Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction?
How can a physicalist comment on the non physical? Isn’t this a blind assumption?
Anyway, for something to have meaning. There must be a point of view. And if the point of view itself is not ontological reality, but rather an illusion of matter. Then all meaning is also an illusion. Meaning is not ‘real’.
You’re assuming that the “I” must be non-physical, and that it’s therefore a contradiction for a physicalist to accept the existence of the “I”.
But that’s not the case. Most physicalists identify the “I” with the operation of the brain and the central nervous system. Those are physical, and so the “I” depends on nothing that is non-physical.
Some physicalists even argue that we can meaningfully say that the soul actually exists, if we acknowledge that it is physical. When the physical body dies, the physical soul dies with it.
Many Christians are unhappy with that conception of the soul, of course.
You missed my point entirely.
Its simple. The only thing that ascribes significance or meaning to piece of data is a point of view… i.e a reference point. If the reference point is an illusion (as it has to be if matter is all that exists), then concepts like meaning/significance etc are also illusions.
Unless you posit that consciousness itself is quality of matter, you cannot escape this dilemma. But of course, doing so moves one away from a materialist position.
I disagree. It is at the point of what constitutes a best fit that disagreements will arise as to which theory/interpretation is the correct one. I take this to be how generally, theology as well as the sciences work/progresse. The interesting conversations are at the point of trying to figure out what is a “best fit.” The hermeneutic or principle doesn’t alleviate the absurdities, it leads to their generation.
Which is why I was responding to your specific point that @swamidass need to jettison his hermeneutic due to it leading to an absurdity – the acceptance of L Ron Hubbard’s thought,
That simply isn’t true as I was trying to show that any principle you employ is going to eventually lead to absurdities. We can have a discussion about which is the principle/methodological tool best able to provide us with confident answers to our questions (c.f., thread on methodological naturalism), but the tool itself does not provide a “pure” route to knowledge.
AS I understand, Luther did not like the Book of Revelation and felt that it should be removed from the canon of the New Testament and we protestants did remove the Apocrypha from the Old Testament. I do not believe that the Wisdom of Solomon should be in the Bible; however, I do accept 1, 2 Maccebees and should be in the Old Testament. The Wisdom of Solomon teaches the preexistence of the human soul, an influence from Plato. Wisdom 3:1-9 teaches the immortality of the soul. It is a mixture of Jewish eschatology and Greek philosophy. No resurrection is mentioned in Wisdom. How a good day.
The basis for that was the Protestant adoption of the Hebrew canon over the Septuagint.
You are 100% right, Dr. Jon. I consider the Hebrew Canon to be the correct Old Testament. I believe that the Book of Revelation does belong in the New Testament; however, it depends on how one interprets it. I probably consider that first nineteen chapters to be the Church Age and chapter 20 to be a recapitulation of the Church Age, i.e., the millennium. Chapter 21 and 22 would be Heaven after the Second Advent.
Hi Charles,
Congregants’ views may have shifted, but the official doctrine is still six-day creation:
Of CreationWe teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in six days.