An Inconsistency in Evangelical Doctrine?

[Mudcat]

It is the logical fallacy of Reification

I have to disagree. There is no fallacy. It's mind-body dualism with the inference that the mind/spirit is immaterial.

I understand your paradigm would assert that the spirit is material but comprised of different matter than physical matter and that isn't discernible by scientific means. But I don't think it places you in a more tractable position for arguments sake.

[Gervin]

I have to disagree. There is no fallacy. It's mind-body dualism with the inference that the mind/spirit is immaterial.

I understand your paradigm would assert that the spirit is material but comprised of different matter than physical matter and that isn't discernible by scientific means. But I don't think it places you in a more tractable position for arguments sake.

Agreed that it is not a fallacy. I like Kierkegaard's description of paradox and offense. Check out "III: The Absolute Paradox (A Metaphysical Caprice)" on Anthony Storm's web site

Kierkegaard's main concern was with knowledge of God through faith. Faith is the individual's reaction to the inherent paradox of Christianity. Since essential truth is far beyond our comprehension to the extent that we cannot approach it objectively, it appears to us in the form of a paradox. A paradox is a tension of sorts between at least two focal points. In terms of religious paradox, we may refer to the Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. No one can comprehend how such a thing could be. However, it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "James is a man and is not a man", where the word "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. This point is frequently misunderstood. Kierkegaard would not have us believe, or come into relation with, the impossible or the contradictory, but rather with the inconceivable. Furthermore, any attempt to remove the paradoxical is either an attempt to objectify what we cannot know objectively, because we are in the process of becoming, or, to dismiss the role of faith as silliness, which, again, implies that we can understand to a degree that we dismiss something absolutely as if we dwelled outside of the system (or the universe)

[mfbukowski]

I have to disagree. There is no fallacy. It's mind-body dualism with the inference that the mind/spirit is immaterial.

I understand your paradigm would assert that the spirit is material but comprised of different matter than physical matter and that isn't discernible by scientific means. But I don't think it places you in a more tractable position for arguments sake.

OK

That is a consistent position. It puts you in conflict with science, but it is consistent.

To me, that science issue would present major problems with my believing it.

Personally, were I in that position, I would accept Social Trinitarianism as more viable.

[Mudcat]

OK

That is a consistent position. It puts you in conflict with science, but it is consistent.

I think was in conflict with Science the day I put my trust in the story of a 2,000 year old Jewish teacher who rose from the dead to provide us with Salvation, the fact the he was the Son of God notwithstanding.

But I actually think mind-body dualism is something that doesn't fly in the face of science, like the notion of a Christian God does. Science continues work on the hard problem of cognition and has made significant progress of a number of smaller issues dealing with brain, for example, we now know what center of the brain is most stimulated during prayer, meditation and so forth. There are number of such observations for different things. At best though, even though we can sort of see what is going on, in a miniscule respect. Well other than speculation, science hasn't really put a dent in the issue of how or why things work the way they do.

To me, that science issue would present major problems with my believing it.

I don't think science has really offered anything compelling as an alternative. Science, at least the materialists in science, would likely say it's all just brain states or something. But unless they can actually back that up with something other than speculation, I don't feel overly impressed. I mean, having faith in the odd and end details we don't know about fits a Christian paradigm well enough. But having faith in what Science has yet to offer a valid scientific explanation for is would seem to something Science itself (had do drop you some reification)would blanch at in an epistemological sense.

Mind-Body Dualism has it's strengths and weaknesses in an argumentative sense, but so do most views. The strength in it I see is that inductively it answers a good question. To explain, most people would agree that things like concepts, abstract ideas or simply thoughts are not physical, immaterial if you will. I might even think a materialist might willing to go that far, with the caveat that somehow this immaterial information is confined to the brain.

The difficult issue for me is that it does not make sense for a physical object like the brain to have any capacity to retain nonphysical concepts, thoughts and so forth. To me, the notion of an immaterial mind that is the actual locus of the self makes much more sense. It gives provides a proper center for dealing with immaterial thoughts.

Of course the weakness of Dualism, is it does not give any adequate explanation as to how an immaterial mind can actually interact with a physical object like the brain.

Personally, were I in that position, I would accept Social Trinitarianism as more viable.

I suppose this is something I didn't really know. I had always thought LDS were Mind-Body Dualists of a hybridized sort. Choosing "spiritual matter" in lieu of "immaterial mind" as the proper mode for the mind/spirit. But I am unclear as to why a Social Trinity would be more appealing from your viewpoint. If you have the time, could you explain that a little bit?

As to the concept of a Social Trinity... it's a vague term and as much as I have seen it jockeyed about I am afraid that it will at some point be as diluted a term as "Evangelical" is becoming. At some point some may take it to mean something as base as a relationship between 3 good comrades or family members, so I will distance myself from the term.

However, I don't know that I disagree with concept at all as I understand it. Three Persons that are Perfectly Indivisible being One God..Good, Wise, Eternal and so forth... it changes a bit of the nuance but nothing I would toss out or disagree with.

In fact that is typically my general view, if for no other reason than it seems a bit more comprehensible. But my necessity for comprehension may actually be a failing on my part that I am willing to admit.

[TAO]

Mudcat, the difference, I think, as to why LDS see it this way, is that we see the pre-existance, and the post-existance. That makes it very difficult for us to think of things in a Trinitarian manner that most other churches do. For we believe both Jesus and God the Father have a body. That's rather difficult to swallow for some, I think.

I think the difference between social trinitarianism and regular trinitiarianism is that social trinitarinism doesn't believe in a unity by body, nor do they believe in a single will, but rather multiple wills working in perfect harmony. In other words, becoming one, as God commands us, we believe HF and JC are like that... originally not the same... but now of the same will and purpose, that their wills are unified... multiple wills in perfect harmony.

That sorta thing ;-).

[mfbukowski]

I think was in conflict with Science the day I put my trust in the story of a 2,000 year old Jewish teacher who rose from the dead to provide us with Salvation, the fact the he was the Son of God notwithstanding.

But I actually think mind-body dualism is something that doesn't fly in the face of science, like the notion of a Christian God does. Science continues work on the hard problem of cognition and has made significant progress of a number of smaller issues dealing with brain, for example, we now know what center of the brain is most stimulated during prayer, meditation and so forth. There are number of such observations for different things. At best though, even though we can sort of see what is going on, in a miniscule respect. Well other than speculation, science hasn't really put a dent in the issue of how or why things work the way they do.

I don't think science has really offered anything compelling as an alternative. Science, at least the materialists in science, would likely say it's all just brain states or something. But unless they can actually back that up with something other than speculation, I don't feel overly impressed. I mean, having faith in the odd and end details we don't know about fits a Christian paradigm well enough. But having faith in what Science has yet to offer a valid scientific explanation for is would seem to something Science itself (had do drop you some reification)would blanch at in an epistemological sense.

Mind-Body Dualism has it's strengths and weaknesses in an argumentative sense, but so do most views. The strength in it I see is that inductively it answers a good question. To explain, most people would agree that things like concepts, abstract ideas or simply thoughts are not physical, immaterial if you will. I might even think a materialist might willing to go that far, with the caveat that somehow this immaterial information is confined to the brain.

The difficult issue for me is that it does not make sense for a physical object like the brain to have any capacity to retain nonphysical concepts, thoughts and so forth. To me, the notion of an immaterial mind that is the actual locus of the self makes much more sense. It gives provides a proper center for dealing with immaterial thoughts.

Of course the weakness of Dualism, is it does not give any adequate explanation as to how an immaterial mind can actually interact with a physical object like the brain.

I suppose this is something I didn't really know. I had always thought LDS were Mind-Body Dualists of a hybridized sort. Choosing "spiritual matter" in lieu of "immaterial mind" as the proper mode for the mind/spirit. But I am unclear as to why a Social Trinity would be more appealing from your viewpoint. If you have the time, could you explain that a little bit?

As to the concept of a Social Trinity... it's a vague term and as much as I have seen it jockeyed about I am afraid that it will at some point be as diluted a term as "Evangelical" is becoming. At some point some may take it to mean something as base as a relationship between 3 good comrades or family members, so I will distance myself from the term.

However, I don't know that I disagree with concept at all as I understand it. Three Persons that are Perfectly Indivisible being One God..Good, Wise, Eternal and so forth... it changes a bit of the nuance but nothing I would toss out or disagree with.

In fact that is typically my general view, if for no other reason than it seems a bit more comprehensible. But my necessity for comprehension may actually be a failing on my part that I am willing to admit.

Can't give this the attention it deserves until Monday, but I will respond to Tao below because he has it pretty clearly I think- so that response will be to both of you.

[mfbukowski]

Mudcat, the difference, I think, as to why LDS see it this way, is that we see the pre-existance, and the post-existance. That makes it very difficult for us to think of things in a Trinitarian manner that most other churches do. For we believe both Jesus and God the Father have a body. That's rather difficult to swallow for some, I think.

I think the difference between social trinitarianism and regular trinitiarianism is that social trinitarinism doesn't believe in a unity by body, nor do they believe in a single will, but rather multiple wills working in perfect harmony. In other words, becoming one, as God commands us, we believe HF and JC are like that... originally not the same... but now of the same will and purpose, that their wills are unified... multiple wills in perfect harmony.

That sorta thing ;-).

I'd say that's pretty close.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trinity

Many Christians subscribe to this notion or something close to it- it makes philosophical sense imo, and is incredibly close to the LDS position.

I posted earlier on this thread a fair amount about the Social Trinity.

The key to me is that it is Biblical; "God is love" is a direct Biblical quote. We of course believe in three persons unified in purpose- I see it as a family relationship where, if you will, the "family name" is "God" and God is literally love- that's like saying a Family is "love"- which with three perfect persons, it would be.

The purpose which unifies them is "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"- or if you will, "raising the kids" (us) to become just like our Father in Heaven.

So you have 3 persons unified by love and purpose, in one God.

Makes logical sense, compatible in principle with an LDS materialist view, therefore compatible in principle with science and highly compatible with the LDS notion of the family being together forever.

I think exaltation is actually becoming another resurrected "child" in the celestial family, with all mankind hopefully sealed into one enormous family in what we call the "Patriarchal Order"

I think it all fits together pretty well in that view.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis

Perichoresis is pretty much an LDS description of John 17. I see this all as tremendously exciting

[3DOP]

Hi bukowski.

If God is literally love, as you said in a recent post, does not that point to a literal sense in which God is an immaterial reality? You don't suggest that love is made out of molecules, or any other kind of physical stuff?

3DOP

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, the difference, I think, as to why LDS see it this way, is that we see the pre-existance, and the post-existance. That makes it very difficult for us to think of things in a Trinitarian manner that most other churches do. For we believe both Jesus and God the Father have a body. That's rather difficult to swallow for some, I think.

Hi TAO,

Thanks for your thoughts. Emphasis mine. I think that is certainly a key distinction. To flesh it out a bit, it has to do with a couple of LDS concepts, one as you have noted is the preexistence. Another key element would be from the D&C 131, which seems to be a denial of the immaterial, as well.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

And both points are a stark contrast from most Christian views of creation from nothing.

Certainly the issue delves deeper than just the Father and Christ both having physical bodies if you take into account LDS seem to be supportive of an infinite regression of events and the likelihood the Father had a Father and so on down the line. But I don't want to muddy up the water to much. Just expressing some other lines of demarcation that actually do intensify the contrast.

In 131:7, I would find agreement with JS that there is no such thing as immaterial matter. Given the law of noncontradiction this would make a great deal of sense. Where I take issue, is where it goes from there. JS asserts that spiritual existence is actually a material existence, however it is a more refined state of matter than physical matter.

There are some underlying problems with this IMO. The primary one being, that it seems immaterial objects cease to exist in such a paradigm or perhaps there is no good way to treat them as immaterial. Thoughts, concepts, abstract objects like numbers actually are tied to a materialistic existence at least in the spiritual sense. Say you conceive of a dragon that flies about gobbling up certain people you don't like.

If immaterial thought does not exist. Well, TAO you have actively participated in a spiritual creation of such a spiritual being. In fact any random thought you have conceived would have been created in a spiritual sense. Which by virtue actually makes you a creator type being of spiritual type stuff. It gets a bit boggling when you think about it. I mean take Tolkien for example. If such thinking is correct, the Tolkien has literally created a complete world with races, people, languages, it's own version of good and evil and so forth and these creations really exist if not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense. It's quite convoluted when you think about it.. especially when start thinking about what could spiritually exist as the derivatives of the not so nice guys in history.

I think more likely you would agree with me, that immaterial concepts that come from ourselves..like poetry, well expressed thoughts, stories and the like.. well though they are insubstantial, still they can hold meaning to ourselves as well as holding meaning to others if we choose to share them. It doesn't cheapen them in the least to say so, I think.

However, I think this would put an LDS at odds to some degree with this notion that the immaterial doesn't really exist. I won't bother going into why LDS feel there needs to be more than one state of matter, at this point. I know, I have rather literally taken the ball and run with in to a speculative area.. but I am really just trying to see if LDS are game to the notion that immaterial things can exist and if so what does that imply.

*edited to add italics to this area. Underlined areas are text addittions. Bolded areas for emphasis.

I think the difference between social trinitarianism and regular trinitiarianism is that social trinitarinism doesn't believe in a unity by body, nor do they believe in a single will, but rather multiple wills working in perfect harmony. In other words, becoming one, as God commands us, we believe HF and JC are like that... originally not the same... but now of the same will and purpose, that their wills are unified... multiple wills in perfect harmony.

Bold mine. I am not under the impression that the formal Trinity supports a unity by body. Now the formal Trinity would likely only incorporate one person of the Trinity, Christ, as having a body. Such doctrine also keeps distinct that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.. so I wouldn't think it fair to say they are united in body. The formal Trinity, would assert than only one member of the Trinity has a physical body.

As to the notion of multiple wills, versus one will. I dunno what to say.. I think we would likely get hung up in semantics. To me it's just that saying the same thing but changing emphasis to promote distinction.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Calm]

Hi bukowski.

If God is literally love, as you said in a recent post, does not that point to a literal sense in which God is an immaterial reality? You don't suggest that love is made out of molecules, or any other kind of physical stuff?

3DOP

Love could be a form of energy....that would be something material in the sense that it could be measured, etc.

I know I've talked to many people who simply translate immaterial as something along the lines of energy or a cohesive force while material means matter. However, the theologists appear to me to mainly mean something outside the material world completely, not something that interacts with matter or can be transferred back and forth as happens with energy.

[3DOP]

Love could be a form of energy....that would be something material in the sense that it could be measured, etc.

I know I've talked to many people who simply translate immaterial as something along the lines of energy or a cohesive force while material means matter. However, the theologists appear to me to mainly mean something outside the material world completely, not something that interacts with matter or can be transferred back and forth as happens with energy.

Interesting cal. I remember a conversation over at ZLMB years ago. As I recall, It turned out that Wednesdays, the seventh inning stretch, and mercy were made out of matter, according to the LDS point of view. Along with love as a phenomenon that is converted matter (energy), I wonder if Latter-day Saints are really so scientific as has been claimed on this thread by mfbukowski. I guess I am with Mudcat if I understand him correctly. I tend to think science has no business commenting on supernatural revelation.

[Calm]

Interesting cal. I remember a conversation over at ZLMB years ago. As I recall, It turned out that Wednesdays, the seventh inning stretch, and mercy were made out of matter, according to the LDS point of view. Along with love as a phenomenon that is converted matter (energy), I wonder if Latter-day Saints are really so scientific as has been claimed on this thread by mfbukowski. I guess I am with Mudcat if I understand him correctly. I tend to think science has no business commenting on supernatural revelation.

The people I talked to who held this type of concept of spirit is something like energy were just as often nonLDS as they were LDS. I would say the general quality associated with them all was that they had not thought in depth about what immaterial and material was meant to define and instead thought of it as a distinction between can't touch/can touch....like I said pretty basic and superficial treatment of the subject.

[3DOP]

The people I talked to who held this type of concept of spirit is something like energy were just as often nonLDS as they were LDS. I would say the general quality associated with them all was that they had not thought in depth about what immaterial and material was meant to define and instead thought of it as a distinction between can't touch/can touch....like I said pretty basic and superficial treatment of the subject.

Good enough cal. I was mostly aiming at mfbukowski as he knows I am sure. I can't talk about these things very well. I am so ignorant about science that anybody can bluff me with just about anything. I remember somebody always bringing up string theory. I've always wondered if I could possibly understand string theory without a knowledge of unstrung theory. It seemed like maybe...and I mean...maybe...scientists would scoff at the idea that love, days of the week, game concepts, and morals were physical or had been converted from the physical.. That's how I think inside.

[TAO]

If immaterial thought does not exist. Well, TAO you have actively participated in a spiritual creation of such a spiritual being. In fact any random thought you have conceived would have been created in a spiritual sense. Which by virtue actually makes you a creator type being of spiritual type stuff. It gets a bit boggling when you think about it. I mean take Tolkien for example. If such thinking is correct, the Tolkien has literally created a complete world with races, people, languages, it's own version of good and evil and so forth and these creations really exist if not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense. It's quite convoluted when you think about it.. especially when start thinking about what could spiritually exist as the derivatives of the not so nice guys in history.

Yah, I see this... actually... if you read a bit more into about why there was a council of the Gods in the first place... this is one of the reasons... so that we 'lesser' intelligences could become 'greater' in a way that we could not be effected by other 'greater' intelligences with not-so-good design.

I think more likely you would agree with me, that immaterial concepts that come from ourselves..like poetry, well expressed thoughts, stories and the like.. well though they are insubstantial, still they can hold meaning to ourselves as well as holding meaning to others if we choose to share them. It doesn't cheapen them in the least to say so, I think.

Mmm.... I'm not so sure they are insubstantial. I'm not sure they have a spirit (aka, they are alive), but they are certainly substantial. They exist in a form of matter... it's just I'm not sure they have 'agency'... nor if they would even care about it. In other words, I'm not sure if a 'dream' is anything more than organized matter just as persay, a piece of paper is. I'm not sure if the piece of paper cares if it gets moved - although it could, and I wouldn't know it. In this way... perhaps dreams are material?

However, I think this would put an LDS at odds to some degree with this notion that the immaterial doesn't really exist. I won't bother going into why LDS feel there needs to be more than one state of matter, at this point. I know, I have rather literally taken the ball and run with in to a speculative area.. but I am really just trying to see if LDS are game to the notion that immaterial things can exist and if so what does that imply.

Hehe, no worries, I love speculating about these sort of things (as long as we realize it's speculation)... actually, I spend time thinking about wierd things quite often XD. It's fun. Not stable, but fun all the same =).

But yah... hmmm... there is this really good book series out there... it's a kid book series... called the Jimmy Fincher Saga... I'd suggest you get it... when you started talking about this, it reminded me of it. It's written by someone LDS, and not all that well distributed (and it's fiction), but it goes into the sort of things you are talking about. Actually, I had totally forgot that immaterial would include dreams until you said something originally, but now thinking about it I am not so opposed to dreams being material. Scary, yes... but it also makes some sense.

Bold mine. I am not under the impression that the formal Trinity supports a unity by body. Now the formal Trinity would likely only incorporate one person of the Trinity, Christ, as having a body. Such doctrine also keeps distinct that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.. so I wouldn't think it fair to say they are united in body. The formal Trinity, would assert than only one member of the Trinity has a physical body.

Yah, I can see it being viewed that way too.

As to the notion of multiple wills, versus one will. I dunno what to say.. I think we would likely get hung up in semantics. To me it's just that saying the same thing but changing emphasis to promote distinction.

I agree there... and that is the hard distinction to make... so many ways to think of things =D... it'd have to go into more detail and such. But yah... I shall try and think of something... and then we can see where things go from there.

Best Wishes, Your Friend,

TAO

[mfbukowski]

Hi bukowski.

If God is literally love, as you said in a recent post, does not that point to a literal sense in which God is an immaterial reality? You don't suggest that love is made out of molecules, or any other kind of physical stuff?

3DOP

If you could say that your family is "love" and that your family is made of an immaterial reality.

I meant that what makes God "one" is love, just as love is what makes a family one.

[mfbukowski]

Hi TAO,

Thanks for your thoughts. Emphasis mine. I think that is certainly a key distinction. To flesh it out a bit, it has to do with a couple of LDS concepts, one as you have noted is the preexistence. Another key element would be from the D&C 131, which seems to be a denial of the immaterial, as well.

And both points are a stark contrast from most Christian views of creation from nothing.

Certainly the issue delves deeper than just the Father and Christ both having physical bodies if you take into account LDS seem to be supportive of an infinite regression of events and the likelihood the Father had a Father and so on down the line. But I don't want to muddy up the water to much. Just expressing some other lines of demarcation that actually do intensify the contrast.

In 131:7, I would find agreement with JS that there is no such thing as immaterial matter. Given the law of noncontradiction this would make a great deal of sense. Where I take issue, is where it goes from there. JS asserts that spiritual existence is actually a material existence, however it is a more refined state of matter than physical matter.

There are some underlying problems with this IMO. The primary one being, that it seems immaterial objects cease to exist in such a paradigm or perhaps there is no good way to treat them as immaterial. Thoughts, concepts, abstract objects like numbers actually are tied to a materialistic existence at least in the spiritual sense. Say you conceive of a dragon that flies about gobbling up certain people you don't like.

If immaterial thought does not exist. Well, TAO you have actively participated in a spiritual creation of such a spiritual being. In fact any random thought you have conceived would have been created in a spiritual sense. Which by virtue actually makes you a creator type being of spiritual type stuff. It gets a bit boggling when you think about it. I mean take Tolkien for example. If such thinking is correct, the Tolkien has literally created a complete world with races, people, languages, it's own version of good and evil and so forth and these creations really exist if not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense. It's quite convoluted when you think about it.. especially when start thinking about what could spiritually exist as the derivatives of the not so nice guys in history.

I think more likely you would agree with me, that immaterial concepts that come from ourselves..like poetry, well expressed thoughts, stories and the like.. well though they are insubstantial, still they can hold meaning to ourselves as well as holding meaning to others if we choose to share them. It doesn't cheapen them in the least to say so, I think.

However, I think this would put an LDS at odds to some degree with this notion that the immaterial doesn't really exist. I won't bother going into why LDS feel there needs to be more than one state of matter, at this point. I know, I have rather literally taken the ball and run with in to a speculative area.. but I am really just trying to see if LDS are game to the notion that immaterial things can exist and if so what does that imply.

*edited to add italics to this area. Underlined areas are text addittions. Bolded areas for emphasis.

Bold mine. I am not under the impression that the formal Trinity supports a unity by body. Now the formal Trinity would likely only incorporate one person of the Trinity, Christ, as having a body. Such doctrine also keeps distinct that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.. so I wouldn't think it fair to say they are united in body. The formal Trinity, would assert than only one member of the Trinity has a physical body.

As to the notion of multiple wills, versus one will. I dunno what to say.. I think we would likely get hung up in semantics. To me it's just that saying the same thing but changing emphasis to promote distinction.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

In my opinion, concepts they way are not "immaterial" - I think they are brain states. The spiritual component is physical. Somehow in ways we don't yet understand "spirit matter" is somehow a component of matter.

Imaginary "things" are not immaterial "things"- they are "no-thing". They are brain states- electro-chemical changes in the brain which we experience on a subjective level as pictures dreams etc.

When you dream something it is not an "immaterial thing" it is brain activity.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting cal. I remember a conversation over at ZLMB years ago. As I recall, It turned out that Wednesdays, the seventh inning stretch, and mercy were made out of matter, according to the LDS point of view. Along with love as a phenomenon that is converted matter (energy), I wonder if Latter-day Saints are really so scientific as has been claimed on this thread by mfbukowski. I guess I am with Mudcat if I understand him correctly. I tend to think science has no business commenting on supernatural revelation.

It is not that LDS are "scientific"- I think most LDS like most of every other religion never think of these things. Some of us, however are cursed to get to the bottom of things and try to think of every detail of how things work- or might work in those cases in which we don't know how things are, we will make up a story on how they might.

We take these "stories" on faith for what we don't know.

Perhaps "spirit" is a kind of refined "plasma" - or something like that. Just as plasma used to be called "radiant" matter, which now sounds rather quaint, perhaps it is a state of matter yet to be discovered which results from matter under certain conditions, as plasma is a result from heating a gas.

[Mudcat]

In my opinion, concepts they way are not "immaterial" - I think they are brain states. The spiritual component is physical. Somehow in ways we don't yet understand "spirit matter" is somehow a component of matter.

Imaginary "things" are not immaterial "things"- they are "no-thing". They are brain states- electro-chemical changes in the brain which we experience on a subjective level as pictures dreams etc.

When you dream something it is not an "immaterial thing" it is brain activity.

Bukowski,

I suppose I am trying to tack you down here. What you have proffered seems a materialistic approach to things with your consideration of dreams and concepts as brain states.

Bold mind. Other than what has been said by authorities of the CoJCoLDS in regards to "spirit matter" I don't imagine there is much else to say about it. The admission of such a thing as "spirit matter", leaves you at just as much at odds with Science as much as the next fellow of faith.

But, IMO there seems to be an inconsistency in your thought that I want to discuss. That inconsistency being that a materialistic view, does not fit an LDS paradigm, that I can see.

edit add - I know a lot gets lost when we try to pigeon hole a person into a particular corner in a philosophical sense as a "something or another-ist". You may not be a materialist at all... that is just the general read I am getting. Though I know you favor pragmatism as well.

Just addressing the notion of materialism. Let me explain, why I think so.

Take an unbeliever for example, let's say they die. I imagine you would agree, that there isn't much in the way of brain states going on with the corpse of such an unbeliever. However, I think you would likely think that this unbelievers spirit goes to spirit prison/hell and is witnessed to by the believing spirits that have chosen to share the Gospel with them. Consequently, this unbelieving spirit, if they choose to believe may also find that physical salvific works have been done for them in proxy and that they can also choose to accept such works.

If that is the case, then doesn't true cognition resides solely with the spirit and "brain states" have no actual relevance? The physical body is simply a vehicle, of sorts. The spirit is the driver.

Also, part and parcel would be the notion that previous to a physical birth, there is a spirit that is cognitive in wait.

Bearing all that in mind, you do seem to be partial to this notion of materialism. If so, either it doesn't fit or their is a hybridized view of it that you maintain and I don't fully understand.

I am just trying to connect the dots here.

What do you think?

Regards,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski,

I suppose I am trying to tack you down here. What you have proffered seems a materialistic approach to things with your consideration of dreams and concepts as brain states.

Bold mind. Other than what has been said by authorities of the CoJCoLDS in regards to "spirit matter" I don't imagine there is much else to say about it. The admission of such a thing as "spirit matter", leaves you at just as much at odds with Science as much as the next fellow of faith.

But, IMO there seems to be an inconsistency in your thought that I want to discuss. That inconsistency being that a materialistic view, does not fit an LDS paradigm, that I can see.

edit add - I know a lot gets lost when we try to pigeon hole a person into a particular corner in a philosophical sense as a "something or another-ist". You may not be a materialist at all... that is just the general read I am getting. Though I know you favor pragmatism as well.

Just addressing the notion of materialism. Let me explain, why I think so.

Take an unbeliever for example, let's say they die. I imagine you would agree, that there isn't much in the way of brain states going on with the corpse of such an unbeliever. However, I think you would likely think that this unbelievers spirit goes to spirit prison/hell and is witnessed to by the believing spirits that have chosen to share the Gospel with them. Consequently, this unbelieving spirit, if they choose to believe may also find that physical salvific works have been done for them in proxy and that they can also choose to accept such works.

If that is the case, then doesn't true cognition resides solely with the spirit and "brain states" have no actual relevance? The physical body is simply a vehicle, of sorts. The spirit is the driver.

Also, part and parcel would be the notion that previous to a physical birth, there is a spirit that is cognitive in wait.

Bearing all that in mind, you do seem to be partial to this notion of materialism. If so, either it doesn't fit or their is a hybridized view of it that you maintain and I don't fully understand.

I am just trying to connect the dots here.

What do you think?

Regards,

Mudcat

Dang, that's a really great criticism, and the first time I have heard it! I probably would have been nastier about it myself and said something like: "'Spirit matter'?? What does that give you- it is virtually the same as 'substance' and you can't explain either one!". I was looking for a genuinely good criticism on this thread and I think this is the first one! Notice the OP ends in a question mark, and this really goes to the heart of that question mark.

Though I think you are certainly partially right on the fact that we cannot explain "spirit matter"- I think you are wrong to find it "inconsistent" with the rest of our theology. I think it is perfectly consistent, and as you recall from the whole previous thread, my criticism of the Evangelical view is that it seemed inconsistent to me, whereas the Catholic view, though I disagreed with it, WAS consistent. Again I think it is clear that we are closer to Catholicism on this than we are to Evangelicals, which will I am sure will be fine with the Evangelicals.

As far as our consistency, I think it is clear that our theology is materialistic through and through. First we believe in "conservation of matter" which is totally inconsistent with ex nihilo creation. We believe that matter is eternal and just changes in form and that God "organized" the universe, but did not "create" the matter he found. So that is one materialistic foundation of our "theology" (insofar as we have one). That brings us to a second point in which our theology coheres with a scientific view, and that is that God follows natural law. We get a little ambiguous at times about where those natural laws came from, but we do believe that if God broke a "natural law" he would "cease to be God".

So that is another belief (natural laws cannot be violated) which puts us consistent with science and at odds with traditional Christianity.

Another such belief is that God himself has a of "flesh and bones, as tangible as a man's" body- another materialistic notion at odds with traditional Christianity.

Another such belief is the nature of the Godhead themselves- each having "bodies"- in the case of the Holy Ghost, a "spirit body" and the underlying assumption, a scientific one, that since two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, those bodies are separate in space and are tangible and physical. That of course leads to the "problem" of how three persons can be "one"- a problem familiar to traditional Christians- but of course for us, we solve the "problem" in a totally different way- we see those persons made one in the same way earthly humans can be seen as being "one"- being "one in purpose".

There are certainly plenty of scriptural precedents for God's people being encouraged to be "one", but to my knowledge no one in the "substance theology" camp has ever argued that God's people are "one in substance" or "being" the way the Trinity is (another inconsistency imo). Even construction workers can be seen as "one in purpose" and so that to me is a very simple way of describing how three persons can be "one God". And again, I personally find that compatible with the scripture which says that "God is love" not in the sense that love is an "entity" of some kind any more than construction workers are somehow engulfed in some spiritual "entity" when they are "one in purpose". It is nothing more or less than a convenient way of speaking and understanding how many people can be "one".

So I find our views at least completely consistent if not (yet) compatible with present science.

And to me that makes a big difference in attitude toward the whole scientific enterprise which distinguishes Mormon materialism from "substance theology". We see science as an ally, but I am not sure that traditional Christianity does. As you point out, I think a dualistic view is so entrenched in Christian theology that perhaps it cannot be abandoned.

So even though I freely admit that I don't understand how "spirit matter" is somehow part of matter and how it separates at death, I think our view about it is compatible at least with the spirit of scientific method.

Certainly scientists would never say that undiscovered species for example "don't exist". I went round and round with Tarski on this numerous times- (anyone know how Tarski is doing?- had some health problems I hear) and he was adamant that undiscovered things "existed".

All I know is that if three hundred years ago, someone put up a tv antenna and pulled pictures and voices out of the air it would have been regarded as a "miracle" and in fact he might have been burnt at the stake as a witch.

The fact that I don't have a clue how "spirit matter" works is in that category in my opinion. We are still in the dark ages.

[mfbukowski]

If so, either it doesn't fit or their is a hybridized view of it that you maintain and I don't fully understand.

Short answer: it is a "hybridized view" and I don't pretend to understand it- just that it is scientific in principle and someday it could theoretically be scientifically understood.

[Vance]

Mudcat,

Here is the problem I have. I can't find the word (or concept of) "immaterial" in scripture. The ONLY way you can get there is to read it INTO the text.

Take the word "substance", it both expresses and implies materialism.

Take the word "essence", it both expresses and implies materialism.

We live in a material world and our language revolves around or is based upon materialism.

The only way to get to "immaterial" is to add the prefix "im", so even "immaterial" is based on our material language.

Given this fact, then for God to reveal Himself as "immaterial" would, in my opinion, require Him to specifically declare Himself to be "immaterial". This I can't find in scripture.

(Besides, doesn't "sola scriptura" require you to reject anything not specifically declared in scripture?)

[3DOP]

Mudcat,

Here is the problem I have. I can't find the word (or concept of) "immaterial" in scripture. The ONLY way you can get there is to read it INTO the text.

Take the word "substance", it both expresses and implies materialism.

Take the word "essence", it both expresses and implies materialism.

We live in a material world and our language revolves around or is based upon materialism.

The only way to get to "immaterial" is to add the prefix "im", so even "immaterial" is based on our material language.

Given this fact, then for God to reveal Himself as "immaterial" would, in my opinion, require Him to specifically declare Himself to be "immaterial". This I can't find in scripture.

(Besides, doesn't "sola scriptura" require you to reject anything not specifically declared in scripture?)

Hey Vance. I hope you don't mind me stepping in.

Neither substance nor essence necessarily imply materialism unless you're a materialist! If anything should be clear by now, it is that the early Christians believed in immaterial realities and they used the terms as they were understood then and always have been until you guys come along and insist on changing the meaning of the words.

You guys seem so desperate to disregard the possibility of immaterial reality that there has been speculation that love is made out of plasma! Where in Scripture is that found? Where in science is that found? Where in any materialist philosophy of note is that found? Are you really comfortable assuming that love, sin, hope, truth, and free will are biblical realities rooted in matter?

I don't have a problem with you guys believing what you want, but you're concurring with mfbukowski who is accusing us of literally believing in nothing. Nothing discernible by your materialist philosophy to be sure. You have made a philosophical construct that verbally defines our beliefs out of existence. But we reject your philosophically driven ideology. I say this with all sincerity Vance. I hope you know Mudcat and I both like you guys a lot. But you are fooling yourselves if you think we are the only ones who might have some philosophical baggage to examine.

Regards,

Rory

[Vance]

Hey Vance. I hope you don't mind me stepping in.

Not at all.

Neither substance nor essence necessarily imply materialism unless you're a materialist!

I disagree, and here is why. (I will be using the KJV) The word "substance" is used 46 times in the KJV, and only 4 times in the New Testament. They are.

Luke 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod

[mfbukowski]

You guys seem so desperate to disregard the possibility of immaterial reality that there has been speculation that love is made out of plasma! Where in Scripture is that found? Where in science is that found? Where in any materialist philosophy of note is that found? Are you really comfortable assuming that love, sin, hope, truth, and free will are biblical realities rooted in matter?

I don't have a problem with you guys believing what you want, but you're concurring with mfbukowski who is accusing us of literally believing in nothing. Nothing discernible by your materialist philosophy to be sure. You have made a philosophical construct that verbally defines our beliefs out of existence. But we reject your philosophically driven ideology. I say this with all sincerity Vance. I hope you know Mudcat and I both like you guys a lot. But you are fooling yourselves if you think we are the only ones who might have some philosophical baggage to examine.

3DOP

I never said that love is made of plasma- if you think that is what I said, it shows that you don't understand the issues here. I like you personally but this is not a good thing for us to discuss.

One must differentiate between mere words and concepts like "the color of courage", which if anything, is a metaphor, and understand the fact that courage indeed has no color even though we make up words to make it sound like it does.

If you believe that courage has a color, or is indeed made somehow of immaterial matter, I suppose that could be shocking.

I believe none of those things, including the idea that love is plasma. I didn't want to answer this, but I feel that you were misrepresenting my views, and if I did not answer I would be allowing the misrepresentation to stand.

What I did say is that perhaps the spirit somehow is material in a similar way that plasma is matter as a gas, and then under certain conditions changes its state of matter into a different state of matter which is neither liquid, solid nor gas. That was of course total speculation- we have no idea how the spirit is material.

I certainly said nothing even remotely like "love is plasma".

[Mudcat]

Doing this from my phone. It will be Wed. before I can respond.

@Bukowski

I dunno....

"Love is Plasma" would make a great tshirt logo for a Physics club...at least

Jk

C yall tomorrow.

Mudcat