Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Christian Darwinism and the Evolutionary Pathway to Spirit.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Deductive logic teaches us that the acts of reasoning and knowing are inseparable from the act of negating. To understand the law of non-contradiction (a thing cannot be and not be at the same time) is to also understand its reciprocal principle, the law of identity (a thing is what it is and not something else). If we know what cannot be, we also know, in a complementary sense, what is. As the legendary Sherlock Holmes reminds us, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

On the subject of God and Evolution, for example, there are two competing models, but only one of them can possibly be true. In order to provide a meaningful overview, I will use common terms in my abbreviated summary of each model so that the differences relevant to our discussion will become evident:

{A} Traditional Theistic Evolution acknowledges two Divine creative strategies. (1) Through a purposeful evolutionary process, God “forms” man’s material body from the bottom up, and (2) By means of a creative act, God “breathes in” an immaterial soul from the top down, joining spirit with matter.

{B} Contemporary Christian Darwinism recognizes only one Divine creative strategy. Through a natural evolutionary process, God “allows” all of man’s physical, rational, and spiritual traits to emerge from the bottom up and does not, under any circumstances, intervene from the top down, even to infuse a soul into a pre-existent human.

Can we say with apodictic certainty that one of these paradigms is false and, by extension, that the other one is true? If we assume that God exists, and if we assume that rational souls exist, and if we assume universal common descent is a valid theory, then the answer is yes. Reason dictates that a bottom-up, evolutionary process, though it may be responsible for the development of lower living forms, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, produce a rational soul. In other words, Christian Darwinism is, without question, a false world view. To be rational, then, one must either embrace Traditional Theistic Evolution or reject macro evolution (universal common descent) altogether.

But how do we know that Christian Darwinists are wrong when they assume that matter can evolve into spirit? To begin with, we must take note of the way Christians differentiate between these two realms of existence: material entities, such as bodies, brains, and organs are physical entities and contain parts, which means that they can disintegrate, decay, die, or be transformed into some other kind of matter (or energy, perhaps); spiritual entities such as souls, minds and faculties, are non-physical entities and contain no parts, which means that they cannot disintegrate, die, or be changed into something else.

Clearly, a material body (or brain), which will die and change into another kind of matter, cannot evolve into a spiritual soul (or mind), which is unchangeable, contains no parts, and will live forever. If then, spirit is to be joined with matter, its origins cannot come from matter or from a material process; it must come from another source, that is, it must come directly from God, who creates spirit and implants it in a pre-existing being from the top down.

Even So, Christian Darwinists, without a modicum of embarrassment, hold that matter can, through incremental evolutionary changes, make the leap from dust to eternity. While materialists argue that molecules can come from out of nowhere and then re-arrange themselves to produce organic life; Christian Darwinists argue that molecules can re-arrange themselves into a spiritual soul that contains no molecules. I will leave it to the reader to discern which of these two propositions represents the greater threat to the standards of rational thought.

For a Christian to make sense of evolution, he must, if he accepts universal common descent, and if he accepts the transcendent nature of the soul, envisage some process by which God, at the right stage in the evolutionary process, implanted the soul into a pre-existing human being. The process itself simply cannot make the voyage. For rational theists, no gradual development from lower animal forms to human rational souls can be admitted.

Comments
Eigenstate, bravo. That is some of the most beautiful and elegant prose I have read on this site (ok, that may not be saying a lot...). Thank you, a joy to read, and inspiring to this onlooker.Timbo
November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
I have done a little more digging into Collins' view and I came up with this comment to the question, "Does evolution explain human nature." The decisive comment is as follows: "We should be skeptical of those who dismiss these acts of radical altruism as some sort of evolutionary misfiring. And if these noble acts are frankly a scandal to reproductive fitness, might they instead point in a different direction - toward a holy, loving, and caring God, who instilled the moral law in each of us as a sign of our special nature and as a call to relationship with the Almighty? Do not get me wrong. I am not arguing that the existence of the moral law somehow proves God’s existence. Such proofs cannot be provided by the study of nature. And there is an inherent danger in arguing that the moral law points to some sort of supernatural intervention in the early days of human history; this has the flavor of a "God of the gaps" argument. After all, much still remains to be understood about evolution's influence on human nature. But even if radically altruistic human acts can ultimately be explained on the basis of evolutionary mechanisms, this would do nothing to exclude God’s hand. For if God chose the process of evolution in the beginning to create humans in imago Dei, it would also be perfectly reasonable for God to have used this same process to instill knowledge of the moral law." So, Collins position is this: God instilled knowledge of the natural moral law into humans, except that he didn't do it by way of a supernatural act, which means that evolution did it, which means that you can forget what I said about God instilling it.StephenB
November 15, 2011
November
11
Nov
15
15
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
@StephenB,
Indeed, the best arguments for the existence of a soul are philosophical because theological arguments appeal only to believers and science has nothing to say about it. In spite of your protests to the contrary, it seems evident that you have not studied the relative arguments and found them wanting. You simply do not know what they are–and care less. That is not a problem of the intellect, it is an act of the will.
I couldn't have penned a more damning paragraph on theology if I tried. If it appeals only to believers, what more is there to say. No clearer signal should be expected to alert you to your epistemic poverty than that realization. On theology, been there, done that. It's embarrassing how much time I DID invest. I could have done something useful with all that investment (I thought at the time I was). But, at the end of the day, just like you, I had nothing I could test, nothing I could validate, nothing I could meaningfully ascribe "true" or "false" to, or even grounded probabilities ("grounding", of course, was just me stealing yet another concept from the real world and supposing the referents somehow translated to the supernatural just because I had borrowed the symbols). I had, like you, for all of that, nothing more than astrology-donning-a-cheap-tuxedo in my theology. And that's probably an unfair slam on astrology, as that is at least notionally rooted as an intuition in a scientific idea. If I were a wiser man then, I'd have happily exercised an "act of will" to forego the follow, the pretense of knowledge and truth as uncritical intuition and superstition doing a masquerade. It was perverse -- if I doubted I was correct on this minute point, or that big one, how would I test my belief? How would I process those doubts? Theology doesn't have any corrective loops, nothing from the real world has anything to say about any of it. If it did, it wouldn't be theology, it would be science.
When I point out that, from a Christian perspective, God either created minds directly from the top down or indirectly from a bottom up evolutionary process, you insist that it could have been both, rationalizing this irrational claim by saying that “anything goes” in theology. In spite of your protests to the contrary, it is evident that you do not respect the law of non-contradiction.
I haven't suggested, let alone insisted, that it could be both at the same time. Rather, it could be either, or some other path. We have the whole phase space of logically consistent worlds to contemplate on that question, and the reality could be any of them, or none of them (i.e. perhaps there is no god at all or spirit, which makes the question a divide-by-zero. There's no challenge from non-contradiction here, as I don't suppose it's mutually exclusive choices at the same time, but rather or one of many options that are logically consistent, but unkowable, untestable, unfalsifiable, and perhaps not even a question at all (i.e. if there is no god or spirit).
When I point out that spirit, by definition, cannot change or exist in parts, you respond by saying that it can, indeed, change and exist in parts, attributing the qualities of matter to spirit. You explain by saying that, according to “your” theology,” this kind of nonsense is permissible. For you, spirit can behave just like matter, no problem. This is just another escape into the land of irrationality in a futile attempt to escape refutation.
Let's start with this. How would we test your definition. If it's incorrect, how would you establish that? If there is no way to establish that it's incorrect, it's at best trivially true, and has no epistemic bearing on your extramental reality. It's just a tautology, and it reveals nothing more about souls or spirit than 2+2=4, which is also true by definition, but just as divorced from any real world grounding or corrigibility from the real world as your definition, and yours is arguable much further away. We can at least establish real world analogs for the quantity "two" and use those definitions to achieve real world manipulations of objects to practical ends. Can't say that about your definitions. They are 100% fluff. Would toward that you had something to refute. Nothing there even bears refuting. I say, just as trivially as you do, that by my definition, spirit is something that evolves from physical matter. Do you have anything to refute? No more than I have to refute from your. It's not even the force of a plastic spoon being brought to bear here. It's wholly sufficient to just naysay, because your belief is not based on anything more than simple "say". What can be asserted without any grounds, test or liability can be dismissed just as trivially.
When I point out that matter cannot produce spirit because, in keeping with the law of causality, matter does not have any spirit to give, you simply ignore the point and say, “yes it can.” Once again, you retreat into a cocoon of irrational nonsense in order to avoid facing and responding to rational arguments.
I say matter DOES have spirit to give, whenever God incorporates that as part of his grand design. Boom, there's no problem with the law of causality, as God created matter such that spirit emerges whenever indicated by his design. It's just as causal as any "top down" model you'd like to pull of thin air, it's just an alternate design. Your indulging a conceit about your epistemology if you suppose you've established some immutable metaphysics of matter and spirit that prevents an omniscient, omnipotent god from forging matter and spirit in some incrementally developed hybrid way, if that was his good pleasure. Which it may be, for all you or I or anyone knows. If there is any god at all, which you don't have a handle on in the first place.
Let me ask you plainly. Do you accept the law of causality or not? Does every effect require a proportionate cause or does it not? Is it the case that a cause cannot give what it does not have to give or not? If you do not respect the law of causality, then say so, and we can end this correspondence. If you do, then please tell me how matter can produce spirit when matter does not have spirit to give.
As a matter of real world dynamics, I accept causality as both useful in practice and transcendentally necessary as a predicate for natural knowledge. A natural explanation, or any causal explanation (hence the name) presumes causality. But in terms of theology, I'm happy to affirm some notion of "supernatural causality", but need to point out that since it's a theological concept, it's just as empty and intractable as "spirit" or "can" or "exists" as terms go. Any meaning "cause" has is stolen from the real world, and has no organic (oops, another stolen term!) semantics as a "term of supernature". So, can God fuse matter and spirit into some metaphysical hybrid? I see no logical contradiction in that, and anything further than a shrug beyond that, or idle musings is fooling oneself, or just goofing off. In order to actually inquire, we'd have to be able to develop some "metaphysics of the supernatural", a model we could test and refine as the basis for some epistemic floor to stand on in saying "yes" or "no" or "probably" or "probably not". As such a model is not available, IN PRINCIPLE, you and I are SOL. All we can do is wave our plastic theology spoons around in the air frantically in hopes that our flailing might convince someone that perhaps we're on to something. As to how matter can produce spirit, I'll repeat again that God designed it that way. Can God fashion his creation the way he wills, aside from any logical contradictions? I think that's entailed by the Christian understanding of God as omniscient, omnipotent and possessing of a will. How do you suppose God created matter ex nihilo? If you can explain how that works, your answer will be a good example of how I might answer you in a fashion you find satisfying.eigenstate
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
[a]---" But as I showed, Collins also wrote: “6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.” (I think it’s on p.200). Yes, he does acknowledge that "something" spiritual comes from the top down, and if he is thinking of the intellect, mind, and consciousness when he makes that reference, and if he agrees that these faculties are of an immaterial nature, then I agree with you that, under those circumstances, this one aspect of his evolutionary theory (not all aspects) could be reconciled with his theology. Remember, however, that a Christian Darwinist typically argues that all of man's physical and mental traits emerge from the bottom up. So, although Collins is not very clear about this, if, indeed, he parts ways with other Christian Darwinists in that context, I agree that we have to make allowances for that possibility. [b]---"It’s not at all clear that the mind does not depend upon the brain for its existence. It seems logically possible that it could. In other words, it seems logically possible that if the brain ceased to exist, then the mind would cease to exist, also. I see no contradiction. Does this mean that the mind is only a brain? No. The mind could very well be an immaterial entity that depends upon a material entity for its existence and it operation. If so, then it seems possible that the mind emerged when the right configuration of matter appeared. (That could be how God has set things up in this world)." If the mind is dependent on the brain for its existence, and, therefore, dies when then mind dies, then it cannot also be an immaterial entity, since immaterial entities contain no parts and cannot disintegrate and die. On the other hand, an immaterial mind can depend on a brain for its operation as long as it doesn't depend on the brain for its existence.StephenB
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
StephenB: "This is what I understand Francis Collins to mean, for example, when he writes, “Most remarkably, God intentionally chose this same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with him. He also knew that these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the moral law.” (P 201, The Language of God)." But as I showed, Collins also wrote: “6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.” (I think it’s on p.200). So it's not clear that Collins believes that Darwinian mechanisms can produce a mind. But for the sake of argument, let's assume he does and move on. StephenB: "But as I have indicated, an immaterial mind cannot emerge from matter. It should be evident that molecules re-arranging themselves cannot evolve into something that contains no molecules, just as Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist. If that point isn’t clear, then reflect on the fact that spirit does not depend on matter for its existence and cannot, therefore derive from matter from that same reason. The mind does depend on the brain for its operation (while united to a body), but not for its existence." It's not at all clear that the mind does not depend upon the brain for its existence. It seems logically possible that it could. In other words, it seems logically possible that if the brain ceased to exist, then the mind would cease to exist, also. I see no contradiction. Does this mean that the mind is only a brain? No. The mind could very well be an immaterial entity that depends upon a material entity for its existence and it operation. If so, then it seems possible that the mind emerged when the right configuration of matter appeared. (That could be how God has set things up in this world). It is also possible that the mind exists independently of the brain: that they are independent substances that God has conjoined in a very close, interactive relationship. But I agree with you that the ideas of emergence and independent substances seems incompatible.Bilbo I
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Eocene wrote:
The author(either Nathan or Gad) of 1 Samuel does not identify Samuel as that appirition. The author simply writes down the event as it happened.
