Posted on 12/19/2008 5:27:13 AM PST by moneyrunner
These are premature questions. Let's first define the terms. Man was created in God's image and NT anthropology refers to the body, soul, and spirit.
What is the soul? The mind, reason, recall, and a number of other facets including the Scriptural heart, are components of the soul.
Some have described the discernment of body, soul, and spirit in association with their respective systems of perception. The body has 5 physical senses of touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight as a system of perception. Empiricism is closely related to that system of perception.
The soul, with memory, thinking, recall, mind, logic, reason, naming, association, volition, is frequently associated with rationalism as a system of perception.
The human spirit uses faith as a system of perception. Through faith in Christ we are able to perceive things not seen. When Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, man became separated from God spiritually or also expressed as suffering a spiritual death. Upon us having faith through Christ (believing in Him), God the Holy Spirit regenerates our human spirit.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
We know that the second person of the Godhead created all things, and there is only one name under heaven by which we must be saved.
We are fortunate, by the brilliance of God's Plan, that we are condemned before we are saved. In the case of of some other beings (such as the fallen angels), they have eternal life, prior to their condemnation.
Another issue arises in the identification of 'aliens' of the 'Roswell' variety with the type of being He has created.
UFO / alien reports indicate some 'aliens' are able to communicate 'telepathically. If they exist and such reports are true, then when interpretted by Scripture rather than science, we might be exposed to beings with soul and spirit. The referenced communication might be spiritual in nature. The identification problem is akin to walking into a zoo. In the zoo there are many different types of animals. We indeed might be able to discern between humans and monkeys, but that doesn't mean every animal we perceive in the zoo is a monkey (Democrats, maybe, monkeys, not always).
Some posit their presence is due to a highly advanced intellect. In the case of angels, many, if not all, have been around for millenia and some are observers, and some are deceivers. If we are able to predict with reasonable certainty the behavior of children to certain situations, how much more are such beings possibly able to predict our behavior in any number of situations? Interestingly, anglic beings manifest overshelming characteristic personality traits.
One thing we do know, is that through faith in Christ, we are part of His royal family. Since He created all things, and the Son has been given authority over all judgment, all things created fall within His authority. Although we might not have authority over many other beings outside of our domain, God is still all powerful and has ultimate authority in all things. Our relationship to Him through faith in Christ, gives us a unique power never before given to man in human history.
In regards to the salvation of others, just like our salvation is purely a relationship between God and the condemned and He provides for us, likewise any salvation required by other beings who had or have relationship with God fall under His domain and His Plan. These are likely issues outside our domain (expressed in gross understatement).
Not sure what "scientism" is.
Please explain it. :)
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.- Unweaving The Rainbow, Richard Dawkins
I love the title of Frank Turek's book, _I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist_
“Not sure what “scientism” is. Please explain it.” ~ CE2949BB
This will get you started. :)
Dawkins confuses science with philosophical naturalism to produce scientism.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2002/PSCF3-02Crouch.pdf
<>
Methodological Naturalism
Is Science religiously neutral? Alvin Plantinga
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm
<>
“...on what basis can [Dawkins] object in a world of pure selfish genes? There are no rules in a Darwinian naïf fight. You can’t cry “foul” when a snake eats your birdbrain. There is no “ought” in Darwinism. There is only survival. ...
“..the simplistic believers in scientism engage in this leap of faith no less than do the believers in creationism. Both interpret the data through the lens of their paradigm. If they would just acknowledge this at the outset, it would actually eliminate the hostility, for then it would not be a question of ...” ~Gagdad Bob
Continued (click “show original post”): https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=6572815018834722844
<>
Most materialists / atheists / strong agonistic mentalities are faking it. The proof? Few of them have the courage of their stated “convictions”:
“....When you have successfully demystified the world, your soul is officially dead. ....I’m trying to think of an example that even a materialist with a blunted sensibility might understand. For many people who have successfully demystified the world, the only time they are able to unwittingly appreciate the sacred is when they are directly confronted with it in its most vivid form: death, the birth of a child, marriage, etc. Imagine being so spiritually insensate that you had the courage of your convictions and successfully drained the world of its sacred dimension. Upon the death of a loved one, you would simply put them in the garbage. After all, it’s just a sack of meat. The birth of a child would be no different than termites hatching in your backyard. Marriage wouldn’t exist, because there would be no recognition of the sacred dimension of male and female sexuality. Euthanasia would not just be legal, but mandatory, on grounds of common sense — as would the abortion of youth in Asia — as in China. Believe it or not, there are people who more or less experience the world this way. But we do not call them “enlightened” or more in touch with reality than the rest of us. Rather, we call them schizoid or autistic. ..” ~ Saturday, February 03, 2007 Radical Wonder and the Remystification of the World http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/search?q=Radical+Wonder+and+the+Remystification+of+the+World +
<>
June 21, 2008
“And the Weird Light Shines in the Dorks, but the Dorks Don’t Comprehend it
What is reality, anyway? Our paradigmatic science, physics, reduces the world to a few beautiful equations, but the equations don’t tell us how to generate a world with them. In fact, they provide no factual content whatsoever for the world we actually encounter. So which world is the “real” world? The inconceivable quantum world undescribed by physics, the ponderable world we encounter with our senses, or the eternal world known only to the illuminated intellect?
Science is obviously a wonderful tool, but when it is elevated to a metaphysic it is remarkably empty of content and meaning, especially as it pertains to the meaning of our human journey, the Adventure of Consciousness. One of the implications of Gödel’s theorems is that any logical or mathematical system will generate questions that are not answerable within the system. Ironically or perhaps “cluelessly” is a better word many postmodernists use Gödel to try to prove that all knowledge is therefore relative, but this was not Gödel’s point at all. Rather, Gödel ...” ~ Gagdad Bob
Continue: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/and-weird-light-shines-in-dorks-but.html
<>
“...After all, anyone can practice a religion, whether it is Christianity, Darwinism, Atheism, or Materialism, but that doesn’t mean they understand their religion in any deep way. For an atheist to reject religion means only that he has failed to understand it, precisely. A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less. And why argue with a man who not only clings to ignorance, but is proud of the fact?
When we talk about metaphysics, we are talking about very basic truths that are adequations to divine/human realities that cannot not be, such as “Absolute,” “being,” “truth,” etc. But...” ~ Gagdad Bob
Continued: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-of-center-and-religion-of.html
Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob] , Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics. bttt
Your vehicle awaits you, Sir . . .
No, but I don't suppose that anyone...human or otherwise...has souls.
If so then would they not need salvation?
It depends. If Christianity is correct, then yes. If Islam is correct, then they would need to recognize that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. If Unitarianism is correct, they would need to sit around and complain that everyone is being far too judgemental. Etc.
I was pointing out that the premise of this thread is mistaken. Most UFO believers are not atheists, they are Christians.
Well, you did say that belief in UFOs and belief in Christianity was incompatible.
According to the Bible mankind is special, made in the image of God.
That is correct.
Are aliens also made in the image of God?
I don't know. Assuming that God exists, you'd have to ask Him/Her/It...and manage to get an answer.
How did they get so much more advanced than us that they send faster than light (presumably) space craft into our atmosphere?
Two answers come to mind, assuming that we have in fact been visited by extraterrestrials (which I don't for a moment believe):
1) Faster than light travel is possible, and they've invented it. They got more advanced than us by simply being an older civilization. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old, after all, and the Earth is only a bit more than 4 billion years old.
2) They use slower than light travel, and they're very patient. Either they use some sort of cryo-suspension and simply wake up after a few hundred years, or the ships are automated. This has the advantage over explanation (1) of not breaking the laws of physics as we understand them.
And they presumably travel all that distance just to pick up some redneck Billy Joe Bob and give him the rectal probe?
Well, some people may presume that...I don't think there's the slightest reliable evidence for such a thing, myself.
Nothing in the Bible precludes extraterrestrial life, but extraterrestrial hyper intelligent technologically advanced life that visits Earth? The Bible must have left out a lot of relevant details in that case.
The Bible was written by a pre-scientific people, so it couldn't comment on such things, any more than the people who wrote it could have discussed quantum mechanics.
Range of meanings
Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term "scientism":
I'm assuming you meant one of those three when you said:
But Dawkins embraces “scientism”, doesn’t he? :)
I see nothing wrong with "scientism" if that's how it is defined.
Praying didn't give us fMRI or antibiotics.
Science - modern science - hasn't been around for more than a few hundred years, yet it has taken the human race further - light years further, literally and figuratively - in that short period of time than mysticism and supernaturalism has in the last five thousand years.
If you're in a hospital bed, would you rather see a doctor or a witch doctor?
“I’m assuming you meant one of those three when you said: But Dawkins embraces “scientism”, doesn’t he? :) I see nothing wrong with “scientism” if that’s how it is defined.” ~CE2949BB
You asked me to define what I meant. In #44 above, I did. Therefore you didn’t have to assume anything, unless of course you didn’t understand what I posted. I can’t help you there.
Saying something like...
“And there are other worlds where God’s power holds sway.” wouldn’t take too much explaining. Work it into Genesis.
“God created the Heaven and the Earth and other worlds”
But it is nowhere even suggested.
This isn't surprising, given that Genesis was written almost 3,000 years ago. The people who wrote the mythology of the account in Genesis were simply explaining the world as best they could. The concept of extraterrestrial worlds and beings simply wouldn't have occurred to them, given the primitive state of astronomy at the time.
1) Are you saying that intelligent design does not give an explanation of the origin of things? One the contrary, it does. It’s just not the answer that atheists are looking for.
2) Scientists who believe in God have given us tremendous insight into how things work. As I point out in the extended article, the head of the Human Genome project is a committed Christian. Would you deny that this project has made breakthrough discoveries?
“The deity did it” allows pretty much anything to be the case; once that’s said, what else is there to say? Asking for further explanation becomes a matter of either reading the deity’s mind (how?) or reading old texts of pre-scientific provenance and ethical, not scientific, intent.
What else is there to say? How about, “how does it work?” Why does acknowledging the existence of God inhibit the development of the wheel, the auto, spacecraft, computers, or understanding DNA?
And from whence comes your ethical intent? If you and I are simply slabs of meat, where is the ethical imperative?
What I find interesting is the a priori assumption that the universe is essentially meaningless - as are we. But I can understand that this assumption may lead one to conclude the he or she is the apex, the crown jewel of everything; that (to borrow a phrase from the recent campaign) we are the Gods we have been waiting for.
I’m not sure that there is an irreconcilable conflict between evolution and intelligent design. I have had a problem with the pretty pictures of the evolution of man, horse, or what have you that was used to illustrate the theory of evolution in textbooks.
Talk about simplistic!
That’s an alien on the right.
That sounds like Dawkins is trying to have it both ways: he advances a theory that does away with God but substitutes aliens. Then realizing it makes him look silly he says he doesn’t support the theory.
It's supernaturalism we're opposed to.
To an aborigine cell phones are “supernatural.” You demand that if you don’t understand it, it must not exist and alternative explanations must be found. Like Dawkins.
Are you suggesting that he did not rely on the scientific method in his research?
Sounds like a silly causality versus a correlation.
Causality = Hitler like carrots, he ordered genocide, therefore, liking carrots is a predictor of a genocidal maniac.
Correlation = Hitler was a vicious anti-semite and a loner and power hungry, when he got power, he became genocidal.
Well, no. It was speculation.
Richard Dawkins on the origins of life 5 Videos [YouTube Playlist]
Science doesn't have a generally agreed upon theory for the origin of life, yet.
Panspermia / exogenesis doesn't solve the fundamental question - what is the origin of life? - but merely pushes it back one step.
Saying "aliens did it" is as useful an explanation as "God did it!"
To an aborigine cell phones are “supernatural.”
The aborigine would be wrong. When the battery dies, he may pray to his God.. but that won't recharge the battery.
Merely because we don't understand something doesn't mean you can slap the "supernatural" label on it.
You demand that if you don’t understand it, it must not exist and alternative explanations must be found.
Not at all! If we don't understand something, that's a challenge. In the process of discovery, it is necessary to discard incorrect theories.
The aborigine, for example, may have believed that angels carried the voices. Or he may have believed little people lived in his TV.
The aborigine would have been wrong in both cases.
Science - and the scientific method - allow us to discover our mistakes, learn from them, and move on.
I really didn't. I tried, but failed.
"Gagdad Bob"'s postings, for example, read like a blend of New Ageism, a fringe of Christianity, and Post Modern garbage. A very weird mixture.
The article at LeaderU (by Alvin Plantinga) is attempting to redefine science and/or smuggle God in as axiomatic.
Maybe they are brilliant and I'm just too dumb to understand them.
I am a fan of science and "the scientific method." I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. But whenever anyone comes up with a phrase like yours, I am reminded of the “Star Wars” scene in which Darth Vader uses his powers to choke someone saying “I find your lack of faith disturbing.”
The faith that those who worship at the feet of science is amusing to someone who knows how little we actually know about the ultimate truths. And the practitioners of that faith are disturbing as they denigrate any faith but their own while pretending that their faith – and their faith alone – is the only path to the ultimate question.
Intelligent Design is dressed up Creationism.
Collins, who you use later as an example of a Christian scientist, acknowledges "intelligent design is already showing serious cracks."
Intelligent Design simply isn't science nor was it ever meant to be. ID was created to sneak religion back into the public school system.[1]
2) Scientists who believe in God have given us tremendous insight into how things work.
How are we defining "scientists who believe in God"?
When most people read a phrase such as "believe in God", they assume the God in question is a personal God.
That is: a God that punishes sinners, offers "salvation" from Hell, etc.
The majority of eminent scientists that do believe in God - which is a minority - reject a "personal God", but they do accept a philosophical / cosmic God.
Einstein is the first example that comes to mind.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
As I point out in the extended article, the head of the Human Genome project is a committed Christian.
The former head of the HGP, Francis Collins, is an evangelical Christian.
His Christianity is a different beast than most would recognize.
He doesn't believe the Bible should be read literally. Also, he said:
Evolution is about as solid a theory as one will ever see.[2]
Would you deny that this project has made breakthrough discoveries?
I don't see what his personal beliefs have to do with the work of the Human Genome Project.
Watson is an atheist and Crick is an agnostic.
You won't find any comfort in Crick's agnostisism:
Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."[3]
Collins wouldn't have had a job if it weren't for those two. (Watson had also ran the HGP, but left because he opposed attempts to patent gene sequences.)
Why does acknowledging the existence of God inhibit the development of the wheel, the auto, spacecraft, computers, or understanding DNA?
Saying "God did it!" doesn't explain anything.
And from whence comes your ethical intent?
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
While I have my disagreements with Ayn Rand & Leonard Peikoff and Objectivism, by and large I agree them and Objectivism.
If you and I are simply slabs of meat, where is the ethical imperative?
Slabs of meat aren't conscious, so "ethics" doesn't apply.
1 - Wedge_strategy
2 - The believer, Salon, Aug. 07, 2006
3 - Francis Crick
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
