C.S. Lewis and James Ward: Spiritual Minds in an Mindful Universe

Wakefield Talbert, one of the great commentators at this blog, has posted this insightful comment:

‘In a half-mocking way, in response, one apologist has written a response [to evolutionist claims to have refuted religion] in a fantastic book called C.S. Lewis’ Dangerous Idea
Victor Reppert. See http://dangerousidea2.blogspot.com/

I highly recommend his site and the give and take, though his ideas are a little difficult to grasp for newbies. He concentrates his critique of Darwinism by using and evaluating Lewis’ critique of materialism and the development of the brain and morals, free will, “rules of science”, patterns, and the notino of Induction. It is complicated, but Lewis’ classic Argument from Reason runs something like this:

Strictly speaking there are no “rules of matter” or “rules of physics” and “rules of biology.” There are only PATTERNS. The difference is that rules assume what materialist science cannot, in that rules pertain to some law above the process itself and beyond matter. Patterns are just repetitions that have no final or formative causation. They just are. Rules are what humans create in their heads.
Likewise either God has something to do with the Cosmos–or not. Those are the choices. If not, then not. If so, then while the mechanics of this are unknown by and large then it is not “supernatural” in the parody sense of Thor making the clouds rumble with his hammer. That has never been my conception, nor “magical properties,” etc.

On patterns, this leads to the common teleological assumption for God that even Materialists can agree on, I think:

What we know can be summed up as follows–

1) Science by its nature entails observations of patterns, NOT rules (there is non such thing as “observing a rule”–that is nonsense). What are observed are material patterns.

2) Patterns are NOT rules without intelligent input behind them. We know this as patterns have no predictive value; only rules have such value and make predictions.

3) Rules in the proper definition are MENTAL constructs that can ONLY be EXPERIENCED, and INFERRED, not observed scientifically.

4) If nature IS predictable (and it seems to be, for the most part–i.e.–giving the appearance of being “rule bound”) it MUST be dependent at some source upon a mental construct that lies OUTSIDE of human reasoning AND is scientifically UNOBSERVABLE. In this sense only do I think there is a “supernatural”, in the sense that something frankly unobervable is at work. So in a sense this is “beyond nature.” But this is not really a problem in my estimation for materialists either. They confront the same problem when it comes to “cosmic origins” notions. To our puzzlement (but now confirmed) we know that the Universe is all there is materially and yet it is NOT eternal and had a beginning. This being the case and no room for eternal material, it is no more (to use one quip) irrational, nor rational, to believe in an egg that came from no bird (common theism beginnings of creation) than to believe in a bird that existed for all eternity (materialism, no input).’

The British philosopher, James Ward, had a roughly similar approach to the problem of personal identity and the environment. Writing at the end of the 19th century, Ward was one of the philosophers whose work effectively finished off associationist psychology. Associationism held that the mind is merely a collection of ideas, and that knowledge consists in these ideas becoming associated with each other and coalescing. This process was conceived as similar to the physical process by which atoms attract and bond to each other to form molecules and objects. Ward, however, adopted a more biological approach to the mind. Rather than being a passive entity, minds were active and desirous, and achieved knowledge by active experimentation not passive sensation.

 He was concerned with the apparent break between the abstract world of physics, where reality can be defined as the movement of atoms, and the subjective world of the Cartesian self where one experiences a universe of colour, sound and texture. In trying to link the spiritual mind with the material brain, contemporary philosophers felt that one or other of those worlds must be unreal, or that they were both illusory, mere appearances of the Absolute.

Ward, however, considered that the world of physics was a mere set of abstractions. Atoms were not concrete realities, but creations of the scientific mind. They were, however, declared to be realities by Naturalism, and so became, as he described it in his 1899 Naturalism and Agnosticism, ‘physics treated as metaphysics’.  Like Vico in the 18th century, Ward turned to history as a depiction of true reality. According to Ward, historical inquiries were based on the notion of the active, striving, valuing individual, interacting with the world around him and seeking his own preservation and development. In the 1905 edition of the Hibbert Journal, he declared ‘History offers us facts, individuals, purpose and meaning, all that we miss in the world of mechanism’. History did not present a false abstraction of the subject away from the object, rather it took as its subject the individual in their environment, which is the reality of everyday experience.

