Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 1 of 29 (611430)
04-02-2011 1:46 AM


I saw kowalskil trying to begin a discussion with his Can science and religion coexist peacefully? . It didn't look like it would get rolling there, but it got me rolling, so, here goes...
Let me first state plainly my beliefs regarding this issue:
  1. The spiritual created the natural, and thus, the natural is grounded in the spiritual.
  2. The spiritual and the natural are not in contradiction with one another.
  3. The spiritual is the source of the natural.
  4. The spiritual governs the natural.
  5. The natural has been corrupted.
For Bahnsen haters, I will concede here that I will speaking very presuppositionally in this message. In this case of creating a false dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual, I find no better place to begin with my presuppositions than Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Assuming that God is indeed a spiritual entity (which is a reasonable assumption given the language of the rest of the Bible) we have here no insignificant statement: the writer ascertains that a spiritual entity created all the material that exists. Thus, a unique bond exists between the two, as ascertained by the Bible.
Now lets go back to Plato to find where the beginning of this false dichotomy began (or at least was continued). Plato with his philosophy of forms fostered a hate for the natural, for the natural was merely the representation of a form. The form could only be understood spiritually (in the mind), and thus the mind, not the body, was the ultimate definer (or, creator), ruler, and savior of the physical world, for only in the mind could the world be understood. Thus, Platonian thought (specifically, dual-Platonian thought) fostered a disregard and disdain for the natural, and an exaltation and deification of the mind of man. Moreover, it creates a sharp dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual.
This school of thought combines with empiricism and moral relativism to create the widespread view of religion and science that we now have today. This view creates two mutually exclusive spheres of truth: the truth of the spiritual world, and the truth of the natural world. These worlds and their truths do not interact, and exist both equally true and completely unrelated. Moral relativism then seeks to make these two worlds co-exist peacefully.
But the truth of the matter is that this is impossible. This world must have some sort of ultimate source. The source must be natural or spiritual. If the source is natural, then the spiritual is strictly a product of the mind of man, and thus exists only in the abstract, thus rendering it irrelevant and ineffectual. If, on the other hand, the source is spiritual, the natural is strictly a product of the spiritual, thus rendering the spiritual and natural equally relevant and deeply connected.
The effects of such a belief are readily apparent in law, science, the arts, education, etc. In law, if one believes the natural is the source of the spiritual, their law will necessarily be naturalistic, and will have a greater regard for case law than for principial (prin-ci-pi-al) law. However, if one believes the spiritual to be the source of the natural, their law will be principially based, and will use case law not as a source of truth but only as a proper interpretation of the principial law which is the wellspring of truth.
To demonstrate specifically what I am getting at, lets examine a particular example in law. Consider trying to build a building in the United States. Granted, I have little understanding of all that would be involved in this, but it would certainly be a painstaking process of obtaining permits and licenses and having certain inspections and adhering to all the hundreds of regulations there are for construction of a building, and so on and so on. These regulations are in a sense case law, and being as there are so many of them, it is very difficult to adhere to them all perfectly and, if done, it will have been done only with a great amount of pain. The only means of obedience in this case is to follow strictly the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. But consider what the Bible has to say about building regulations: "When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it." (Deut. 22:8). The Bible being a principially based book (meaning that it is grounded in the spiritual, not the natural), this law is grounded in the broad principle of protection of life, and thus requires not only that a person build parapets on their rooftop, but that they take measures necessary to make life on their property reasonably safe....
So, this post got a little bit long, and may be a bit too broad, so let me present the points for possible discussion:
  • To the theist, such as kowalskil, what is the relation, if any, between the natural and the spiritual, and between science and theology? Are they divorced from one another, existing mutually exclusive of one another?
  • To the atheist, what evidences are there in favor of a naturally grounded world as opposed to a spiritually grounded world (speaking in the philosophical sense)?
Let me state once more with regard to the theist that I believe firmly that spiritual and natural realities exist interconnected, and that theology cannot be divorced from science, and neither can the naturalistic scientist coexist peacefully with the pietistic theologian.
And let me state finally with regard to the atheist that I believe strongly that the world is grounded in the ultimate spiritual reality of Jehovah God, and that a naturalistic world is unreasonable and impossible.
Having stated broadly my beliefs, hopefully some discussion can get going on one of the controversial claims I made. I see no place for this but Faith and Belief. Unless, that is, some theist wants to pick it up as a Great Debate.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature content to smaller font. I had edited it to the "1" size at the sac51495 profile page.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-04-2011 10:31 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-07-2011 11:28 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2011 11:53 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2011 12:05 AM sac51495 has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 2 of 29 (611431)
04-02-2011 1:46 PM