From the KJV: "And Saul perceived that it was Samuel..." "And Samuel said to Saul..." "Then said Samuel..." Your bible version may vary. It may show scare quotes around "Samuel" in this passage -- so as not to give you the wrong idea.
"Samuel was DEAD. Remember, death is aöways opposite of life. Even as the bible expresses to humans the condition of the dead by Solomon in Ecclesiastes. The words given to Saul by this witch were both truth and at the same time a deception."
You're begging the question. In the context of 1st Samuel 28, does the text as delivered, better support "soul sleep" or "no soul sleep"?
Saul never actually saw Samuel, as is the case with most of these seances. It was the witch who describes what she saw by means of demonic power. She also shreaked out when the spirit told her Saul’s true identity under the disguise. Saul could be easily tricked because he no longer possessed any spiritual comprehension. He knew that all fortune telling, spiritism etc was from demonic sources since he had previously destroyed most of these from the land of Israel.
(1Sa 28:14 KJV) And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. (1Sa 28:14 NIV) "What does he look like?" he asked. "An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said. Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. (1Sa 28:14 NWT) At once he said to her: "What is his form?" to which she said: "It is an old man coming up, and he has himself covered with a sleeveless coat." At that Saul recognized that it was "Samuel," and he proceeded to bow low with his face to the earth and to prostrate himself.
I wasn’t questioning the Mosaic Law. I simply remarking that if inquiring of the dead who in your view are still conscientious and alive somewhere in outer space, then why would the Law be against such a wonder opportunity to speak to a dead loved one or perhaps close friend ???
You just did question Mosaic law. Again. You clearly believe that if it were actually possible to contact the dead, there would be no point to a law against it. That's why there's a law against it, to dissuade people from doing things that are personally destructive -- for one, obsessing over the dead. But I understand you're on record as saying that, if it were possible to contact the dead, you'd be all for it.
“3) Where does the plan to deceive Saul play out? If there was a reason or plan to deceive Saul with an illusory apparition of Samuel, it is not revealed in the text.” ==== What in the world are you talking about ??? If Saul was no longer in either Almighty God’s or faithful Samuel’s favour before, how could a demonic witch force either Almighty God or faithful Prophet Samuel to go against their core beliefs and help unfaithful Saul out now ???
I'm talking about a plot to deceive Saul, its goal, and its consequences, which are missing from the account. If demonic forces conspired to deceive Saul, their plot and its purpose are absent from the pages of scripture. Since there is no such plot, it lends credence to a plain reading of the passage. Tell me, given the context of 1st Samuel, does it seem to suggest that there is a demonic subplot, if one doesn't assume such subplot; or, taken at face value, does it seem to suggest that Saul was talking to Samuel?
“4) How can an entity other than a prophet of God prophesy the death of Saul, and his three sons? The death of anyone, especially that of the king of Israel and his line, would be only for God to know and reveal. No demonic entity would have access to such a vision.” ==== Again I’ll refer above to that scripture at 2 Corinthians 11:14-15...
Deception is not prophecy, and prophecy is not deception. Again, I'll ask how it's possible that a demon prophesies the death of Israel's king and his sons? It's a very relevant question that should be answered specifically and directly, not rhetorically. Do demons prophesy? _______ So, in the context of 1st Samuel, specifically the Endor passage, does the account as given better support: A) There is no form of consciousness after death. B) There is a form of consciousness after death. C) Neither. Take the point, please. You may have, in your view, good reasons for believing A, but you cannot reasonably use the Endor passage to support A, period. It's not really even arguable. At best, you can undermine the passage's support for B by reasonably and directly answering the four questions I posed, without assuming A is true a priori. Or you can admit that the Endor passage does not support "soul sleep" and that you're forced by conclusions you've reached elsewhere in scripture, to believe that the passage cannot possibly be taken at face value. That would be entirely reasonable, given the circumstances. I'll say it again. The concept of "soul sleep" is NOT, even a little, supported by the Endor passage. Taken in context, it suggests quite the opposite. This is the single point I've been making the entire time.material.infantacy
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
eisengate: The main difficulty with your struggles here is that you continually violate or ignore reason’s rules in a futile attempt to escape refutation. Somehow, you labor under the illusion that writing long, irrelevant paragraphs will conceal this problem. It doesn’t. When I point out that, from a Christian perspective, God either created minds directly from the top down or indirectly from a bottom up evolutionary process, you insist that it could have been both, rationalizing this irrational claim by saying that “anything goes” in theology. In spite of your protests to the contrary, it is evident that you do not respect the law of non-contradiction. When I point out that spirit, by definition, cannot change or exist in parts, you respond by saying that it can, indeed, change and exist in parts, attributing the qualities of matter to spirit. You explain by saying that, according to “your” theology,” this kind of nonsense is permissible. For you, spirit can behave just like matter, no problem. This is just another escape into the land of irrationality in a futile attempt to escape refutation. When I point out that matter cannot produce spirit because, in keeping with the law of causality, matter does not have any spirit to give, you simply ignore the point and say, "yes it can.” Once again, you retreat into a cocoon of irrational nonsense in order to avoid facing and responding to rational arguments. Let me ask you plainly. Do you accept the law of causality or not? Does every effect require a proportionate cause or does it not? Is it the case that a cause cannot give what it does not have to give or not? If you do not respect the law of causality, then say so, and we can end this correspondence. If you do, then please tell me how matter can produce spirit when matter does not have spirit to give.StephenB
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
StephenB, I have a few good reasons not to belabor this. So I'll make these my final thoughts:
Of course, we must face the fact that most of the early cburch fathers believed it, and they were the ones who were closest to the apostles and, therefore, most likely to get it right.
My church has one Father, God, and one leader, Jesus. The apostles warned of those who would come after them. And no wonder, among many other things they adulterated the teachings of the scriptures with the philosophy of men such as Plato and Aristotle, men never mentioned in the scriptures. Within a few hundred years these men had seated themselves on thrones to judge kings, in contrast to those before them who had fled persecution to the ends of the earth. They lived in palaces and were served, unlike Jesus who slept wherever he found a place and Paul who made tents for a living. Jesus warned that the wheat he sowed would be supplanted with weeds. It is for the discerning reader to search for the truth of that statement. That's all, I'm done.ScottAndrews2
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
StephenB: "Of course, we must face the fact that most of the early cburch fathers believed it, and they were the ones who were closest to the apostles and, therefore, most likely to get it right." ==== And by early Church Fathers , that would be Contantine, Bishops, Popes and all early Ecclesiastical Heirarchies which ushered in the Dark Ages. ---- StephenB: "All sincere Christians accept the testimony of Scripture." ==== Correct, no arguement there. However listening to a ranting and raving onstage theatical spectacle seems to be the new spirituality that characterizes many of the mega-Churches today which flourish over in your country. Good attendance records seems to be based on a church's ability at entertainment value as opposed to offering spiritual food and enlightenment. ---- StephenB: "In keeping with that point, reason without faith is secularism; faith without reason is superstition." ==== 'Faith without works is dead' In the area of europe where I reside secularism atheism is the rule of the day. One of the major reasons is the bad works the Churches here have produced for centuries, but in particular the last one, the 20th Century. Jesus said, John 13:35 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) (35) "Everyone will know that you are my disciples because of your love for each other." Sadly, this deteriorated to almost nill in the 20th century. The lack of spiritual appreciation in E.U. Empire Europa and elsewhere is proof of this sad fact. Churches had their shot at Europe and they failed miserably. But no one seems to want to discuss this here. But hey, I.d. here isn't really about religion anyways , right ???Eocene
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
material.infantacy: "Scripture makes clear who is present in 1st Samuel 28, and that includes Samuel — he even prophesies the death of Saul and his sons on Mt. Gilboa the following day" ==== Samuel was DEAD. Remember, death is aöways opposite of life. Even as the bible expresses to humans the condition of the dead by Solomon in Ecclesiastes. The words given to Saul by this witch were both truth and at the same time a deception. ---- material.infantacy: "Your questioning of Mosaic law in the face of what you perceive would be “wonderful contacting” is exactly the reason for the Mosaic law in the first place. It’s illegal to contact the dead because you’re not supposed to do it. " ==== I wasn't questioning the Mosaic Law. I simply remarking that if inquiring of the dead who in your view are still conscientious and alive somewhere in outer space, then why would the Law be against such a wonder opportunity to speak to a dead loved one or perhaps close friend ??? It also question begs, because almighty God had previously refused any contact with Saul either directly or by use of the Urim & Thummim. Also while still alive, the good Prophet Samuel had refused ANY further contact with unfaithful King Saul. The question does beg - How could some demonic Witch force Almighty God to go against his contact with Saul ??? How could some demonic Witch force Samuel in death to visit Saul when while alive he refused any further contact with him ??? ---- material.infantacy: "1) Why does the author identify the figure as Samuel? It would have made more sense to identify it as “the spirit in the image of Samuel,” or “the figure appearing as Samuel,” or some such if the reader was meant to question identity." ==== The author(either Nathan or Gad) of 1 Samuel does not identify Samuel as that appirition. The author simply writes down the event as it happened. Saul breaks God's Law on consulting a demonic spiritualist witch who claims to have the ability of contacting the dead. Saul is the one who made the request of the witch to contact dead Samuel. Saul knew better than to do such a thing since previously, Saul when he was a better faithful King had all spiritism banished from the land and killed off all practicers of such uncanny powers by God's own orders. He actually had to disguise himself as to his own identity, otherwise the witch would have been afraid to help him. ---- material.infantacy: "2) Why does Saul recognize the figure as Samuel? Saul knew him better than most, and would not have been easily fooled." ==== Saul never actually saw Samuel, as is the case with most of these seances. It was the witch who describes what she saw by means of demonic power. She also shreaked out when the spirit told her Saul's true identity under the disguise. Saul could be easily tricked because he no longer possessed any spiritual comprehension. He knew that all fortune telling, spiritism etc was from demonic sources since he had previously destroyed most of these from the land of Israel. ==== material.infantacy: "3) Where does the plan to deceive Saul play out? If there was a reason or plan to deceive Saul with an illusory apparition of Samuel, it is not revealed in the text." ==== What in the world are you talking about ??? If Saul was no longer in either Almighty God's or faithful Samuel's favour before, how could a demonic witch force either Almighty God or faithful Prophet Samuel to go against their core beliefs and help unfaithful Saul out now ??? There's a scripture from the New Century Version which beautifully illustrates how demonic inquiry of the dead actually works in appearing to be beneficial and notice also the footnote: 2 Corinthians 11:14 New Century Version (NCV) (14) "This does not surprise us. Even Satan changes himself to look like an angel of light.[a] (15) So it does not surprise us if Satan's servants also make themselves look like servants who work for what is right. But in the end they will be punished for what they do." Footnotes: Footnote: 2 Corinthians 11:14 angel of light Messenger from God. The devil fools people so that they think he is from God. Also note that Satan has demonic help in carrying out deceptions, so no doubt the spirit playing the part of Samuel was one of these demons. ---- material.infantacy: "4) How can an entity other than a prophet of God prophesy the death of Saul, and his three sons? The death of anyone, especially that of the king of Israel and his line, would be only for God to know and reveal. No demonic entity would have access to such a vision." ==== Again I'll refer above to that scripture at 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 and also reference another scripture with a demonic spirit the Apostle Paul dealt with who was actually speaking the truth about Paul being a servant of the Most High God and that Paul had information about Salvation, yet oddly enough Paul rejected this spirit. Why would he do that ??? Acts 16:16-18 New Century Version (NCV) Paul and Silas in Jail (16) Once, while we were going to the place for prayer, a servant girl met us. She had a special spirit[a] in her, and she earned a lot of money for her owners by telling fortunes. (17) This girl followed Paul and us, shouting, "These men are servants of the Most High God. They are telling you how you can be saved." (18) "She kept this up for many days. This bothered Paul, so he turned and said to the spirit, "By the power of Jesus Christ, I command you to come out of her!" Immediately, the spirit came out. Footnotes: Footnote: Acts 16:16 spirit This was a spirit from the devil, which caused her to say she had special knowledge. So this demonic possessed girl was speaking the truth when encouraging other to listen to Paul who was a servant of the Most High God and his message of Salvation. But why did Paul stop her from telling what was clearly a truth ??? Because it was a DEMON that was doing it and faithful servants have NOTHING to do with Demonic things. Hello??? Jesus likewise had similiar encounters of demons when he was on Earth who were speaking the truth and he rejected such as well he should have. Jesus as our model set the pattern for us to follow. ---- material.infantacy: "If there is scripture that identifies the person in that passage as anyone other than Samuel, I’d appreciate a reference." ==== Here are a number of scriptural references you should also pay attention to in this regard. 1 Chronicles 10:13 and Isaiah 8:19-20Eocene
November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
I certainly agree that not everyone who goes by the name of Christian believes in the immortality of the soul. On that, we have no dispute. Of course, we must face the fact that most of the early cburch fathers believed it, and they were the ones who were closest to the apostles and, therefore, most likely to get it right. All sincere Christians accept the testimony of Scripture. The problem is that not all sincere Christians know how to interprete the Scriptures reasonably. In keeping with that point, reason without faith is secularism; faith without reason is superstition. No one figures it out by himself. Everything turns on finding the right mentor and the right Church.StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
No one, certainly not me, has tried to argue that all those who go by the name of Christian accept the immortality of the soul. The point is that those who do believe it cannot reconcile that belief with the Darwinist world view, as I have made clear--unless, of course, they change the meaning of soul or spirit, as you tried to do. Unfortunately, you labor under several misconceptions. First, I have not, in any way, tried to provide arguments for the immortality of the soul. That is for another thread. This thread is geared to those who already claim to accept that teaching, a point that you keep missing. However, some of your comments are revealing. First, there is no way to subject rational arguments for the existence of an immortal soul to empirical “testing.” That you think such a strategy is reasonable suggests that you are in no way familiar with the subject matter. Indeed, the best arguments for the existence of a soul are philosophical because theological arguments appeal only to believers and science has nothing to say about it. In spite of your protests to the contrary, it seems evident that you have not studied the relative arguments and found them wanting. You simply do not know what they are--and care less. That is not a problem of the intellect, it is an act of the will.StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
@StephenB, Assuming this was in response to me...
“Your” theology is irrelevant and constitutes yet another illogical intrusion. The subject matter under discussion is the relationship between the Christian theology of the soul, and the Darwininist world view. Your ignorance on this matter has been a stumbling block for you throughout this entire thread.
But since it's theology, that relationship is completely fluid. The "two thousand year teaching" of this point or that doesn't establishing anything more than it's been a doctor two thousand years. Buddhists have been teaching doctrines of reincarnation as their theology for longer than Christians have been teaching anything at all. So? It's just waving plastic spoons around in the air. As a Christian, I did not suppose spirit was dynamic, or incremental, or imbued through evolution, etc. I would have given (now, frighteningly) similars answer to those you give here. Orthodox theology down the line, for the most part. I just came to understand these were assertions that were wholly unattached to any grounded epistemology, wholly unaccountable to any testing, validation or even examination in terms of the evidence an experiences from the real world. It was nothing more than pure, naked conjecture, and conjecture beholden just to the owners intuitions and superstitions, impervious to overthrow outside of the dictates of those intuitions. So it's not that I'm unfamiliar with classical Christian metaphysics, it's that theology as a discipline is complete fluff, just so much handwaving and indulging of one's intuitions. I can make up a theology that stalemates yours, on the fly, in real time, because all it demands is making assertions that don't have to be supported, tested, backed up. At all. Ever. I could write a software bot to do this theology, I suppose, and it would be, at the end of the program, every bit as strong, and forceful as yours. Your "understanding" of the "relationship between the Christian theology of the soul" is only knowledge of the superstitions you entertain, and those you share with fellow Christians. It's not, and cannot be, any kind of knowledge in the sense of "justified true belief", that has an even slight accountability to the witness and adjudication of the real world.
Indeed, I pointed out in the original post that the spirit (and the soul) is, by definition, infinite, immaterial, and unchanging. Those three elements always come together. I didn’t just invent the point for the sake of controversy. If you were not aware of these facts, you should have raised the issue early on so as not to waste everyone’s time.
You are thinking that your definitions are normative on reality, then? Your theology is binding? How would you demonstrate this? All you've been able to do so far is wave the plastic spoon in the air at me, as I've done right back to you, and we can't be bothered to even take counsel of the feedback loops and corrective mechanisms of real world evidence and experience, because theology can't carry such loads. It's just musings and counter musings. We are musing and counter-musing just fine, but if you are now thinking that you are dictating the structure of reality by pointing to popular theological definitions, then I say, game on! and offer that my made-up-for-controversy theology has EXACTLY as much epistemic weight as your millenia long theology. Exactly the same weight. Precisely none, in both cases.
I don’t know how else you care to word it, but it is incorrect to attribute the belief in man’s immaterial soul to everyone who is a Christian.
I know you are not hearing me, now, but just in case, you are operating in a domain where "incorrect" is undefined for you. It's a divide by zero, a concept that only has meaning in the domain whence you stole it from -- the real world, where we can ask "is that correct?" and match a claim or assertion for its consistency with our observations from the real world. It's "incorrect" for you and your theology, but that theology only holds currency within your mind, as the manifestation of your intuitions. It isn't and can't be knowledge, ideas that are tested and vetted by reality, and subject to falisification or validation, the way "correct" ideas in the real world are.
The immutability of spirit is a two-thousand-year-old Christian teaching that passed through the Church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and continued on through the reformation with Luther. Christians continue to believe it today. There has never been a time when they didn’t believe it. Inasmuch as you claim to have once been a member of that fold, you should have known that.
Oh, I espoused the same things. But I didn't "know" any of that any more than you "know" it now, which is to say not at all. Christians continue to believe today, and my Buddhist friends continue to believe in reincarnation, as do some of my Hindu friends. This is their "correct" theology, and they are as as utterly impoverished epistemically holding to that as you are or I was as a Christian. I'm not just aware of the teaching, I'm also aware of the utter impotence of theology as a knowledge enterprise. That's what separates the two of us, here. Telling me such-and-such doctrine is a "two-thousand-year-old Christian teaching", as if THAT gives it status as knowledge or anything like knowledge, illustrates this difference quite well.eigenstate
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
I'll split hairs on that. The immutability of the spirit is a belief of some Christians led by 4th century theologians who supplemented Christian teachings with Greek philosophy. Many Christians hold to the Hebrew understanding that a man is a soul that dies and ceases to exist except for the hope a the resurrection. Jesus did not change that understanding - he lived by and taught the Hebrew scriptures. He introduced the new possibility of humans being resurrected as spirits, although this was not God's intended purpose for all of mankind. The heavens belong to God, and the earth is his gift to men. I don't know how else you care to word it, but it is incorrect to attribute the belief in man's immaterial soul to everyone who is a Christian. I'm not any more interested in debating the specifics than you are. (I used to debate. Now I teach, and this is not the setting for it.) But I dismiss Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Plato and hold to the divinely inspired scriptures.ScottAndrews2
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
"Your" theology is irrelevant and constitutes yet another illogical intrusion. The subject matter under discussion is the relationship between the Christian theology of the soul, and the Darwininist world view. Your ignorance on this matter has been a stumbling block for you throughout this entire thread. Indeed, I pointed out in the original post that the spirit (and the soul) is, by definition, infinite, immaterial, and unchanging. Those three elements always come together. I didn’t just invent the point for the sake of controversy. If you were not aware of these facts, you should have raised the issue early on so as not to waste everyone's time. The immutability of spirit is a two-thousand-year-old Christian teaching that passed through the Church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and continued on through the reformation with Luther. Christians continue to believe it today. There has never been a time when they didn’t believe it. Inasmuch as you claim to have once been a member of that fold, you should have known that.StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
m.i. Agreed.ScottAndrews2
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
@StephenB, OK, let me get my plastic theology spoon out, and move to a safe ten paces...
No it cannot. Spirit, by definition, only exists in complete form. There is no such thing as a partial spirit. What could be added to it that would make it complete?
Yes it can. Spirit, by my theological definition, develops incrementally, in the steps, gradients and timing that meet God's good pleasure. There is a such a thing as a partial spirit. What is added when it is partial is just that spiritual remainder that makes it complete, per God's design. Next!
You are using weasel words again. Does dynamic mean changing or changeable.
"Dynamic" isn't a weasel word. It means "changing". I say, theologically, that spirit is NOT immutable, unchanging. It's a dynamic substance, and in the case of human evolution, one that develops incrementally as part of the co-evolution of spiritual dimensions that integrate with the flesh of the human mind/brain. We're trafficking in theology, so my superstitions on this are just as tall as yours, and just as impervious to assault or testing or evening questioning as yours.
But we ARE discussing your logical contradiction, through which a spirit, which is, by definition, complete and unchanging, is, by your claims, being brought to completion. How can something already complete be brought to completion?
It's NOT complete before it's completed. It is a substance in development. Slow, incremental development, just as God designed it to be! That is one powerful designer. There's no contradiction there because my theology says you simply wrong about spirit being complete from the beginning. When it's finished, developmentally, per God's design, well, that cake is baked. But before that, it's not. That's just how God ordained it, according to my theology.eigenstate
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
@StephenB,
Excellent! Since you agree with the law of non-contradiction, I assume that you agree with the law of causality and its corollary principle that that every effect requires a proportionate cause. If you are on board with reasons rules, then please explain, then, how matter can be a proportionate cause to spirit, or how it can give something that it doesn’t have to give. Suffice it to say that injecting the word “vector” will not help you to solve the riddle.
I think you are not reading my responses? See this just above, in my comment which you are responding to, here, in 9.1:
But for the record, I was positing this spirit fortification as an active of divine supernatural creation by an omnipotent, omniscient god.
So, theologically, all I need is to say "Well, God did it of course, God gives physical matter a spiritual dimension whenever and however he likes". Theology is awesome that way. How does God give matter "matter-ness"? If you don't believe God is a physical being, or has physical attributes ("God is spirit" if i recall correctly from John 4), then God is giving, in his creation of the world matter something which he doesn't possess. But, mirabile dictu, God is such per our superstitions that he's not the least bit constrained by that. He can make something from nothing, and can give objects something which he doesn't possess. *carves a Zorro-"Z" in the air with plastic theology spoon* Once again (just to make the point how often this happens), you are confusing physical laws and constraints from the real world with the magical world of the theologically metaphysical. Those concepts, stolen from real world dynamics, just don't apply there. Theology is not science, and isn't accountable, or liable to the real world inputs and empirical feedback that gives us grounding for "can" and "can't" in the reale world. It's "anything goes" (logical contradictions, excepted, etc.).
Also, in response to your claim that spirit can develop gradually, please deal with this previous comment: “Spirit can only be created from spirit. It cannot be created gradually by adding parts because there are no parts to add. Also, if it is created gradually then it doesn’t exist until it is complete, but spirit cannot exist partially. Spirit is always complete and unchanging and it could only come into existence gradually through change.”
I think you must have just missed it. I posted this in response directly to that paragraph in my comment 8.1.
Spirit CAN be incrementally added to physical matter, creating a hybrid substance which has the supernatural parts enduring forever even when the physical vectors are annihilated. It CAN be created gradually by adding parts. It CAN exist in partial, developmental forms. Spirit IS dynamic (in the supernatural sense of the term, of course!), and comes into being when God wants, how God wants, and where God wants (again with the caveat that we avoid logical contradictions in assessing that phase space!).
eigenstate
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
My questions @11 are for eisengate.StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
---"[spirit] It CAN exist in partial, developmental forms." No it cannot. Spirit, by definition, only exists in complete form. There is no such thing as a partial spirit. What could be added to it that would make it complete? ---"Spirit IS dynamic (in the supernatural sense of the term, of course!)", You are using weasel words again. Does dynamic mean changing or changeable. ---"come into being when God wants, how God wants, and where God wants (again with the caveat that we avoid logical contradictions in assessing that phase space!)." But we ARE discussing your logical contradiction, through which a spirit, which is, by definition, complete and unchanging, is, by your claims, being brought to completion. How can something already complete be brought to completion? You are saying that, even though spirit, by definition, is a complete, unchanging entity, God can, nevertheless, perform the conradictory act of creating a partial spirit?StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Excellent! Since you agree with the law of non-contradiction, I assume that you agree with the law of causality and its corollary principle that that every effect requires a proportionate cause. If you are on board with reasons rules, then please explain, then, how matter can be a proportionate cause to spirit, or how it can give something that it doesn't have to give. Suffice it to say that injecting the word "vector" will not help you to solve the riddle. Also, in response to your claim that spirit can develop gradually, please deal with this previous comment: "Spirit can only be created from spirit. It cannot be created gradually by adding parts because there are no parts to add. Also, if it is created gradually then it doesn’t exist until it is complete, but spirit cannot exist partially. Spirit is always complete and unchanging and it could only come into existence gradually through change."StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Scott, I don’t know how to be any more explicit. A = soul sleep B = not A Taken on its own, the Endor passage does only one of the following: supports A; supports B; supports neither A nor B. I assert that the passage cannot support A; that it tends to support B in context; and that its apparent support for B can be undermined by answering, within the context of 1st Samuel, the four questions that I submitted. Since you continue to disagree, we’re at an impasse; I’m not debating the veracity of “soul sleep” itself, nor any other alternative doctrines, so the rest of the discussion appears moot at this stage. I’m not likely to engage in a theological debate that puts W.S. theology (yours) against mainstream Protestant theology (mine) anytime soon on this thread because I don’t find it appropriate to the venue. Not to mention, as I suggested before, I’ve dealt with that theology in the past (not trivially) and remain entirely unpersuaded. If I choose to engage it again, it’s unlikely to occur here at UD except in selective responses. I felt the need to respond to Eocene because he brought up the Endor scenario as support for “soul sleep” (and in a derisive fashion) to which I believe I’ve sufficiently responded and dealt with. Otherwise, I’ve appreciated many of your comments and contributions on UD in general. Thanks for the conversation. Best, m.i.material.infantacy
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
just a quick note - eigenstate's objections are theological, unrelated to the physical evidence of design in nature.Upright BiPed
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
You may have missed my answer to this @6, so I will repeat it: "One either accepts the extravagant claims of Darwin’s mechanism or one does not. According to that paradigm, evolution produced larger and larger brains until human intelligence became a fact. In other words, for Christians who accept Darwin’s scheme, the mechanism was responsible for the origin of the human mind. This is what I understand Francis Collins to mean, for example, when he writes, “Most remarkably, God intentionally chose this same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with him. He also knew that these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the moral law.” (P 201, The Language of God). But as I have indicated, an immaterial mind cannot emerge from matter. It should be evident that molecules re-arranging themselves cannot evolve into something that contains no molecules, just as Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist. If that point isn’t clear, then reflect on the fact that spirit does not depend on matter for its existence and cannot, therefore derive from matter from that same reason. The mind does depend on the brain for its operation (while united to a body), but not for its existence. Now, it may be the case that Collins, Miller et al would acknowledge that God “breathed in” a “soul” from the top down, but they seem to forget, if they ever knew it, that the soul consists of an immaterial mind and an immaterial will. If the soul was created directly, then so was the mind, which means, of course, that it didn’t emerge. So, they cannot have it both ways, that is, they cannot attribute the origin of the mind to God’s direct intervention from the top down when they are giving lip service to the soul and then turn around and attribute it to the indirect process of evolution from the bottom up." I trust that you will not take eisengate's position to the effect that these two explanations of the mind's origin can both be true.StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Ask away. It doesn’t follow from anything, nor is there anything to prevent a Divine miracle in that context. Are you suggesting that such an event is comparable to matter creating its own spirit?
No, silly. Over and over, I've made this operation a creative, supernatural act of God, incrementally fortifying physical matter with a "spirit vector". I suppose I'm just as warranted in asserting what you are resisting -- that matter can create its own spirit. Why not? But for the record, I was positing this spirit fortification as an active of divine supernatural creation by an omnipotent, omniscient god. So you want to tell me where it follows that God cannot engage in such an act of creation, if indeed you think such an act is somehow metaphysically beyond an omnipotent god's capabilities?eigenstate
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
@StephenB,
So, in your judgment, God can make a square circle, direct an undirected process, and violate his own nature by refusing to love?
No, I've repeatedly here excepted logical contradictions. Your first two are contradictory by definitions, by the simple invocation of conflicting terms. The third one is not a logical contradiction as its not been shown that any god exists, never mind that such a god's nature is love, nor that love is some character about god that is immutable even for god, nor that we would not choose to make such a changes, etc. That one is densely packed with problems that are not logical contradictions, just gratuitously presumptive theology. But yeah, an omnipotent god can do what he wants, with the proviso that "do" is subject, as all actions are, to logical coherence.
No, it would not be warranted from a scientific point of view. It is warranted from a philosophical/metaphysical/logical point of view.
How does one establish warrant metaphysically? Trick question, but I'm interested to know what your warrant is, metaphysically.
Matter cannot add a spiritual dimension to the physical dimension because it does not have spirit to give. An effect is always preceded by a proportionate cause.
See, you just steal concepts from science and import them into your metaphysics, without even a thought, seemingly unaware. Well, since it's theology, two can easily play at that game. I say matter CAN add a spiritual dimension when ever God desires it as such, and in any incremental and evolutionary (or sudden "Poof!") way he likes. The effect obtains from God as cause. Now what? Shall we stalemate somewhere else while we wave our plastic spoons of theology around at each other at ten paces?
You really don’t perceive the nonsensical nature of that comment do you? The entire scheme is based on the assumption that matter can give something it doesn’t have to give.
Hello, I'm a materialist. Of course it's nonsense. We're doing theology. That's the point. One of us clearly understand the nonsensical nature of these points (on both sides), and I think is me. Theologically, God can give physical matter a spiritual dimension, if that is God's will. Do you find that logically impossible? If not, then smell the stalemate. *waves plastic spoon of theology in an animated fashion from a distance*
But the problem is that nothing exists in the molecules that can produce the spiritual and, further, by their very nature they cannot.
Hey, I remind you again again we are talking theology about what an OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT deity can do. Do you want to reconsider this protest in light of that? Or is your theology such that God is somehow (God really is mysterious!) metaphysically impotent in this case, unable to design physical substance that also has spiritual vectors. Yow. You're getting confused about how "can" works in the real world and the "anything goes" "can" of theology (Logical contradictions excepted, of course, so we don't get wrapped around that axle again). You've stolen a "can/cannot" concept from the real world, and injected it where that concept is totally inapplicable -- theology under the rule of an omnipotent, omniscient god. Concept fail.
Spirit can only be created from spirit. It cannot be created gradually by adding parts because there are no parts to add. Also, if it is created gradually then it doesn’t exist until it is complete, but spirit cannot exist partially. Spirit is always complete and unchanging and it could only come into existence gradually through change.
LOL. OK. Let me get my plastic spoon of theology ready, and: Spirit CAN be incrementally added to physical matter, creating a hybrid substance which has the supernatural parts enduring forever even when the physical vectors are annihilated. It CAN be created gradually by adding parts. It CAN exist in partial, developmental forms. Spirit IS dynamic (in the supernatural sense of the term, of course!), and comes into being when God wants, how God wants, and where God wants (again with the caveat that we avoid logical contradictions in assessing that phase space!). *puts smoking plastic spoon of theology back in holster with a flourish* Whew! Ok, stalemate yet again. You are operating in theology here, so your ideas are totally unaccountable, totally untestable, purely subjective, and thus epistemically impotent. You are totally safe with your theology inside the box you've created for your intuitions and superstitions, but by the same token, everyone else is impervious to your ideas. They can only be accepted by someone deciding they happen to have compatible intuitions and superstitions. There is no test, no evidence, to predictions we can evaluate and analyze will ever lead us anywhere epistemically from the plastic-spoon-waving we've taken up, here.eigenstate
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
From Francis Collins' The Language of God: "6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history." (I think it's on p.200). It seems that Collins does not think that Darwinian evolution can account for all it means to be human. I think StephenB would conclude that Collins is not necessarily a Christian Darwinist. I think Collins would say that everything up to, but not necessarily including human beings, can be accounted for by Darwinian evolution, though. Personally, I reject physicalism and non-reductive physicalism. I'm undecided whether we have (1) immaterial souls in addition to physical bodies, or whether (2) God infused matter with a mental/spiritual property that allowed it to eventually develop into minds/souls, or whether (3) God created the origin of life with something that was also part mental/spiritual. If (2) is true does this invalidate Darwinian evolution? Not necessarily. All the events that led to the origin of life might have not been influenced by the mental/spiritual element of matter. And all mutations in the history of the development of life might still have been random with respect to fitness. And if (3) is true, again, all mutations in the history of the development of life might still have been random with respect to fitness. So I think it is still possible to be a consistent Christian and a Darwinist.Bilbo I
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
--"Should I ask you where it “follows”, that water can be turned into wine? How would you answer that one?" Ask away. It doesn't follow from anything, nor is there anything to prevent a Divine miracle in that context. Are you suggesting that such an event is comparable to matter creating its own spirit?StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
---“Anything goes.” So, from a metaphysical point of view, Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time? ---“If you are speaking scientifically, of course, I agree there is no basis for concluding that an immaterial mind can emerge from matter, if for no other reason than the terms are incoherent. “Immaterial mind” is not a meaningful concept for science. Science traffics in natural explanations for natural phenomena.” Irrelevant to the philosophical argument. ---“If we want to discuss from the basis of scientific epistemology, then fine, but the conversation is radically reshaped. There is no God or spirit or soul or immaterial mind in evidence to even CONSIDER if we are thinking in ways that are accountable to empirical testing and objective validation.” Irrelevant to the philosophical argument. And time wasting. ---"That is not entailed, theology. Entailment in theology is reduced to logical entailments, implications necessary just to avoid logical contradictions. There’s no logical contradiction in the idea that the soul emerges, incrementally. If it can be “created by poof” and invested in human flesh in a discrete fashion by God, it can “grown in the flesh”, incrementally. God’s ways are mysterious, and it is a mighty God we serve, indeed, remember?" Spirit can only be created from spirit. It cannot be created gradually by adding parts because there are no parts to add. Also, if it is created gradually then it doesn’t exist until it is complete, but spirit cannot exist partially. Spirit is always complete and unchanging and it could only come into existence gradually through change.StephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
M.I., Note also that Saul did not see the vision. It was described to him. There is no reason to think he heard the words either. We have the words of a spirit medium against the rest of the Hebrew scriptures. I'm not smuggling in "A" as an assumption. "A" is more than one explicit statement about what happens when one dies. It is also supported by the common usage of the word, in which people called their souls hungry, tired, or even dead. If a person's soul is hungry, what experiences hunger and what needs to eat? The body. Genesis does not say that God put a soul into Adam. He made a body, and when he breathed life into it, he became a soul like the animals around him. Ezekiel 18 says a sinful soul would die. The context was not some future experience of the soul, but it was in response to an immediate concern - whether presently alive sons would die for the sins of their fathers. We have Solomon's very explicit statements. We have God's explicit statement that Adam was dust and would return to dust. If Adam was to be punished after death, why was he not warned? It he was to live on as a spirit without punishment, then what was the significance of death? That the soul is a living, mortal thing is not 'smuggled in.' It was the foundational understanding of everyone who wrote the Bible and of those who wrote it. We should expect them to be in harmony if in fact God inspired them to write. If you wish to take 1st Samuel 28 literally, do so. Saul visited a medium and she described to him the apparition she saw and heard. Satan can be an angel of light when it suits his deceptive purposes. Even the demons proclaimed that Jesus was the son of God. Certainly imitating Samuel is not a stretch.ScottAndrews2
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply