Those Poor Backwards Materialists

[Vance]

Right, the spirit is as intangible and immaterial as breath and wind WERE believed to be.

Absolutely correct.  That is what they believed and in that respect they were correct.  So, since neither breath nor wind are intangible or immaterial, we must conclude that spirit is also neither intangible nor immaterial.

 

Yup, time to up date the theology.

 

Spirit is still believed to be immaterial.

 

But it should NOT be.

[Coreyb]

The people of the time believed breath, wind and spirit were synomous.  In fact, in the Greek a single word is used for all three, it is only the different contexts that guided the English translators to decide which of the three English words to use.  These three things were consided "immaterial" based upon lack of visibility and ignorance (science of the dark ages).

 

You have absolutely no basis to arbitrarily separate the material state of spirit from that of breath or wind.

 

It is time to update your theology.  It shouldn't be based upon the science of the dark ages.

I feel like this same sort of argument is used against LDS theology, so I agree with mfbukowski

[saemo]

Absolutely correct.  That is what they believed and in that respect they were correct.  So, since neither breath nor wind are intangible or immaterial, we must conclude that spirit is also neither intangible nor immaterial.

 

Yup, time to up date the theology.

 

 

But it should NOT be.

The Bible is not a scientific journal. The message being conveyed is that spirit is intangible and immaterial. Seeking to change the message of the authors is not something I seek or hope to do.

[Vance]

The Bible is not a scientific journal. The message being conveyed is that spirit is intangible and immaterial. Seeking to change the message of the authors is not something I seek or hope to do.

CFR

[saemo]

The problem I see is that the current meaning of the word "immaterial" is totally different from what it meant when it was first used in a theological discussion.  Back then (in the dark ages) wind, breath, and spirit were all considered "immaterial".

 

But we now know that neither wind nor breath are "immaterial". So why should "spirit" continue to be considered so?

 

I think it is past time for the theology of an "immaterial" God to be up dated.  Part of that update must include the shedding of the term "immaterial" and replace it with something more consistent with its original understanding.

  

CFR

You're asking me to CFR your previous post.

[Vance]

I am calling for a reference (preferably a Biblical one) for your claim that "The message (of the Bible, I presume) being conveyed is that spirit is intangible and immaterial".

[MiserereNobis]

Here is an interesting section from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Spirit:

 

 

Matter has generally been conceived as in one sense or another the limitation of spirit. Hence, finite spirits were thought to require a body as a principle of individuation and limitation; only God, the Infinite Spirit, was free from all admixture of matter. Thus, when we find the angels described as asomatoi or auloi, in the writings of the Fathers, this properly means only that the angels do not possess a gross, fleshly body; it does not at all imply a nature absolutely immaterial. Such Scripture expressions as "bread of angels", "they shall shine as the angels", as well as the apparitions of these heavenly beings, were adduced as proofs of their corporeality. So speak Sts. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Origen and many other Fathers. Even in Scholastic times, the degree of immateriality that belongs to finite spirits was disputed. St. Thomas teaches the complete simplicity of all spiritual natures, but the Scotists, by means of their famous materia primo prima, introduced a real composition, which they conceived to be necessary to a created nature.

 

It seems to me that the LDS idea that spirit equals some type of matter is applicable to the Catholic idea of angels (but obviously not God, as He is infinite).

 

Interesting.

Edited March 26, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Coreyb]

Interesting indeed

[Vance]

It seems to me that the LDS idea that spirit equals some type of matter is applicable to the Catholic idea of angels (but obviously not God, as He is infinite).

 

Why does God being infinite require Him to be "immaterial"?

 

Also, the (Greek) scriptures describe John the Baptist as an angel.  I suspect that his material state was similar to other men.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

The Bible is not a scientific journal. The message being conveyed is that spirit is intangible and immaterial. Seeking to change the message of the authors is not something I seek or hope to do.

And of course YOU are the one who knows what there message was, right?

Presentism

[mfbukowski]

Here is an interesting section from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Spirit:

 

 

 

It seems to me that the LDS idea that spirit equals some type of matter is applicable to the Catholic idea of angels (but obviously not God, as He is infinite).

 

Interesting.

And so is matter. Where and when does it end?

[mfbukowski]

Here is an interesting section from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Spirit:

 

 

 

It seems to me that the LDS idea that spirit equals some type of matter is applicable to the Catholic idea of angels (but obviously not God, as He is infinite).

 

Interesting.

So how many can dance on the head of a pin?

[MiserereNobis]

So how many can dance on the head of a pin?

 

According to the omniscient wikipedia. the phrase might have its origins thus:

One theory is that it is an early modern fabrication,^[6] as used to discredit scholastic philosophy at a time when it still played a significant role in university education.

 

You wouldn't be trying to discredit scholasticism now, would you?

[mfbukowski]

According to the omniscient wikipedia. the phrase might have its origins thus:

 

 

You wouldn't be trying to discredit scholasticism now, would you?

Oh it's not necessary for ME to do that!

As usual Wikipedia is wrong. The actual question is whether or not angels occupy space at all, and therefore if 2 or more can occupy the same space. I well remember trying to decipher the argument in a medieval philosophy class and finding it....... unsatisfactory.

Can't link easily on this device, but go to new advent and search "Summa angels in relation to place"

Good luck!

Edited March 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Oh it's not necessary for ME to do that!

As usual Wikipedia is wrong. The actual question is whether or not angels occupy space at all, and therefore if 2 or more can occupy the same space. I well remember trying to decipher the argument in a medieval philosophy class and finding it....... unsatisfactory.

Can't link easily on this device, but go to new advent and search "Summa angels in relation to place"

Good luck!

 

Yes, I've actually (had to) read the Summa... My point is that (1) the question is used to ridicule scholasticism and (2) I wanted to tease you, as always.

 

I hope you do admit that the question is an easy way to make fun of scholasticism without having to delve into the concepts that underpin scholasticism, yes?  Not that we can't make fun of Medieval learning, but we can also make fun of modern science, too..  "how many photons can ride the luminiferous ether?" 

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I've actually (had to) read the Summa... My point is that (1) the question is used to ridicule scholasticism and (2) I wanted to tease you, as always.

 

I hope you do admit that the question is an easy way to make fun of scholasticism without having to delve into the concepts that underpin scholasticism, yes?  Not that we can't make fun of Medieval learning, but we can also make fun of modern science, too..  "how many photons can ride the luminiferous ether?" 

Oh sure I was poking fun

But I don't think the "concepts underpinning scholasticism". worki either and I will be glad to get into those if you would prefer.

Here is the absolutely best argument which exists for immaterial matter from Aquinas himself. We really should have started the thread with this, since this is the PROOF for immaterial matter.

 

Article 1. Whether an angel is altogether incorporeal?

Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is not entirely incorporeal. For what is incorporeal only as regards ourselves, and not in relation to God, is not absolutely incorporeal. But Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "an angel is said to be incorporeal and immaterial as regards us; but compared to God it is corporeal and material. Therefore he is not simply incorporeal."

Objection 2. Further, nothing is moved except a body, as the Philosopher says (Phys. vi, text 32). But Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "an angel is an ever movable intellectual substance." Therefore an angel is a corporeal substance.

Objection 3. Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i, 7): "Every creature is limited within its own nature." But to be limited belongs to bodies. Therefore, every creature is corporeal. Now angels are God's creatures, as appears from Psalm 148:2: "Praise ye" the Lord, "all His angels"; and, farther on (verse 4), "For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." Therefore angels are corporeal.

On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 103:4): "Who makes His angels spirits."

I answer that, There must be some incorporeal creatures. For what is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect; as heat makes heat. Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will (14, 8; 19, 4). Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to "here" and "now." Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature.

The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, text 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23: .

But the very fact that intellect is above sense is a reasonable proof that there are some incorporeal things comprehensible by the intellect alone.

Reply to Objection 1. Incorporeal substances rank between God and corporeal creatures. Now the medium compared to one extreme appears to be the other extreme, as what is tepid compared to heat seems to be cold; and thus it is said that angels, compared to God, are material and corporeal, not, however, as if anything corporeal existed in them.

Reply to Objection 2. Movement is there taken in the sense in which it is applied to intelligence and will. Therefore an angel is called an ever mobile substance, because he is ever actually intelligent, and not as if he were sometimes actually and sometimes potentially, as we are. Hence it is clear that the objection rests on an equivocation.

Reply to Objection 3. To be circumscribed by local limits belongs to bodies only; whereas to be circumscribed by essential limits belongs to all creatures, both corporeal and spiritual. Hence Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i, 7) that "although some things are not contained in corporeal place, still they are none the less circumscribed by their substance."

 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050.htm

This is the best there is- if you don't understand THAT you must be a dummy.  And theree's more at that site if that doesn't convince you.

 

SO THERE you dang materialists!  TRY to poke a hole in THAT argument!

Edited March 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Oh sure I was poking fun

But I don't think the "concepts underpinning scholasticism". worki either and I will be glad to get into those if you would prefer.

Here is the absolutely best argument which exists for immaterial matter from Aquinas himself. We really should have started the thread with this, since this is the PROOF for immaterial matter.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050.htm

This is the best there is- if you don't understand THAT you must be a dummy.  And theree's more at that site if that doesn't convince you.

 

SO THERE you dang materialists!  TRY to poke a hole in THAT argument!

So here is the crux which goes to the underpinning argument Aquinas is using:

 

The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, text 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23:eight)

 

"The philospher" is Aristotle.

 

Aquinas' whole objection is based on, as he says, a distinction betwen "sense" and "intellect".  Notice I put quotes around those words, because we see those as words, and nothing more.  But Aquinas thought they were totally different faculties of the mind.  We see them as two different DESCRIPTIONS of FUNCTIONS of the way we think.

 

Modern psychology, one might argue, makes no distinction between "sense" and "intellect"- indeed there is no way to test or understand one with out the other.  Philosopohically, today, we would say that Aquinas is making what is called a "category mistake", thinking that because we have a word for "sense" it must be a different thing than "intellect"- two words, two things.

 

Contemporary analytical philosophy would never make that ....assumption.

 

So the whole idea that there IS something immaterial comes from linguistic confusion because words themselves cannot be held in your hand, and are therefore immaterial.

 

If you can think a thought, that thought must be a "thing" and since it doesn't weigh anything, it must be "immaterial".  Therefore, some things are immaterial.

 

Enter the philosophy of Pragmatism which really goes back to Kant and the Germans, but that is another story.

 

But these moderns and post-moderns realize that words are words, and that even senses are constructs of the brain.  Kant figured that out first.

 

Because we have a word for something that doesn't mean that there must be a "thing" which corresponds to the word.

 

There IS no difference between sense and the intellect, they are just two different ways of speaking and thinking about the same phenomena- human brain activity.

 

So if that distinction, as Aquinas says, is the entire basis for the philosophy of the immaterial, and indeed it is, then there IS no foundation for belief in the immaterial.

 

Words are not things, they are "just words"- just one of many ways humans can think about things. 

[saemo]

And of course YOU are the one who knows what there message was, right?Presentism

While I understand there is a tendency and acceptance among Mormons to speculate endlessly and make stuff up regarding scripture, it is not something I do. I accept the authority of Christ's Church to interpret scripture, because I believe Christ established His Church and gave to his Bride the authority to do so.

It would be easy for you to actually study various times that a metaphor of wind and breath were used in the Bible, and what the authors were conveying. To believe ancient peoples viewed breath and wind as tangible, is not only a stretch, it is applying what you want to believe to the intent and meaning of others. Start with Job, who says he is wind. Well, what does that mean? Is he saying he is a tangible God in the making, or is he bemoaning his nothingness?

I understand he is bemoaning his nothingness, so therefore, the metaphor of wind in this case means "nothing". Is a material object, nothing? If you say it is, then I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

Edited March 27, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

I am calling for a reference (preferably a Biblical one) for your claim that "The message (of the Bible, I presume) being conveyed is that spirit is intangible and immaterial".

Ancient people believed wind and breath to be intangible. Can you hold it on your hand? Could they lay it out on a table and inspect it? Modern science can, but prior to the modern era no one could. I don't know why it is such a difficult concept.

Beyond that, I would be interested in seeing a photograph of your spirit. No? A scientific reading? Where does the material of your body end and the material of your spirit begin? How exactly are two material things occupying the exact same space? Is your spirit one mass of matter or pieces of matter existing in cells? Give me something tangible and then I'll change my mind about spirit being intangible.

Edited March 27, 2014 by saemo

[Ahab]

Ancient people believed wind and breath to be intangible. Can you hold it on your hand? Could they lay it out on a table and inspect it? Modern science can, but prior to the modern era no one could. I don't know why it is such a difficult concept.

Beyond that, I would be interested in seeing a photograph of your spirit. No?

Not right now. My spirit would need to separate from my mortal body, which is what we call death, and I'm not going to do that right now just so you can see me, or my spirit. You can just wait until you die and then look at your own spirit. Or maybe someone who has died could come visit you, before their own resurrection, while allowing you to see them.

scientific reading?

Your spirit is what animates your mortal body, and every person has a spirit within their mortal body otherwise their mortal body would be dead. Scientists usually refer to a spirit as a conscience, and they know how to tell when a mortal body is dead.

does the material of your body end and the material of your spirit begin? Is your spirit one mass of matter or pieces of matter existing in cells? Give me something tangible and then I'll change my mind about spirit being intangible.

Think about what you will be when you leave your mortal body. Do you really believe "you" will be nothing at all, with no substance whatsoever? For you to exist at all at that point there would have to be something that consists of what you are, and not just a memory of you.

[MiserereNobis]

Oh sure I was poking fun

But I don't think the "concepts underpinning scholasticism". worki either and I will be glad to get into those if you would prefer.

Here is the absolutely best argument which exists for immaterial matter from Aquinas himself. We really should have started the thread with this, since this is the PROOF for immaterial matter.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050.htm

This is the best there is- if you don't understand THAT you must be a dummy.  And theree's more at that site if that doesn't convince you.

 

SO THERE you dang materialists!  TRY to poke a hole in THAT argument!

 

 

I said in a different post that I wish I could give 3 rep points every time the Summa is quoted.  I reaffirm that here.

[Ahab]

I said in a different post that I wish I could give 3 rep points every time the Summa is quoted. I reaffirm that here.

Summa summa summa summa summa chameleon.

[MiserereNobis]

So here is the crux which goes to the underpinning argument Aquinas is using:

 

"The philospher" is Aristotle.

 

Aquinas' whole objection is based on, as he says, a distinction betwen "sense" and "intellect".  Notice I put quotes around those words, because we see those as words, and nothing more.  But Aquinas thought they were totally different faculties of the mind.  We see them as two different DESCRIPTIONS of FUNCTIONS of the way we think.

 

Modern psychology, one might argue, makes no distinction between "sense" and "intellect"- indeed there is no way to test or understand one with out the other.  Philosopohically, today, we would say that Aquinas is making what is called a "category mistake", thinking that because we have a word for "sense" it must be a different thing than "intellect"- two words, two things.

 

Contemporary analytical philosophy would never make that ....assumption.

 

So the whole idea that there IS something immaterial comes from linguistic confusion because words themselves cannot be held in your hand, and are therefore immaterial.

 

If you can think a thought, that thought must be a "thing" and since it doesn't weigh anything, it must be "immaterial".  Therefore, some things are immaterial.

 

Enter the philosophy of Pragmatism which really goes back to Kant and the Germans, but that is another story.

 

But these moderns and post-moderns realize that words are words, and that even senses are constructs of the brain.  Kant figured that out first.

 

Because we have a word for something that doesn't mean that there must be a "thing" which corresponds to the word.

 

There IS no difference between sense and the intellect, they are just two different ways of speaking and thinking about the same phenomena- human brain activity.

 

So if that distinction, as Aquinas says, is the entire basis for the philosophy of the immaterial, and indeed it is, then there IS no foundation for belief in the immaterial.

 

Words are not things, they are "just words"- just one of many ways humans can think about things. 

 

You might have missed my post on another thread, where I said:

Ahhh, you've stumbled upon one of the persuasive arguments for the reality of things that are immaterial:  abstract numbers.

 

They're real, yes, but can you ever go find one?  Experience one with your senses?  If one wanted to quest for the number 5, where would one go?

 

(here is the cue for post-modernist apologists to argue that the reality of numbers is simply a linguistically based confusion and is therefore not real at all...)

 

The cue was, of course, for you

[mfbukowski]

You might have missed my post on another thread, where I said:

 

 

The cue was, of course, for you

Nice dodge.

But no, I think logic is no more than the rules by which our minds (brains) operate, evolved (ie ultimately God designed) to be useful to living in this world. They are no more or less real than morality or other principles we need to survive. They are essentially like the rules of grammar without which we cannot think or communicate.

A=A because words have to have meaning for communication to happen. If A sometimes meant B or M communication would be impossible. So math tells us more about how our minds work than anything else, as we structure the universe within us and share our personal structurings with others, as we are doing right now

[mfbukowski]

Ahab has a face! Love you, dude.