Divine revelation

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, that is not what I asked, why can't you give a straight answer - so, again: how is the immaterial soul, the most important aspect of the human person, compatible with science...

I explained that again, again and again. The Law of non-contradiction holds that ALL of God' Creation is compatible with all the worlds of God, both spiritual and physical. Methodological Naturalism only deals with the nature of God's physical Creation not the Spiritual realms of God that includes our soul. There is no reason to believe that one world of God is incompatible with another world of God. I have repeated this many times. What is the problem?!?!!?

Both are Creations of God and reflect the attributes of God. Science describes the nature of the physical existence Created by God.

[NormATive]

I explained that again, again and again.... What is the problem?!?!!?

The problem is that Seer wants you to "admit" that Science is contradictory to belief in a soul. Never mind the fact that you've said repeatedly and consistently that science doesn't deal with the issue of something that it cannot possibly measure or quantify.

It's like when the Supreme Court doesn't rule on a particular case, critics will assert that the SC is "against" said subject. In reality, the SC simply hasn't dealt with it at all - so, it is a non-sequitur to state that Science is at odds with the "reality" of a soul. It simply doesn't deal with so-called spiritual things.

Does that about sum it up, Shuny?

NORM

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that Seer wants you to "admit" that Science is contradictory to belief in a soul. Never mind the fact that you've said repeatedly and consistently that science doesn't deal with the issue of something that it cannot possibly measure or quantify.

It's like when the Supreme Court doesn't rule on a particular case, critics will assert that the SC is "against" said subject. In reality, the SC simply hasn't dealt with it at all - so, it is a non-sequitur to state that Science is at odds with the "reality" of a soul. It simply doesn't deal with so-called spiritual things.

Does that about sum it up, Shuny?

NORM

Yep! There are other possible considerations, such as seer's general objection to science.

[NormATive]

Yep! There are other possible considerations, such as seer's general objection to science.

I think Seer is picking and choosing only the scientific conclusions that don't interfere with his faith beliefs. Like, I am sure he probably has full faith in aerospace technology that relies pretty heavily on scientific theory even though, according to Mr. Black, we may only THINK that we are flying 38,000 feet above the ground. If that engineer didn't base his or her knowledge on presuppositional Mr. Blackism Christianic onticism, how could he or she possibly know what altitude is?

NORM

[seer]

I explained that again, again and again. The Law of non-contradiction holds that ALL of God' Creation is compatible with all the worlds of God, both spiritual and physical. Methodological Naturalism only deals with the nature of God's physical Creation not the Spiritual realms of God that includes our soul. There is no reason to believe that one world of God is incompatible with another world of God. I have repeated this many times. What is the problem?!?!!?

Both are Creations of God and reflect the attributes of God. Science describes the nature of the physical existence Created by God.

So science has nothing to say about the soul. Yet the soul exists. So Revelation tells us a truth that science can not. Revelation is more insightful than science - right? And if scientists like Sam Harris claimed that no such thing as a soul we can dismiss their opinions - they are wrong - correct?

[shunyadragon]

So science has nothing to say about the soul. Yet the soul exists.

True

So Revelation tells us a truth that science cannot.

True

Revelation is more insightful than science - right?

Misleading. Revelation is revelation, and science is our knowledge of God's Creation of our physical existence based on Metaphysical Naturalism. In the Baha'i Faith the attributes and Laws of God revealed by revolution provide guidance as to the application of science for the benefit of humanity, and the principle of the harmony of science and Revelation.

And if scientists like Sam Harris claimed that no such thing as a soul we can dismiss their opinions - they are wrong - correct?

Sam Harris is making a personal metaphysical statement of belief, not a conclusion based on a falsifiable scientific hypothesis. It does not make any difference whether he is a scientist or a dishwasher. Methodological Naturalism cannot make any determination as to whether the soul exists or not.

[seer]

Yep! There are other possible considerations, such as seer's general objection to science.

That is nonsense Shuny. As a schooled and certified electronic technician I probably use scientific principles like Ohms or Watts law more than most on this board. But "science" is just a word - nothing that is done is not filtered through the minds of fallible men, men of limited knowledge. Like I said, science is useful, but it is not my god. It is not the last word.

Again, more and more scientists are concluding that there is no such thing as a soul:

As V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.” Belief in that kind of soul “is basically superstition,” he said

For many scientists, the evidence that moral reasoning is a result of physical traits that evolve along with everything else is just more evidence against the existence of the soul, or of a God to imbue humans with souls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...anted=all&_r=0

But we both believe that science is wrong here - correct?

[seer]

Sam Harris is making a personal metaphysical statement of belief, not a conclusion based on a falsifiable scientific hypothesis. It does not make any difference whether he is a scientist or a dishwasher. Methodological Naturalism cannot make any determination as to whether the soul exists or not.

See my previous post - scientists are certainly claiming that the soul does not exist.

[shunyadragon]

See my previous post - scientists are certainly claiming that the soul does not exist.

Yes, some individual scientists do not believe in the soul, but that does not represent science. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify the existence of the soul, nor answer other metaphysical questions. Individual scientists may be theists, like Glen Morton and I, deists, agnostics, atheists, Buddhist, Taoists, of any of the other possible beliefs. The common denominator that holds for all scientists is Methodological Naturalism.

[seer]

Yes, some individual scientists do not believe in the soul, but that does not represent science. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify the existence of the soul, nor answer other metaphysical questions. Individual scientists may be theists, like Glen Morton and I, deists, agnostics, atheists, Buddhist, Taoists, of any of the other possible beliefs. The common denominator that holds for all scientists is Methodological Naturalism.

But it is scientists, using the scientific method, claiming that the soul does not exist. We agree that they are incorrect - right?

[shunyadragon]

That is nonsense Shuny. As a schooled and certified electronic technician I probably use scientific principles like Ohms or Watts law more than most on this board. But "science" is just a word - nothing that is done is not filtered through the minds of fallible men, men of limited knowledge. Like I said, science is useful, but it is not my god. It is not the last word.

Misleading, the science you practice as a technician, involves a narrow limited application of scientific principles of Electricity (Ohms, Volts, and Watts, or whatever) , and is far from the world of modern science as a whole.

Again, more and more scientists are concluding that there is no such thing as a soul:

So what?!?!? Again, more? whatever?!?!?. Scientists who do not believe in a soul do so for personal metaphysical reasons, not science. The existence of the soul is not a popularity contest among scientists ( a logical fallacy by the way).

As V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.” Belief in that kind of soul “is basically superstition,” he said

Again, here is a scientist giving his metaphysical view of the existence of the soul. This is not science.

For many scientists, the evidence that moral reasoning is a result of physical traits that evolve along with everything else is just more evidence against the existence of the soul, or of a God to imbue humans with souls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...anted=all&_r=0


But we both believe that science is wrong here - correct?

Seer, my beliefs have been clear many many times, and should not be repeatedly questioned.

[seer]

Misleading, the science you practice as a technician, involves a narrow limited application of scientific principles of Electricity (Ohms, Volts, and Watts, or whatever) , and is far from the world of modern science as a whole.

The point Shuny is that I use these principles every day and inductive reasoning. So I don't dismiss science.

So what?!?!? Again, more? whatever?!?!?. Scientists who do not believe in a soul do so for personal metaphysical reasons, not science. The existence of the soul is not a popularity contest among scientists ( a logical fallacy by the way).

That is false Shuny, I link a NYT article where scientists are using science to to deny the existence of the soul. So are these scientists misusing science?

[shunyadragon]

The point Shuny is that I use these principles every day and inductive reasoning. So I don't dismiss science.

That is not a very good point. Most, if not all. people in the applied science of the technical world use some science in a limited way. When our discussion goes to the fundamental foundation of science, Methodological Naturalism, Mr. Black and you become combative and apparently make accusations that it represents Metaphysical Naturalism.

That is false Shuny, I link a NYT article where scientists are using science to to deny the existence of the soul. So are these scientists misusing science?

False Seer, the NYT article is citing a scientist, not the falsifiable results of Methodological Naturalism. When you can cite a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal that falsifies the existence of the soul that would be meaningful. I am still waiting for such a reference. These scientists cannot use science to draw these conclusions. It is illogical and fallacy to conclude that the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul, is evidence for the non-existence of the soul. Yes, they would be misusing science if they claimed that the reason for their belief is based on science.

[seer]

That is not a very good point. Most, if not all. people in the applied science of the technical world use some science in a limited way. When our discussion goes to the fundamental foundation of science, Methodological Naturalism, Mr. Black and you become combative and apparently make accusations that it represents Metaphysical Naturalism.

No Shuny, when are you going to get this in your head - science can be useful - but it is based on limited knowledge, done by fallible men - so it is not the end all. And neither Mr. Black or I hold the "discoveries" of science above The Revelation of God. Why should we?

False Seer, the NYT article is citing a scientist, not the falsifiable results of Methodological Naturalism. When you can cite a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal that falsifies the existence of the soul that would be meaningful. I am still waiting for such a reference. These scientists cannot use science to draw these conclusions. It is illogical and fallacy to conclude that the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul, is evidence for the non-existence of the soul. Yes, they would be misusing science if they claimed that the reason for their belief is based on science.

The article quotes one scientist, but references scientists in the plural. So you agree that these scientists are misusing science to support their own bias?

BTW there are other scientists that do claim that science shows that the soul is non-existent. Dr.Bill Lauritzen in this piece quotes a number of other atheists like Sam Harris that agree with him.

http://www.terasemjournals.org/PCJou...ritzen_APA.pdf

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, when are you going to get this in your head - science can be useful - but it is based on limited knowledge, done by fallible men - so it is not the end all. And neither Mr. Black or I hold the "discoveries" of science above The Revelation of God. Why should we?

That depends on your reasons for rejecting science. I do not put the discoveries of science above the Revelation of God, neither does Methodological Naturalism. Need more explanation from your part to be meaningful.

The article quotes one scientist, but references scientists in the plural. So you agree that these scientists are misusing science to support their own bias?

BTW there are other scientists that do claim that science shows that the soul is non-existent. Dr.Bill Lauritzen in this piece quotes a number of other atheists like Sam Harris that agree with him.

http://www.terasemjournals.org/PCJou...ritzen_APA.pdf

So what?!?!?!? There are more then one atheist scientist. That still does not address the problem at hand. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism, not the human assumptions of Metaphysical Naturalism. This is the issue you have failed to respond to.

Are you saying ALL or most scientists are atheists?!?!?!? Are you arguing the fallacy of popularity or false consensus. Can you some how provide some evidence that ALL or most scientists are atheist?