The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual

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: 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: 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? 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. 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.--- 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.

Peaceful coexistence has gotten a lot easier since we stopped the pietistic theologians from setting fire to the scientists. Some sort of argument in favor of this strong belief would add interest to this thread. 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]. 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. 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 does not follow.Even if there is a God, I can obviously find out facts about the universe, such as (for example) that bananas grow on trees, without believing in him; just as I can gain nutritional value from bananas by eating them without believing in him.Would you give some some instance of a fact that I couldn't find out without first believing in God?And after all, if it mattered, wouldn't there be two sciences, one for theists and one for atheists, each reporting a different speed of light and charge on the electron? Wouldn't it also follow that the different religions and sects, having different concepts of God, would have different sciences? Wouldn't there be a Protestant periodic table and a Catholic periodic table?The only effect we see is that sometimes religious dogma will lead people to deny well-evidenced facts (flat-earthers, young-earthers, creationists, geocentrists); but in these cases their religion is not preventing them from being "vain in their pursuits" and "ending, ultimately, in failure"; rather, it is precisely the reason why they do so.The cases in which religion has impeded science are too numerous and well-known to repeat. Here's a single instance which is perhaps less well-known: Servetus, who also had the distinction of describing the function of pulmonary circulation sixty years before William Harvey, was burned alive. Calvin, of course, founded the Reformed Church, but cannot really be said to have done anything useful.

If "validating and invalidating empirical claims" constitutes an idolatrous worship of man, then not only is Christianity not necessary to science, it is not even compatible with it any more than it would be compatible with worshiping a golden calf.

I don't know of many theists who would say that. Wouldn't any miracle involve the spiritual acting on the natural? Well, no. Again, you're simply misdescribing the situation. The word "god", after all, has a meaning. A moral relativist would tell you precisely that no-one's moral opinions are truth; and an environmentalist typically blames man for causing nature to "crash all to pieces". To an environmentalist, man is not so much a god as he is the serpent in Eden. The Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."So, for example, according to the C.I. you shouldn't drop litter, because you wouldn't wish everyone to do that.So instead of the Golden Rule of "Do as you would be done by", it's "Do as you would have everyone do". But it's similar in effect. I think my point stands: it is perfectly possible for a believer in God to be legalistic, and for a non-believer to be guided by abstract principle, just as well as vice versa. Yes, well, any time God wishes to show up in court and act as amicus curiae I'm sure he'll be listened to with great respect. Until then, we're pretty much on our own. No ... you'd need a "Godly society" in which everyone knew instinctively, without being told, how to construct safe buildings.Without this sort of preternatural intelligence, it is in fact a good idea if someone writes down somewhere how to do this. I don't see why.Certainly there are aspects of god-ridden societies that I would hardly wish to bring back. (And if you wish to say that those societies were not really godly, then remember that they'd have said the same of you, just before burning you as a heretic.)

In the case of Chambers v. God the case was dismissed because of the impossibility of serving process on the deity in question. According to Judge Marion Polk: "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice".The court made a similar finding in the case of Mayo v. Satan.

I think he means that one's religious views inform the way one practices one's hobbies.So for example with gardening:* The Christian method: pray for flowers. When they don't grow, accept God's will.
* The Muslim method: pray for flowers. When they don't grow, blow up the garden.
* The Buddhist method: there is no garden. There is no gardener.
* The Jewish method: I should take up gardening now? I don't have troubles enough?
* The Hindu method: die and reincarnate as a tree.