Are we souls or are we machines?

[lilpixieofterror]

We don't even have empirical evidence of a single true spiritual experience, since we don't have empirical evidence of whatever it is that you call the spiritual, or the spirit. The only evidence we can have of anothers experience is his own interpretation of it, but the fact that he concludes the experience to be of a spiritual nature is evidence of nothing other than his own conclusion.

Oh really Jim? You have personally studied every single spiritual experience ever done and know for a fact not a single one of them has any sort of empirical evidence at all? Let me ask you this, would the resurrection of Christ from the dead, 3 days later and physically seeing him in the flesh be empirical evidence or not?

[JimL]

Oh really Jim? You have personally studied every single spiritual experience ever done and know for a fact not a single one of them has any sort of empirical evidence at all? Let me ask you this, would the resurrection of Christ from the dead, 3 days later and physically seeing him in the flesh be empirical evidence or not?

Spiritual experience is personal, takes place inside ones own head, is not public, and so is not evident to anyone other than the experiencer. Have you ever seen a spirit, or the spiritual realm with your physical eyes?

[lilpixieofterror]

Spiritual experience is personal, takes place inside ones own head, is not public, and so is not evident to anyone other than the experiencer. Have you ever seen a spirit, or the spiritual realm with your physical eyes?

Really Jimmy? Who said that? I sure never claimed that, perhaps you should try to attack what I actually believe over what you think I believe? Anyway, if I saw a man I watched die walking around 3 days latter, I would call it a 'spiritual experience' especially since Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, also I would think that his miracles would also count. Also, is that what you believed in your pre atheist days? If so, I can see why you became an atheist because I sure don't recall believing that. That is as subjective as one can get and tends to be something I would never present as evidence to anybody.

[JimL]

Really Jimmy? Who said that? I sure never claimed that, perhaps you should try to attack what I actually believe over what you think I believe? Anyway, if I saw a man I watched die walking around 3 days latter, I would call it a 'spiritual experience' especially since Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, also I would think that his miracles would also count. Also, is that what you believed in your pre atheist days? If so, I can see why you became an atheist because I sure don't recall believing that. That is as subjective as one can get and tends to be something I would never present as evidence to anybody.

Well you can call it a "spiritual experience" if you want to, but seeing a flesh and blood man walking around is not empirical evidence of a spirit. Just how are you defining "spiritual experience?"

[pancreasman]

I think, since we're talking about the immaterial, that Jim is talking about mystical, interior, subjective experiences that may or may not be 'real'. Of course, I could be wrong and Jim is really part of a Satanic horde attacking everything holy. Who knows?

[David Hayward]

The essence of "I" is recursive.

Hence the ditty:

We are the selves that we create
By talking to ourselves
About the selves that we create
By talking to ourselves.

David

[lilpixieofterror]

Well you can call it a "spiritual experience" if you want to, but seeing a flesh and blood man walking around is not empirical evidence of a spirit. Just how are you defining "spiritual experience?"

The same way many Christians do. You really might want to contact Richard Swinburn and let him know about your definition. It would be amusing to watch.

[Jorge]

Content-free derision. It's light, and its as fluffy as a perfect souffle. Guaranteed not to contain any pesky facts.

***************************************************************

You can't HANDLE the facts, only your Alice-in-Wonderland Fantasies.

Jorge

[Whag]

All, poor Whaggy, he doesn't understand that I was using an imperfect example to make a point he refuses to see. Not understanding everything about dark matter doesn't make dark matter not exist, does it? Of course not, but yet Whaggy seems to assume that I need to explain every detail of how the soul works, what it does, and his million and one question game in order for the soul to exist. It is really too bad that:

1. I never argued the soul could be studied by science, since it's kind of hard to study the immaterial in a field that is designed to study the material.
2. I used it as an example to show that we can't even understand things we can physically test and understand, so why on earth would one claim that I should be able to answer the million and one question game with

You're right,. It's such an imperfect example as to demonstrate nothing. You're comparing ghosts to cosmic mysteries well under investigation.

[oxmixmudd]

It has many implications, none of which I would call erudite.

"Proper", in the sense of "Prim and Proper". Erudite, despite its official definition, is often commonly used to describe those who by virtue of their great learning consider themselves better than those around them. Hence the connection.

I had no intent to describe the kind of relationship with God Christ gives in at sense that would carry with it such a connotation. Christ is, in fact, the antithesis of the pride in oneself often taken by the well educated and powerful.

One of them is the implication that every religious believer but Christians has a dysfunctional relationship and are hampered by guilt.

Well, I can see that I am going to have a very difficult time communicating, because you are already offended by Christ's claim to be the only way to know God. I will give it a go, however, and lets see how far we can get.