Lots More Can Be Said
After re-reading my post, it doesn't really appear to be adequate for a Great Debate. So let me just say that I have a whole lot more I could say about this issue. I have a feeling that others do too. Maybe for this reason it could be a Great Debate, that is, of course, if anyone wishes to pick it up. I don't know if Buzsaw agrees with me or not. I know that kowalskil doesn't. jar probably disagrees with me too much to have a reasonable discussion. RAZD, or anyone else out there want to pick this up?...

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 3 of 29 (611432)
04-04-2011 6:07 AM


Any admins out there? I saw Buzsaw's topic get accepted a day ago, and I also noticed that my first message didn't get posted on the "list all topics" page. Has anyone read it yet?

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 29 (611433)
04-04-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2011 1:46 AM


Be it some writing deficiency on your part and/or some comprehension deficiency on my part - Your message comes of as mumbo-jumbo to me. To me, the core point is uncertain.
  1. The spiritual created the natural, and thus, the natural is grounded in the spiritual.
  2. The spiritual and the natural are not in contradiction with one another.
  3. The spiritual is the source of the natural.
  4. The spiritual governs the natural.
  5. The natural has been corrupted.
First of all, the 1st and 3rd items seem to be redundant. Perhaps also the 1st and the 4th.
Anyway, perhaps should explain a little of what you mean by each of those items?
Also, I'm curious about your thoughts of the relation between the concept of religion and the concept of spirituality. Are they one and the same, or are they different from each other?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2011 1:46 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sac51495, posted 04-05-2011 10:05 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 5 of 29 (611434)
04-05-2011 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Adminnemooseus
04-04-2011 10:31 PM


