If an idea causes us to take some action then the immaterial has affected the material.

I think you need to very carefully define ‘affect’ here. For example, do the Fibonacci numbers ‘affect’ the broccoli-cauliflower? (http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/romanesque.jpg or http://www.world-mysteries.com/illusions/BrocolliCauliflower.jpg)

Yet an immaterial idea has no more of an effect on the physical, electrochemical activity of the brain than it does on the electron flow through a computer’s CPU.

What’s an algorithm?

If the immaterial causally affects the actions of the body (e.g., what someone says), it must do so by affecting the material brain. The brain must therefore operate in ways that purely material causes can’t account for.

Yes. If an idea causes us to take some action then the immaterial has affected the material. Yet an immaterial idea has no more of an effect on the physical, electrochemical activity of the brain than it does on the electron flow through a computer’s CPU. There must be an interface of some sort allowing the integration of the rational soul, which can be affected by an idea, with the material brain, which cannot.

Our seeing that the immaterial — an idea — ultimately does have an effect on matter — the material brain and the body it directs — allows us to deduce the reality of the rational soul, just as the effects of gravity on the material allow us to deduce its reality.

“Understanding,” which is immaterial, can only take place in the rational, immaterial soul. The material brain can’t be the seat of that understanding because it is just that: material. This is why computers don’t really think and understand and why there is no such thing as “artificial intelligence.” The illusion of it can be created but it remains just an illusion. The computer or android still possesses no more intelligence than a box of rocks.

Even if a hologram created the illusion of an intelligent person being present perfectly, the reality would still be that there was “nobody home.” The hologram wouldn’t really be “thinking” any more than does a computer, an android or a box of rocks.

The difference between anything science creates that mimics – even perfectly mimics – an intelligent human being and a genuine human being is a rational soul, which science will never learn how to create. No matter what science creates it will always be just that: a “what” not a “who.” Only God can create a “who.” Thomas Merton pointed out that “God is pure who.” “Who-ness” is immaterial and can only come from another immaterial “who.”

How does gravity affect matter without our being able to observe anything except that it does?

We see the matter accelerating without any thrust being applied. The matter does something it wouldn’t do absent gravity.

The material brain affect the action of the body. If the immaterial causally affects the actions of the body (e.g., what someone says), it must do so by affecting the material brain. The brain must therefore operate in ways that purely material causes can’t account for.

And if something is affecting the brain such that it does something materially different… we should be able to detect it. Heck, even measure it, to a degree.

For one thing, I think in the scientific sense, particles appear out of and disappear into “nothingness” all the time, when matter and anti-matter collide.

I am not sure what “anti-matter” is, but I assume it is a natural phenomenon of some kind. If matter and anti-matter colliding makes “particles out of and disappear into ‘nothingness’”, then that is not the same as natural phenomena appearing out of complete nothingness and returning to it. Those particles are a natural phenomenon with a natural cause, even if we don’t yet understand how and why they have the appearance of coming into being out of nothing and then disappearing back into it.

If particles really spring forth from genuine nothingness, and there really is no natural explanation for their appearance, then their cause can only be beyond nature, or supernatural.

Hi, Ray,

We would see neurons fire that “shouldn’t” even after we’ve accounted for all the material causes, or neurons that don’t fire even when every material cause says they “should”.

Maybe. Maybe not. How does gravity affect matter without our being able to observe anything except that it does?

Aren’t we now in as much danger of confusing ourselves by imprecise use of the word “natural” as we were earlier with “material?” Although I myself hate it when philosophical discussions devolve into nit-picking quibbles about definitions, I think it is problematic to use “supernatural” to mean “all that science can not investigate” without seriously considering the possibility that that could be the empty set.

For one thing, I think in the scientific sense, particles appear out of and disappear into “nothingness” all the time, when matter and anti-matter collide. We can insist that the existence of God is proved by the fact that things come being from nothingness. But this is an awfully tiny God; the cosmologists will certainly respond, “Aha, but things come into existence out of quantum fluctuations. Therefore this thing you call God is no more than a quantum fluctuation. Why would anybody pray to a quantum fluctuation?”

On the other hand, in asserting this proof, we already concede too much to naturalism. It is important to remember what science is really saying when it asserts that subatomic particles exist.

(We should, obviously, avoid fatuous nonsense about what “the meaning of ‘is’ is.” But disputing the nature of existence and pre-existence and self-existence and whether self-existent existence is pre-existently self-existent and all that is a grand old Catholic tradition, after all.)

