Creation and the body
In the modern world there is a great deal of speculation about who or what human beings are. There is much speculation of what mind is, what intelligence is. People ask whether man can exist without a body, and other questions. We even have people who claim man 'should' evolve past being human, and become a machine. In my view most of this thinking is fallacious and based on a confusion over mankind's real nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Many have in recent years discussed the nature of the body/spirit interaction. Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) came to a conclusion which brings out a nice distinction with intriguing implications.'
"The body, although it is not the cause of all these activities of the spirit, is the instrument of them. It is not the ear which hears but the spirit of man which hears through the ears. . . . To the extent, therefore, that the body serves as a tool and instrument of the spirit, it exhibits a certain resemblance to and gives us some notion of the way in which God is busy in the world.'' - Bavinck
- A question I find intriguing question is this; 'why do human beings have the particular bodies they have? To elaborate; why do we have the particular senses we have? Why do we experience the matter/energy universe in the way we do? Why is our hearing so acute? Why is our vision what it is? Why so many connections in the brain? Why is human memory so great? Why is our sense of music so exquisite? Why do we have such great creativity in music and in the arts? Why is human potential so great? Why do we look as we do? Why do we feel as we do? etc. etc.
- few people (even Christians) seem to ask these questions. (I think we see in this, the pernicious influence of Darwinism at work.)
- Bavinck seems to be saying that the human body (i.e. the way it works, its capacities, etc.) gives us a glimpse into the workings of God in the universe. What do I mean?
- I assume god has a purpose for giving man the faculties he has. (I think it was George Macdonald who said, if god wanted to see a play he would create a Shakespeare. If this has some validity, then God has created us for some purpose; has created our bodies the way they are for some purpose.
- Can it be that He wants to see through our eyes? hear through our ears? etc. But why the specifics of the human body? If we take the bible at its word I think the implication is obvious; the human body (at least at the time of the original creation, and before the Fall) is the best possible vehicle for this purpose.
- In other words; the human body was made perfect; a perfect vehicle for experiencing the universe; for experiencing the physical universe; the perfect vehicle for life in the material realm. (i.e. as the earth was the perfect planet, so man was the perfect body, the perfect vehicle for an intelligent Spirit to become incarnate in.)
- When I say the 'human' body was a 'perfect' vehicle I'm implying this was the opinion of God; or this was his view of the matter; at least for His purposes. Man then is the perfect 'fit' between the material universe and Spirit. [The 'Darwinian' answer, that all things that exist do so because they led to reproductive success, makes no sense to me. In no way can this adequately explain the specifics of the human body and the human person. Evolutionary theory can't account for the greatness of man; they can't account for his potential; it can't account for Mozart, Beethoven, etc.]
- it's not merely' that the universe was designed, or that man was designed; but that the 'fit' between them was designed. i.e. they were designed with this 'fit' in mind. The universe is what it is because of what man is; man is what he is because of what the universe it. And this 'fit'? It has the specific nature it has because of who God is, and because of what his plans for the universe are. (Specifically; this 'fit' has its specific nature or quality, because from the very beginning, from before the universe came into being, the Incarnation of one member of the Trinity was part of the Plan. Man is what he is, his 'body' is what it is, because God had determined that the human form was the most perfect way for God to experience the physical universe. i.e. the best vehicle for God to walk the earth, to experience material existence.
- I think I'm accurate in claiming that this is the view that Arthur Custance held; or at least close to it. (I'm sympathetic to it.)
- this is clearly speculative; but I think it's far closer to the truth than the Materialist view that man is who he is (has the body he has) simply by way of random chance and chemical accident.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time/ch. 9/p.12
- the post above was just some thoughts I had on reading his chapter 'The interdependence of spirit and body: the biblical and theological view.'
2. 'Since man was designed for life on earth and appointed its "manager" (Genesis 1:26(56)), he naturally was equipped with a physical means of interaction with the material world.' - A. Custance
- I think it's accurate to say that man is what he is, his body is what 'it' is, because of man's appointed role on earth. (e.g. mathematics is an ability man has because of the command to take dominion over the earth; musical ability exists because of the command to glorify the Creator; and so on.)
3. ' In his discussion of the Judaic beliefs, Gundry [R.H.] observes that when we turn to Jewish literature of the Intertestamental and New Testament period, God is seen as making the body to suit the spirit which it contains "just as the potter suits a vessel to its intended contents." [Ch.9/p. 17]
- if this is true, the implication would seem to be that man's 'body' is what it is, because of who the Son [of God] is; ie. because who Jesus is. Can we say anything more specific? It would seem that man's body is as it is because of the nature of the work Jesus had to do in his incarnation, in his earthly life. (e.g. man is sensitive emotionally because Jesus had to be; logical because Jesus had to be; capable of love because Jesus needed to be; capable of courage because Jesus needed to be, etc. )
- one might object that this doesn't explain why human hearing is so great, or eyesight so great, or why man's musical or mathematical potential is so great. I can't think of an answer to this; so perhaps the above is only a partial answer to this question.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Existence of the Soul
Materialists (and this would include most evolutionists) deny the existence of the soul. They claim they've looked for it, but can't find it; and thus they 'regretfully' inform us that Christianity has been refuted. One of my favorite writers is Arthur Custance. He disagrees with the Materialist claim, and I agree with him. The following quotes are taken from his book 'Journey out of Time'.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)
- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)
- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.
- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)
- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)
- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)
- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.
- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)
- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]
Monday, December 1, 2008
Darwinism and the Invention of Delusion
In this post I'll try (briefly) to make the case Darwinism is based on the argument from silence fallacy. To do so I'll look at a few comments made by Gines Morata (a research scientist from Spain).
Quotes and comments;
1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.
2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)
- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?
Quotes and comments;
1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.
2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)
- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)