Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The argument was basically:
If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function. In other words, one can't walk if one's legs are broken, therefore legs are a physical cause of walking. One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
Thanks for your help so far!
Great question. I do not think Scripture teaches a Tricotomy of man body soul and spirit.: Rather I think it teaches body and spirit. (the mind can be part of soul and body) but a person has the body framed of God, and man is give life by the breath of God, this is our spirit. Actually David it is this view that I use in part to defend against abortion on demand (since proponents say "Well, a fetus cannot "think". From this position it renders their point moot. It could therefore apply to a brain damaged person as well. Just my (By the bye, as far as Soul and Spirit, as far as one can see in Holy Writ, the seem to be somewhat "overlapping" terms. Grace and Peace.How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?
If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function.
One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
Davidius;
If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function.
Why must it be the cause of the function?
One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
If the brain is severly damaged that a person can't walk, talk or whatever, yet their heart is still beating..they are still alive..so something other than the physical brain must be in control or all bodily organs would fail.
For example what causes the heart itself to pump? Is the brain telling the heart to pump? If the brain is damaged, how could it continue to do so?
Example, Terry Shivo, her brain was damaged, yet she could breathe on her own, her heart was still pumping, her lungs still worked, they had to physically starve her to death in order for her to die, so it was something other than the brain function that was keeping her physically alive.
A man in an airplane guides the airplane. If the airplane breaks apart - even though the man inside is not hurt - that man insdie WILL die due to the wreckage of his outer container.
The mind can thus be differentiated from the brain, the brain being the airplane - the outer structure - and the mind being that operator inside. If our skulls get bashed our airplane breaks apart in mid-air and the pilot dies (sorry no parachutes yet).
The argument was basically:
If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function. In other words, one can't walk if one's legs are broken, therefore legs are a physical cause of walking. One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
Thanks for your help so far!
How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?
ask them why they prefer chocolate ice cream to butter pecan. ask them why they prefer motly crue to aerosmith. ask them why they like the cowboys to the bears.How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?
Pergamum said:Babies I believe are saved, but without EXPLICIT faith in Jesus. John leaping in his mother's womb proves little. The mentally handicapped may almost be totally braindead and may not know who they are even, much less our saviour.
Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:
When we think about things, those thoughts cannot be said to be "physical." How is it that I can close my eyes and think about the color red and yet there's no way to find that thought within my brain. Or I can think about an orange, yet there's no way to find the image of the orange in my brain. We can't open up a brain and "see" thoughts.
J.P. Moreland has written some good stuff on this subject that I've found to be helpful.
David, I think your conclusion in the last post is correct, For what it's worth...
Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:
When we think about things, those thoughts cannot be said to be "physical." How is it that I can close my eyes and think about the color red and yet there's no way to find that thought within my brain. Or I can think about an orange, yet there's no way to find the image of the orange in my brain. We can't open up a brain and "see" thoughts.
J.P. Moreland has written some good stuff on this subject that I've found to be helpful.
David, I think your conclusion in the last post is correct, For what it's worth...
Could you provide a source for Moreland's material?
Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:
When we think about things, those thoughts cannot be said to be "physical." How is it that I can close my eyes and think about the color red and yet there's no way to find that thought within my brain. Or I can think about an orange, yet there's no way to find the image of the orange in my brain. We can't open up a brain and "see" thoughts.
Here is a problem with infants exercising "explicit faith" in Christ.
It seems to bypass the Word of God. Or it hypothesizes that they can understand the Word of Godenough for salvation.
If infants can hear and understand the Gospel and leap in their mothers womb due to understanding the Gospel than we would have infants not born in sin and also highly intelligent ones at that.
Also, before language is developed what language would this Word of God need to be in for the baby to leap in the womb out of understanding? Latin, Indonesian, Chinese? Instead of playing Mozart for Babies should we play a reading of the Bible in many languages to evangelize our babies then?
Davidius
A baby understanding Scriptures is like......hmmmm....
Let's use a computer analogy: This would be like playing Call to Duty 4 on a Commodore 64. The baby's mental makeup is not yet ready to receive this info.
Thus, a baby cannot understand enough to exercise explicit knowledgeable faith and the leaping in the womb business becomes one of movement by the Holy Spirit out of emotional gladness perhaps, but not motivated out of an understanding and joy and knowledge of what was going on (babies cannot see through the womb anyhow..how did John the Baptist recognize Mary's voice or see her coming...).
The psalms about David praising God from his mother's breasts are poetic. The trees also clap in the psalms.
The language comment by me above was to the effect of baby's do not come born with a pre-programmed language. Thus, what language would a baby need to hear the Bible in to understand it?
Babies go through language acquisition the same way we do when we learn a new language. I suppose the Holy Spirit could speak Baby-ese directly to John the Baptist, but this too would be a revelation of God outside of Scripture.
And as far as my epithet insularum goes....
"Me paenitet, amice"
David, although a proposition itself is the meaning of a declarative sentence, I think for us, they are tied to language. We do use language to express the content of propositions. So, without the use of language, I don't see how one could know a proposition, because they couldn't even understand its content without it.This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.
Davidius
A baby understanding Scriptures is like......hmmmm....
Let's use a computer analogy: This would be like playing Call to Duty 4 on a Commodore 64. The baby's mental makeup is not yet ready to receive this info.
Thus, a baby cannot understand enough to exercise explicit knowledgeable faith and the leaping in the womb business becomes one of movement by the Holy Spirit out of emotional gladness perhaps, but not motivated out of an understanding and joy and knowledge of what was going on (babies cannot see through the womb anyhow..how did John the Baptist recognize Mary's voice or see her coming...).
So you're saying that one can have joy in the Holy Spirit without any understanding? Sounds like you should become Pentecostal! True knowledge always precedes true emotion.
The psalms about David praising God from his mother's breasts are poetic. The trees also clap in the psalms.
Well, I suppose you can assert this if you want, but if you want to convince me you'll need to prove why this must be poetic. Trees can't clap, therefore it must be poetic. To say that David's inner man can't truly praise God from the breast because children can't understand is to assert what you have to prove.
The language comment by me above was to the effect of baby's do not come born with a pre-programmed language. Thus, what language would a baby need to hear the Bible in to understand it?
Babies go through language acquisition the same way we do when we learn a new language. I suppose the Holy Spirit could speak Baby-ese directly to John the Baptist, but this too would be a revelation of God outside of Scripture.
This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.
And as far as my epithet insularum goes....
"Me paenitet, amice"
Why? It just means "of the islands" (genitive plural of insula). Don't you minister on some islands?
David, although a proposition itself is the meaning of a declarative sentence, I think for us, they are tied to language. We do use language to express the content of propositions. So, without the use of language, I don't see how one could know a proposition, because they couldn't even understand its content without it.This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.
David, although a proposition itself is the meaning of a declarative sentence, I think for us, they are tied to language. We do use language to express the content of propositions. So, without the use of language, I don't see how one could know a proposition, because they couldn't even understand its content without it.This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.