I agree that it is perhaps some writing deficiency on my part. Let me lay it out clearly, first pointing out that I referenced kowalskil's proposed topic on trying to make theology and science coexist peacefully. I read the articles he posted, but since I have no intention of referencing outside material in trying to get discussions started, I tried to get a discussion started by stating my own views which were contrary to the views laid out by kowalskil in his article. With that said, here's a list of what some views are of the relation between the natural and the spiritual: [list=1,R]
  • Only the spiritual truly exists, while the natural is merely an illusion.
  • The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the spiritual being the source, ruler, and savior of both the spiritual and the natural.
  • The spiritual and the natural exist mutually exclusive, but both equally true, and exist unrelated and uninteracting, and perhaps contradictory.
  • The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the natural being the source, ruler, and savior of both the natural and the spiritual.
  • Only the natural truly exists, while the spiritual is only a figment of the imagination of man.
    [/list=1,R]
    The 1st is exemplified by Hinduism, and is probably not a view ascribed to by anyone on this forum. It is also somewhat Platonistic.
    The 2nd I believe to be the only one that can possibly be true. It is a view that few living in modern day secularist society ascribe to.
    The 3rd is held by kowalskil, and quite a number of theists.
    The 4th is held by some on this forum, probably jar, and other such semi-agnostic theists.
    The 5th is held by clear-cut atheists, such as Dr. A, of which there are many on this forum.
    The five points I made in my OP were somewhat redundant, and were all general elaborations of point #2 in this post. To elaborate a little more, by spiritual I mean unequivocally Jehovah God, and by natural I mean all things created by Him, as asserted in Genesis 1 and 2. The natural has been corrupted, as asserted by Genesis 3, so that the world we see around us does not exist in a perfect state, and is thus not an ultimate source of truth. The heart and mind of man are included then in that class of things corrupted. They both then have a fundamental inability to discern properly what they see around them, and are in desperate need of a savior to be justified before their sovereign Creator. The standard which men must attain to be justified before God is shown in the Law of God. Perfect obedience to this Law being impossible, however, the punishment for sin (sin being disobedience to the Law) must be satisfied. This punishment is satisfied in the death of Christ, who not only satisfied the punishment for our sin by His death, but also renewed our hearts by His resurrection.
    Once again, the discussion is hoped to be generated with a), those theists who ascribe to beliefs #3 or #4, or b), those atheists who ascribe to belief #5.
    As to the relation of religion and spirituality:
    Religion is not connected directly with spirituality. All people have a religion. Naturalism is the religion of some (or, more specifically, Envrionmentalism). The religion of a person determines how they view the world around them, and how they behave in the world around them, and what they produce in the world around them. Thus, the writings, actions, and cultural products (such as art, music, law, etc.) of a society are representative of the religious beliefs of that society. A spiritual society may, for example, sacrifice children on altars to appease the wrath of their gods. A naturalistic society may, for example, sacrifice children on the altar of radical environmentalism to appease the wrath of the environment. Yes, they do, and will. I have read quotes from environmentalists who propose abortion and birth control as the means of appeasing the environment, for the environment is being overpopulated by us humans, and we have to lower our birth rates to keep from over-stressing it. Such environmentalists claim to have grounded such beliefs in science. I hold then that science is an invalid way of determining ultimate truth, seeing that it results in such child-sacrificing environmentalists as these. Keeping in mind, or course, that this is just one example.
    So, on the one hand, we have a man who believes that a spiritual being exists sovereign over the universe, and who also believes that this spiritual being requires in certain cases that he sacrifice his children to appease his wrath.
    And on the other hand, we have a man who believes that the environment is sovereign over all (all meaning, in this case, the earth), and who also believes that this environment requires in certain cases (this particular case being one of overpopulation) that he sacrifice his children to appease its wrath.
    So then, just as the beliefs of the former are labeled his "religion", so also are the beliefs of the latter his "religion".
    Simply defined then, religion is the metaphysical beliefs held by a man, beliefs which influence his view of knowledge and of morality, and to which he pays homage in the form of institutionalized worship. Theism's institutionalized worship is of a god, while humanism's institutionalized worship is of man.
    So, yes, the concepts of religion and spirituality are different from one another. Religion can involve a belief in the spiritual, but not necessarily, seeing as how naturalism is also a religion. Also, I believe that many person's view of spirituality is perverted, it being limited to a man sitting on a cloud in heaven (whatever that is). I believe no such thing. My God is incomprehensibly greater than that.
    Hopefully you understood it that time, and hopefully you can see how this can generate discussion. Maybe I wrote it down a bit better this time! (?)
    Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

    "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
    "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-04-2011 10:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 04-08-2011 12:07 AM sac51495 has replied
     Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2011 12:31 AM sac51495 has not replied
     Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2011 1:31 AM sac51495 has not replied
     Message 14 by jar, posted 04-08-2011 9:47 AM sac51495 has not replied

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Administrator
    Posts: 3974
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 6 of 29 (611435)
    04-07-2011 10:50 PM


    Pre-promotion comments - NOT as good way to start a topic, but...
    I do NOT find this proposed new topic (PNT) to be up to desired standards.
    I find message 1 to be gibberish, and subsequent messages did little to nothing to clarify things. I, however, don't see further admin efforts as being likely to improve things.
    3 options:
    1) Reject.
    2) Release to "Free For All" forum.
    3) Release to "Faith and Belief" forum.
    I'm tempted to go the "FFA" route, but I don't want to release this topic from moderation possibilities. Thus, it's going to "FAB".
    Adminnemooseus

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Administrator
    Posts: 3974
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 7 of 29 (611437)
    04-07-2011 10:50 PM


    Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
    Thread copied here from the The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 2106 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 8 of 29 (611442)
    04-07-2011 11:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
    04-02-2011 1:46 AM


    On belief...
    Let me state once more with regard to the theist that I believe firmly that spiritual and natural realities exist interconnected, and that theology cannot be divorced from science, and neither can the naturalistic scientist coexist peacefully with the pietistic theologian.
    As Heinlein noted,
    Belief gets in the way of learning.
    Once you believe something you can no longer evaluate it's merits based on empirical evidence. This is particularly true when those beliefs are not based on empirical evidence in the first place!
    This seems to describe most all of religion.
    Debating religious belief amounts to no more than literary criticism, but at least with Hamlet et al. the characters are more entertaining.

    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2011 1:46 AM sac51495 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by sac51495, posted 04-09-2011 9:59 PM Coyote has replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1343 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 9 of 29 (611444)
    04-07-2011 11:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
    04-02-2011 1:46 AM


    sac51495 writes:
    In this case of creating a false dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual, I find no better place to begin with my presuppositions than Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
    so, i'm currently involved in a thread nearing 300 message on how to read that verse. not even interpret it, but how to read it. you might be surprised to know that it's not really as simple as you suspect, and that your interpretation of it here is based on quite a few more presuppositions than you would even imagine.
    Assuming that God is indeed a spiritual entity (which is a reasonable assumption given the language of the rest of the Bible) we have here no insignificant statement: the writer ascertains that a spiritual entity created all the material that exists. Thus, a unique bond exists between the two, as ascertained by the Bible.
    for instance, the assumption that god (and heaven) are "spiritual". even your particular view that attempts to unify the two basically assumes a dichotomy that would have been completely foreign and anachronistic to the hebrew authors of the bible.
    the "spirit" they describe is very simply life. it's the bit that makes the physical being alive. god, as described further on in the torah, is actually a physical being. strange, i know. but true -- he shows up physically throughout the book of exodus.
    further, "heaven" as described in genesis, is a physical place. idiomatically, it refers to the sky -- the bit where the clouds are -- but the literal description in genesis 1 is of a solid object that keeps out water. when god opens windows in it in genesis 6, the earth floods.
    i say that you are perpetuating this dichotomy because the ancient hebrews would have denied that there was any difference between the physical and spiritual. they didn't believe in the afterlife, for instance. you died, and you were laid to rest with your ancestors in a literal grave, sheol. or "hell".
    The only means of obedience in this case is to follow strictly the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. But consider what the Bible has to say about building regulations: "When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it." (Deut. 22:8). The Bible being a principially based book (meaning that it is grounded in the spiritual, not the natural), this law is grounded in the broad principle of protection of life, and thus requires not only that a person build parapets on their rooftop, but that they take measures necessary to make life on their property reasonably safe....
    sure. the law was never about loopholes and regulations and condemnation, as many christians (coughcoughpaul) tend to portray it. rather, it is a set of ideological guidelines that one adheres to out of duty and respect and love. the physical restrictions are a way to represent (and shape) the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual concerns. the jews view the law as a blessing.
    To the theist, such as kowalskil, what is the relation, if any, between the natural and the spiritual,
    to the person who believes the bible, there shouldn't be any meaningful difference.
    and between science and theology? Are they divorced from one another, existing mutually exclusive of one another?
    i think the interaction of science and theology is a whole separate topic.
    To the atheist, what evidences are there in favor of a naturally grounded world as opposed to a spiritually grounded world (speaking in the philosophical sense)?
    ...the naturally-grounded world that is easily observed.
    as i mentioned above, the bible does indeed describe a naturally-grounded world, and makes zero distinction between nature and spirit. this whole concept was just unheard of at the time. the problem comes about when the naturally-grounded world that we easily observe doesn't match the natural world as described in the bible. for instance, when we notice that the earth isn't flat, there isn't a solid barrier just outside the clouds, and we aren't surrounded by water in the sky. this is when the theists start retreating to this faulty nature/spirit dichotomy, and appeal to metaphors that just were never intended by the authors of the bible.
    it's far simpler to just accept that the bible is wrong.
    Jehovah God
    also, god said to tell you that you're spelling his name wrong. apparently, he's pretty picky about that kind of thing.

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2011 1:46 AM sac51495 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by sac51495, posted 04-09-2011 10:49 PM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 10 of 29 (611445)
    04-08-2011 12:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
    04-02-2011 1:46 AM


    I don't really see what you mean by a "false dichotomy". A dichotomy is the division of a set into two subsets such that every member of the original set is in one subset or the other but not both.
    A false dichotomy is where you assume that the subsets have this property but they don't.
    But the spiritual/natural dichotomy seems to be one that you embrace, as in such statements as:
    This world must have some sort of ultimate source. The source must be natural or spiritual.
    To demonstrate that it is a false dichotomy you need to show that some things in whatever broader set you're considering are both or that some things are neither.
    ---
    About the law. You assert:
    The effects of such a belief are readily apparent in law, science, the arts, education, etc. In law, if one believes the natural is the source of the spiritual, their law will necessarily be naturalistic, and will have a greater regard for case law than for principial (prin-ci-pi-al) law. However, if one believes the spiritual to be the source of the natural, their law will be principially based, and will use case law not as a source of truth but only as a proper interpretation of the principial law which is the wellspring of truth.
    Now I see nothing to prevent a non-supernaturalist from adopting some general principle such as Utilitarianism or Kant's Moral Imperative or the Golden Rule; whereas on the other hand religious folks often adopt laws which seem to spring from no particular moral principle. Where is the grand principle whereby your god permitted the eating of locusts but set his taboo on beetles?
    But consider what the Bible has to say about building regulations: "When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it." (Deut. 22:8). The Bible being a principially based book (meaning that it is grounded in the spiritual, not the natural), this law is grounded in the broad principle of protection of life, and thus requires not only that a person build parapets on their rooftop, but that they take measures necessary to make life on their property reasonably safe....
    Well, this is almost exactly what is meant by "case law". From the particular injunction to put a parapet round your roof, you derive the more general principle that you are obliged to make your property safe in various other ways, such as putting a parapet round a balcony or raised patio, putting a fence round a swimming pool, and so forth. This is how case law works: a decision is made on a particular case; the decision serves as a basis for abstraction and generalization. If there is a difference, it is that the judge usually explicitly states the underlying principle, rather than leaving you to work it out for yourself.
    Granted, I have little understanding of all that would be involved in this, but it would certainly be a painstaking process of obtaining permits and licenses and having certain inspections and adhering to all the hundreds of regulations there are for construction of a building, and so on and so on. These regulations are in a sense case law ...
    No, they are in every sense statute law.
    They spring, however, from a perfectly general principle, that of the safety of the people in the building, which you could if you pleased derive from a more general principle yet, such as "love thy neighbor" (and indeed it probably is so derived in practice --- it is hard to imagine someone who has a specific objection to buildings falling on people but wouldn't care what happens to them otherwise).
    Nor would a religion, even a true one, render building codes obsolete. A praiseworthy attitude in favor of buildings that don't fall on their tenants is not sufficient to ensure that they will not actually do so. To avoid this, you would still need a mass of technical details about how to construct safe buildings --- information with which a moral principle alone cannot supply you.
    ---
    To the atheist, what evidences are there in favor of a naturally grounded world as opposed to a spiritually grounded world (speaking in the philosophical sense)?
    We have no good evidence of mind without matter, which I presume is what you would mean by a "spiritual" entity. (If you mean something else, this would be a good time to say what it is.)
    As I have pointed out on another thread, we have plenty of evidence that mind is materially based. Damage to specific parts of your brain will deprive you of specific mental functions: for example (from Wikipedia): "If Wernicke’s area is damaged in the non-dominant hemisphere, the syndrome resulting will be sensory dysprosody the inability to perceive the pitch, rhythm, and emotional tone of speech".
    It would seem, then, that if all of your brain was destroyed you would lose all of your mental functions.
    If someone proposes that there is some sort of mind which doesn't work like this and is independent of any material basis, then the onus is on them to show it.
    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2011 1:46 AM sac51495 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by sac51495, posted 04-10-2011 12:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1343 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 11 of 29 (611446)
    04-08-2011 12:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by sac51495
    04-05-2011 10:05 PM


