prominent neuroscience folk who don't believe mind is just the product of brain activity

[henry quirk]

It would be nice if Henry can answer those questions

Since you asked: I think a person is a Thomistic hylomorph, body and soul, co-equal.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If there's an adult response there, someone will comment on it I'm sure.

[Belinda]

It would be nice if Henry can answer those questions

Since you asked: I think a person is a Thomistic hylomorph, body and soul, co-equal.

I can understand the form of a body is its soul i.e. its form , until
I wonder
*at which stage of evolution of homo sapiens was the form of homo sapiens definitive of homo sapiens. Was Neanderthal man ,or Australopithecus , definitive of hominid form and if not why not

* at which organisation of matter :cell: atom: tissue: live: dead: inorganic : organic is the form definitive of the soul.

* at which stage of any evolving organism's life, e.g. a dragonfly, is the definitive form of that life. Were you a hylomorph, Henry, when there was no you but only a part of the body of an adult female?

Henry it's not possible to be a deist and a Thomist hylomorph. You are a theist.

[henry quirk]

I can understand the form of a body is its soul

That sounds more like Aristotle's hylomorphism than Aquinas's. The Thomsitc offshoot: every *person is a composite of matter and soul (or, information, if you prefer) with the soul as the organizing, principle of the matter, and the matter as the means of the soul's actualization. A person is the amalgam of these two very different, equally important, things.

Were you a hylomorph, Henry, when there was no you but only a part of the body of an adult female?

Yes, I was a person when I was in the womb, fed by, protected by, her body, but not part of her body.

Henry it's not possible to be a deist and a Thomist hylomorph.

I see no conflict between a hands off Creator and that He made us (set in motion the process for us to be) persons (Thomistic hylomorphs, libertarian free wills, morally discerning according to an objective measure) before He retired to the Celestial Pub (all that creatin' makes a deity thirsty).




*not homo sapiens or Neanderthal man or Australopithecus...you see the difference, yes?

[iambiguous]

"Installed in our heads"

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

What difference does it make how you interpret the Deist God, what you say about Him and/or what you believe about Him if you cannot establish His actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" His existence in "worlds of words".
 
In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

Also, from AI:

"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus." wiki


Note to IC:

What's your take on this? Might it be possible that come Judgment Day, the Christian God will make a distinction between those Deists who at least embraced the teachings of Jesus and those who did not?


Note to henry:

How about it? Do you embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

[henry quirk]

"Installed in our heads"

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

What difference does it make how you interpret the Deist God, what you say about Him and/or what you believe about Him if you cannot establish His actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None.

Of course, B didn't talk about the Deist God, she didn't say anything about Him or what anyone other than herself believes about Him.

"Installed in our heads" is a picturesque way of saying that we evolved naturally though natural selection. I do not know whether or not Henry believes the creator to be a person but I certainly do not. And I am in no danger of mistaking personification for personhood.
I am sorry if there are still clergymen who preach to a captive flock that they have a loving heavenly Father who will intervene in his own natural laws to save them from natural disasters , but such is not the fault of deists.

She was attributing a construct -- Installed in our heads -- to the wrong person. I corrected her.

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" His existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

Also, from AI:

"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus." wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

Note to IC:

What's your take on this? Might it be possible that come Judgment Day, the Christian God will make a distinction between those Deists who at least embraced the teachings of Jesus and those who did not?

I wouldn't hold my breath waitin' on his response, but -- hey -- he might surprise us.

Note to henry:

How about it? Do you embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I admire them, but, no, I don't follow them. I'm not particularly compassionate or forgiving, and I won't turn the other cheek.

[iambiguous]

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

What difference does it make how you interpret the Deist God, what you say about Him and/or what you believe about Him if you cannot establish His actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None.

Surely, those Deists who do believe in an afterlife, who do believe in immortality and salvation are not going to agree with that. It would be like particular Christians claiming that how you interpret the teachings of Christ, or what you say and believe about Him doesn't matter come Judgement Day. Or so it seems to me.

Unless, perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "none".

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" [its] existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.

That would only make sense, in my view, if scientists and philosophers continue to be stumped regarding both the human brain's capacity and its limitations. In fact, that is why so many religionists come back to a God, the God, their God in the first place. That is their own explanation for free will. Though, sure, others take a leap of faith [philosophically] to free will. We don't know if we have it but we live our lives acting as though we do. Because, in fact, that may well be the case.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, that's just not good enough for those like IC. On the contrary, he [and so many others] seem adamant that only True Christians can interpret, say and believe what they do about God/Jesus Christ and expect to actually be saved rather than left behind.

Also, from AI:
"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus."  wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

It just seems to me that if the Deist God did create men and women to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" that would not -- could not? -- be interpreted reasonably as meaning whatever each of us as individuals comes to believe is reasonable and natural. In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein given a No God world. 

Also, the part where some religious denominations claim their own God is omniscient. That in and of itself is seen as profoundly problematic by many in regard to free will.

[Belinda]

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

What difference does it make how you interpret the Deist God, what you say about Him and/or what you believe about Him if you cannot establish His actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None.

Of course, B didn't talk about the Deist God, she didn't say anything about Him or what anyone other than herself believes about Him.

"Installed in our heads" is a picturesque way of saying that we evolved naturally though natural selection. I do not know whether or not Henry believes the creator to be a person but I certainly do not. And I am in no danger of mistaking personification for personhood.
I am sorry if there are still clergymen who preach to a captive flock that they have a loving heavenly Father who will intervene in his own natural laws to save them from natural disasters , but such is not the fault of deists.

She was attributing a construct -- Installed in our heads -- to the wrong person. I corrected her.

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" His existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

Also, from AI:

"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus." wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

Note to IC:

What's your take on this? Might it be possible that come Judgment Day, the Christian God will make a distinction between those Deists who at least embraced the teachings of Jesus and those who did not?

I wouldn't hold my breath waitin' on his response, but -- hey -- he might surprise us.

Note to henry:

How about it? Do you embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I admire them, but, no, I don't follow them. I'm not particularly compassionate or forgiving, and I won't turn the other cheek.

In answer to both Iambiguous and Henry, the deists' and the theists' God began everything which we call "nature" . Where the deist and the theist differ is the deist does not think God maintains nature to this day but left the world to get on with it without Him.
Henry says he is Thomist .Thomas Aquinas Christianised Aristotle's hylomorphic idea. Christians think God stays around arranging events and maintaining the world after the initial creation.

Henry has said he does not follow the teaching of Jesus, as he, Henry, is neither compassionate or forgiving. I think Henry implies he can be a deist without endorsing compassion and forgiveness. If so, I agree . However he cannot both be a Thomist and not endorse compassion and forgiveness as Thomas Aquinas was Christian. I guess Henry is honestly claiming he falls short of the compassion and forgiveness of Jesus. Henry, of course you do! You are not JC. Nobody is!
Henry quoted :

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus." wiki

I accept. Thomas Aquinas however believed in the divinity of Jesus.

Henry claims the foetus inside its mother is a separate person from its mother. H also claims he is not a political man. Those two claims mean that at least Henry is not one of those uncharming individuals who attack women outside abortion clinics and agitate against a woman's right to her own body.

[henry quirk]

What difference does it make how you interpret the Deist God, what you say about Him and/or what you believe about Him if you cannot establish His actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None.

Surely, those Deists who do believe in an afterlife, who do believe in immortality and salvation are not going to agree with that. It would be like particular Christians claiming that how you interpret the teachings of Christ, or what you say and believe about Him doesn't matter come Judgement Day. Or so it seems to me.

Unless, perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "none".

No, you got it. In the absence of proof everyone accepts, there will be disagreement. As I say: people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief. Even between strains of Christianity there's disagreement. The whole saved by faith alone vs saved by works thing is an example. So, it really does make no difference except to the folks invested in the argument.

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" [its] existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.

That would only make sense, in my view, if scientists and philosophers continue to be stumped regarding both the human brain's capacity and its limitations. In fact, that is why so many religionists come back to a God, the God, their God in the first place. That is their own explanation for free will. Though, sure, others take a leap of faith [philosophically] to free will. We don't know if we have it but we live our lives acting as though we do. Because, in fact, that may well be the case.

Which is why it does makes sense to say It makes no difference at all. Scientists and philosophers are stumped and neither seem to be movin' forward in their investigations. So, we're all left with our leaps of faith.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, that's just not good enough for those like IC. On the contrary, he [and so many others] seem adamant that only True Christians can interpret, say and believe what they do about God/Jesus Christ and expect to actually be saved rather than left behind.

Okay.

Also, from AI:
"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus."  wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

It just seems to me that if the Deist God did create men and women to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" that would not -- could not? -- be interpreted reasonably as meaning whatever each of us as individuals comes to believe is reasonable and natural. In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein given a No God world.

And still interpreting is what we do, deists I mean. Proofs about God's nature and purpose are not accessible today, and the evidences are subject to interpretation. Nature is not fully understood and reason is finite and sometimes flawed.

Also, the part where some religious denominations claim their own God is omniscient. That in and of itself is seen as profoundly problematic by many in regard to free will.

Yeah. Mannie, for example, has his workaround on that, I have mine, and someone else will offer a variation of our workarounds or sumthin' quite different from either.

[henry quirk]

he cannot...be a Thomist

I'm not a Thomist, and Thomism and Thomistic Hylomorphism are not synonymous.

H also claims he is not a political man.

I never claimed that.

Henry is not one of those uncharming individuals who attack women outside abortion clinics and agitate against a woman's right to her own body.

No, I don't attack women at clinics or anywhere else. And I advocate for the natural rights of everyone, includin' the baby in the womb.

[Belinda]

I can understand the form of a body is its soul

That sounds more like Aristotle's hylomorphism than Aquinas's. The Thomsitc offshoot: every *person is a composite of matter and soul (or, information, if you prefer) with the soul as the organizing, principle of the matter, and the matter as the means of the soul's actualization. A person is the amalgam of these two very different, equally important, things.

Were you a hylomorph, Henry, when there was no you but only a part of the body of an adult female?

Yes, I was a person when I was in the womb, fed by, protected by, her body, but not part of her body.

Henry it's not possible to be a deist and a Thomist hylomorph.

I see no conflict between a hands off Creator and that He made us (set in motion the process for us to be) persons (Thomistic hylomorphs, libertarian free wills, morally discerning according to an objective measure) before He retired to the Celestial Pub (all that creatin' makes a deity thirsty).




*not homo sapiens or Neanderthal man or Australopithecus...you see the difference, yes?

No, not in essentials.

I think the difference between a deist and a Thomist is that the Thomist holds that God intended to do all that transpires, whilst the deist deity is not capable of intentions.

[henry quirk]

the deist deity is not capable of intentions.

That's your pandeism of panthiesm or somesuch, not my deism.

[henry quirk]

Havin' comp issues so I haven't been here all week...kinda expected some kind of response, biggy.

*

None.

Surely, those Deists who do believe in an afterlife, who do believe in immortality and salvation are not going to agree with that. It would be like particular Christians claiming that how you interpret the teachings of Christ, or what you say and believe about Him doesn't matter come Judgement Day. Or so it seems to me.

Unless, perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "none".

No, you got it. In the absence of proof everyone accepts, there will be disagreement. As I say: people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief. Even between strains of Christianity there's disagreement. The whole saved by faith alone vs saved by works thing is an example. So, it really does make no difference except to the folks invested in the argument.

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" [its] existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.

That would only make sense, in my view, if scientists and philosophers continue to be stumped regarding both the human brain's capacity and its limitations. In fact, that is why so many religionists come back to a God, the God, their God in the first place. That is their own explanation for free will. Though, sure, others take a leap of faith [philosophically] to free will. We don't know if we have it but we live our lives acting as though we do. Because, in fact, that may well be the case.

Which is why it does makes sense to say It makes no difference at all. Scientists and philosophers are stumped and neither seem to be movin' forward in their investigations. So, we're all left with our leaps of faith.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, that's just not good enough for those like IC. On the contrary, he [and so many others] seem adamant that only True Christians can interpret, say and believe what they do about God/Jesus Christ and expect to actually be saved rather than left behind.

Okay.

Also, from AI:
"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus."  wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

It just seems to me that if the Deist God did create men and women to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" that would not -- could not? -- be interpreted reasonably as meaning whatever each of us as individuals comes to believe is reasonable and natural. In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein given a No God world.

And still, interpreting is what we do, deists I mean. Proofs about God's nature and purpose are not accessible today, and the evidences are subject to interpretation. Nature is not fully understood and reason is finite and sometimes flawed.

Also, the part where some religious denominations claim their own God is omniscient. That in and of itself is seen as profoundly problematic by many in regard to free will.

Yeah. Mannie, for example, has his workaround on that, I have mine, and someone else will offer a variation of our workarounds or sumthin' quite different from either.

[Belinda]

the deist deity is not capable of intentions.

That's your pandeism of panthiesm or somesuch, not my deism.

Regarding the meaning of 'deism' . Most philosophers use the word to describe a version of God who created everything. Theists usually believe He can intervene in his own creation if He wants to do so: deists generally believe he created everything and then left it all to get on with it without His intervention by miracles or any other means.

So what, Henry, IS your "kind of deism" ?

[henry quirk]

So what, Henry, IS your "kind of deism" ?

The one where the Creator, a person, intended to create, not the one where, as you say the deist deity is not capable of intentions.