I've met many a Catholic (see Mel Gibson!) who clearly refute this broad claim.

You have not understood my statements even vaguely if you assume them to mean that Christians are perfect - or even close to perfect. Christ takes upon Himself the guilt and sin, past, present, and future of any who come to Him. It does not mean they suddenly become sinless. It means the effect of their sin no longer necessarily hampers their ability to be in relationship with God.

Erudite is how you describe an educated person.

Often carrying with it the recognition of self pride at the accomplishment. Which was my point in backing away from the term 'proper', which also carries with it a connotation of class distinction and disdain for those not 'proper'.

I know so many conscience-stricken and guilty-feeling Christians.

Of course. I did not imply you would see otherwise. Christ takes on himself the penalty for our sin and restores right relationship with God. IF we sin again, we may well feel guilty for that sin. If we refuse to forgive ourselves even though God has forgiven us, we may also feel guilty. If we refuse to make restitution to those we've wronged, we will also feel guilty. I am not talking about feeling guilt or pangs of conscience. I am talking about having the penalty for sin paid so that it is possible to be in right relationship with God. It is impossible to be in right relationship with God apart from Christ's work on the Cross. But that does not mean that a person that claims to believe in Christ is necessarily in right relationship with God, just that it is now possible for them to be in right relationship with God.

Not angry or annoyed, just...puzzled about the logistics and logic of this plan.

The issue of what happens to those that do not hear the gospel has troubled many for many millennia. By faith I trust that God is just and right in how He deals with those, but in humility I do not make bold pronouncements about what will happen to them. However, I do know that those who have heard and understood and follow Christ will have eternal life. This is the good news. It's not a matter of whether you can manage to be good enough. It's simply a matter of whether you are willing to put your faith and trust in Christ. It makes the impossible (being good enough to deserve God's favor) now possible (God gives freely unmerited favor to those who believe on His son).

As for martyrdom, I don't think in this day and age that should be used to demonstrate anyone's devotion. Have you ever seen a Buddhist self immolate? That's madness. Those martyrs could have feared an unending Hell for all we know. Perhaps the sacrifice of being sewn into animal carcasses with wild beasts and dragged around a Colosseum seemed more pleasant than an eternity on fire?

You reverse the sense of my statement? Why? If a Christian is martyred, it is by others who hate them. No Christian should ever seek martyrdom - nor in fact any kind of self-flagellation. Paul says such things are of no effect in the battle against sin. If a Christian becomes a martyr in the Christian sense, it is because they refuse to deny the Christ who died that they might live. And it is because other full of hate imposed it upon them.

Perhaps? Is it not patently evil to punish someone forever for belonging to a specific culture?

Of course. But God does not punish people forever because they happen to be part of a specific culture (per se). No one goes to Hell that does not justly deserve to go.

I thought there were certain safe assumptions in Christianity, like God won't punish babies and the retarded and all that.

God will not punish anyone who does not deserve to be punished. Generally it is assumed that any human soul incapable of knowing good and evil is automatically exempted from any sort of judgement - hence the typical response that babies or very young children will go to heaven. There are some of the Calvanistic persuasion that would debate that. But I am not particularly Calvanistic in my theology.

Jim

[JimL]

The same way many Christians do. You really might want to contact Richard Swinburn and let him know about your definition. It would be amusing to watch.

Well, according to Swinburne's definition, anything could be interpreted as a spiritual experience (e.g. a beautiful sunset), and as I said before, you can call that a "spiritual experience" if you want to, but that is not empirical evidence of the spiritual, it is empirical evidence of a natural event which the believer subjectifies in his own mind as the work of God. Swinburne also says that if you actually see a miraculous or unnatural event happenning, then you should believe it to be real. Have you ever had that experience? And again he says that in the "abscence of reason" to disbelieve the testimony of others, you should also believe them. Can you find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of others when it comes to their miraculous claims?

[oxmixmudd]

This aspect of the discussion challenges our language. We see what gravitational effects would produce. We are reluctant to modify our theories to permit gravity to behave differently at galactic and larger scales. We are reluctant to permit gravitational influences without attaching gravity to matter (as oppose to some other unknown source of gravitons). So the simplest explanation is that there is some form of matter indetectable except through gravitational influences, which we can say is a "thing". But "thing" is a word with at the very least hazy boundaries. If it turns out that spacetime is more complex than we suspected at large scales, is that a "thing"? I suppose so.

My point has more to do with the fact that the hypothesis of dark matter should not be confused with the observations that produce that hypothesis. You equated them in this statement:

Instead, it is a LABEL given to a set of anomalous observations.

You confused the observation and the hypothesis. My comment was aimed at clearing that confusion. Dark matter, as a hypothesis explaining observations indicative of greater mass than can be observed, is the hypothesis these observations are explained by some kind of matter that can only be observed in terms of its mass that is actually making the mass of the system conguent with the observations. Ergo, some thing existing in space-time. An alternative hypothesis is that gravity does not behave the same over very large distances. Ergo, some unknown property of space-time. Both are hypothesis which attempt to explain the observation. Neither is a LABEL given to a set of anomalous observations.



Jim

[phank]

My point has more to do with the fact that the hypothesis of dark matter should not be confused with the observations that produce that hypothesis. You equated them in this statement:




You confused the observation and the hypothesis. My comment was aimed at clearing that confusion. Dark matter, as a hypothesis explaining observations indicative of greater mass than can be observed, is the hypothesis these observations are explained by some kind of matter that can only be observed in terms of its mass that is actually making the mass of the system conguent with the observations. Ergo, some thing existing in space-time. An alternative hypothesis is that gravity does not behave the same over very large distances. Ergo, some unknown property of space-time. Both are hypothesis which attempt to explain the observation. Neither is a LABEL given to a set of anomalous observations.



Jim

I understand what you're saying. I think I just phrased it differently. You write "An alternative hypothesis is that gravity does not behave the same over very large distances." Yes, quite so. Yet, knowing this might be the case, the phenomenon is STILL called "dark matter". Not necessarily dark, not necessarily matter. It's a label given to a set of observations. And what bothers me about it is, the label ASSUMES the explanation - that's it's some kind of matter. And sure enough, investigations are looking for some kind of matter.

As a comparison, I'd say that "phlogiston" was a label given to a prediction of a then-current model. And "N-rays" was a label given to another anomalous observation (which ultimately turned out not to exist at all). But at some point, this is simply the semantics of a given viewpoint, and one could say that "elephant" is a label given to a set of biological observations. I am concerned here about premature reification.

[oxmixmudd]

I understand what you're saying. I think I just phrased it differently. You write "An alternative hypothesis is that gravity does not behave the same over very large distances." Yes, quite so. Yet, knowing this might be the case, the phenomenon is STILL called "dark matter". Not necessarily dark, not necessarily matter. It's a label given to a set of observations. And what bothers me about it is, the label ASSUMES the explanation - that's it's some kind of matter. And sure enough, investigations are looking for some kind of matter.

As a comparison, I'd say that "phlogiston" was a label given to a prediction of a then-current model. And "N-rays" was a label given to another anomalous observation (which ultimately turned out not to exist at all). But at some point, this is simply the semantics of a given viewpoint, and one could say that "elephant" is a label given to a set of biological observations. I am concerned here about premature reification.

Ok, I see your point, but I still would not call Dark Matter a LABEL for the observations. It's not. It is the dominant hypothesis explaining them - and there is a bit of a difference. There are observations that are consistent with this hypothesis (support for dark matter halo theory , cosmologists say they have support for dark matter). So Dark Matter has grown from merely a hypothesis to a hypothesis that is tending to pass the observational tests devised to detect it. And so we are in a position similar to the Big Bang theory in its earlier days before the discovery of the CMB. Dark Matter dominates because it best fits observation, but there are other hypothesis out there that have not been fully rebutted, or that have some supporting evidence of their own - albeit the evidence tends to support dark matter significantly more than any other theory.

a discussion of the evidences for both, with dark matter tending to win


Jim

[phank]

OK, agreed, some form of matter best fits the observations, in the sense that it fulfills the reqjuirements of the simplest model that will do so. At least that we know of right now.

But getting back to the original point I tried to make, perhaps clumsily: the argument was made drawing a parallel between hypotheses thinly supported by few and indirect observations, and claims made in the absence of ANY support or observations. The claim was that these are qualitatively similar. And I very stronglhy disagree with this position. To me, some real evidence, even if it's only at the state of Asimov's "hmmm, that's odd..." is, by virtue of that actual anomalous observation, entirely qualitatitively different from some alleged phenomenon for which there is NO observational support. Even knowing very little still constrains our hypotheses to include what little is known. Knowing nothing gives free rein to the untrammeled imagination, unconstrained by anything.

I tried to give examples, like life after death. NO evidence of such a thing gives rise to everything from Dante's Inferno to the Happy Hunting Grounds to reincarnation. After all, why not? Evidence (as the term is generally understood) NEED NOT APPLY when there is none, so we can be as imaginative as we wish. Who could even suggest our concepts might even be limited, much less wrong? And the same thing applies to "souls" - lacking even the possibility of an operational definition, these can be anything or nothing, internal or external, temperary or eternal. Contrast this with dark matter, which has observable properties which limit what the cause of our observations might be.

ETA: Thanks for that link. Fascinating stuff.