quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid.
A sacrament is not the words, it's the deeds, and the words have changed over time. In fact, I think the only important thing for the sacrament of marriage, for example, is that two people agree to it. The words are highly negotiable. I remember the priest sitting down with my husband and I before we got married and explaining that particular sacrament to us and he summed up by saying that if anything went wrong on the day of the wedding, the only thing he cared about was that my husband and I showed up. Everything else he could deal with.
The religion may be bathed in ritual and tradition but varying the ritual definitely does not make a sacrament invalid if your heart is in the right place.
This is why I don't take communion, even for my mother's sake, when she manages to convince me to go to church nowadays. I don't believe it's the body of Christ and so to take it, even saying all the words and following all the tradition, still renders the sacrament invalid and disrespectful to those who do believe. It's what's in my heart, not my mouth, that matters.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine- my brother in law will only go to a Catholic church if the mass is in Latin. For him, if it is not the specific Latin words, it is not the sacrament and not worth doing. He has a very traditional view of his religion, and while he is in the minority (based on what a hard time he has finding services that he doesn't consider too modern), there are still some Catholics who think that way.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Christine- my brother in law will only go to a Catholic church if the mass is in Latin. For him, if it is not the specific Latin words, it is not the sacrament and not worth doing. He has a very traditional view of his religion, and while he is in the minority (based on what a hard time he has finding services that he doesn't consider too modern), there are still some Catholics who think that way.
But it is not the official stance of the church. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find Catholics who believe almost anything, but Eaquae Legit was suggesting that this was the stance of the church, which is not true.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid. These are NOT symbolic. The words and actions are entelechial. It's one of the few places where the pre-Enlightenment theories of language has been retained.
Sure, because words have meanings, and if your diction strays far from the accepted standard the essence of the ritual is also lost. It's why Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland would make a terrible priest.
I've looked up the word entelechial on dictionary.com and I did not find a very satisfactory definition, could you do me the favor of explaining what it means when you use it?
It is decidedly true that around Israel there certainly was alot of religious belief that revolved around the sorts of "spell casting" we are discussing. However, I think if you look at the text as a whole and recognize early Christians as a natural expansion from Judaism, a religion that doctrinally was hostile towards mysticism and sorcery, early Christians were not subscribers to magic. The word Magician comes from Magus which was the name of Simon Magus a man who believed in such things and asked to purchase the priesthood secrets from Peter because he thought the priesthood was similar to magic. He was turned down, and Peter then proceeds to explain how different the authority to act in the name of God is to some sort of system of key words that create super magical phenomenon.
Jesus himself says over and over, "All that ye see me do, ye can do also, if ye have faith." or in essence, "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can ask the mountains to move, and they will move." It wasn't "If you get the rituals down pat, and can say them perfectly things you want to happen will happen.
I completely concede that within about 250 years Christianity was swallowed by other religions and then ate it's way out of their stomachs so that it was virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions. But I do believe the Reformationists in large part were attempting to purify Christianity to it's original form when Christ instituted it.
I'm trying to be careful when using the word "Christianity does this not that" as I have gotten in trouble in the past for doing just that. When I use it here, I honestly try to divorce my Mormon sensibilities and discuss purely on Biblical terms so that I am not saying things that cause other Christians to think, "That's not in the Bible."
edit: If I think a point is hinted at in the Bible but explicitly stated in other scripture I try to cite so as to avoid confusion.
Just for the record, while I consider myself a Christian, and discuss my own religion with that term, I don't get bent out of shape if others feel the term is misused for Mormons, so long as it's done out of intellectual honesty and not malice.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I completely concede that within about 250 years Christianity was swallowed by other religions and then ate it's way out of their stomachs so that it was virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions.
Have you actually studied the history/teachings of the Catholic/Orthodox church of that time period? Or the neighboring religions? Or is the sentence I quoted just based on LDS teaching about "the apostacy"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So just where do all these mountains go, that are being moved by people with faith the size of a mustard seed? By this standard, it seems to me that we've had 2000 years of remarkably faithless Christians.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I completely concede that within about 250 years Christianity was swallowed by other religions and then ate it's way out of their stomachs so that it was virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions.
Have you actually studied the history/teachings of the Catholic/Orthodox church of that time period? Or the neighboring religions? Or is the sentence I quoted just based on LDS teaching about "the apostacy"?
I'd wager a combination of both. The LDS church does not do a very detailed look at The Apostasy in it's Sunday School classes, there are quite a few books published that discuss the issue including a book by the name The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage.
There's alittle less than 2000 years worth of developments that you are asking about. I'm reasonably certain there are many interesting things of note you know that I do not. I still think that things as they were setup by Jesus and the original twelve apostles quickly changed in essence especially after they (the apostles) were dead. Many organizations have attempted to restore things to how they were back in 30ish AD, not just Mormonism, and those efforts were to a varying degree successful.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So just where do all these mountains go, that are being moved by people with faith the size of a mustard seed? By this standard, it seems to me that we've had 2000 years of remarkably faithless Christians.
Sorry for double posting, but moving mountains is not even cursorily on God's agenda as far as the scriptures outline. I don't really see much benefit in mountain moving, but you could always hang out at the Mount of Olives until Jesus splits it in two. In fact the only recorded instance of it happening that I can recall is in the Mormon canon, not the Bible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I still think that things as they were setup by Jesus and the original twelve apostles quickly changed in essence especially after they (the apostles) were dead. Many organizations have attempted to restore things to how they were back in 30ish AD, not just Mormonism, and those efforts were to a varying degree successful.
Irrelevant. I am specifically asking about your assertion that Christianity around 300 CE was "virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] So just where do all these mountains go, that are being moved by people with faith the size of a mustard seed? By this standard, it seems to me that we've had 2000 years of remarkably faithless Christians.
Sorry for double posting, but moving mountains is not even cursorily on God's agenda as far as the scriptures outline.
You mean, apart from the Jesus aphorism that you just quoted? But even taking it as a metaphor, just what is it that the faithful to the correct religion have accomplished, which those of other religions or none have not done? Or perhaps Jesus is doing some sort of self-help "believe in your self-confidence" boosterism? I would expect a bit more of a self-proclaimed deity.
Either having faith in the true religion is helpful to getting things accomplished, or it is not. Which is it? And if you claim the former, what's the evidence?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I still think that things as they were setup by Jesus and the original twelve apostles quickly changed in essence especially after they (the apostles) were dead. Many organizations have attempted to restore things to how they were back in 30ish AD, not just Mormonism, and those efforts were to a varying degree successful.
Irrelevant. I am specifically asking about your assertion that Christianity around 300 CE was "virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions."
300CE was the hey day of the change I mentioned. When I mean indistinguishable from neighboring religions I do not mean there was no way to distinguish the two, I mean that in terms of superstitious practices it was finding ways to incorporate those beliefs in order to facilitate conversion.
It gobbled up gnosticism and that combined with folk religion to me was the embryo of what soon after became the proto-Catholic church.
That is how I understand the situation, you are more than welcome to help me get a better grasp of the situation.
----
KOM: You have the scriptures, they are open to you, you read what believers have described accomplishing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say that reading the propaganda of a particular sect does not strike me as the best way to measure their real accomplishments. Would you read a hagiography as a historical source? (I mean, for the actual events, not for "what did people think that saints ought to get up to.") Why are you suddenly so reluctant to point to what faith can do? "It's all fun and games until someone asks for evidence"? And let me also ask you this: Suppose it were shown that faith does not, in fact, help people in any measureable way; what would that imply for yours?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Do you have any observational literature from the time period that the entire Bible was written? I'm alittle reluctant to talk about accomplishments germane to my religion as I need to decide if I'm willing to commit the time and energy necessary. Right now I'm leaning towards yes.
I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that faith does not help in any measurable way unless you managed to document every single action a person might take both with and without faith and observe success rates. I think it's demonstrably true that a person who believes they may succeed tend to succeed more than people who not believe.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid.
A sacrament is not the words, it's the deeds, and the words have changed over time. In fact, I think the only important thing for the sacrament of marriage, for example, is that two people agree to it. The words are highly negotiable. I remember the priest sitting down with my husband and I before we got married and explaining that particular sacrament to us and he summed up by saying that if anything went wrong on the day of the wedding, the only thing he cared about was that my husband and I showed up. Everything else he could deal with.
The religion may be bathed in ritual and tradition but varying the ritual definitely does not make a sacrament invalid if your heart is in the right place.
This is why I don't take communion, even for my mother's sake, when she manages to convince me to go to church nowadays. I don't believe it's the body of Christ and so to take it, even saying all the words and following all the tradition, still renders the sacrament invalid and disrespectful to those who do believe. It's what's in my heart, not my mouth, that matters.
You can take all of the below as accounting for authorised translations.
Doctrinally, the words matter very, very much. A baptism without the words "I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is not a baptism, pure and simple. Baptising in the name of the Son alone doesn't count, nor baptising in the name of the Father alone, nor does it count if one person says the words and another person pours the water. Anything other than a strict Trinitarian invocation AND the sprinkling (or immersing) or water and only water is invalid. This is why Mormons who convert to Catholicism will be rebaptised but Mennonites will not.
Same for the Eucharist. If anyone other than a priest says the words of the consecration, or if the priest says the words improperly, it does not count.
If someone told you differently, they are heterodox and not teaching authentic Catholic doctrine. It was true in the Middle Ages as the sacraments developed, and it is true today as they continue to develop. That is not to say intent is irrelevant. It is also very relevant (if far more complicated, IMO). But valid sacraments require both proper intent and proper form, and it has been this way, unchanged, for at least 1000 years (when my personal knowledge of sacramental theology peters out).
*******
BlackBlade, I'm using "entelechial" because I find when I use "effective" it doesn't convey the meaning I want it to. It means an active effectiveness, as in to create an effect. Its antonym would perhaps be "symbolic"? As an example (and I apologise if this is unclear), when a Catholic priest intones the Eucharistic formula, he's not just saying that the bread and wine are symbolic of flesh and blood; the words make it happen, they effect it. The words are entelechial. Does that help? It was something I struggled with when I first encountered it, but I've since found it a useful word to distinguish meaning from the commonplace "effective."
Happily, dkw is doing a better job than I could of addressing your other points. The fact that the Jesus-movement did not remain Jewish is well noted in the Bible, but it doesn't make the Jesus-followers of Acts unChristian. (And whatever else it's guilty of, gnosticism is not it. The Apostles' Creed fairly oozes anti-gnosticism.)
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: it has been this way, unchanged, for at least 1000 years (when my personal knowledge of sacramental theology peters out).
You look pretty good for someone of your advanced years.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eaquae Legit: Um, you are aware that if you're driving down the street and see someone has gotten into a bad accident and there is no priest available that anyone can perform an emergency baptism or anointing of the sick. No need for water of any sort, holy or otherwise. Just a pure intent and a real need.
As far as who has told me this stuff: At least a dozen priests, nuns, and various Catholic school catechism teachers I've had over the years at 4 churches in two states. Plus, the ones my husband had growing up in a different state.
And if you really are over 100 years old then you age has worked against you. A great deal changed in the Catholic church at the convening of Vatican II in the 1960's. You should check it out. I don't think this changed at Vatican II, but since I was born in 1977 I'm not as familiar with what came before as you, who apparently were born in the early 1900's.
posted
Eaquae Legit and Christine are both pretty much fully right.
It's a question of context. In extraordinary contexts, certain strictures are loosened, but these are explicitly defined exceptions to the doctrinal requirements.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Eaquae Legit: Um, you are aware that if you're driving down the street and see someone has gotten into a bad accident and there is no priest available that anyone can perform an emergency baptism or anointing of the sick. No need for water of any sort, holy or otherwise. Just a pure intent and a real need.
As far as who has told me this stuff: At least a dozen priests, nuns, and various Catholic school catechism teachers I've had over the years at 4 churches in two states. Plus, the ones my husband had growing up in a different state.
And if you really are over 100 years old then you age has worked against you. A great deal changed in the Catholic church at the convening of Vatican II in the 1960's. You should check it out. I don't think this changed at Vatican II, but since I was born in 1977 I'm not as familiar with what came before as you, who apparently were born in the early 1900's.
I'd give you some of the images I made of various manuals and penitentiaries, but the head archivist would hunt me down and slap me with a copyright infringement lawsuit so fast I wouldn't have time to say "mea culpa!" I'm not 1000 years old, but some of my books are. I'm lazy, though, so I don't do much pre-Gratian, hence the 1000 years.
It is true that anyone can perform a baptism in emergencies. That has always been true, with only a few minor adjustments over the years. As for water, there's still some evolution happening, for example with premature babies in incubators. But seeing as spit counts as water, the circumstances in which you wouldn't have any water at hand at all are pretty few and far between. But even with such dire and unusual circumstances, it is uncertain enough that a conditional baptism may later be performed if the person survives.
I'm sorry for making such a big deal out of this. It's rare I get a chance on Hatrack to participate in something touching my specialism, and it gets me all jazzed up and excited. So hey, thanks!
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:'m using "entelechial" because I find when I use "effective" it doesn't convey the meaning I want it to. It means an active effectiveness, as in to create an effect. Its antonym would perhaps be "symbolic"? As an example (and I apologise if this is unclear), when a Catholic priest intones the Eucharistic formula, he's not just saying that the bread and wine are symbolic of flesh and blood; the words make it happen, they effect it.
OK that helps me understand where you are coming from when you use that word. But looks at the way Jesus administered the Eucharist. He brake bread, blessed it, and said, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19. I'm partial to the notion that gospel ordinances ought to be done in a uniform manner, as people frequently tamper and change to suit their individual feelings and over time rituals can become completely different then their original intent. But what makes a combination of words have efficacy? Do the words themselves when spoken in a certain combination suddenly generate a result? I fully agree that a Christian ordinances must be done in the name of God, or it is to no effect, but that's not because I believe the phrase itself has power.
I don't like using the Eucharist as our platform as I (not to be disparaging to Catholics) believe transubstantiation is not correct. When protestants or Mormons take communion the bread and water is blessed and served to the congregation, and taken in remembrance of Christ's body and blood. I suppose you could argue that actually blessing bread and water and transforming bread and water are different ends by the same process.
But the fact we speak our words at our ordinances to me is a function of the fact that when words are spoken we listen, and it unifies the group in a single purpose. There is no impropriety in not speaking when praying, a mute could bless the sacrament themselves in their minds and then partake
quote:Happily, dkw is doing a better job than I could of addressing your other points.
Near as I can tell she has questioned where I get my opinions on the matter, not much else yet. I respect her knowledge on Christian history very much.
quote:The fact that the Jesus-movement did not remain Jewish is well noted in the Bible, but it doesn't make the Jesus-followers of Acts unChristian.
I'm not sure why you are saying this. I would say The Acts is a fantastic book in describing the early church before it became corrupted.
The Apostles creed does indeed not lend itself well to gnosticism, but the Nicene creed practically defines it. The 325AD version shows considerable leanings while the revised 381AD version is completely taken by it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Apostles creed does indeed not lend itself well to gnosticism, but the Nicene creed practically defines it.[/QB]
Wait, the Nicene creed defines gnosticism? How so? How are you defining gnosticism, BlackBlade?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a second folks, I'm getting my creeds mixed up. I need to revise some of the things I said. I'll add them as an edit to this post because I realize I've made some pretty erroneous statements.
Edit: The First Councel at Nicea to me shows that Gnosticism was already affecting belief in Christ as one of the major debates was whether Christ the Son of God was of the same substance of the father or a separate entity. The Arian controversy is essentially what I am talking about, the discussion of whether the son was coeternal with the father or created and of a different substance. The Homoiousians attempts at compromise to me demonstrates a decidedly Gnostic approach to the problem.
I then think the The Athanasian Creed carried the Nicene Creed to it's next iteration. All debate about the Homousians "same substance" approach is completely gone, and now it is boldly stated.
posted
I am very confused. You're asserting that identifying all three aspects of god as having one and the same perfect substance as being gnostic? Most forms of gnosticism are firmly dualistic, with two, separate gods of different substances, and one of the most important characteristics of Gnosticism is the idea of an imperfect, subordinate creator.
