RE: [asa] Sense and nonsense

Thank you, Moorad, and others for this dialogue. I've
never heard anyone put it quite like this:

"So far, by studying the physical aspect of Nature we
are very well versed on the "dust"." - A.M.

Well said!

Cheers...for sense and nonsense,

G.A.

--- "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

> I am in full agreement with your comments. So far,
> by studying the physical aspect of Nature we are
> very well versed on the "dust." Of course, the whole
> of reality includes life, which is the "breath" of
> God. Can the latter be part of the subject matter of
> science? I doubt it!
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Jack [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
> Sent: Fri 6/22/2007 7:08 AM
> To: Iain Strachan; Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: Christine Smith; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Sense and nonsense
>
>
> If you look at the uses of ruwach (breath) and
> nephesh (soul, spirit), it is hard to come away
> convinced that either one of these terms is used
> exclusively for humans.
>
> But I am not arguing that humans are not unique, I
> think they are. I am also not arguing that animals
> have souls, I do not believe that they do. But I
> think that the terms ruwach and nephesh are
> referring to living beings, all living beings.
> Similarly consciousness, is not a spiritual quality,
> but a quality that comes from being a living being.
> Not all living things are conscious of course, but
> consciousness comes about with increasing neural
> complexity. It may be the case that of all living
> things only humans are "conscious" in the sense that
> we are talking about here, but I am not sure of
> that. I certainly don't think that anything in the
> bible requires that only humans have consciousness.
>
> I seriously doubt however, that a machine, however
> complex, will ever be able to be conscious. A
> machine, not being a living thing created by God,
> cannot ever have "the breath of life". I think that
> "the breath of life" is necessary but not sufficient
> for consciousness.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Iain Strachan <mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>
>
> To: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Cc: Christine Smith
> <mailto:christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> ;
> asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Sense and nonsense
>
> Yes, but I don't see how your point connects to my
> response to Christine's question. I wasn't arguing
> about personhood or being created in the image of
> God. I was responding to the point about
> conciousness/sentience. That had nothing to do with
> being superior.
>
> Also the whole knotty issue arises as to whether
> consciousness implies having a soul. Do animals
> have souls? I guess not (in Genesis, God "breathes"
> life into the human - perhaps this means the
> imparting of the soul). But animals can be
> conscious.
>
> Iain

      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 22 13:32:06 2007