Atheist Crazy? Reductionist Science? Sorry, Alan. What you are talking about is what is known as Science, period. You may have decided for yourself from your "Factor X" perspective that "soul" doesn't mean what I think it does, but what you are decrying is science, and to rebut my judgement of your position as non-scientific by attacking science, while pretending you are still operating within its confines, strikes me as the sort of disingenuous line of circular reasoning presented so readily by Intelligent Design folks...no, of course they don't mean Creation, by God...just something that looks, sounds, and smells just like it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's the only real rebuttal that I got from your position. That's a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. You ignored my observation that you were throwing out established science by saying that you start in observation. Yes, so did cavemen, and it took 6000 years to go from "God make the clouds go boom" to modern science. Guess how? By figuring out the parts, and the organization of those parts.
You're welcome to take an unscientific view, just be honest about it. Don't dick around and try to act like its something other than what it is. On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 23, 9:33 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > A. There has never, ever, in the history of science, been such a > thing > > > > proven as a spirit or soul. Feel free to believe in them if you like, > but > > > > it's not something any legitimate biologist would say. > > > > > We look around and notice there are living and nonliving things. What > > > is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call it 'soul'. If at > > > that point our 'legitimate biologist' want to ignore the formal cause > > > of the observed difference, and study the parts of the organism in > > > isolation, he is welcome to it. But unscientific? Why would you say > > > that? > > > > First, why would we call the difference between life and non-life soul, > when > > there is an established scientific principle that life rises from > > organization? > > Established established principle that life arises from organization? > No, that is the stipulation of reductionism. > > > You completely throw out all of science to make that leap to > > begin with. > > I begin in observation. I look around, I notice there are living and > nonliving things. What is the cause of this observed difference? > let us call it the X factor. Don't go all atheist crazy over this term > soul; it is not what you think it is. > > >Then you make an error in scientific thought to state that this > > is ignoring a "formal cause of the observed difference"...not at all! The > > entire discipline of origins science is based on that observed > difference, > > and never once has a "soul" been offered in origins science as an > > explanation. > > Reductionist science is based on a certain way of studying this > difference -- of breaking the whole into parts, studying the parts, > ignoring the whole. They are welcome to that line of inquiry. It will > of course miss any effects of the X factor, defined to be the cause of > the observed difference between living and nonliving things. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
