|  Inertial-Mass | May 7, 2004 8:43pm | There are many approaches to spirituality, many spiritual traditions. As a Catholic, I believe in spirituality. The _Catholic Encyclopedia_ (newadvent.org/cathen [newadvent.org/cathen]) has an interesting article (newadvent.org/cathen/14229a.htm [newadvent.org/cathen/14229a.htm]) on "spritualism". A brief excerpt from the article sums up quite nicely the basic idea:
We may say in general that Spiritualism is the doctrine which denies that the contents of the universe are limited to matter and the properties and operations of matter. It maintains the existence of real being or beings (minds, spirits) radically distinct in nature from matter.
Although I have a high regard for the practice and for the utility of modern science, I like to point out that science only speaks of the material world. In particular, the scientist's attempt to define and comprehend the human person is doomed to failure, because the human person has a spiritual soul that will remain forever beyond scientific explanation.
The transcendence of which I speak is even more fundamental than the transcendence of ordinary things for which science can offer some imperfect explanation. For these ordinary things, like a rock or a star, a scientific model of the thing offers some explanation of it, but the thing to which the model points is always beyond the model. Science may provide a model for the human body. The model may be very useful for medicine, etc., but the model will never describe the body perfectly.
Unlike a merely animal soul, such as that of, say, a cricket, the human soul is a spiritual soul, and so the human soul exists even when the body ceases to exist. (The human person, though, is only present in the combination of body and soul.) The human soul is so "radically distinct in nature from matter" as to elude even an imperfect scientific description.
An interesting consequence of this position is the prediction that the central quest of the artificial-intelligence community will never succeed. I fully expect that even if the most optimistic improvement in computer technology comes to pass over the next 25 years, we shall at the end of them find ourselves essentially no closer to the manufacture of the artificial person, the artificial mind. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  rune | May 8, 2004 5:01am | I agree - truth will never be found BY science. More questions will always be one step ahead of the answer currently being sought. Man has to humbly accept that there are things that are beyond his comprehension. Once there is a comfortable acceptance of this, peace can ensue. No more 'needing to know'.
I've got to say, however, that there is a definite positive spiritual use for science, and the most obvious example is right here: the internet. We are using science's creations to talk to each other on different sides of the world, and have enlightening discussions about important spiritual matters. So as usual, it SEEMS I've found a way to completely contradict myself (though, notice I put the word "by" in capitals in the last paragraph).
There are many 'tools' at hand. |
|
|
| | Inertial-Mass | May 8, 2004 5:43am | You are right, I think, to associate humility with peace. By believing (at least subconsciously) that a scientific theory can actually be true, many an advocate of science becomes unable to practice an important form of humility.
Although I am no supporter of creation pseudoscience, for example, my personal experience in dialogue with those who are influenceed by creation pseudoscience is that an approach based on proper humility leads to a discussion that is more peaceful and beneficial than the typical debate between the "creationist" and the "evolutionist". If I go beyond the properly humble assertion that a scientific theory can never be proved true and assert further that man's having a spiritual soul implies that the human person, as a whole, can not be a product of evolution (even if the human body might be), then the discussion can be quite productive indeed. This approach usually leads to a discussion of interesting questions rather than to the "my dad can beat up your dad" back-and-forth. |
|
|
Sponsor | | rune | May 8, 2004 3:06pm | I think the most important thing to convey to what you call "evolutionists" is the fact that as far as just the logical mind can fathom, they are completely right. One thing that I would love to be able to prove to them in mere words is the fact that there is a knowledge at hand that comes from a source as old as the universe (accepting that we just can't understand it, and aren't supposed to is necessary). They would then realize that trying to explain things such as how big the universe is, and what lies beyond this, and whether we can travel to Mars is a waste of time.
(Edited May 9th) |
|
|
| | Inertial-Mass | May 10, 2004 3:13pm | | Although I certainly agree with you most of the way, I am as yet unconvinced of the wastefulness of manned space travel. I am inclined to think that establishing an independently functioning ecosystem off of the earth should be one of humanity's highest priorities. It's likely that, eventually, a big rock, a nasty bug, a nuclear war, or something else will take out complex life on earth. If we have extraterrestrial human colonies independent of earth, then such a catastrophe will not likely extinguish the human race. |
|
|
Sponsor | | rune | May 10, 2004 3:45pm | Sorry - I meant no offence there :)
Yes, priorities are most important to define at this time. Surely, as a believer in God, you have the confidence that He would not let anything happen that wasn't supposed to? I'm not saying there's not a lot of work to do on the planet, but ... I'm ready to face my destiny, whatever that may be (some might prefer the word "karma"). |
|
|
| | Inertial-Mass | May 11, 2004 9:21am | 6: No offence perceived.
Yes, I believe that what will happen is supposed to happen. I am, however, not thereby excused from acting responsibly, in this case to argue for the preservation of human life. The historical record suggests that we should put a high priority on securing the permanence of human life not only on earth but also off of earth as well. We should recognize the folly of thinking that human civilization ought to depend for its existence on the habitability of the earth. If human life be valuable precisely because of the human's having a spiritual soul, then---as my argument goes---we ought to preserve human life against what appear to be real catastrophes that occur with some measurable frequency. The mere fact that no such catastrophe has occurred since the appearance of human beings should not lull us into passivism on this point. |
|
|
Sponsor | | rune | May 11, 2004 3:16pm | | To me, the preservation of the human race can be achieved if people wake up and learn that every act which goes against love is rewarded only with suffering. Convincing everyone seems like an unwinnable battle, but I'm trying my hardest, and trying to set an example for others, so they can start spreading hope, too. It's all I can do. This "karma" that I speak of, can never be escaped - you can travel to the other side of the universe, and the nasty bugs or big rocks will be waiting for you. |
|
|
| | Inertial-Mass | May 11, 2004 3:27pm | | 8: Although, as a Christian, I do not believe in "karma", I do believe in a similar idea: Nature has been permanently damaged by human sinfulness, and so, as a consequence, every human must suffer and die. As a Catholic, however, I believe that the Church will exist until the end of time. It may very well be, though, that we must act decisively in order to enable her continued existence, despite bugs and rocks. Hence my argument for the urgency of the establishment of an independent, extraterrestrial ecosystem. I want to help work toward the end, not fight against it. |
|
|
Sponsor | | rune | May 17, 2004 3:28pm | | working towards the end - doesn't the bible say that is the earth's destruction??? |
| |
| |
Spirituality → Discussion