assume that if I can’t provide the facts today, can’t be provided in the future.

I assume nothing, and await your evidence.

I’m not sure why you think that a theory that explains everything explains nothing? Seems like an oxymoron to me. What is it you are trying to say?

What is your evidence for your assumption that the soul is a somatic phenomenon?

 

[ContegoFides]

Here’s the study of Ian R. McWhinney, M.D., FRCGP, FCFP, FRCP; Ronald M. Epstein, M.D.; and Tom R. Freeman, M.D., CCFP from Centre for Studies in Family Medicine The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada to support the contention that majority of all diseases is rooted in our emotions.

uwo.ca/fammed/ian/somatizationmain.htm

NOW you are cooking with gas!!! (In other words, this is appears to be a scientific, peer reviewed study by credentialed doctors without any apparrent bias.)

I read the entire article, but did not see where the authors cited that most diseases are rooted in the emotions. At the beginning of the article, the authors state that “somataform” disorders are “common,” but do not say how common. “Common” could be 20% of disorders, or 90% of disorders.

I think the important parts of this article is that Western science needs to integrate the psychological aspects of care with the physical aspects of care. In other words, I don’t think the authors believe that emotions are the cause of most diseases, but rather the most effective care integrates caring for biologicial as well as psychological aspects of patient care.

To which I say, “duh.”

I found these two paragraphs to be of greatest interest to me:

The term somatization is a product of Western medicine’s dualistic ontology. The assumption is that emotions, instead of being expressed symbolically in words, are “transduced” to bodily events. A further assumption is that our emotions are not emb odied in the first place. Our ethnocentricity hides from us how aberrant this belief is. In many societies the concept of somatization has no meaning, since distinctions between mental and physical illness are not prevalent (Fabrega 1991). In Ayurvedic an d traditional Chinese medicine, illness (the experience of symptoms) and disease (biological processes) are not separate categories. Illnesses are conceived in terms of imbalance and are rooted in the report of symptoms. There is, therefore, no logical pl ace for the idea of somatization. Even in the European tradition, the experience of illness in all forms was accorded substantial validity until the emergence of modern diagnostic technology in the nineteenth century focused attention almost exclusively o n the bodily processes.

Although the problematic nature of somatization has been widely recognized, the logical step of abandoning the concept has not been taken. This requires us to change deep-seated assumptions. First we need to accept that emotions are normally ex perienced in the body. We should reject the idea of somatoform disorders as diagnostic entities and learn that a symptom may be an embodied emotion, indeed that all symptoms, whatever their origin, have some affective “coloring.” Whether or not they are e xperienced as emotions may or may not be abnormal, depending on the patient’s cultural background. If they are not so experienced, simply by telling the patient that his symptoms are emotional will not be helpful. The connection between emotions and bodil y state must be made at both the affective and cognitive levels by the patient. We would also have to abandon the belief that the only way to deal with embodied emotions is to “re-transduce” them to mental states. Physical therapies may also be effective in helping the patient to make the breakthrough to a new level of understanding without the requirement of verbalization. With the possible exception of somatization disorder, the only category with empiric validation, somatoform disorders should not appe ar in textbooks of medicine and psychiatry as disease categories which imply that they have the same epistemological status as discrete disorders with a verifiable natural history. A likely consequence of changing our assumptions would be a felt need to f ind a new name for these illnesses - one that integrates the physical and psychologic aspects.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I assume nothing, and await your evidence.

I’m not sure why you think that a theory that explains everything explains nothing? Seems like an oxymoron to me. What is it you are trying to say?

What is your evidence for your assumption that the soul is a somatic phenomenon?

Between our definitions of soul, which is more real?

That’s true, it’s impossible to disprove the truthfulness of your definition of soul. In itself this doesn’t prove your definition is true.

NOW you are cooking with gas!!! (In other words, this is appears to be a scientific, peer reviewed study by credentialed doctors without any apparrent bias.)

I read the entire article, but did not see where the authors cited that most diseases are rooted in the emotions. At the beginning of the article, the authors state that “somataform” disorders are “common,” but do not say how common. “Common” could be 20% of disorders, or 90% of disorders.

I think the important parts of this article is that Western science needs to integrate the psychological aspects of care with the physical aspects of care. In other words, I don’t think the authors believe that emotions are the cause of most diseases, but rather the most effective care integrates caring for biologicial as well as psychological aspects of patient care.

To which I say, “duh.”

I found these two paragraphs to be of greatest interest to me:

Psychological and emotional are the same thing.

 

[ContegoFides]

Between our definitions of soul, which is more real?

Well, I assert mine is, obviously. Yours (referring to the scientific article from before) has enough holes to drive a truck through. Mine is simple, elegant, and explains even the tough cases on the edges - and for this reason I assert is more reasonable.

That’s true, it’s impossible to disprove the truthfulness of your definition of soul. In itself this doesn’t prove your definition is true.

Agreed. However, in the absence of proof we must go with what is reasonable. As I believe I demonstrated, my definition is more reasonable and thus it is more reasonable to make the leap of faith that it is true versus the leap of faith that a purely physical, but unproven and flawed, definition is true.

As I admitted right at the beginning of our discussion, I cannot prove what I assert using the scientific method - for God and the soul are not subject to measurement. In the end, we must all make a choice to trust.

