SOUL and SUBSTANCE: Are All Opposites Part of a Unified Whole?

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Friday, March 14, 2008

Are All Opposites Part of a Unified Whole?

This discussion began on the Post & Comments under "An Open Question to Atheists and Agnostics). Amarendra (http://www.blogger.com/profile/14962516983248107277) had started a discussion about his opinion that all things that appear opposite or contradictory are, in fact, part of a unified whole. He said this, in that section: "God is the fundamental essence of all things! (That makes omnipresence and omniscience possible. Once you have omniscience, then is omnipotency far behind?). Also, just like a finger is part of the whole, all opposites (like light and darkness) make the whole supreme being."

In one sense, those statements are a lot like a particular passage in the Bible, where the apostle Paul uses the human body as an analogy for the "body" of Christian believers all over the world.
14 Yes, the body has many different parts, not just one part. 15 If the foot says, “I am not a part of the body because I am not a hand,” that does not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, “I am not part of the body because I am not an eye,” would that make it any less a part of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear? Or if your whole body were an ear, how would you smell anything? 18 But our bodies have many parts, and God has put each part just where he wants it. 19 How strange a body would be if it had only one part! 20 Yes, there are many parts, but only one body. 21 The eye can never say to the hand, “I don’t need you.” The head can’t say to the feet, “I don’t need you.” 22 In fact, some parts of the body that seem weakest and least important are actually the most necessary. 23 And the parts we regard as less honorable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect those parts that should not be seen, 24 while the more honorable parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together such that extra honor and care are given to those parts that have less dignity. 25 This makes for harmony among the members, so that all the members care for each other. 26 If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts are glad. [1 Corinthians 12:14-26 (NLT)]

There appears to be a significant difference, however, between saying that apparent opposites are part of a unified whole, and saying that God is included in (but never outside) that "whole." If one isn't careful to make a distinction (and perhaps Amarendra doesn't intend to make one), it sounds as if all of humanity is IN God and is EQUAL TO God. Even if there is disagreement on how literally one should interpret the Bible, all Judeo-Christian denominations agree that, although God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He is also far superior to even the most "perfect" human being. The Bible indicates that God can exist without humanity--in fact, He did exist without humanity for eons. Humanity, however, could not have come into existence without God. (Let's leave out, for the present, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the Bible itself. It is still The Book upon which all Judeo-Christian religions are based: Judaism being based on the Old Testament, and Christianity on both Old and New Testaments.) Here is a scripture passages (from the Bible) that illustrates my point.
(1) 1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He existed in the beginning with God. 3 God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him. 4 The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. [John 1:1-5 (NLT)]--Note that the author is using the "Word" to mean Jesus in his pre-incarnation state (i.e., before Jesus came to earth as the Messiah).

What this seems to bring us to is the deeper question of who (or what) is God? Is God a force or power? Is God essentially the human soul in a perfect form? Or is God a spiritual being who is separate and distinct from the human race, but can influence the human spirit and the universe itself in profound ways?

5 comments:

Amarendra said...: First reporting an error: when clicking on the title of this new post, it still takes us to http://soulandsubstance.blogspot.com/2008/02/open-question-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html.
Many readers will be missing your new post, especially those who click on hyper links to this post, for example, from blogcatalog.
....................................
But, the work continues...

Thank You, soulandsubstance, for continuing this discussion! I am sure, many would benefit from your enquiry. So, here I am at your service again:

On "all of humanity is IN God and is EQUAL TO God": Since you love NT, it is interesting to see a chapter on unity (4:1–16) in Epistle to the Ephesians:
Specifically, 4:6: one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

That seems to him "equal-ness" :-))

On "The Bible indicates that God can exist without humanity--in fact, He did exist without humanity for eons.":

It is true that God always existed:-) But, we keep forgetting the time factor;-)

Our mutual friend, Einstein, helpfully, showed us that Time is relative - so from the perspective of absolute truth, "start" and "end" do not make sense - all moments are simultaneous! One interesting proposition on this subject is by Julian Barbour in the book "The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics". Read the editorial and user reviews at ["http://www.amazon.com/End-Time-Next-Revolution-Physics/dp/0195145925"] for a thought provoking discussion.

Having removed the "Time" constraint, one realizes that MORE fundamental to CREATION is the concept of a beginning-less "EXISTENCE" - in sync with what the
Bible says, "the Word ALREADY EXISTED". God and Existence (including humanity) SIMPLY Exists! ALL of it NOW! Thus, the phrase "God without humanity"
becomes redundant!

Like you, Peter Russell (http://www.peterrussell.com/pete.php) has also been straddling both worlds and he believes "Science and religion often seem poles
apart–and in many ways they are. But I believe the two can, and will eventually be, united; and their meeting point will be human consciousness."

[http://www.peterrussell.com/SP/AGNT.php]

In the realm of consciousness the phrase "God and humanity" is fundamentally understood as UNMANIFEST and MANIFEST (material world including humanity)!

Both are in a kind of dynamic equilibrium with each other.

God as the fundamental essence is referred to as the UNMANIFEST (available everywhere and always as BOUNDLESS POTENTIAL). Probably, Bible also supports
this because an interpretation [http://www.learnthebible.org/s_o_john1_1-5_jesus_christ_as_the_word_of_god.htm] says " Why is Jesus called the Word? As the Word, Jesus is (1) an expression of the unseen God (John 1:18)".

Note the word "unseen". That does not necessarily TOSS OUT the concept of a Personal God - there could be races "superior" to humans out there and many "Personal Gods" could also exist. But, the "UNSEEN" factor, probably, tosses out the concept of a "Personal God" being the ULTIMATE TRUTH!

Since, all of this is very abstract, I sincerely hope that, instead of confusing people, this discussion helps each of us reach our truths.

In a way, all your statements are TRUE! The question is, can we boldly DIG DEEPER and discover MORE fundamental truths?

An interesting story by Rev. F. Lee Thompson [http://www.churchoftruth.org/articles/christ-the-logos.html]:
There is an ancient legend that tells of the new arrival of a soul at Heaven’s Gates. The soul knocked. A voice on the other side of the Gates said, "Who is there?"

"It is I.", said the new arrival. "You are not just that.", said the voice on the other side. "Go and contemplate; when you know, return." A great deal of time went by before the soul returned to knock at the Gates. "Who is there?", said the voice on the other side. "It is I, a Son of God.", said the soul. "You are that, but you are so much more. Go and contemplate; when you know, return.", said the voice. An even greater time passed before the soul returned to knock at the Gates. "Who is there?" once again asked the voice. "It is you.", replied the soul. The Gates swung wide and the soul entered Heaven.

The Rev. goes on to say, "That ancient legend points up an ultimate state of awareness we must all eventually come to in our spiritual evolution."

So, how to access to this "ultimate state of awareness"? The enlightened ones tell us to Sit STILL now. Be silent. In YOUR EXPERIENCE, what is at the BACKGROUND of all things that are
changing? Is there an unchanging WITNESS to all of this? Mind is an instrument that you own. Who owns that instrument? Who is that "I"?

Many have conducted this self-enquiry, unmindful of what others were saying, and they opened-up to their innermost experiences and, hence, understood it all.

They experienced GOD and, that, of course, is the realm of "consciousness", which is a topic where science has not yet made significant inroads and religion
"limits" its power by confusing it with interpretations of scriptures.

Happy Hunting!

Thanks, again, for providing the space to share all of this.; March 16, 2008 at 2:11 PM
LucyS said...: First, I am going to figure out how to fix the url. Then I'll respond to the substance of what Amarendra said. I'll be back........; March 17, 2008 at 12:42 PM
LucyS said...: Well, I think it is fixed. Now, on to the discussion. Once again, I value this open discussion. I think the crucial difference between the Judaeo-Christian view of God and the concept of God as one (unified) with humanity is in the chapter you quoted from Ephesians: "One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." The Christian view is that God is over man in terms of righteousness, power, understanding, and "lifespan." It does not seem logical to assume that just because God is always in man that the reverse must also be true--that man is always in God, or that man even wants to be in God. If God is light and goodness and love and so forth, the fact that there is darkness and evil and hate does not mean that they, too, are part of God. The Bible is quite clear that God permits evil to exist for reasons He does not always share with us and that Satan, who is a personification of evil, was originally an angel, created by God, who was cast out of heaven because he wanted to BE God. (I can give these scripture references if anyone is interested.); March 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Alexander said...: Oh, how I pray the non-believers in our group can appreciate Easter...not as some holiday date on a calendar...but as a time of reflection...knowing that Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead so that we can share in His glory...

...I am as sure of this, by the grace of God, as I am that many of us will get heartburn from that Easter Sunday brunch some will be attending! :)

Happy Easter Everyone!; March 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM
LucyS said...: Thank you, Alexander. Just a reminder, though. Although I fully appreciate the strength and importance of personal convictions, this blog is geared toward a discussion of specific topics, with the overall goal of understanding each other's paradigms. I would love to hear your input in this regard.; March 22, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Post a Comment

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Friday, March 14, 2008

Are All Opposites Part of a Unified Whole?

5 comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS