Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
That is the complete paragraph from the linked site Aquinas from which your statement at Reply #1243 was abstracted. I would love you to help me analyze it.
But first, may I note that you are submitting "evidence by Authority." So, who is this "authority?" The person who holds the copyright on this philosophy website goes by the name of Luke Mastin. He seems to be the same person who holds the copyright on yet another website devoted to explicating all of physics. Evidently, he is a prodigious individual: If he had any help from other people, he doesn't mention it.
Just saying. Since I wasn't able to find out anything more about this person, I doubt I will accept him as a bona fide authority.
Now to the analysis of the statements at the top of this reply.
As already pointed out in an earlier post, I reject the idea of "special revelation" as being the exclusive province of "people of the Book": Plato for example never heard of the Holy Scriptures, nor of Jesus Christ. Yet he managed to infer a unitary cosmos that was ruled by Logos, which to me dovetails very well with my understanding of Genesis 1. He did not accomplish this merely by means of a process of deductive reasoning. He did not do this merely by sorting out external evidence, trying to find some sort of explanatory pattern for observed phenomena. Plato worked "from the inside out" — so to speak — from apperceptive, subjective mind (nous) in direct response to "pulls" from "outside," which are not of material, but of divine origin and character (Nous).
Of course it is true that "the Trinity and the Incarnation ... may be known only through special revelation and may not otherwise be deduced." Well, certainly they can never be "deduced." They are articulations of the greatest story ever told that exists at the very foundation of Western culture and civilization. [No wonder you and spirited irish have been in such a tizzy lately....]
As to what can be "deduced" from "natural revelation": Natural revelation does not reduce to "computability" concerns — as it would be according to the present method of science. I have been subject to "natural revelation" regarding the very order of the universe from a young age, just from stumbling around in nature in my childish gambols, and "exploring" it. The upshot being: I could never doubt subsequently that the universe has a divine origin and purpose.
Anyhoot, Plato makes it clear that he sensed an "outside correspondent" participating in his meditations. This may be represented by his great symbol of the Demiurge of Timaeus. But I, a Christian, would simply call it: the Holy Spirit, conducting the Light of Christ Logos.
You continue to claim that science is all about "natural explanations for natural processes"; indeed, is so defined. And then make it clear that if I disagree with you about this, then there is something seriously wrong with my reading comprehension, or general level of intelligence.
My childhood epiphany about God and His Order (before I was "theologized") was a perfectly "natural process," at the lowest level of description. After all, I am a human being, a natural living organism, not a member of the Angel community; nor am I a unicorn or some such other fantastic creature.
I think that what is most wrong about your "definition" of science is that it presupposes that the natural world is entirely material, physical, always directly observable in all its most important phenomenological aspects.
At the root of this expectation is the utter confidence that many scientists continue to have in "classical physics" — that is, Newtonian physics — as the tool for the job of explicating the ever-persistent mysteries of biology. It seems to me that Newtonian physics is just dandy at handling problems involving closed, inorganic systems in nature. It essentially specifies and then reifies a "machine model" whose activities are driven by local causation exclusively.
But biological systems in nature are not machines. And given their organizational structure — which is the most fascinating thing about them, and which is, if anything, a "super-natural" property (in that it cannot be reduced to an observable, but whose absence would quickly translate a living organism into a dead one).
BTW, I do agree with you that natural and supernatural revelatory experiences are "complementary."
Which is why I find it so odd that, nowadays, so many popular defenders of science — e.g., Richard Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, "the usual suspects" — want all investigations of "super-nature" to be killed in the cradle....
You can't just segregate one unified Whole — which is the Universe of Nature itself, including human nature — into abstract categories according to personal taste — e.g., "natural vs. supernatural" — and then expect Nature to comport with your abstraction. Indeed, this would be a fine example of A. N. Whitehead's "Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness."
I find it odd that I never heard of these supposedly "popular" people until they were brought up by Creationists, and they are the only ones I ever see or hear mention them.
I find it odd that I never heard of these supposedly “popular” people until they were brought up by Creationists, and they are the only ones I ever see or hear mention them.
You need to get out more..
I don't think so.
At the root of this expectation is the utter confidence that many scientists continue to have in "classical physics" — that is, Newtonian physics — as the tool for the job of explicating the ever-persistent mysteries of biology. It seems to me that Newtonian physics is just dandy at handling problems involving closed, inorganic systems in nature. It essentially specifies and then reifies a "machine model" whose activities are driven by local causation exclusively.
But biological systems in nature are not machines. And given their organizational structure — which is the most fascinating thing about them, and which is, if anything, a "super-natural" property (in that it cannot be reduced to an observable, but whose absence would quickly translate a living organism into a dead one).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
True.... admitting that there Can be an "invisible friend"(Holy Spirit) transcends mechanics..
Most scientists seem to be "shade tree mechanics"..
Fumferring over timing, drive belts, gears and fuel and such..
even aerodynamics, genealogical dynamics and function of design...
What "LIFE" IS seems to be illusory.. magical.. and overlooked..
When what life IS, is the point..
No life.. then science becomes silly..
Life comes from "somewhere" but nobody knows "where"..
It comes from other than the machine..
If it came from the machine whats broken could be deduced maybe fixed..
Life obviously comes from somewhere "ELSE".. than the machine..
But "WHERE?"....... the answer to that can and usually does shape one's world view..
----------------------------------------------------------
Who decided that, and when did that happen?
Who decided that, and when did that happen?
It’s happening NOW.... The difference between live tissue and dead tissue no one knows..
They look exactly the same.. and basically ARE the same..
Something is missing but what no one knows..
I’ve fell asleep reading many books on this subject..
They Drone on and on but are never able to crack the code.. gets boring..
I got bored and admitted it could be from some God-like thing..
And immediately GOT A RUSH in my machine.. WHOA.. was pretty cool..
What does a "rush in your machine" look like? Show me.
I can’t reproduce those results. Your experiment doesn’t work.
I quoted two complete sentences.
Your third sentence is irrelevant to our present discussion, FRiend.
betty boop: "But first, may I note that you are submitting "evidence by Authority."
So, who is this "authority?...
...I doubt I will accept him as a bona fide authority."
The opinions expressed there equate to those I've read in numerous other places over many years.
So they represent "conventional wisdom" on this subject.
betty boop: "I reject the idea of 'special revelation' as being the exclusive province of 'people of the Book'."
Sure, that's fine, but it's not the subject under discussion or debate.
The issue here is whether any such "special revelation" qualifies as "natural science"?
The answer is: obviously not, and that is pretty much the only major point I've been hoping to make.
betty boop: "Of course it is true that "the Trinity and the Incarnation ... may be known only through special revelation and may not otherwise be deduced."
Well, certainly they can never be "deduced."
They are articulations of the greatest story ever told that exists at the very foundation of Western culture and civilization.
[No wonder you and spirited irish have been in such a tizzy lately....]"
Whatever else the Trinity doctrine may or may not be, however much the Trinity may or may not have been revealed or "deduced" from scriptures, whatever "articulations" it expresses at the foundations of Western culture and civilization, the Trinity doctrine is still not, never was and never will be "natural science".
Also, I don't assume that spirited irish is in some kind of "tizzy" lately, or ever.
Rather, I conclude that somewhat like yourself Ms boop, Ms irish has an agenda, namely to use this "news/activism" forum as a vehicle for expressing her religious beliefs.
Those beliefs, not surprisingly, include a strong condemnation of "the world" as we know it, and a call to come home to the sanctuary of her religion.
This hypothesis explains virtually every spirited irish post, and is not contradicted by any.
betty boop: "Natural revelation does not reduce to "computability" concerns — as it would be according to the present method of science."
The "present methods of science" are the only methods of natural-science, period.
Of course, you are free & welcome to adopt whatever other methods for understanding truth you might wish, just so long as you don't call those other methods by the name, "science".
betty boop: "The upshot being: I could never doubt subsequently that the universe has a divine origin and purpose."
Nor do I, but I never call such theological and religious beliefs "scientific".
So can such simple distinctions possibly be so difficult for you to grasp?
I'm beginning to think not, and that your apparent "incomprehension" is a matter of obstinate refusal, not stoopidity.
betty boop: "You continue to claim that science is all about "natural explanations for natural processes"; indeed, is so defined.
And then make it clear that if I disagree with you about this, then there is something seriously wrong with my reading comprehension, or general level of intelligence."
Before I could ever ask you to agree, I must first see some small sign that you even comprehend & understand the basic distinction between what is science, and what is not.
So far, I've yet to see even a small acknowledgement that such distinctions can be made.
Instead, you consistently insist on using the word "science" as a proxy for "reality" or "truth", if not "Truth".
So, you are dead-set and determined, come h*ll or high water, to keep blurred the distinction between what is "natural" and what is not.
And my response to your obstinacy is: of course, you are entitled to such opinions, but they are irrelevant to the scientific mission to, find natural explanations for natural processes.
betty boop: "I think that what is most wrong about your "definition" of science is that it presupposes that the natural world is entirely material, physical, always directly observable in all its most important phenomenological aspects."
My definition of the word "science" presupposes no such thing.
It only posits that anything outside the natural world is also outside the purview of "science".
Please tell us why you so obstinately refuse to acknowledge such a simple distinction.
betty boop: "But biological systems in nature are not machines.
And given their organizational structure — which is the most fascinating thing about them, and which is, if anything, a "super-natural" property (in that it cannot be reduced to an observable, but whose absence would quickly translate a living organism into a dead one)."
Your assertion (without supporting evidence) that "biological systems are not machines", may or may-not be true, but is irrelevant to science, which can only examine biological systems as if they were "machines".
Any examinations or hypotheses of super-natural aspects of biology fall outside of science.
betty boop: "nowadays, so many popular defenders of science — e.g., Richard Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, "the usual suspects" — want all investigations of "super-nature" to be killed in the cradle...."
Like tacticalogic, I've never heard of these people outside the context of anti-evolution screeds.
I care nothing about them, and don't know why I'm invited to defend them.
But the obvious truth about them is that: when they cross the line from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism, they are also, in effect, crossing the line between science and their atheistic religion.
As such, however much they may wish to cloak their atheism in scientific terms, we can still understand them as expressions of religion which will be meaningless to those who don't share such beliefs.
betty boop: "You can't just segregate one unified Whole — which is the Universe of Nature itself, including human nature — into abstract categories according to personal taste — e.g., "natural vs. supernatural" — and then expect Nature to comport with your abstraction.
Indeed, this would be a fine example of A. N. Whitehead's 'Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.' "
But of course, you can, and science does exactly that.
Beginning (so far as I know) with the, ahem, distinctions first pointed out by Aquinas, the scientific enterprise has focused its attention on: natural causes for natural processes, period, and none other.
You know, just the other day I saw a wonderful bumper-sticker which said:
So I ask again, why do you so obstinately refuse to grasp such a simple idea?
bro: So they represent “conventional wisdom” on this subject.
Spirited: They represent ‘conventional wisdom” only so far as they speak to what sophistical naturalists— rebels against our Lord—want to believe and require others to believe as well.
Though BroJoeK has been doing his best to disguise his real stance behind a mask, rather than opaque his mask is both transparent and porous, meaning that telling statements keep slipping through:
“The issue here is whether any such “special revelation” qualifies as “natural science”?
No, the real issue, the truth of the matter implied by BroJoeK’s clumsy sophistry is that, like a long line of evolutionary materialists (naturalists)before him, he is in rebellion against the God of Revelation.
As one who prefers the word of fallen man over the Revelation of God, BroJoeK is the intellectual heir of a way of thinking that from the beginning,
“... has been characterized by a desire to be free from the burden of Christianity...As a rebellion against Christianity, its negative goal defined its positive form: the desire to remove the church and replace it with the state gave liberalism its structure, beliefs, and goals.” (Worshipping the State: How Liberalism became Our State Worship, Benjamin Wiker)
Wiker writes that as far back as the Renaissance the strong impulse to throw off the restraints of the personal God and Christianity was already at work in certain Churchmen and intellectuals, hence their eventual embrace of materialism
(naturalism, Darwinism, empiricism, methodological naturalism, reductionism):
“The desire to be liberated from the constraints of Christianity was the original reason for modern liberalism’s embrace of a world defined entirely by materialism—the view that there are no immaterial entities like God of the soul, but only physical entities. This embrace of materialism began as far back as the Renaissance. And the same impulse was behind the nineteenth-century enthusiasm for scientific materialism, and it remains a staple of liberalism today.” (ibid, Benjamin Wiker)
Rebels against the personal God are in league with antitheists such as Karl Marx, who though not the devil, did his work for him.
Our war is against God and the world created by Him,
declared Karl Marx, father of the Communist Manifesto. In his poem, “The Pale Maiden” he admits that he has willfully opted for Hell:
“Thus heaven I’ve forfeited; I know it full well; My soul, once true to God; Is chosen for hell.” (Marx & Satan, Richard Wurmbrand, p. 22)
“The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority....Socialists recognize each other by the words, “In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done....Satan (is) the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds.” (Mikhail Bakunin, comrade of Marx, ibid, p. 27)
“We do not fight against believers (or) even clergymen....We fight against God to snatch believers from Him.” (Vetchernaia Moskva, a Communist newspaper, ibid, p.77)
The Satanic revolt, like supernatural Christian faith is a movement of spirit having its taproot and energy in Satan, the father of naturalism, heresy, lies, sophistry and envy, the author of rebellion, and the revelator of secrets contrived to damn unto hell.
Satanic revolt is war against the supernatural Trinity...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which in Bakunin’s words are the “cursed and fatal principle of authority.”
Thus it proclaims the reign of negation (of God’s Revelation, His Truth, His Moral Law, soul/spirit, Heaven, and hell), though a negation nevertheless pregnant with the expectation of fulfillment in the revelation, and finally the actual presence, of evil personified....the dark Lord of this world.
The sentiment of the revolt is Satanic pride:
” which spurns subjection to any master whatever, whether of divine or human origin.” (Bakunin, Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 63)
The nature of the Satanic revolt is the antithesis of the supernatural Christian faith. Whereas Christian faith is joy, patience, love, truth, humbleness, perseverance, submission in all things to the Will of God, and blessed eternal life, the Satanic counterfeit is negation, skepticism, lies, sophistry, revulsion, burning envy, impatience, seething hatred, jealousy, rebelliousness, blasphemy, and eternal life in Hell.
BroJoeK: I conclude that somewhat like yourself Ms boop, Ms irish has an agenda, namely to use this “news/activism” forum as a vehicle for expressing her religious beliefs.
Spirited: An “agenda?” Yes. My “agenda” consists in opposing lies and sophistry, be it clumsy or otherwise, with truth to the best of my ability in the hope that readers of this thread will not be led astray by sophistical liberal naturalists in their unholy quest “to snatch believers from Him.” (Vetchernaia Moskva, a Communist newspaper, ibid, p.77)
By your own admission BroJoeK, you prefer the damning errors and sophistry of naturalism to the Revelation of God. This is why you insist on God’s “so-called” Revelation being subordinate to natural science:
“(does) ‘special revelation” (qualify) as “natural science”?
The answer is: obviously not, and that is pretty much the only major point I’ve been hoping to make.”
Beware your choice, your abuse of free will, ‘FRiend,’ for at some unknown, unperceived moment it will become eternal. Heaven is real. So is hell.
For now, I'll just summarize that: you are seeing no “sophistry”, no “rebellion”, no Marxism or atheism defended by me, and your determined efforts to project those views onto me are not even honest mistakes.
In a recent post above, I nailed your modus operandi, Ms irish, and this post from you fully confirms that hypothesis.
Your unrelenting denials are fully expected. Marx was full of denial as well. Nevertheless, in his poem Pale Maiden he confessed the truth beginning with a tacit admission that the God of Revelation exists; a clear admission that heaven exists, that he is Imago Dei, and further, that he knows hell exists but that eternal damnation is his willful choice:
“Thus heaven I’ve forfeited; I know it full well; My soul, once true to God; Is chosen for hell.” (Marx & Satan, Richard Wurmbrand, p. 22)
What this means is that Marx did not believe in Darwinism and materialism or any of the naturalistic canon except as they served him in his war against God and the world He created. In company with Hegel, Comte, Nietzsche, Darwin, Teilhard, et al, Marx was a swindler. A Big Liar.
Like a long line of evolutionary materialist (naturalists) before him, Marx was in rebellion against the God of Revelation as He revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ:
“Christianity is the most complete and perfect revelation we know of the nature of God and of God’s will for man.” The basic insights of the Christian faith “provide the best insights we have into the nature of man and of the crisis in which we find ourselves.” (John Hallowell, 1950, Intellectual Conservative Movement in America, George H. Nash, p. 53)
It is the living, personal God Who revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ that evolutionary theistic naturalists are in rebellion against.
Marx knew hell exists-—and he chose it. Not only that, but through his swindle he led an unknown number of immortal souls to hell as well. And his eternal punishment will reflect his perfidy.
Beware you do not do the same.
A nonliving God without Will that they can mold, shape and speak for is just fine, as is a mortal Christ, a mere man who is the conscious product of evolution.
I never claimed it was.
Would you answer a simple, straightforward question, dear BroJoeK: What relation, if any, does "natural science" have to Truth?
Whoever can control the terms controls the debate. The capitalization of "Truth" to an proper noun for which no established definition exists is a gambit to establish control by introducing a term that you get to define.