You are free to choose to trust in the existence of no God and no spiritual soul. Certainly I cannot compel you otherwise by logic or scientific proof. For me, though, in the absence of scientific proof that there is no God or spiritual soul, I don’t care to go down that nihilistic road. I’ll take the “high way.”

Psychological and emotional are the same thing.

Not sure why that is so amusing to you, but I’ll agree that there’s such a close connection between psychology and emotion that the difference is hard to ascertain.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Well, I assert mine is, obviously. Yours (referring to the scientific article from before) has enough holes to drive a truck through. Mine is simple, elegant, and explains even the tough cases on the edges - and for this reason I assert is more reasonable.

Agreed. However, in the absence of proof we must go with what is reasonable. As I believe I demonstrated, my definition is more reasonable and thus it is more reasonable to make the leap of faith that it is true versus the leap of faith that a purely physical, but unproven and flawed, definition is true.

As I admitted right at the beginning of our discussion, I cannot prove what I assert using the scientific method - for God and the soul are not subject to measurement. In the end, we must all make a choice to trust.

You are free to choose to trust in the existence of no God and no spiritual soul. Certainly I cannot compel you otherwise by logic or scientific proof. For me, though, in the absence of scientific proof that there is no God or spiritual soul, I don’t care to go down that nihilistic road. I’ll take the “high way.”

Can you give me the best reason to believe in the soul the way you defined it? Keep it simple. I would appreciate more if the answer is based from personal experience.

Not sure why that is so amusing to you, but I’ll agree that there’s such a close connection between psychology and emotion that the difference is hard to ascertain.

At least you now agree that psychology and emotion are the same animals.

 

[ContegoFides]

Can you give me the best reason to believe in the soul the way you defined it? Keep it simple. I would appreciate more if the answer is based from personal experience.

The spiritual definition is simple, elegant, comports with observations of what can be measured regarding “life,” and accounts for all difficult cases when defining life. Additionally, the physical definitions all have difficulties, exceptions, and are not simple or elegant, leading us to want to reject the physical definitions. Finally, the spiritual definition comports with the reasonable notion of God as the first cause and creator, from nothing, of everything - including our souls.

Based on my personal experience, putting logic aside, it “feels” right. No one can offer me proof that life is purely physical, and my feelings point me to a higher power. My feelings cause me to want to reject a physical definition that has many holes and is not adequate. I think everyone seeks answers to questions that fit like well-defined and oriented puzzle pieces - rather than puzzle pieces that are forced together (which is how I logically perceive solely physical definitions of life).

At least you now agree that psychology and emotion are the same animals.

Well, I’m not sure, but I feel like there’s a difference. However, I’m not a psychologist. I guess I see psychology as the study of emotion and behavior, so they are not quite equivalent in definition. Again, not that I think it makes a difference?

 

[sinnerdexter]

The spiritual definition is simple, elegant, comports with observations of what can be measured regarding “life,” and accounts for all difficult cases when defining life. Additionally, the physical definitions all have difficulties, exceptions, and are not simple or elegant, leading us to want to reject the physical definitions. Finally, the spiritual definition comports with the reasonable notion of God as the first cause and creator, from nothing, of everything - including our souls.

Based on my personal experience, putting logic aside, it “feels” right. No one can offer me proof that life is purely physical, and my feelings point me to a higher power. My feelings cause me to want to reject a physical definition that has many holes and is not adequate. I think everyone seeks answers to questions that fit like well-defined and oriented puzzle pieces - rather than puzzle pieces that are forced together (which is how I logically perceive solely physical definitions of life).

Man can live without spirituality.

 

[ContegoFides]

Man can live without spirituality.

Not so. Man can’t live without spirituality because living with spirituality is unavoidable. In other words, I’m not saying that physical survival is impossible “without” spirituality, but rather that for all humans capable of reason there will be a spirituality.

Stated differently still, everyone who thinks has a spirituality - even you. Yours is atheism, I presume. If so, your spirituality is the unsubstantiated belief that there is no God or spirituality.

The difference is that attempting to live with this belief results in unavoidable nihilism and attendant despair (lack of hope), whether or not there is depression. Therefore, even if atheism were True (a disputed point) I would reject it as being bad for my psyche.

In the objective sense, rejecting traditional spirituality might possibly lead to turning away from God upon death of the body, which I suppose means in a different sense that man still can’t live without spirituality.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Not so. Man can’t live without spirituality because living with spirituality is unavoidable. In other words, I’m not saying that physical survival is impossible “without” spirituality, but rather that for all humans capable of reason there will be a spirituality.

Stated differently still, everyone who thinks has a spirituality - even you. Yours is atheism, I presume. If so, your spirituality is the unsubstantiated belief that there is no God or spirituality.

The difference is that attempting to live with this belief results in unavoidable nihilism and attendant despair (lack of hope), whether or not there is depression. Therefore, even if atheism were True (a disputed point) I would reject it as being bad for my psyche.

In the objective sense, rejecting traditional spirituality might possibly lead to turning away from God upon death of the body, which I suppose means in a different sense that man still can’t live without spirituality.

In the absence of evidence, I assume that spirituality is somatic phenomenon.