Re: ID (fwd)

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2000 - 12:46:55 EST

  • Next message: Dr. D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: ID:philosophy or scientific theory?"

    Dear George,

    The fallacy of your argument is that you tailor all your arguments
    indicating that if something does not have scientific merit, then it is
    either erroneous or foolish. We must first be clear about what science is
    and what it is not. Science is a way of knowing that relies on the human
    senses and uses their intellect to develop models, replicas, of reality. But
    science is not the only way of knowing. In fact, all the data of science can
    be gathered with mechanical instruments, no humans senses needed to gather
    the data. I ask you, is that data sufficient to explain all of reality? I
    am fully aware of the notions of quantum field theory. Still the reality of
    physics is the detection of either matter or energy by mechanical devices. I
    suppose that when Einstein said that quantum mechanics was spooky we would
    conclude that he was talking about ghosts and thus the spiritual. Of course,
    that is nonsense. Mechanical devices can never penetrate the human mind and
    determine that our actions are controlled by non-material considerations,
    which we label as moral. Science has not notion of morality. Morality is
    not a scientific concept, what are we then to make of "Thou should not
    kill?" Say that it is nonsense since it has no scientific merit. I consider
    myself a "scientifically sophisticated individual" and have no problem with
    my Christian faith. If someone does not believe in a Creator, then there is
    no witnessing that will open his/her eyes to our Lord Jesus Christ. Do not
    waste your time witnessing to those people. Just plant a seed in their
    minds and walk away from them.

    In the love of Christ,

    Moorad
    -----Original Message-----
    From: George Andrews <gandrews@as.wm.edu>
    To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
    Cc: mrlab@ix.netcom.com <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>; asa@calvin.edu
    <asa@calvin.edu>
    Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 10:11 AM
    Subject: Re: ID (fwd)

    >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    >
    >> Dear George,
    >>
    >> Spirit is that which is immaterial and a part of man. Man is body, mind
    and
    >> spirit. An animal is body and mind. Man cannot be explained as a
    material
    >> being only. The whole realm of the moral is outside the physical, yet it
    >> exists. Man exists in the realm of the physical/spiritual otherwise man
    >> could not make moral decisions. Some of what I say is what I consider
    >> self-evident. Perhaps they are not to you, but that is where we differ.
    >
    >Hi Moorad;
    >
    >Thanks for the response.
    >
    >My Original question was: "What is the difference between spiritual and
    >material? " in the context of apologetic force; to which I proffered two
    >possible answers: 1) the notion of spirit is a holdover from pre-modern
    >superstitious notions of ghosts or 2) what is not made of baronic matter
    >(material) is defined as spirit. That is, I implied that neither of these
    >response would have no apologetic force.
    >
    >You support the second with the qualification of baronic matter that has
    >organized into human beings. I tried to foresee your response when I
    mentioned
    >that this answer is "...simply creating word categories (and) that
    (doesn't)
    >don't have much apologetic appeal to scientists". Surly, the human psyche
    is
    >"immaterial and a part of man" but I you classify this as mind - separating
    mind
    >from spirit. By so doing however, you even further remove hope of cognition
    as
    >to what constitutes spirit - literally! If spirit is to involve religious
    >experience, science has shown religious experiences to simply be mental
    states
    >demonstrable in the labs of neurologists today. Thus, spirit, mind and body
    are
    >categories created and believed in by religious folk organizing their
    world-view
    >but are void of scientific merit and therefore have no apologetic appeal.
    >
    >If you would, allow me to play the "atheist's advocate" to illustrate why
    I
    >raised the question I did in my post.
    >
    >As a physicist, my scientific understanding of matter is that it is to be
    >thought of as energy and form and not at all as "hard substance" as
    classically
    >understood. What is a field quanta anyway? (this is to say nothing about
    >information which inhabits physical structures!) Hence, the demarcating
    line
    >between material and immaterial you offer as "self evident" is simply
    presumed
    >and antiquated with no apologetic force to a "materialist". Have you read
    the
    >recent series of article in Physics Today regarding "mass without mass"?
    Mass
    >can be thought of as consisting of massless entities! Is this spirit
    enough?
    >
    >An appeal to morality is simply an appeal to human cultural norms which are
    also
    >imbedded in the physically real world of the human psyche and the
    practicality
    >of human cohabitation. It has nothing to do with ghostly portions of the
    human
    >condition. Such notions of spirit vs body are based solely upon Hebrew and
    Greek
    >religious/philosophical presuppositions alien to modern science.
    >
    >(Atheist advocacy mode off ) :-)
    >
    >It is one thing to claim "I believe" - and I join you with this
    proclamation of
    >faith in the cross of God's Christ; but a program that purports that "...
    to
    >bring the spiritual out of the materialist is to have him/her follow the
    logical
    >conclusion of their ideas and see how it leads to folly", will have to
    appeal to
    >something other than a presumed existence and dichotomy of spirit vs
    material:
    >to a materialist, spirit = psyche so the reasoning never gets off the
    ground.
    >
    >Perhaps we can learn something from science (pun intended :-) ) when it
    comes to
    >thinking about the spirit. After all, Christianity is a physical religion
    very
    >concerned with the body - both present and future. Maybe psyche is enough
    for
    >God to be concerned over in regards to eternal life for humans and the
    >resurrection of the body is for a new "down load" of the information that
    is us
    >to take place in. Maybe not. :-). While these musings do require abandoning
    long
    >held notions of ghosts and mortals, I have found such ideas based upon
    >information and energy to be very effective in my apologetic endeavors with
    >scientifically sophisticated individuals.
    >
    >God Bless You
    >
    >George A.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> >> Dear Bert,
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Take care,
    >> >>
    >> >> Moorad
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> >For me the bigger issue is bringing the materialist into the
    spiritual
    >> >> >realm and this is the battle to fight.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Bert M.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 09 2000 - 12:45:17 EST