I don’t take Evolution to be a big issue. I think some of the Theory’s more ardent advocates give it a mystique greater than it merits, but science is not the object here. Propaganda is.
What I take exception to is the indifference Darwinians have for the takeover of the schools by a regime of Socialist thugs who regard education as nothing more than their ministry of information. I object to Darwinian militants coming on this forum, to attack and disparage Christianity, justifying their behavior as a defence of Holy Science. I object to their indifference to the concept of government by consent of the governed and to the consequences when violence is done to that concept.
What I also take exception to is the pretense that issues not in dispute somehow answer issues avoided (for example, see post # 1275).
And finally, I ask of Darwinians as I have before: Which do you consider the greatest threat: Christians on this forum with whom you disagree? or the Socialist louts who so obviously intend to hijack America? With whom do you contended? With whom do you at least ignore if not pretend their complete absence? Simple questions, requiring nothing more than the most simple of answers. Yet all this forum gets is subject changing and attempts at intimidation.
Thank you betty, for the genuine issues you’ve highlighted and so thoroughly explained in this thread.
What say we ask the same question of the Creationists?
Indeed, dear sister in Christ. And yet the "constraints of Christianity" are designed to help man, to protect his liberty, and to preserve his immortal soul as he traverses the "valley of the shadow of Death" in his mortal life....
Dear spirited, I think the "rejection" you so wonderfully describe in this essay/post may have an even deeper root: It is rejection of the human condition, even of human nature itself. Deep down, these rejectors resent God for making them as they are — i.e., as not-gods. That is to say, they resent being subject to limits.
BroJoeK uses the term "special revelation" in a manner differently than I do. I think he means the transmission of a doctrine. But when I use this term, I am pointing to the "immediate experiences" sphere of apperceptive reality.
The immediate experiences presupposed in Aristotelian metaphysics are not difficult to find in the classic sources, if one looks for them; but ... I am afraid, they will come as an anticlimax because of their apparent simplicity. For we find ourselves referred back to nothing more formidable than the experiences of finiteness and creatureliness in our existence, of being creatures of a day as the poets call man, of being born and bound to die, of dissatisfaction with a state experienced as imperfect, of apprehension of a perfection that is not of this world but is the privilege of the gods, of possible fulfillment in a state beyond this world.... — Eric Voegelin, "On Debate and Existence," 1967.I do believe there are some people who resent the fact that they are not, and cannot be, the "maker" of themselves. Nobody asks to be born. Nobody asks to die. And in-between,
At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic "Look and see if this is not the case" does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness. Moreover, it is evident that the primarily nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of "things" is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — Ellis Sandoz, 1990I gather that when BroJoeK defines science as "natural explanations for natural phenomena," all non-sensory experiences are banned. But a consistent application of this principle would mean that all products of non-sensory experience — such as the very idea of physical or natural law, or the various scientific theories — must also be banned.
(What does that do to Darwin's theory?)
For it seems that "the human mind" is not detectible by means of sense perception: It "naturally" belongs to the "non-sensory realm" — which BroJoeK seems to suggest is none of science's business.
No wonder we have such difficulty trying to understand one another!
...[W]e all have had occasion at one time or another to engage in debates with ideologists — whether communists of intellectuals of a persuasion closer to home. And we have all discovered on such occasions that no agreement, or even an honest disagreement, could be reached, because the exchange of argument was disturbed by a profound difference of attitude with regard to all fundamental questions of human existence — with regard to the nature of man, to his place in the world, to his place in society and history, to his relation to God. Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion [that would be you, dear BroJoeK and dear tacticalogic] did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode of existence that Robert Musil has called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate there lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth. The universe of rational discourse collapses ... when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared....Sounds like the Devil's work to me!!![This situation reflects] well-propagated errors which threaten to disintegrate the order of society by disintegrating the order of existence in everyman personally. [Voegelin, op cit.; Emphasis added.]
Thank you so very much, dear spirited, for your deep, ongoing investigation into the phenomenon of the Second Reality. I think you are entirely right to find at the basis of any Second Reality some form of gnostic thinking.
It seems to me that gnostic thinking is the perfection of solipsism.... FWIW
Thank you so very much for your splendid essay/post, dear spirited irish!
"For which no established definition exists????" What, are you out of your mind???
Sounds like you're stuck with Pilate's question: "What is Truth?"
(Yet there it was, standing right there before him. And I am NOT referring to myself here.)
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.