When science says that a particle “exists” it often means that we have written down a differential equation and that a real solution to the equation exists. Then we look at the difference between solutions and expect (according to the postulates of quantum mechanics) to find radiation emitted at the frequency corresponding to the difference in solutions. And when we detect the radiation in a physical detector, we use a sort of short-hand and say that “a particle exists.” (This is how we find bound-state particles; the method of finding free particles is similar but takes a little more math.)

This is almost miraculously convincing: that solving an equation tells us what frequency of radiation to expect in our physical metal-and-glass photo-electric tube is very impressive. But it doesn’t tell us much about the source of the radiation.

Aristotle says a thing’s nature is known by what it does; if all we know about a thing is what frequency of radiation it will make in our detector, it’s a bit of a swindle to pretend we know “what it is.” Calling it an “X-particle” is really just using an abbreviation for “the entity which makes it possible to predict the frequency of the emitted radiation from this equation.”

Just what is the “principle” under consideration here?

That a purely material analysis of the brain could point out the “immaterial, spiritual component to the mind” by its effect on the material. We would see neurons fire that “shouldn’t” even after we’ve accounted for all the material causes, or neurons that don’t fire even when every material cause says they “should”.

“Theoretical physicists have several hypotheses about the identity of dark energy. It may be the energy of ghostly subatomic particles that can briefly appear out of nothing before selfannihilating and slipping back into the vacuum.”
– Alan P. Lightman

“So, again, the arguments tend to go in circles. The physicist says, “This phenomenon has no identifiable cause!” and the theologian says, “The cause must be teleological! Now we know teleological causes exist!” Again, it is sometimes hard to take this kind of debate seriously.”
– Felapton

There was either once nothing natural at all and then there was, or that which we consider “natural” always was.

Naturally, phenomena do not arise from nothingness. If it seems that some phenomena arise out of nothingness that must only be the appearance of the matter, not the reality – at least that is the case if we are only allowing for natural rather than supernatural causes. If natural phenomena pop into existence out of sheer nothingness for no natural reason at all then the project of science is doomed to fail miserably – if science does nothing else at all it should at least explain to us how natural phenomena come about. Declaring that some phenomena pop into existence out of sheer nothingness for no natural reason at all is not science – it is what theologians have been saying all along: God created the Universe out of nothingness.

Science informs us of the natural explanations for natural phenomena. Natural phenomena have natural explanations whether or not science ever comes to an understanding of them. So what is the natural explanation for the eternal existence of the natural, if indeed what we consider to be “natural” always was? If that is the case then, again, science is doomed to fail miserably. If the scientific project ends with announcing that everything can be traced back to some “stuff” that just always was then that is the ultimate lame answer. One can’t ask how that “stuff” came to be: It didn’t – it always was. One can never know why it is there. There is no “why” – it just always was. Accepting that goes against everything science has taught us about there being natural explanations for natural phenomena. If the glorious quest of atheistic, materialistic science ends in it explaining to us that it was wrong about assuming there are natural explanations (whether it discovers them or not) for all that is natural, then that is indeed a very lame, miserable failure.

It is much more logical – and intellectually satisfying – to assume that there was once nothing natural at all and then there was, and ever since then what is natural has been behaving as science expects even if science doesn’t yet understand how it all works.

The Universe having a beginning and that that beginning is rooted in the supernatural makes much more sense. We can ask how that “stuff” came to be and get an answer. We can ask why it came to be and get an answer. What is natural always has a natural explanation that way – except for its supernatural origin (and, of course, the supernatural interventions Christians and other theists believe have taken place since then ;o). This makes much more sense than the Universe having always been there in some form or another without any possible natural explanation of “how” or “why” that “stuff” was always there. It is hard to take that notion seriously. It isn’t a such painful violation of one’s common sense as that to assume the natural had a supernatural origin since there was nothing natural around to launch it before it began.

If the natural Universe wasn’t always there then it had to have had a supernatural origin. If it was always there then the scientific project is doomed to end in failure.

This kind of sounds like they think photons are God. But clearly, when we say God created the Universe ex nihilo, we mean He made the photons too.

The same confusion arises all the way “down,” with cosmologists saying, “Aha! The Universe was generated from X!” and theologians saying “But who created the X? X is part of the Universe too!” It’s sometimes tempting to dismiss the whole argument as vacuous.

Similarly, when physicists say something is a “cause,” they mean a necessary and sufficient precondition, i.e., one which precedes the effect in time. But theologians do not require that causes precede their effects in time (Teleological causes do not.) nor that they be necessary. (God freely chose to create the Universe.)

So, again, the arguments tend to go in circles. The physicist says, “This phenomenon has no identifiable cause!” and the theologian says, “The cause must be teleological! Now we know teleological causes exist!” Again, it is sometimes hard to take this kind of debate seriously.

Just what is the “principle” under consideration here?

Thanks