    sac51495 writes:
    The natural has been corrupted, as asserted by Genesis 3, so that the world we see around us does not exist in a perfect state, and is thus not an ultimate source of truth.
    what do you suppose existed outside of eden?
    The heart and mind of man are included then in that class of things corrupted.
    corrupted by what? the other things god created? now i'm really confused.
    They both then have a fundamental inability to discern properly what they see around them,
    or rather, they were. this was, in fact, how god created man in the first place. it wasn't until they ate from the tree of knowledge that their eyes were opened... and they could discern good from evil. it's interesting that this is the corruption, and not the reverse.
    and are in desperate need of a savior to be justified before their sovereign Creator. The standard which men must attain to be justified before God is shown in the Law of God. Perfect obedience to this Law being impossible, however, the punishment for sin (sin being disobedience to the Law) must be satisfied.
    nope. this is just a poor reading of the law. i know that section of the bible can be pretty boring, and is perhaps second only to the "begats" in that regard. but your ideas about the law (coughcoughpaul) are totally baseless.
    the law is not a standard man must measure up to. it just isn't. rather, it's a way to address grievances in a fair and unbiased (and agreed upon) manner, and a method of absolving sin. that last part is probably important. further, the absolution of sin really has nothing to do with god -- god is a loving and forgiving god, as long as you don't break that first commandment. he forgives, and looks after his children. though we can find this message in the old testament as well, this is precisely the message that christ taught during his ministry. rather, the sin is absolved from the conscience of the sinner.
    you see, the jews view the law as a blessing, not a curse. it is a way for them to prove their loyalty and faith to their god, not a way for their god exclude them from heaven. and certainly, the wages of sin are not death.
    further, there are quite a few examples of men in the bible -- before christ -- who are considered "just" in the eyes of god. a few of them, like king david, even after sinning. as i said, god is forgiving.
    This punishment is satisfied in the death of Christ, who not only satisfied the punishment for our sin by His death, but also renewed our hearts by His resurrection.
    human sacrifice is abhorrent to god. and no man shall be put to death for another's crime -- that would not be just, nor would it fulfill the law.

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by sac51495, posted 04-05-2011 10:05 PM sac51495 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2011 6:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 12 of 29 (611448)
    04-08-2011 12:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by sac51495
    04-05-2011 10:05 PM


    Let me state once more with regard to the theist that I believe firmly that spiritual and natural realities exist interconnected, and that theology cannot be divorced from science, and neither can the naturalistic scientist coexist peacefully with the pietistic theologian.
    Peaceful coexistence has gotten a lot easier since we stopped the pietistic theologians from setting fire to the scientists.
    And let me state finally with regard to the atheist that I believe strongly that the world is grounded in the ultimate spiritual reality of Jehovah God, and that a naturalistic world is unreasonable and impossible.
    Some sort of argument in favor of this strong belief would add interest to this thread.
    I hold then that science is an invalid way of determining ultimate truth, seeing that it results in such child-sacrificing environmentalists as these.
    I hold then that Christianity is an invalid way of determining ultimate truth, seeing that it results in [fill in your own example from two millennia of stupidity, wickedness and cruelty, or admit that there is a flaw in your argument].
    So, on the one hand, we have a man who believes that a spiritual being exists sovereign over the universe, and who also believes that this spiritual being requires in certain cases that he sacrifice his children to appease his wrath.
    And on the other hand, we have a man who believes that the environment is sovereign over all (all meaning, in this case, the earth), and who also believes that this environment requires in certain cases (this particular case being one of overpopulation) that he sacrifice his children to appease its wrath.
    So then, just as the beliefs of the former are labeled his "religion", so also are the beliefs of the latter his "religion".
    I think the obvious difference is that while you really are indulging in anthropomorphic thinking, your radical environmentalist really isn't. Which is why you have to do it for him.
    Well, you could describe anything like that, but not accurately. I could say that when you have a stomach ache you attempt to appease the wrath of your stomach with offerings of Pepto-Bismol, but my choice of how to describe your actions wouldn't actually mean that you actually anthropomorphize your stomach, let alone worship it as a god. It would just be a silly way of describing the actual situation.
    The reason that your attitude towards your god resembles other people's attitudes towards real things is not because other people have adopted real things as their gods, but because you think that your god is a real thing.
    All people have a religion.
    I don't.
    By your own definition of religion I don't, since I don't indulge in "institutionalized worship" of anything.
    Though thinking it over, this is probably not a good definition of religion --- you could not practice institutionalized worship of the deity of your choice if you were stranded alone on a desert island, but would that mean that you no longer had a religion?
    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by sac51495, posted 04-05-2011 10:05 PM sac51495 has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 13 of 29 (611457)
    04-08-2011 1:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by sac51495
    04-05-2011 10:05 PM


    Did you really mean to equate contraception with the blood sacrifice of children ?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by sac51495, posted 04-05-2011 10:05 PM sac51495 has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 14 of 29 (611489)
    04-08-2011 9:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by sac51495
    04-05-2011 10:05 PM


    Word salad an misrepresentations.
    Your post seems to be just pretty much word salad, nonsense and yet again, misrepresentation of my position and beliefs. Please, if you are totally ignorant about what someone believes, ask them.
    But then you go on to present five possible scenarios. Each is equally valid, but there really is only evidence that supports one, the last option.
    [quote][list=1,R]
  • Only the spiritual truly exists, while the natural is merely an illusion.
  • The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the spiritual being the source, ruler, and savior of both the spiritual and the natural.
  • The spiritual and the natural exist mutually exclusive, but both equally true, and exist unrelated and uninteracting, and perhaps contradictory.
  • The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the natural being the source, ruler, and savior of both the natural and the spiritual.
  • Only the natural truly exists, while the spiritual is only a figment of the imagination of man.
    [/list=1,R][/quote]
    But wait, it gets even worse.
    You never present any evidence in support of any of the positions, or even really discuss any of the positions.
    Is there any wonder why thinking people find the product you try to market uninviting, uninteresting and irrelevant?
    Edited by jar, : appalin spallin one

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by sac51495, posted 04-05-2011 10:05 PM sac51495 has not replied

      
    sac51495
    Member (Idle past 4719 days)
    Posts: 176
    From: Atlanta, GA, United States
    Joined: 04-02-2010


    Message 15 of 29 (611684)
    04-09-2011 9:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
    04-07-2011 11:28 PM


    Re: On belief...
    Coyote,
    Sorry for the delay in responding.
    Coyote,
    Once you believe something you can no longer evaluate it's merits based on empirical evidence. This is particularly true when those beliefs are not based on empirical evidence in the first place!
    I guess, from this, I could say that you believe that beliefs get in the way. Thus, you hold the self-contradictory belief that beliefs get in the way! And lest you object and say that this belief is an empirically-based belief (thus validating it), I would point out that you must first hold the belief that beliefs [I]can[i/] be empirically validated! Regarding your statement about religious beliefs, I point you to my definition of religion: the metaphysical beliefs held by a man, beliefs which influence his view of knowledge and of morality, and to which he pays homage in the form of institutionalized worship.
    And by institutionalized worship, I do not necessarily mean congregating in a church building and singing. Nor do I necessarily mean bowing your physical body down in front of a physical altar. Worship is nothing more than adoration. Aristotelian society adores the mind of man, and institutionalizes its adoration by devoting their entire being to constantly validating and invalidating empirical claims: that is, to adore the mind of man by action.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-07-2011 11:28 PM Coyote has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2011 10:51 PM sac51495 has not replied
     Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2011 1:00 AM sac51495 has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024