tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post113678882685240967..comments2024-03-28T11:03:41.050-05:00Comments on Unlocked Wordhoard: Living in the Material WorldDr. Richard Scott Nokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-74655135041642950182007-01-11T12:09:00.000-06:002007-01-11T12:09:00.000-06:00A piece of your post is quoted at the evangelical ...A piece of your post is quoted at the evangelical outpost. I commented on it there but thought you might be interested too. I said this:<br /><br /><i>One possible response to Nokes' question (How can we imagine the non-material?) is that the question assumes something false. It assumes that we do imagine the non-material and then asks how, if materialism is true, this is possible. Perhaps the materialist ought to say that in fact we do not imagine the nonmaterial.<br /><br />Granted some say what the nonmaterial is not. They say - of course - that it is nonmaterial. They say too that it is nonspatial and nontemporal. But none of these (indeed no merely negative predication) give us any positive image of the nonmaterial and thus do not allow us to imagine it.<br /><br />Of course some say more about the non-material than that it is not this or that. For instance, some describe God in terms that seems positive. But expect the materialist to say that, in our description of God, we make use of only terms that have their genesis in the senses and thus are taken from our perception of the material world. For example, it's said that God has power over all things. But where do we derive our idea of power? What is its source? It comes to us from the senses, and (so says the materialist) our senses reveal to us only the material world.<br /><br />Thus expect the materialist to say that when we predicate something positive of the non-material, what in fact we've done is simply trasfer characteristics of material things to the immaterial. We thus have no independent idea of the non-material, and all our attempts to imagine it simply replicate in some way (some of the) characteristics of the material world.</i>Dr. Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00209597695197799059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1137015803415336952006-01-11T15:43:00.000-06:002006-01-11T15:43:00.000-06:00Professor Nokes,There was an interesting article i...Professor Nokes,<BR/><BR/>There was an interesting article in last month's Atlantic along the same lines titled "Is God an Accident?" by Paul Bloom. Bloom's argument, and thesis, are not the same as yours, but the question is the same. How do we come to think of the supernatural in a material world.Christian Lindkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078403387362505754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1136923151819765892006-01-10T13:59:00.000-06:002006-01-10T13:59:00.000-06:00I think the Madonna put it best with: "I'm a mater...I think the Madonna put it best with: "I'm a material girl in a material world".<BR/><BR/>But seriously - being human means always (almost as a reflex)imagines and fills in gaps beyond one's immediate experiences - every time I hear a story or reads a book I add extra, personal, material (imagining what a character looks like - and being disappointed when the movie version is so different! - or picturing a scene).<BR/><BR/>For example, I have never actually been to America but I have a large network of references in my head which come under the heading 'America'- which is, for me, an imagined, rather than in anyway a 'real' thing.<BR/><BR/>To invoke the 'supernatural' may be to make an artificial division in this kind of process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1136865822674618092006-01-09T22:03:00.000-06:002006-01-09T22:03:00.000-06:00Luke,I would disagree. Your scenario assumes two t...Luke,<BR/><BR/>I would disagree. Your scenario assumes two things that it should not. First, it assumes that it is easier for a caveman to assume supernatural rather than natural causes. In a completely natural paradigm, theorizing about a supernatural world is extraordinarily difficult speculative thought. Unless you reject Plato, Kuhn, and the line of thinkers between, I'm not sure how to get out of the idea that without non-natural experiences (shadows for Plato, anomolies for Kuhn) a thinker comes up with the idea of the supernatural.<BR/><BR/>The second is the assumption that thought about the supernatural takes up less time than thought about the natural. In my experience, humans spend a great deal more time pondering the supernatural causes rather than the natural causes. If someone is killed when a tree falls on him, does his family seek meaning in that event from a botonist or a priest?<BR/><BR/>And, if I may be so bold, may I also point out that your scenario suggests that those with "zero belief in the supernatural" are deep thinkers easily "distracted by his logical ponderings" while the "spiritual caveman" merely follows instinct without critical scrutiny? I'm sure that this prejudice was simply an error in phrasing, rather than your intention.Dr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.com