Ward did not believe there was a sudden break between mind and matter, and acknowledged that materialism recognised this. However, for Ward materialism could make nothing of the striving, valuing individual, who Ward considered comprehensible only if one saw them as possessing purpose, an approach discarded by materialists. Furthermore, if the environment too is considered to be purposive and spiritual then all the problems of relating humanity to its environment are solved. It is automatically possible to understand how the mind discovers in its environment the means of fulfilling its ideals, something that it is otherwise incomprehensible. Ward was keen to point out, however, that this does not mean we have to abandon the idea of scientific law. Rather scientific law should be seen as a product of mind, the human way of dealing with the environment, closely analogous to the laws humanity creates to govern its communities. Thus in his 1911 book The Realm of Ends he saw the universe as a plurality of minds but not a single entity, as other Idealist philosophers had maintained. Only God could unite this plurality into a single universe, though Ward himself admitted that he could not prove the Lord’s existence. 1

Now clearly modern science has established that atoms are more than mere abstractions, while paradoxically quantum physics has also demonstrated that at is most minute levels, reality is profoundly abstract and can be grasped only through statistics and probability. Nevertheless, scientific laws exist in that they are abstract models created by the human mind to explain reality, and the purposive nature of the human self defies reductionism even today. Thus there is certainly a warrant for accepting Ward’s contention that humans are able to understand and interact with their environment, which also obeys rational laws, because this environment is also shaped and governed by a purposive mind.

 Notes

1. John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books 1957), pp. 81-4.

31 Responses to “C.S. Lewis and James Ward: Spiritual Minds in an Mindful Universe”

  1. Rich Says:

    Fair bit of conflation going on here.

    I suspect you think “rule” or “law” as in mandated by an authority, where as in science they’re constructs that give correct outputs given a set of inputs. They’re still subject to empirical falsification, adjustment, improvement and amendment. The problem of induction still remains.

    Rich

  2. beastrabban Says:

    No, Rich – you seem to have missed the entire point of the article. In both the post from Wakefield to which I was responding and in my own comments it was recognised, and explicitly stated, that scientific laws are only descriptions of reality. I explicitly said they were models. However, the orderly behaviour of the cosmos which these laws model can only be reconciled with the mindful, purposive nature of humanity if it is similarly considered that this order is also the product of a purposive mind.

  3. Rich Says:

    “However, the orderly behaviour of the cosmos which these laws model can only be reconciled with the mindful, purposive nature of humanity if it is similarly considered that this order is also the product of a purposive mind.”

    bald assertion. My point of conflation is that the “loaded language” steers you to the premise. And we still have the problem of induction.

  4. beastrabban Says:

    bald assertion. Nope – it’s a problem for materialist philosophy, otherwise there wouldn’t be the attempt to deny consciousness itself.

    My point of conflation is that the “loaded language” steers you to the premise.

    Not at all. The idea of God as a cosmic lawgiver giving order to the universe appears in the Bible before the ancient Greeks described the regular patterns of the universe as nomoi – ‘laws’, so the ‘loaded language’ you refer to has not steered my thinking at all. Rather, it is the notion that the universe is regular, as produced by a cosmic lawgiver, that has made the notion of scientific laws possible.

    As for the problem of induction, which is Hume’s statement that empirical observation is without rational foundation, and all science in making statements about scientific laws goes beyond the available premise – this is a problem for science generally. Popper considered that Hume was correct, but tried to get round it by arguing that science works by hypothetico-deductive arguments. So by referring to the problem of induction here, you seem to be attacking the very basis of the scientific enterprise as a way of challenging my contention that cosmic laws points to a cosmic lawgiver.

  5. Rich Says:

    The “problem” of induction is a strength of the scientific enterprise, this was the genius of Popper. It’s all tentative. And if you what to invoke presuppositionalist god arguments, you are inducing them.
    And now we’re getting into TAG territory.

    My reasoning has no problem with induction. I believe you can’t prove a negative. I believe a god is possible, but very very unlikely.

    Empirical falsification and statistical confidence. These are the tools you can use.

  6. beastrabban Says:

    The “problem” of induction is a strength of the scientific enterprise, this was the genius of Popper. It’s all tentative. And if you what to invoke presuppositionalist god arguments, you are inducing them.
    And now we’re getting into TAG territory.

    No, simply stating a fact. The problem of induction might be part of TAG, but it predates TAG by a long time. And there are real problems with Popper. Popper’s falsification theory effectively states that all the scientist acquires is knowledge of error rather than truth. However, some things are so effectively established by science that they can be considered true, like atoms and the helical structure of DNA. Popper cannot account for this. Also, falsification isn’t a straightforward process. When Uranus was observed to have an orbit not conforming to the predicted model, rather than abandon Newton’s inverse-square law of gravity, they looked for an extra planet: Neptune. Moreover, in the view of philosophers of science like Stathis Psillos ‘Popper was right when stressed that knowledge does not require certainty but wrong when he tried to dissocia\te knowledge from justification – an in particular from having (inductive) reasons to believe tht something is true.’ – ‘Popper, Karl’ in Stathis Psillos, Philosophy of Science A-Z , (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 2007), p. 184.

  7. Rich Says:

    Sorry, you’re inducing. All atoms and DNA so far..

    Supposing l’ast tuesdayism’ was true and before that it was all different? We can’t know. You can’t have your transcendent god who is beyond nature and not acknowledge this. These physicals Laws and the uniformity of nature are induced by very strong, high statistical confidence. But they’re not set in stone.

    The point about justification is acknowledged, but generally these things are derived from other things… that are induced.

    Let’s look at gravity, as you bring it up. During the plank epoch, it was different, part of a great unified force. depending on which final cosmological outcome you pick (don’t worry, you’ll be ruptured by then) it may not be the gravity it is today. So it’s not really a “law” in an immutable, forever type sense.

  8. beastrabban Says:

    Sorry, you’re inducing. All atoms and DNA so far..

    No, Rich – you’ve misunderstood what’s been said. Hume’s point about the problem of induction is a general point about all generalisations from empirical observation go beyond the available evidence. Now atoms and DNA are well established and accepted as true, but the point is that they came from theories that were derived from empirical observation and generalisation. They’re the products of induction, which according to Popper should lead only to a knowledge of error, not of truth. Now for laws to change as Prigogine suggested in his work, there has to be a causal relationship – the unified force, for example, broke down in the early universe into gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces as the universe expanded and cooled. But for Hume, the Sceptic, the separation of the different forces would only be a correlation with the expansion and cooling of the universe, not a cause. Indeed, no cause can be firmly established. So invoking Hume, Popper and the problem of induction still causes problems for the scientist.

    And um, where did I say that the laws of nature were set in stone, Rich? I didn’t. In fact, that’s part of the argument against Hume’s presumption that miracles don’t occur. He seemed to believe that the nature was such that you could rule out the laws of nature being different tomorrow. But you can’t. Nor can you rule out them being supervened by a greater law. This is the whole definition of miracles – the temporary suspension of the usual set of natural laws by God through superior laws.

  9. Rich Says:

    I agree with your second paragraph. But “no miracles” has yet to be falsified.

  10. Feyd Says:

    Hi Beast, as ever from yourself and wakefield a stimulating read, I don’t find this as convincing as usual though.

    I really don’t see why nature’s predictable behaviour has to be dependent on a mental construct. Perhaps it is, perhaps the entire universe resides in God’s mind. Yet equally perhaps nature just has universal intrinsic characteristics that causes her to act as though constrained by laws – for us God would have designed nature that way, but the atheist can equally say that’s just the way it is.

    I also don’t agree with Wakefield about the supernatural only existing in that special sense. It seems to me far more likely that the behaviour of certain beings like angels and ghosts aren’t governed by natural laws at all.

  11. Feyd Says:

    Rich,

    Have you heard about the our Lady of Fatima miracle which was seen by about 70,000 with an audience that included atheists and journalists?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima

  12. Wakefield Tolbert Says:

    I also don’t agree with Wakefield about the supernatural only existing in that special sense. It seems to me far more likely that the behaviour of certain beings like angels and ghosts aren’t governed by natural laws at all.

    And I’d love to follow up on this, except I’m not really sure what you’re talking about, Feyd. JP Holding over at Tektonics has an excellent analysis of this term “supernatural” and that it does not exist per se, its just that with some attributes, say angels, we are unware of HOW they interact into our dimension. To me this is the “magic” of how massless radio waves and IP hosts interact with the material. It may be complex to the novice,l but certainly has a material explanation once the context is known. Same in my guess for angels and demons and the spiritual dimension of things. THIS above all else is a follow answer to the long drawn out Evil Tuef commentary I posted just the other day while in Atlanta (I travel a lot) and gives the lie to the atheist’s common notion that the immaterial “cannot interact” with the material and thus we have things like the parody of Christian thought by one brain researcher that believing in the soul is akin to the “GHOST IN THE MACHINE.”

    No, not really. In fact some, like BF Skinner don’t even like the term “psychology”

    WHY?? It implies that something actually IS going on “inside the skin” as he used to mock in his rendition that all was just stimulus and response. In fact for Skinner the contents–even the physical reality of how the neurons worked things out–was totally non relevant. All is socio-biology.

    Like you Brits say, “poppycock.”

    Electromagnetism, light, energy, gravitation, time, warps in time fabirc (and we don’t even know what that is per se but that it certainly exists) all have interactions with all areas of the known universe and behold nothing supernatural is implied by anyone who researches them.

    Its just that God and his angels no doubt exist in dimensions that we can only have what is called a “darkling” knowledge of. We feel time but cannot physically see it or see warps in space. We see balls falling back to earth in football games as the RESULT of this, not the explanation.

    We can’t know what we can’t know. I once talked to a blind man who from birth had no sense of sight. None. His dreams? Auditory. How could I explain color to such a person. He was aware of his surrounds in the spatial sense and was in fact (interestingly) married but understood women as being different from men by another kind of default than sight.
    Yet he understood that sight must exist, and YET he also admitted plainly that “to see or to think of being seen” is a phrase that makes no sense to him. It is like asking “what color is the number five.”

    Some kinds of birds actually see the earth’s magnetic field. Mammals cannot. This demonstrates that all creatures have some kind of insights into what is not known. I think Beast’s best answer for the knot of “revelation” is that God surely cannot expect us to understand all attributes but by revelation to learned men in Scripture. This is mocked by ahtiests as being but little birds whispering in nutty men’s ears. But still–beast pointed out that at some point attributes are shown. Angels and demons have them too and are different from us. all the while knowing this can lead to more questions than answers. People often imagine Heaven turning men into angels when in fact most likely according to some scholars we’d have physical bodies much the same as ours minus certain attributes. This also gives the answer, (again Beast highlighted) that attributes CAN be assigned, and are not arbitrary but necessary at some point. Diamonds are harder than steel. Red is Red. Worms dig.
    God is good for He can be no other, etc.

  13. Feyd Says:

    Hi Wakefield , glad to see you back. Wow that was some fast typing there dude.
    I take your points and it may be that the laws, ( or mental constructs as you might prefer) governing angels and demons are simply too obscure for us to infer. From God’s point of view those constructs may form a cohesive and comprehensive whole so that essentially there is only one set of Laws which governs the entirety of all that exists.

