Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I think there is a significant difference between the two. When a theist uses "yet to be" he's waiting for a promise to be fulfilled, similar to waiting for a pizza to be delivered. When a scientist uses "yet to be" he and other scientists are working the problem.

There is no difference; for God is constantly working out his plan in redemptive history (Jn 10:32; 14:10, etc.).

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define metaphysical reality, qualia, teleology.

Metaphysical reality--in the context of your post, "trust" would be qualitative rather than quantitative, and rejected by the proponents of "science explains all there is to know". But you and everybody else who is not "eccentric", etc., would know is meant by your use of "trust" which makes it a universal concept, even though there is no quantitative, physical aspect to it.

Qualia--again, the experiential, qualitative aspects of the world which are usually rejected by materialists since they are not quantifiable.

Teleology--goal-directed behavior and intention in nature. Again, not quantifiable and also gets beyond the efficient cause of an effect, to the consideration of final causes (the ends for which something's immanent nature implies...an acorn becomes an oak tree, not a Thoroughbred) which were/are considered subjective.

This all gets into essentialism and ultimately, the mind-body problem (how am I responding exactly [I hope] to your request if physical systems are indeterminate? How are we both deriving meaning from our posts, despite pixels in a monitor and brain processes, however reducible, that carry no inherent meaning in themselves)?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Because God is not glorified whenever we exclude him from our daily lives.

When we help others are we not acting in their interests, e.g., volunteering for Habitat For Humanity. Is God not glorified when we help others? If not, then what is the lesson of The Good Samaritan?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since "individuals" or "entities" are of this world, they are natural, earthly and worldly.

But the definition is of "horizontal", not "natural", "earthly" or "worldly".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Metaphysical reality--in the context of your post, "trust" would be qualitative rather than quantitative, and rejected by the proponents of "science explains all there is to know". But you and everybody else who is not "eccentric", etc., would know is meant by your use of "trust" which makes it a universal concept, even though there is no quantitative, physical aspect to it.

I am still at a loss as to what you mean by "metaphysical reality". As far as I can tell metaphysical is a synonym for supernatural, meaning that "metaphysical reality" is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Qualia--again, the experiential, qualitative aspects of the world which are usually rejected by materialists since they are not quantifiable.

Again I am still at a loss as to what you mean.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Teleology--goal-directed behavior and intention in nature.

I.e., theism?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Again, not quantifiable and also gets beyond the efficient cause of an effect, ...

Define "efficient cause".

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... to the consideration of final causes ...

Define "final cause".

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

...an acorn becomes an oak tree, not a Thoroughbred

Because of DNA.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

This all gets into essentialism and ultimately, the mind-body problem

Define "essentialism". What is "the mind-body problem"?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I am still at a loss as to what you mean by "metaphysical reality". As far as I can tell metaphysical is a synonym for supernatural, meaning that "metaphysical reality" is an oxymoron.
Again I am still at a loss as to what you mean.
I.e., theism?
Define "efficient cause".
Define "final cause".
Because of DNA.
Define "essentialism". What is "the mind-body problem"?

Actor, you're asking me to write a book and frankly, I am astounded that you can go public with your materialistic position without even a brief familiarity with some objections to materialism. I'm Just A Guy Behind A Keyboard, but I think I've explained them somewhat accurately.

Briefly, the early moderns desired only quantitative aspects of the world to qualify as "matter" (for philosophical reasons --one can quote Bacon and Descartes clearly suggesting the desire to control nature mathematically and technologically, albeit with human flourishing in mind). And so qualitative, sensory aspects of the world (color, taste, pain, etc. = "qualia") were removed from the material world and relocated in the mind, making them immaterial. Either way it's a problem for materialism. There is either something immaterial in the world or, if restoring qualia to the physical world under the description of "matter", there is a significant portion of the world that is not captured quantitatively. The mechanistic view of the world has created the mind-body problem...essentially either dualism...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBod

...or eliminativism...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m...m-eliminative/

Maybe I'll get to the rest, but TJ Dave said it best a while back...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ostcount=20537

...or most theists, for that matter.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I am still at a loss as to what you mean by "metaphysical reality". As far as I can tell metaphysical is a synonym for supernatural, meaning that "metaphysical reality" is an oxymoron.
Again I am still at a loss as to what you mean.
I.e., theism?
Define "efficient cause".
Define "final cause".
Because of DNA.
Define "essentialism". What is "the mind-body problem"?

DNA can fall under the description of "goal directed"...

https://books.google.com/books?id=mn...rected&f=false

Causation and a hypothetical bronze statue of Darwin, e.g...the efficient cause of the statue is the knowledge of the sculptor, the agent to bring about the whole process--some would say the sculptor himself, or Galileo pushing that rock off the cliff in your relativity example ...the material cause is the matter of the thing--the bronze...the formal cause is the shape--"form"--a statue of a man...the final cause for the bronze is the statue--the "ends" for which that particular bronze existed.

If A regularly produces B, rather than C or D or no effect at all, then it may be said that something in the nature of A directs or points to B. Ultimately one can get to that "something" being provided to A via external intelligence. That got in the way of a mechanistic conception of the world, so "teleology" was supplanted by "teleonomy".

Mind/Body problem: Consider the sentence, "Actor likes to read in bed."

The shape of the symbols, the ink/pencil lead/pixels, the arrangement of the letters contain no inherent meaning in themselves. The physical activity of neural brain processes contains no inherent meaning in themselves. But we derive meaning from the sentence. The question has been asked for a few centuries. Rhetorically, how does the mind and body, physical and non-physical (meaning) interact?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Actor, you're asking me to write a book and frankly, I am astounded that you can go public with your materialistic position without even a brief familiarity with some objections to materialism.

The pendulum swings both ways. I could say "I am astounded that you can go public with your religious position without even a brief familiarity with some objections to religion." But I do not say that because ignorance is so widespread that it is beyond astonishment.

I studied physics for 8 years and during all that time in all those courses none of those "objections to materialism" ever came up. Not once. Not in the science classes, not in the math classes, not in the humanities classes. Nor did they ever come up in any job interview. Prior to my participation in this thread I had never heard of epistemology, metaphysical, teleology, quale and a whole slew of other words.

On the other hand if you go the college for four years then science is going to come up. I would be hard pressed to come up with a list of scientific terms that you did not recognize simply because you are taught at least the rudiments of science. You probably know about gravity, magnetism, electric, etc. You've probably heard of entropy although I doubt if you know precisely what it means.

I wonder if Albert Einstein had "a brief familiarity with some objections to materialism."

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... there is a significant portion of the world that is not captured quantitatively.

I disagree. Color is the wavelength of light. Taste is the chemical composition of molecules. Pain is an electro-chemical signal. All are measurable. What you are calling "immaterial" are simply different states of matter and energy.

Reality consists of 12 primary particles and 4 primary forces. Like it or not all observed and verifiable data can be explained by these.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

DNA can fall under the description of "goal directed"...

https://books.google.com/books?id=mn...rected&f=false

I don't think Richard Dawkins would agree.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

The pendulum swings both ways. I could say "I am astounded that you can go public with your religious position without even a brief familiarity with some objections to religion." But I do not say that because ignorance is so widespread that it is beyond astonishment.

You could say the above, but you would be in error. He has been addressing the objections, however it seems you do not understand.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't think Richard Dawkins would agree.

Is Dawkins the final authority?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I studied physics for 8 years and during all that time in all those courses none of those "objections to materialism" ever came up. Not once. Not in the science classes, not in the math classes, not in the humanities classes. Nor did they ever come up in any job interview. Prior to my participation in this thread I had never heard of epistemology, metaphysical, teleology, quale and a whole slew of other words.

Why would "objections to materialism" come up? The studying of scientific fields or the application of the scientific method, is not prima facia materialism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You could say the above, but you would be in error. He has been addressing the objections, however it seems you do not understand.

Are you saying he has been giving equal time to objections to religion?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Is Dawkins the final authority?

Is Walsh?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why would "objections to materialism" come up? The studying of scientific fields or the application of the scientific method, is not prima facia materialism.

I studied more than science. There were required courses in philosophy, literature, art, political science, etc. The subject never came up in any of these either. If the notion were widespread I would think it would come up at least once.