Gnosticism is far more like Arianism, which advocated a difference in substance and hierarchy in precedence among the god-head, than it is like the stance adopted in the Nicene creed (which didn't at all waver on Jesus being of the same substance -- I don't know where you got that from).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that faith does not help in any measurable way unless you managed to document every single action a person might take both with and without faith and observe success rates. I think it's demonstrably true that a person who believes they may succeed tend to succeed more than people who do not believe.
Are you asserting that Jesus was not saying "Have faith in God" but rather "Have faith in yourself" or perhaps "in eventual success"? Because, as noted, self-help claptrap we do not need divine revelation for, people will insist on extracting it from the activities of spiders, if there's nothing more inspirational around. So, fine, if you wish to reduce Jesus' words to some sort of anodyne pep talk, then I won't dispute their truth. But in that case I suggest you do not quote them from him; people might mistake your faith for something no deeper than the beliefs of an average self-help junkie. On the other hand, if Jesus is asserting that having faith in the religious sense, and worshipping the correct god, is a path to great accomplishments, then that seems eminently measureable. Just for starters, you could check whether religious graduate students defend faster than non-religious ones.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to second Noemon's question of how you're defining gnosticism. Because the arian debates weren't about gnosticism. And Athanasius was a long way from being a gnostic.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, neither side in the Arian controversy was much like gnosticism at all, but if I had to identify one side as being more like gnosticism, it definitely wouldn't be the mainstream one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, are you making any particular effort to separate the words "mind" and "soul?" If you're merely trying to prove the existence of the mind, we already believe you, and you shouldn't be using such loaded terminology.
I think the two things are related but different. The mind is one's thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. The soul is the essential "self - and the entity that experiences those thoughts, feelings, and memories. I'm not sure there could be a mind without a soul, since I'm not sure what it would mean to have experiences without an experiencer.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's exactly my point: Software and hardware are distinct in spite of the fact that the software originates from the hardware. Therefore, two things can be distinct even if one originates entirely from the other.
This is language as a trap for the mind. You are just spinning words to try to make meaning. In what way does the software exist independent of the movement of electrons? It doesn't! You are just repeating "distinct, distinct, lalala" in an attempt to rescue your sense of self.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, this is being precise. Software on a computer doesn't exist independent of electrons, but it is distinct from those electrons. That's why you can move a piece of software from one computer to another without moving the actual physical electrons to the other computer too. Two things can be distinct without being independent from one another.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I can appreciate what you mean by those distinctions, the word soul is incredibly loaded, especially in this context where we are specifically talking about supernatural phenomenon.
There's a logical fallacy (I can't remember the proper term right now, someone with more debate training than I have can probably help me out) where one changes the definition of a word in the middle of an argument (or in a later argument), and continue to build off of points made with the original definition even though they're talking about completely different things.
In your case, you've made numerous statements in the past that strongly suggest you believe in the more traditional "mental component, eternal and separate from body" definition of soul. So when you start using the word way you are now, you give the impression (whether you intend to or not) that you may be setting yourself up to later employ a logical fallacy to make a point that isn't valid.
[ October 28, 2009, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a logical fallacy where one changes the definition of a word in the middle of an argument (or in a later argument), and continue to build off of points made with the original definition even though they're talking about completely different things.
Equivocation.
quote:Software on a computer doesn't exist independent of electrons, but it is distinct from those electrons.
This sense of distinctness is utterly useless, especially for arguing about souls. Suppose I put three pebbles in a triangle on my desk. If you want to argue that the "triangle-ness" is distinct from the actual pebbles, fine, but you are committing the logical fallacy of so bloody what? What consequences does this have? A "distinct" entity that is completely dependent on the things it is supposedly distinct from has no meaningful distinctness; it is at the absolute best a convenient shorthand - "the triangle" is shorter than "the three pebbles", "the mind" is shorter than "the pattern of electrons and neurons making up your brain". The actual universe does not contain three pebbles and a triangle; it contains three pebbles. Done. To reify high-level abstractions is classic magical thinking; you might as well argue that an aircraft is distinct from the atoms it consists of, and expect to be able to extract "aircraft-ness" from it by the right rituals.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your case, you've made numerous statements in the past that strongly suggest you believe in the more traditional "mental component, eternal and separate from body" definition of soul. So when you start using the word way you are now, you give the impression (whether you intend to or not) that you may be setting yourself up to later employ a logical fallacy to make a point that isn't valid.
To be clear then, I believe the soul is a "mental" component (in the sense I just described) and is distinct from the body, and that I have strong evidence that such a thing exists. I also believe it is eternal and separable from the body, but I don't think I can prove either of those things with any earthly evidence, and I don't think they are properties true by definition for souls. (So, I could not make an argument like "We have souls, and souls are by definition eternal, therefore we have an afterlife." The second premise would be wrong.)
quote:If you want to argue that the "triangle-ness" is distinct from the actual pebbles, fine, but you are committing the logical fallacy of so bloody what? What consequences does this have?
The consequences relate to what is possible. If the triangle-ness is not distinct from the actual pebbles, then if I remove the pebbles and replace them with paperclips, the triangle-ness would have to be gone since the pebbles are gone. But if the triangle-ness is distinct from the pebbles, then it is possible that I can remove the pebbles and replace them with paperclips, and keep the triangle-ness intact even though the pebbles are gone.
Similarly, if the soul were not distinct from the body, then the soul could not possibly exist after the body is gone. But if the soul is distinct from the body, then it is at least possible to talk about a soul existing separate from the body without automatically contradicting ourselves.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are now on the verge of being reasonable. Suppose I exactly duplicate your brain, down to quantum-mechanical wave functions (using, of course, my inexhaustible supply of handwavium to get around minor quibblers and obstructionists like that dilettante Heisenberg); are there now two "Tresopax souls" (or perhaps "Tresopax-nesses") in the universe?
I still think, however, you are using very bad language. If I have pebbles in a triangle, I can set up paperclips in the same sort of triangle; it does not follow that the triangle itself exists. You do not have to argue for a separate triangle-ness, you just have to make the observations "I measure this angle and that length, I measure this angle and that length... I get the same results for pebbles and paperclips". It doesn't follow that a triangle exists somewhere in Platonic idea-space! This is a canonical example of multiplying entities un-necessarily. There are pebbles or paperclips, and there are angles and distances, and within the human mind there is some pattern of electrons which we verbalise "triangle". But that's all electrons contained with our skulls. The actual universe does not have a little XML label saying "Triangle" attached to the pebbles, which disappears when you remove one.
[ October 28, 2009, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: To be clear then, I believe the soul is a "mental" component (in the sense I just described) and is distinct from the body, and that I have strong evidence that such a thing exists.
Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
Okay, so what happened to the soul of Phineus Gage after his accident, and what strong evidence leads you to that conclusions?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
She's still using confusing wording but I think Iknow what she means. Regardless of whether my consciousness is actually dependent on my brain, my perception of my "self" is independent of my perception of the physical world. Given that ultimately, all I HAVE is my perceptions to determine what is real or not, it is very conceivable to me that the same "self" that I identify as could somehow exist without my body.
Taking the paperclips and pebbles and triangles and electrons metaphors that have been tossed around so far: Yes you could duplicate my brain and there would effectively be a second Raymond "Soul" in existence. What's more, you could probably create a complex computer system (not biological at all) that also perfectly simulated the self-ness of Raymond Arnold. The self-ness of Raymond Arnold may be dependent on physical objects but not any particular physical object.
To the universe as a whole, it doesn't matter that both selfs are labeled Raymond Arnold. But it matters a great deal to the Raymond Arnolds in question. Considering that as far as I know the universe itself isn't conscious at all, the existence of pebbles and molecules and physical human bodies are far less "important" than the existence of Tres-defined Souls. (Important being defined as "how much somebody actually cares". All the physical stuff in the universe would be pretty worthless without some form of consciousness to appreciate it)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is going to take a Dollhouse turn, here, pretty quickly, I think.
I'm more than comfortable with the idea that a soul is the software that defines an individual's identity. But you take a serious risk trying to explain that since software can be moved from one computer to another without moving the electrons, the soul exists independent of the body. We do this by copying the software, not by moving it.
If you were to move a human soul to another receptacle by copying it, it wouldn't still be the same soul. Assuming the original still resides in its original body, it would be pretty upset if the new copy decided to cause it pain. (See "The Prestige"). This isn't the same concept as the eternal soul that supposedly exists independent of the body.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side note, the expression "move the electrons" is in any case meaningless. All you can do is copy the pattern of electron wavefunctions, with or without destruction of the original.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] Eaquae Legit:
quote:'m using "entelechial" because I find when I use "effective" it doesn't convey the meaning I want it to. It means an active effectiveness, as in to create an effect. Its antonym would perhaps be "symbolic"? As an example (and I apologise if this is unclear), when a Catholic priest intones the Eucharistic formula, he's not just saying that the bread and wine are symbolic of flesh and blood; the words make it happen, they effect it.
OK that helps me understand where you are coming from when you use that word. But looks at the way Jesus administered the Eucharist. He brake bread, blessed it, and said, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19. I'm partial to the notion that gospel ordinances ought to be done in a uniform manner, as people frequently tamper and change to suit their individual feelings and over time rituals can become completely different then their original intent. But what makes a combination of words have efficacy? Do the words themselves when spoken in a certain combination suddenly generate a result? I fully agree that a Christian ordinances must be done in the name of God, or it is to no effect, but that's not because I believe the phrase itself has power.
Yes, the combination of words produce the result, in the right circumstances. Since I'm not a priest, the Eucharistic invocation is ineffective if I say it. I've not been ordained to that office. Different situations require different words, and in the modern period, it's really only with Catholic and Orthodox sacraments and a handful of Protestant ordinances that it's even a question. But it used to be more widespread, potentially relevant in any situation if the occultist was a skilled enough rhetorician and orator.
quote:I don't like using the Eucharist as our platform as I (not to be disparaging to Catholics) believe transubstantiation is not correct. When protestants or Mormons take communion the bread and water is blessed and served to the congregation, and taken in remembrance of Christ's body and blood. I suppose you could argue that actually blessing bread and water and transforming bread and water are different ends by the same process.
I know. But the question of who is right or wrong (or who is apostate) is not something I'm keen to get into here. My original post was directed at the assertion that Christians never cast spells or invoked anything but the name of God. Historically, they did. They followed Jesus, they were wholly committed to Christianity, and their attempts were based in no small part on the gospel of John. There was no contradiction. Making all magic based on demonic powers is a relatively recent idea. If we can recognise each other as Christians today despite our differences in theology, then we are forced to admit the Christian-ness of pre-Enlightenment people as well.
quote:But the fact we speak our words at our ordinances to me is a function of the fact that when words are spoken we listen, and it unifies the group in a single purpose. There is no impropriety in not speaking when praying, a mute could bless the sacrament themselves in their minds and then partake.
In the past, people had problems thinking a (pre-lingual) mute could HAVE verbal thought. Since the development of signed languages, we've learned that deaf/mute people can and do think, and sign language is just as valid as spoken language.
I'm real sorry. I promise I will come back to this, but I have to get up early tomorrow so I'm going to cut it short for now. Hope there's something useful in there, for now!
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I have pebbles in a triangle, I can set up paperclips in the same sort of triangle; it does not follow that the triangle itself exists. You do not have to argue for a separate triangle-ness, you just have to make the observations "I measure this angle and that length, I measure this angle and that length... I get the same results for pebbles and paperclips". It doesn't follow that a triangle exists somewhere in Platonic idea-space! This is a canonical example of multiplying entities un-necessarily.
You brought up the "triangle-ness" example. I'm not sure if triangle-ness exists or where it exists if it does - I'm just going with your example.
But what I am saying is that a "triangle-ness" that is identical to a set of stones is far more limited (as far as what is logically possible about it) than a "triangle-ness" that is distinct from those stones. If it is identical to the stones, it must have exactly the same and no additional properties as the stones do. If it is distinct from the stones, even if it is dependent on the stones, there is at least the logical possibility that it could exist indepently and have properties that the stones do not have.
quote:Suppose I exactly duplicate your brain, down to quantum-mechanical wave functions (using, of course, my inexhaustible supply of handwavium to get around minor quibblers and obstructionists like that dilettante Heisenberg); are there now two "Tresopax souls" (or perhaps "Tresopax-nesses") in the universe?
I'm not sure how souls come into existence, or what would happen if you duplicated my brain. I would presume both of the new people would have separate souls, and both would act and think like me.
quote:I'm more than comfortable with the idea that a soul is the software that defines an individual's identity. But you take a serious risk trying to explain that since software can be moved from one computer to another without moving the electrons, the soul exists independent of the body. We do this by copying the software, not by moving it.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that souls are analogous to software, and I don't believe a soul can be copied in the way software can. Software (and hardware) came up as one of several examples I gave of things that are dependent on one another yet are distinct from one another.
quote:Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
I said I think I have strong evidence of souls, which I discussed earlier. I do not have strong earthly evidence that those souls can exist without bodies, although I believe they can.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
I said I think I have strong evidence of souls, which I discussed earlier.
You defined souls as being separate from the body.
Your strong evidence therefore must include evidence that they possess the properties you define them as possessing.
So where's that evidence?
Just start with Phineus Gage, please. What does your strong evidence tell you about the state of his soul after his accident?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being distinct from the body is part of my definition. Being separable from the body is not. See the above example of the auia, which is a physical thing. Or for instance, Aristotle did not believe the soul was separable from the body. ("The soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind" -Aristotle)
I do believe the soul is likely separable from the body, but I don't think it by definition must be.
quote:But what I am saying is that a "triangle-ness" that is identical to a set of stones is far more limited (as far as what is logically possible about it) than a "triangle-ness" that is distinct from those stones. If it is identical to the stones, it must have exactly the same and no additional properties as the stones do. If it is distinct from the stones, even if it is dependent on the stones, there is at least the logical possibility that it could exist indepently and have properties that the stones do not have.
Very well, you have identified a testable consequence of your theory. I suggest, however, that the experimental evidence falsifies it. In particular, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the "soul" in your sense of the word; there is no way to make a change in the "soul" without making a change in the brain, and vice-versa. These are not the properties of distinct objects.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Post from Oct. 26, 11:15 am:
quote:Being distinct from the body is part of my definition. Being separable from the body is not. See the above example of the auia, which is a physical thing. Or for instance, Aristotle did not believe the soul was separable from the body. ("The soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind" -Aristotle)
I do believe the soul is likely separable from the body, but I don't think it by definition must be.
Distinct is not the same as separate. My mistake for misreading you.
But quoting Aristotle is not "strong evidence" of anything, except what Aristotle thought.
What does the "strong evidence" of Phineas Gage's life tell you about the state of his soul after his accident?
Talking about triangles and stones is not "strong evidence". Strong evidence would be like "Examination with this scientifically based soulmeter shows that the souls of people with brain injuries remain unchanged". Or "scientific research has shown that it is impossible to give anyone sensations or perceptions (such as long term sensory deprivation) that would cause them to alter or lose their mental self-awareness."
That would be "strong evidence". Do you have any of it?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you are essentially defining "soul" here as a "sense of self?"
Not "sense of". It'd be your actual self, in the mental sense. If all you had was a sense of self, but no actual self, I would think that meant you had no soul.
quote:I suggest, however, that the experimental evidence falsifies it. In particular, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the "soul" in your sense of the word; there is no way to make a change in the "soul" without making a change in the brain, and vice-versa. These are not the properties of distinct objects.
How did you determine that you can't change one without the other? At a minimum, I'd think there are small ways to change the brain that would not effect my "self" or my soul at all.
quote:That would be "strong evidence". Do you have any of it?
You seem to be limiting "strong evidence" in ways that I am not. So, I don't think I have what you are terming strong evidence. You aren't going to find much clear evidence for the existence of something subjective and nonphysical if you limit what counts as evidence solely to objective, physical scientific evidence. For instance, I have no idea about the state of Phineas Gage's soul - I have no idea how I'd measure it, since I am not him.
I do have what I explained on page 1 of this thread - my own internal observations that I experience things, and that there is a "self" experiencing them.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the example of the person with a sense of self but no actual self is essentially impossible. If you had a sense of self but no actual self, who/what is possessing that sense?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have a sense of sight, but no self, who or what is possessing that sense? Now you're getting mired in words again. You have no idea what a 'self' is separate from your sense of it, and here you are trying to reason about it!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm lazy, though, so I don't do much pre-Gratian, hence the 1000 years.
