Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses

Miscellaneous Articles

Advice on Intoxication
Ancient Explosion Reports
Ancient Scholastics
Can We Agree on these?
Critical Issues
Critique of A New Earth
Some Atheist Questions
The Brothers Karamazov
How the World Will End
Importance of Catastrophism
Kahlil Gibran on Law
Euhemerism & Catastrophe
EU/Catastrophe & Philosophy
Thoughts on Meditation
Model for Visions & Dreams
Telepathic Ability
Some Pertinent Parables
Personal Experience
Spiritual versus Material
Unity Agreement Outline
Unity Church Letter
Some Conclusions
Pensée Journal Issues
What is a Prophet?
Video-lecture links

Physical bravery is an animal instinct; moral bravery is a much higher and truer courage. - Wendell Phillips

Spiritual versus Material

In our discussion about origins of life, perhaps some careful, critical thinking will help us sort out the meaningful issues.  I have come to understand that in philosophy, asking the wrong questions will not lead to reasonable answers.  Please bear with me while I lay "some" groundwork.

Are there not two general types or aspects of reality that are different, yet inseparable?  We generally refer to these two as tangible and intangible, or material and non-material, or physical and spiritual  (the first two sets of terms are an indication of our entrenched materialism in that we contrast the spiritual with the physical, not the other way around).  We think of the brain as an aspect of physical reality and the mind as a spiritual aspect.  Likewise with the body and psyche (soul).  Purpose, values, character, freedom, happiness, morality, romance, etc. are spiritual realities that can't be measured by laboratory equipment, but can be apprehended and addressed by the mind.  It is the spiritual realities that are meaningful to the human being, with the physical realities only becoming meaningful when they impinge upon our psyche, comfort and safety.

One of the fundamental insights (to my mind, there are three) to building a productive philosophy is to realize that you can't start with nothing.  There is no such thing as nothing except as a mental concept with which to contrast our reality of something.  If there was nothing, there never could be anything, because even the possibility of something is not nothing—and I am something.

So, as to the issue of origins, starting with something referred to in the most neutral terms, it seems to me that there are these three possibilities:

1.  We start with spiritual realities—sentience, consciousness, intelligence—that designed and produced our material reality

2.  We start with spiritual realities AND our material reality.

3.  We start with a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-intelligent material and other aspects (chance, force, possibility, etc.) that somehow produced sentience, consciousness and intelligence.

Without going into a discussion of their differences, let me say that to my mind, there are also two different (again inseparable, you can't totally have one without the other) realms of intellectual conviction, the realm of the knowable and the realm of the believable— knowledge and belief. The above issue with the three possibilities is not in the realm of the knowable but is clearly in the realm of the believable.  There is something out of the deepest part of my psyche that impels me to have the courage to take full, personal responsibility for what I believe; and therefore, I actively, knowingly, consciously, carefully and willfully choose to believe option number one.  I like and am committed to my choice, because it gives me so much more elegant, meaningful possibilities and answers.  Option number three violates my knowledge, logic and reason on the most basic level.

I can discuss number two, but if you carefully, consciously and willfully choose to believe number three, then I am going to think that you are either in denial or ignorance of what is in your own soul, or that we are truly alien on a very fundamental level and that we probably shouldn't even try to talk about anything very meaningful. That way we won't be tempted to denigrate each other's intelligence and be disrespectful. The issue of mechanism, implementation of design (creation), is another issue and I can discuss that in the context of options one or two.

Once you choose to believe option one or two, wouldn't it be ridiculous to postulate a non-sentient mechanism for the development of and change in the plethora of life forms we find on our planet?  Option one specifically has the original intelligence designing and producing the aspects of material reality, including life forms.  For option two, are we going to postulate that the original intelligence is not involved?  By its very nature intelligence would be involved.

Unless the argument that is going on is just primarily semantic and the term "evolution" just means change and movement, the essential element of the term "evolution" is that of some process where sentience is not involved, and that of the term "creation" is that of involved sentience. 

Home   Site Sections   Complete Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions