Christian Metaphysics: Is the spiritual realm the world of ideas?

[patrick]

I've been trying to grasp recently where Christianity fits in in terms of other schools of thought, and thus far it seems usually formulated as a type of Dualism. I am not sure where things are or aren't open to interpretation, but it seemed plausible to me to think that one school of thought within Christianity might be to assert that the spiritual is literally the world of ideas, thus making things such as the laws of mathematics and philosophies (among other things) not only part of what we know as "spiritual" (as opposed to the material), but the way in which we change or "navigate" the spiritual, more or less.

I perhaps haven't chosen my words well here (I feel I've neglected an emotional aspect here that I'm not sure how to incorporate), but hopefully I am getting my point across somewhat. I am largely curious whether this is similar to a more well-substantiated viewpoint as I haven't had this view here for long, though I don't mind if this thread goes in other directions at the moment.

[Kurieuo]

There are diverse opinions.

Many Christian philosophers are ontologically Monistic.
On a very foundational level they believe Idealism to be true (everything reduced to mind).

As a biased introduction to the debate watch this video:


Double slit experiment is often stated as a piece of scientific evidence that falsifies materialism:


As for specific thought on the mind-body debate, Thomas Aquinas is the one popularly discussed.
I'm sure there are better articles, but you might find Ed Feser's article here interesting (if you have some background):
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2015 ... alist.html

You might also be interested to read a paper I wrote on substance dualism about 10 years ago now. Although I now very tentatively hold to my position advocated there.

As for where I stand right now (if you're even interested)...
My feelings are that I need to read, think through and reconcile some ideas.
I've seen limitations upon substance-property language (talk of physical and mental substances) -- which the whole mind-body debate seems to largely surround. A new language is required I think, where talking isn't done in "substance" language, but rather more in terms of potentiality-actuality where raw existence itself is foundational. What do I mean?

The main issue I see, isn't conscious experience (something I believe substance dualism explains well),
but rather explaining how we can truly be independently conscious possessing "free will".
We all intuitive believe "the self" -- an "I" -- exists such that we cannot escape it in talk or while writing.
So it is quite counter-intuitive then to call such an illusion, like physicalist and strict idealistic positions must.
If reduced to what is physical, then all we are and all our decisions are simply the outcome of atoms and chemical reactions or the sort.
Similarly, if reduce to something like God's mind, then how can we exist separate?

The only way out I believe is to drop the idea of our being this or that substance (physical, mental or both), and talk in terms of existence and potentialities that can be actualised. Ontology is foundationally "Existence" itself, not about this or that substance. That's where I'm leaning.

I'm not sure if such a position can find some reconciliation with substance dualism -- where our dualistic nature is foundationally derived from "Existence". But, here I am... babbling on and publicly writing out my current thinking. Hopefully I've not confused. My thoughts are still in development.

[patrick]

The main issue I see, isn't conscious experience (something I believe substance dualism explains well),
but rather explaining how we can truly be independently conscious possessing "free will".
We all intuitive believe "the self" -- an "I" -- exists such that we cannot escape it in talk or while writing.
So it is quite counter-intuitive then to call such an illusion, like physicalist and strict idealistic positions must.
If reduced to what is physical, then all we are and all our decisions are simply the outcome of atoms and chemical reactions or the sort.
Similarly, if reduce to something like God's mind, then how can we exist separate?

The only way out I believe is to drop the idea of our being this or that substance (physical, mental or both), and talk in terms of existence and potentialities that can be actualised. Ontology is foundationally "Existence" itself, not about this or that substance. That's where I'm leaning.

I'm not sure if such a position can find some reconciliation with substance dualism -- where our dualistic nature is foundationally derived from "Existence". But, here I am... babbling on and publicly writing out my current thinking. Hopefully I've not confused. My thoughts are still in development.

You haven't confused, although I would be interested in unpacking in what way (or perhaps better to what degree) we need to be independent for free will to exist. My views are by and large less developed than yours I think, but I would be inclined to argue that the body fuels the consciousness, which gradually develops a free will over the body as we bend our bodies to our will over time. I'll have to dig up the neuroscientific studies for why I believe this caveat to be warranted scientifically, but this view is also in line with Gurdjieffian teachings, which if I recall correctly is a form of fallen Christianity (i.e. building upon some Christian teachings while discarding the core beliefs). I'll have to see if this interpretation violates the actual teachings.

As for existence, the idea of doing away with talk of substances in favor of potentialities and actualities seems quite warranted to me. In terms of consciousness, this sounds much closer to the idea that we are creatures of habit, for instance. We actualize a potential into the body, which leaves its mark on the body thus forming a habit (and I guess this is where Thomas Aquinas would have said only humans have this potential).

I am not entirely sure about the quantum physics video you quoted. I need to look more into the quantum entanglement explanation, as I believe this is the alternative theory that most physicists would prefer. I do think quantum mechanics is relevant here though, and was actually thinking of bringing it up, as it seems to create very unsatisfactory explanations when sticking to strict Materialism.

Thanks for sharing all of this. I'd been meaning to read up on Aquinas too, so that was very helpful. I know I started sharing my own ideas about what you gave but I'm aware all here is rather tentative.

[patrick]

I think these sources are relevant to the issue I brought up earlier:

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evide ... -free-will

[Libet] concluded that we have no free will as far as the initiation of our movements are concerned, but that we had a kind of cognitive "veto" to prevent the movement at the last moment; we can't start it, but we can stop it.

Mark 7:14-23

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

So I guess what'd be more accurate is to say that we have free-will regarding what we put out, so long as we enforce constant vigilance of our reaction in response to events.

[PaulSacramento]

Christianity is definitely NOT dualist.
The material world and the immaterial ( spiritual if you will) are not opposites but complimentary different "realms".
It is not a case of the world being bad and heaven being good and looking forward to the world no longer existing and such.
No.
God made everything and everything was good, is good.
The material world is simply in need ( and going through the process) of redemption.

[abelcainsbrother]

As far as I'm concerned St Thomas Aquinas was definately confronting materialism in the 13th century and so it is just not right to call him a materialist.The fact is that Aquinas was just as right back then as he is today.Sometimes people can get so technical that we lose the simple but brilliant message being laid out that totally defeats materialism unless a person uses their own imagination that defies the facts of logic,reason and reality.What people who reject God do is appeal to things that are outside logic,reason and reality in order to deny God.You will always hear and see a materialist thinking up things that defy logic,reason and reality yet actually believing it is possible,without any evidence to back it up,just pure imagination that all people who deny God do.It is easier for them to think things are possible that defies the facts that reality screams out to us than to believe in the God of the bible who can create universes easy and is eternal.

No materialist can get around these truths without appealing to things that defy the facts of logic,reason and reality.Because of God All things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence.Infinite regression cannot be broken.

Another problem I see with the discussion is that once you accept science which is based on materialism it can cause you problems with Aquinas's message as you cannot blend them together and get the same results.You either have to go with Aquinas or science based on materialism.I hate to say it but this means if you accept evolution in any form it can cause you problems with Aquinas's brilliant message.However because materialists are going on pure imagination,appealing to it,while having no evidence behind it no matter what science comes up with,no matter what theory,it will still point to God as the cause and we see this today.No matter what theory science comes up with based on materialism it still points to God as the cause and this has not changed for about 150 years despite all of the materialism rhetoric we hear about in science.

[patrick]

Another problem I see with the discussion is that once you accept science which is based on materialism it can cause you problems with Aquinas's message as you cannot blend them together and get the same results.You either have to go with Aquinas or science based on materialism.I hate to say it but this means if you accept evolution in any form it can cause you problems with Aquinas's brilliant message.However because materialists are going on pure imagination,appealing to it,while having no evidence behind it no matter what science comes up with,no matter what theory,it will still point to God as the cause and we see this today.No matter what theory science comes up with based on materialism it still points to God as the cause and this has not changed for about 150 years despite all of the materialism rhetoric we hear about in science.

See, the problem I have with this line of thinking is that it suggests we should ignore science when it has been quite effective in manipulating the things it claims to deal with. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the whole story though. Newtonian mechanics still works perfectly well for predicting most basic trajectories of motion, but it's less correct even from the standpoint of modern scientific theories. It should be possible to come up with hypotheses drawing upon the Bible that even science would find evidence for (if they're willing to test them).

I agree with the rest of what you said though.

[Kurieuo]

I think these sources are relevant to the issue I brought up earlier:

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evide ... -free-will

[Libet] concluded that we have no free will as far as the initiation of our movements are concerned, but that we had a kind of cognitive "veto" to prevent the movement at the last moment; we can't start it, but we can stop it.

Hi plouiswork,

I do not believe that it is has been demonstrated we don't have free will.
The argument being made based upon the science doesn't really follow to a conclusion of no free will.

I'm happy for you to take me through the argument more clearly, if you feel I've misunderstood it.

The argument is something like this.
Brain activity occurs in the lead up to a decision, and this activity can be pulled apart to figure out with up to 90% certainty what a person will do, therefore we don't have free will. That is, basically what's being said, right? But, how does this conclusion follow?
Consider if you could determine with 100% precision based upon lead up brain activity what a person will do.
Have you changed "their" decision? Have you overridden "their" choice?

You know, it's a similar argument made against God's foreknowledge and our free will.
It is claimed that God knowing everything before we do it means we have no true choice to do other than that which God knows.
Yet, there is no real violation of our free choice. Regardless of who can tell the future, whether it's some fortuneteller or God, there is no obvious correlation between our decision to act this way or that and someone's foreknowledge.
Something more is needed, right? Like our actual decision being overridden.

If I'm waiting for a few minutes before sending off an email, that may remain in my head in more or less conscious/unconscious state until I send it off. A neuroscientist might be able to evaluate all this lead up brain activity (BP), to know that I will send the email. But, "who" made the decision to send the email? There is something missing in the argument which says I had no free will because of the BP.

Which to me raises the question, what is activating this brain activity? What triggers this readiness potential -- "bereitschaftspotential" (BP)?
What I find fascinating is that it appears to show the mind being causally connected to the brain rather than identical to.
Materialists say that we are our brains. On the other hand, it looks to me like there is something more going on in it all.
Is the brain determining our action before we act, or have we determined what we will do and our brain is firing off signals accordingly?

[patrick]

@Kurieuo: yeah I think I'd have to agree. Even if our actions can be predicted, I guess we still do technically have free-will.

I came across an article about physical idealism that I think you'll find interesting. It's pretty dense, but the basic idea sounds similar your own.

http://www.physicalism.com/

Anyhow, I'm inclined to side with a more or less idealist approach for the time being, the monistic view you mentioned earlier. Thanks again for the input.