Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The quantum knows.
Yes, sorry.
Moreover one must understand non-corporeal properties such as intelligence, mind or soul as either a primary phenomenon or an epiphenomenon, a secondary phenomenon which can cause nothing to happen.
The worldview that “all that there is” is “matter in all its motions” demands that such things be epiphenomenal, i.e. only the corporeal can cause anything to happen. For instance, your thinking to press the “post” key was an illusion, it was actually the physical brain that did it.
Other worldviews disagree and assert that willfulness is a primary phenomenon which causes things to happen. For instance, the selection of a mate causes the offspring to have unique characteristics. Yet another example, a bird thrown off a building chooses to fly away.
Such worldviews are philosophy, they are also non-corporeals and they are directly related to how we “do” and understand science.
The way you used the word “mystical properties” - I presume you mean the “supernatural”. If so, we find ourselves at the false dichotomy. Where methodological naturalism prevails, the investigation seeks and thus can only arrive at a naturalistic conclusion. It is the only place it looks because naturalism is the presupposition to the investigation.
But it is a false dichotomy to say that “natural causes” and “supernatural causes” are mutually exclusive. In many if not most theologies (especially Christianity) – the natural was caused by the supernatural which is both transcendent and immanent. Finding a natural cause does not mean that the supernatural does not cause the natural cause, overarch the natural cause or imbue the natural cause.
But getting back to mysticism per se for a moment…
A more correct meaning of the term is divine knowledge. I speak a great deal about Spiritual revelation which is something that is probably intelligible only to those who have experienced it, i.e. Christian Spiritual revelation. Those who have never experienced it would likely deny that it exists.
But those of us who have experienced it know that it does not come from within our own reasoning or from sensory perception. That “Jesus Christ is Lord” is a Spiritual revelation which appears within us. From there, we receive many additional revelations which build on that foundation, which is the most certain knowledge we possess.
God the Father has revealed Himself in Christ, in the indwelling Spirit, in Scriptures and in His creation – which includes the physical and the spiritual, the heaven and the earth. So, yes, every time we Christians observe something in nature – whether corporeal or non-corporeal – whether formula, philosophy, agency or phenomenon – we see the hand of God.
A lot of scientists are Christian and hence have had at least one Spiritual revelation. They may not call it “mysticism” – but they too cannot miss the revelation of God in nature.
It's not that mystical properites need to apply to the domain of science, but rather that the context of everything the Christian learns about nature - or anything - is Christ Himself.
This great hierarchy of being - God, Man, World (nature/universe), Society - has likewise been understood from ancient times and across many cultures throughout history, albeit some never heard of, nor received, the revelation of Jesus Christ.
I'd hazard a guess, but its application to our friends RWP and js1138 would be pure speculation, and therefore not to be indulged.
Still, having said that, I am keenly aware that at least some people nowadays place their faith in science because they believe that it has the ability to explain the world without God. Our friend b_sharp expressed this idea very well in noting that (to paraphrase) as the sphere of science expands, the sphere of God shrinks. I think it's clear that this theme is evident in Richard Dawkin's public commentaries on his own work. For whatever reason, or maybe no reason at all, some folks are convinced that God is not necessary to human purposes at all, nor to the origin and structure of the Universe, nor to the very foundation of truth and reason.
If people are convinced in this manner, then how can they be reasoned with by folks of opposite worldview, who believe that, without God, the Universe could neither have come into existence, nor maintain itself as a Universe ever since? Etc. There are other dimensions to this issue, but these remarks are probably the most basic to our present concerns.
Whatever. I pray for God's grace and light on all of the parties to these debates. And I thank my friends for taking the time to write to me every now and then.
You don't need to guess. I am tired of having ascribed to naturalists the most idiotic caricatures of reductionist views, rather than an honest discussion of their actual arguments. I am tired of seeing the same old slurs against intellectuals like Pinker. I am tired of sanctimony.
If people are convinced in this manner, then how can they be reasoned with by folks of opposite worldview, who believe that, without God, the Universe could neither have come into existence, nor maintain itself as a Universe ever since? Etc. There are other dimensions to this issue, but these remarks are probably the most basic to our present concerns.
Me too, RWP, me too. And you have just given a splendid example, you splendid ol' grizzly bear from the GWN!
Have a good weekend, BB!
You know, I just had a silly thought. I was reminded of a Looney Tunes cartoon featuring Wile E. Coyote and Sheepdog. Every morning, the two of them show up at the sheep pasture, lunchboxes in hand, civilly greet each other, and punch into the time clock. Then they proceed to "contend with each other" all day long.
Eventually the five o'clock whistle blows. So Wile E. and SD, now-empty lunchboxes in hand, come back to the time clock, punch out, and very civilly exchange cordial goodbyes.
Next day, it all starts all over again. :^)
Even cartoons can be "true!" (Did you ever see the Simpsons one, where Homer gets "lost" in a higher dimension? Who says cartoons are just for kids! I'd say most of the Simpsons is inaccessible to children....)
Thanks for writing RWP!
The best cartoons are always written so children and adults can watch together. They just don't laugh at the same things.
One of my biggest regrets, now my youngest is 15 and won't be seen dead at a "kids' movie", is I have no legitimate excuse to go to G-rated movies any more (the last thing I persuaded him to see with me was the Incredibles). Until one of the older ones provides me with grandchildren, I'm stuck with DVDs.
A velvet glove with roll of pennies in it.. as delicately swiped to the cheek as any swiping I've even seen swiped..
The art of insult is NOT DEAD... about as lovely a piece of work as I've ever seen.. an apt too.. pure grace..
I have never liked that word talking about the real God..
For the real God is only mystical to those that DON'T know him.. or only know of him.. God is quite real to those that do.. I know its a sidebar but that word defames God in my experience.. A common word and expression but it chafes my hindquarters ever time.. On the other hand ALL ancient and modern gods(religions) were mystical.. thats why they were called Mystery Religions.. Reality is not a mystery.. There I said it, I'm done..
Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?
Designed by the almighty God and the proof is everywhere.
Indeed, the word "mysticism" - like the word "myth" - has managed to pick up some unpleasant intension - probably because both words are often used to describe malevolent or bizarre occults.
But of a truth, the word "mysticism" merely means divine knowledge, or more specifically, direct Spiritual knowledge - thus in Christian theology, the indwelling Spirit is called Christian mysticism. We have the mind of Christ.
Likewise a "myth" is secret speech, a lesson or teaching in story form. By using allegories, metaphors and other literary devices myths convey understanding where more direct language fails. Parables are like short myths. The "lesson" conveyed by a myth may be insignificant or profound.
I know.. I just don't like it(the word)... I'm not real hot on the word God either...LoooL.. Seems so impersonal.. I use them both but they both seem be missing something, I prefer other words.. talking about you know who.. d;-) There are other words that crawl my nape too.. Like saying orientated instead of oriented... Yeah I'm a little nutz..
Let's pretend it doesn't really mean occult placemarker
I have a long list of words which set off "red flags" to me - most of them because they are mean-spirited or prejudicial. For instance, in my view, words like “liar” and “fool” say more about the speaker than the subject.
I hope you won't have too wait too long, RWP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.