    My own view is that there are at least two completely different set of Laws, and that supernatural entities are able to cause effects in our universe regardless of natural law, but still constrained by a supernatural law of which science will never be able to probe.

    It doesn’t really matter which of us is right, maybe its all a matter of perspective!

  14. beastrabban Says:

    Hi Feyd and Wakefield – there’s certainly some really interesting, stimulating stuff there. Regarding the unconvincing nature of the above argument, Feyd – you’re right in that, as Rich has argued here, it is perfectly possible to accept the order in the cosmos as a given, which does not point to a God. This has been the case since Hume. However, Stathis Psillos has pointed out that

    ’empiricists have had a hurdle to jump; not all regularities are causal. Nor can all regularities be deemed laws of nature. So they were forced to draw a distinction between those regularities that constitute the laws of nature and those that are, as Mill put it, ‘conjunctions in some sense accidental’. The predicament that Humeans are caught in is this. Something (let’s call it the property of lawlikeness) must be added to a regularity to make it a law of nature. But what can this be?’ – Stathis Psillos, ‘Laws of Nature’ in Philosophy of Science A-Z , (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 2007), p. 136. Psillos then goes on to list about four attempts to define what that something is. one of which harks back to Aristotle.

    As for angels, I’ve no idea whether they are subject to supernatural laws or are part of nature, though it might be that the whole category of the supernatural is itself questionable, as the awesome J.P. Holding argues and Metacrock have argued.

    As for consciousness and its place in the universe, the Phenomenologists ‘bracket’ this, to use their own terminology, and accept it as just a given. But this is simply ignoring the problem, not solving it.

  15. Wakefield Tolbert Says:

    Exactly. From the point of view of one version of how things work the materialist initial assumption IS correct. Of course.

    Objects attract and go in straight lines. But Newton was unaware of the new science now amazingly confirmed akin to another observer looking at a playful game on a yaught at sea. A ball thrown by a playful father to his giggling kids aboard his fast boat looks like it goes straigt up and down. to him.

    He’s correct. Indeed it does. that’s what the eye sees. To the observor on shore looking at all this the ball flows in a parabolic shape due to the fact that the ship is in motion. Also correct.

    The issue I had regarding evil Tuef’s analysis of the “laws” that govern such things is that even with further investigation into WHY such things are on a regular basis he IS correct from the materialist point of view.

    Laws of the Cosmos and thus matter are descriptive, NOT normative or instructive. Nothing tells rocks to go downhill when kicked or that large bodies in space create perturbances that are now known to create “falling” into them. They just simply ARE. with no need or reference to go to some supernatural or better yet (in my terms) extra-natural explanation.

    To the non-theist is just fine and dandy. To those asking why, and to answer the atheist who says that these “laws” are thus simply are, not instructive, and etc., I was thinking about this claim and came to the conclusion that simply saying things “are” might be OK in everyday life but does NOT answer ultimate questions about WHY such things are. The atheist will probably answer, as did Teuf and Co., (though now I think he pulled this from some other website, as the rest of this blog was not very sophistocated and contained some really ODD statements), that not only is “just the way things are” good enough an explanation, but ALSO that we only have ONE universe and thus no more sample sizes to claim the universe could be otherwise.

    Is this so? Not necessarily. remember you mention the strong and weak nuclear forces. You mentioned other parameters basic to matter that if shifted would not merely make another kind of Cosmos but eliminate it for all practical reasons into a shapeless nothing containing loose matter. Much less support life. That is another issue all together. We can imagine scenarios in which large bodies do nothing at all to surrounding space or where the speed of light is not affected by matter and space or where stars behave erratically. Why ARE things in “just so” format?

    Hugh Ross goes over some of what you mentioned earlier in an article talking about the parameters of life and matter. Some, like internal earth heat, continental arrangement, lack of a moon to make tides necessary to forge early life, solaration levels due to different color parent star, and atmsophere albedo would make us different, allow only bacteria to live, or make life misery.

    Others are even more prohibitive, and would not allow much of anything to exist beyond dense matter and stars that collapse upon creation.

  16. beastrabban Says:

    Yeah, the Earth is very, very finely poised for life. James E. Oberg in an article ‘New Case against Extraterrestrial Civilisations’ published in the Yearbook of Astronomy in 1979 pointed out that if the Earth was just a degree or so nearer or further away from the Sun, we’d have been either permanently ice-bound or suffered the fate of Venus.

    Going back to materialism’s view of physical laws as given, I found this fascinating passage discussing Boyle’s view of the parallel nature of science and religion in R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Science (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press 1973), p. 48:

    ‘Boyle considered science to be an excellent school for religion. He pointed out that both science and religion are based on fundamentals that are incomprehensible, and that both are founded on facts ‘historical’ rather than rationally cogent. The scientist finds much in nature that he does not thoroughly understand, and he has therefore a special aptitude for accepting things that seem to be beyond belief to the ‘vulgar philosopher’ – the man who thinks that he understands all things and that nothing which does not conform to his philosophy could be true. The scientist is prepared to learn even from unlearned people; just as it would be possible to learn more about the natural history of America from a companion of Columbus than from a hundred Schoolmen, so too one could learn more about God from those unlearned men, the apostles, who were in close contact with ‘Him who was at the heart of the Father’, than from any philosopher.

    In Boyle’s experimental, empirical science is an ally of religion, adn even guided by it, despite the methodological separation between the two. Hostility exists only between speculative metaphysics on the one side and relgion-cum-true-science on the other. Boyle, especially in his Christian Virtuoso , gives much attention to this topic of the parallels between science and religion. Neither has any use for ‘innate ideas’; both recognize that our limited intellect can form right notions only with the help of the patterns offered in ‘the works and the verdicts of God’; it is only in this way that we can know that the ideas of the ancients on both issues were wrong.’

  17. Wakefield Tolbert Says:

    that if the Earth was just a degree or so nearer or further away from the Sun, we’d have been either permanently ice-bound or suffered the fate of Venus.

    That’s a MUCH tighter configuation than even I had thought. There WAS a book by James Trefil and Robert Rood that similarly said that in the entire Cosmos, Earth was the onlyh planet to likely have intelligent life. They couldn’t rule out everything and anything, but made some rather insightful guestimations about what was known at that time. Having said that, we know now that contrary to waht we PREVIOUSLY thought, extrasolar planets are common with Gliese being possibly covered in water.

    The idea of SETI and Seth Shostack here, though not a direct part of this program, is “trending”, we first thought there was nothing more to the world than city states, then nations, then the mass of Eurasia, with only the nuts saying otherwise (though the Greeks guessed at North America based on tidal action, etc). Then we knew of other worlds. Now we know of worlds outside our Sun’s attached to starts simliar to ours.

    I had this on my own site but the link broke so I looked up another one related to the same topic over at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_exoplanet_side.html

    So it goes in theory at some point life started elsewhere….

  18. Rich Says:

    “Rich,

    Have you heard about the our Lady of Fatima miracle which was seen by about 70,000 with an audience that included atheists and journalists?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima

    Small numbers compared to UFO sightings. Such a shame it happened before camera-phones, eh?

  19. beastrabban Says:

    Small numbers compared to UFO sightings. Such a shame it happened before camera-phones, eh?

    Not really comparable, Rich. In aggregate the number of UFO witnesses probably exceed 70,000, but most UFO sightings are witnessed by far fewer numbers. Now there are problems with the Fatima visions, but your comparison here with the UFOs isn’t like with like.

    Also there are major philosophical problems with Hume’s argument against miracles, which also includes the line that ‘miracles can’t happen, because I haven’t seen any’. J.P. Holding includes an effective demolition of Hume’s argument, based on John Earman’s attack on it, over at the Tekton site, but it seems I might have to go over it again here.

  20. Rich Says:

    Unless you have a shareable frame of reference, it’s Woo. Science is concerned with repeatability, as is reality.

  21. beastrabban Says:

    Unless you have a shareable frame of reference, it’s Woo. This is a meaningless comment. It doesn’t matter if the other person can’t understand it or doesn’t share the same worldview, if it occurred, then it occurred.

    Science is concerned with repeatability. Yes, but so what? Parapsychology is based on repeated experimentation, and Sir Alister Hardy’s own research into mystical experience showed that it was far more common than people suspected. So anomalies occur, and one can use science to investigate these anomalies. Also, even if something occurred just once, and so wasn’t amenable to scientific investigation, that does not mean it didn’t occur.

  22. Rich Says:

    Very good. It happens all the time, but we can’t repeat it. I like where this is going. I’m sure I’ll be eating crow when Elvis pops up in ‘Ghosthunters’ or ‘Most haunted’ or whatever. I’m sure psychic stuff is real as well. Despite being with us from the year dot, we’ve never really managed to access it. Or record it. Which is a shame, because I’d be a level 5 Wizzard (which would give me ‘fireball’ =o) )

    I’m not saying its not really. Just that its *really really really* unlikely.

    Its a shame, because the bible tells us about witches, but there aren’t any, AFAICT.

  23. beastrabban Says:

    Very good. It happens all the time, but we can’t repeat it. I like where this is going. I’m sure I’ll be eating crow when Elvis pops up in ‘Ghosthunters’ or ‘Most haunted’ or whatever. I’m sure psychic stuff is real as well. Despite being with us from the year dot, we’ve never really managed to access it. Or record it. Which is a shame, because I’d be a level 5 Wizzard (which would give me ‘fireball’ =o) )

    I was going to say that merely because it doesn’t happen in a laboratory doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but clearly, psi phenomena have occurred in laboratories, but you don’t want to examine the research because it’s ‘woo’. That says more about your prejudices than anything scientific. And the whole point about contact with discarnate personalities is that they are personalities, not natural phenomena that can be made to jump to order.

    As for witches not being real, well, there were certainly individuals who believed they were witches and attempted to destroy others with magic. So, by this account, there really were witches, just as there are Neo-Pagans today who identify themselves as witches. Whether they can really do the things they claim is an entirely different matter.

  24. Rich Says:

    Link me to a really good, peer reviewed scientific paper – I’ll give it a honest review.

    Awesome! That means I can *really* be a Jedi, if I think I am.

    THESE AREN’T THE DROIDS YOU’RE LOOKING FOR.

  25. beastrabban Says:

    Rich, I would link you a peer-reviewed paper, if I thought you were going to give it an honest review. But it’s clear that you won’t with the sneer about Jedis.

  26. Rich Says:

    Well, there is little point discussing.

    Your post clearly shows you are telepathic.

    And Telepathy is clearly psi phenomena.

    Please, use your powers for good.

  27. beastrabban Says:

    No, you’re right. There isn’t any point in discussing this, because you’re back to sneering again.

  28. Rich Says:

    Well, there is little point discussing.

    Your post clearly shows you are (or think you are) telepathic.

    And Telepathy is clearly psi phenomena.

    Please, use your powers for good.

  29. Rich Says:

    Sorry for the double post. Your server is kicking back quite a bit.

    Have a good one.

  30. beastrabban Says:

    Yeah, I’ve been having trouble with the server today.

    Take care, Rich.

  31. Pages tagged "mindful" Says:

    […] bookmarks tagged mindful CS Lewis and James Ward: Spiritual Minds in an Min… saved by 20 others     JackDanyells bookmarked on 02/06/08 | […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: