The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The myth of the sinful nature

Theology Biblical Theology
#41

I think I’d use the word idealist (in the philosophical sense that asserts the primary reality of the mind) instead of vitalist (because I don’t know enough about the vitalist tradition position part from associating it with Henri Bergson). And I think there is both truth in the idealist (all is mind) and materialist (all is physical) accounts of reality. For me the truth is somewhere between the two and this is perfectly compatible with Incarnationalist theology too.

With epigenetics it seems that the data suggest that there is some sort of relative autonomy of us as free agents (which has to mean affirmation of choice and of mind) to act upon our genetic inheritance. We cannot completely change what is a material ‘given’ - but we can have influence and need not be over-determined by it. I’ll be the scientific materialists are already crying epigenetics as heresy :laughing:

#42

I’ve just read this thread and enjoyed it thoroughly, thanks. I especially appreciate Dick’s explanation of the difference between Original Sin and Ancestral Sin, which I quote below because I like it so much. And the discussion on genetics is facinating. Thanks everyone for sharing.

#43

Dang, I just lost an entire post again. I must have fat fingers, hitting the wrong key or something.

I certainly need to learn more about the vitalist stance.

It SOUNDS like replacing “God” with the word “Spirit” and replacing “create” with “emanate”. But I’m know it is not that simple.

If we are just saying that we are more than our nature and nurture, I don’t see any conceptual problems in the speculation. I’m sure strict materialists are not happy with it, but how can they be happy with anything? :laughing:

#44

Thanks Sherman - I’m honoured. I’m so glad my post resonated :smiley:

#45

Dick I’ve got no real philosophical training, I don’t use Vitalist in the strict sense (thus my quip about not being a card carrying member :smiley: ). It is an adapted term used by chiropractors and other natural health care providers and to some extent others in the sciences that don’t follow the mechanistic, materialistic explanation of life. Its more a healthcare term nowadays but being a holist, in practice, I’m a holist in life and I transfer that to my general philosophy. :wink:

#46

Of course Jeremy :smiley: - are you a chiropractor? (I’ve no great philosophical training actually - I just had to teach moral philosophy for a bit so I had to get reasonably au fait with some of the other stuff - but oh dearie me, I don’t find it easy :laughing: ). But I did look up vitalism last night and I think I’ve got a vaguely clearer idea of what it is now (and that’s a paradox :laughing: ). (And it’s lovely to have a chat with you again :smiley: )

#47

This video is of the guy who pioneered epigenetics, Bruce Lipton Ph.D. He spoke at our chiropractic college a few times. I thought he was a quack, and if you look up his name you will find that. But watch the video, and see if what he is saying doesn’t strike a chord. I haven’t really read much of his stuff, just sat through a few lectures years ago. I pretty much wrote him off, besides a few of his interesting points. That is until I started doing post-Doc. study of nutrition, which basically is cell biology/physiology. Once you start to understand whats going on down there you (should) start looking at the world differently. I also began to be reintroduced to epigenetics, and then you start hearing lots of other people saying the same quacky things that Dr. Lipton is saying, and these guys are not “just some old hippies” like Bruce. Then I came to Universalism and it changed my understanding “us” and “them”, and became aware of the interconnectedness of life, how we are one creation with God in and through us. And the ideas in here become a bit more reasonable. I’m probably jumping the gun a bit because the video I’m posting is a 10 minute intro to the basics of epigenetics. The ramifications of this on a philosophical, theological, and spiritual level are vast. I don’t go the way that some do btw of taking this to the “Human Potential Movement”. Around the 7 minute mark it cuts and switches gears from his story, to cell membranes. That is where the main interest of this is to me, which I’ll try to elaborate on later, once I can hopefully bring you guys (whoevers interested) up to speed on what the heck I’m talking about.

2 little bits then the clip. Mammal cell membranes are made up of EPA/DHA which are Omega 3 fatty acids. The only place DHA we get it from in that form is from Fish Oil. Hmm fish??? Is there any sort of symbolism to fish :wink: (I’m thinking of the term interdividuality here as Michael Hardin uses)

Also this guy pretty much destroys Naturalistic Darwinian Evolution, and makes a pretty good case for “theistic evolution” (not in this clip though), which hasn’t made him a lot of friends.

youtube.com/watch?v=r6Vyh_sBMcs

#48

Yes Dick there is definitely some issues in the logic of classical vitalism, and frankly “chiropractic” vitalism. Yes I am a chiro, along with Melchizedek.

#49

Two chiros - wish you were here in the UK :laughing: . I’ve had back problems for twenty years and I see an osteopath whenever it ‘gives’. I understand that osteopathy is different from normal physiotherapy because it also has some vitalism in its theory :slight_smile:

Idealism - This is the opposite of Materialism in that it stresses the Mind/Mental/ Spiritual aspect of Reality. ‘Weak’ idealism argues that there is an independent mind that interacts with mater but is different from mater and not wholly determined by matter (it is untenable to argue that our values, our subjective experience of choice etc are illusions). I think I’d call myself a middling idealist. I think it is a ‘rationalist’ position - arrived at by thought and argument.

Strong idealism is the belief that spirit/mind is the most important or the only reality

New thought positive thinking is a form of strong idealism with its belief that we simply create our own reality and if we tap in to our unlimited potential and resonate with the ‘law of attraction’ we can all live a miraculous life (regarding ‘miraculous life’ - the difference between wanting/having lots of money, a great sex life etc, and in being a person of great compassion is not often pondered in New thought). If we fail to realise our full potential (or - in some versions - if we suffer) this is because we have created our own negative reality/prison for ourselves. some of this stuff may be partially true but as a presentation of the whole and deepest truth about life it is a fraudulent distortion IMHO. New thought is not rational - and distorts and misapplies empirical evidence about quantum physics etc.

Vitalism seems to be more an explanation/hypothesis of how physical life as formed by vital sprit (or spirits). It is an explanation that informed early modern science and one that vitalists argued was fruitful to comprehend empirical observations. So vitalism is not purely a matter of argument/rationalism. It has always presented itself as empirical also (although materialist call it pseudoscience).
.
It’s hard to place epigenetics. I can see it being used by the New Thought people -definitely. However it is not strong idealism - it is simply suggesting that mind can act back upon genetics ( which is weak to middling idealism in my definition; that is- mind and matter are both real and act upon each other). I’m not sure that it necessarily is vitalist because vitalists often think other things - for example that water has a memory in some way, or we have auras emanating from our bodies etc. A person does not have to believe in the memory of water, or auric fields as proven facts of empirical science to respect the science of epigenetics. :slight_smile:

Are these useful distinctions Jeremy?

#50

Yeah Dick, those seem to get at the gist of it to me. I would put myself as a middling idealist then also. And I meant New Thought not Human Potential, though I think they overlap. The reason I brought those up because I’m pretty sure Dr. Lipton falls into the New Thought category, but that doesn’t dismiss the science behind epigenetics, which was the point of that big intro to the video I wrote.

As far as Vitalism and animating spirits, that is the classical model of vitalism, which is similar but different to the Chiropractic version. I’ll give the main premises of chiropractic vitalism.

  1. There is a Universal Intelligence that is the source of all. Everything derives its life essence, energetic power, animating power, from this. This to me is very similar to “in Him we live and move and have our being”, and “from Him, through Him, and to Him are all things”.

  2. There is an extension of the Universal Intelligence in all living things. It is called innate intelligence in the organism. This is what makes us go. If its gone, we’re dead. A live person is cut with a knife, and a dead person is cut with a knife. One heals the other doesn’t. One has the power on, the other the power is off. “And he blew into his nostrils the breath of life”.

Most theists would probably agree with these premises for the most part, which are pretty much opposite of materialistic worldview that dominates science.

As an aside there is a wide variety of philosophical leanings in chiropractic, with major internal battles going on between the two sides. Melchi and I went to very different philosophically based schools, but what happens is the vast majority of us end up somewhere in the middle practicing pretty similarly. And when the extremes from both sides of the aisle go away, the opposing sides arrive at the same point from a different starting point anyway. Not always, but it seems to be the norm.

#51

Let me just say that beyond those first 2 premises of chiropractic philosophy there are a bunch more, which I don’t necessarily ascribe to.

#52

Thanks Jeremy - that’s very clear and useful :smiley: . Yes New Thought and Human potential overlap big time!

#53

Here is a medieval carol - still sung in England at Christmas - which celebrates St. Irenaeus’ mysterious theme that the Fall was somehow fortunate because the Incarnation was always part of God’s plan, and not just plan ‘B’ to cope with a catastrophe.

youtube.com/watch?v=azSVHUBHQYY

Adam lay ybounden
Bounden in a bond;
Four thousand winters
Thought he not too long.

And all was for an apple,
An apple that he took,
As clerkes find it
Written in the Book.

Never had the apple,
The apple taken been,
Never had our lady,
A been Hevene Queen.

Blessed be the time
The apple taken was
Therefore we must singen
Deo gracias (Praise God)

#54

I don’t like this idea because it makes God look like the author of evil.

#55

To my mind it makes God looks like the author of good that overcomes evil. :slight_smile:

#56

Another thing about the carol is that it is poetry/hyperbole in praise and wonder at the Incarnation rather than theology. And it is liturgical poetry in the context of Christmas celebration rather than in the context of liturgical mourning in Holy Week. :slight_smile:

To be fair to Iranaeus I think eh actually taught that the Incarnation was always part of God’s plan whether or not the fall had happened.

#57

You could say that the fall was fortunate, or that God always knew the fall would happen (and could hardly forfend against it and yet create beings of free will) and therefor, while it was not necessary that we fall to know His all-encompassing love, it was in a sense fortunate because Father takes the bad things and makes them good – better, in fact, than it would have been, even without the bad things.

My best analogy for this falls short, but when I’m painting a picture I know there will be all sorts of things to overcome. In my case it’s typically my own error, or rarely, some fault in my materials. In God’s case, of course, it is the free radical – our independent will (to what extent it IS independent) and of course the influence of other wills on us. That and not His own failings causes Him to compensate again and again, and in the process make the finished masterpiece that much more magnificent.

#58

I think I agree with Iranaeus about that. Father wanted mature and loving sons and daughters – how could He accomplish that without giving us our Elder Brother as example and guide? Even if Adam and Eve had remained innocent, Father would not have been satisfied with mere innocence. He wanted mature daughters and sons.

#59

I think I agree with you, Cindy, but I’m not too happy about it, if you know what I mean.
“Mere innocence” - I’d not thought of it like that; I’ll have to ponder a bit as to whether that innocent state - called “Good” by God - was in fact lacking, and in which way.
Those early chapters of Genesis are so provocative.

#60

““Mere innocence” - I’d not thought of it like that; I’ll have to ponder a bit as to whether that innocent state - called “Good” by God - was in fact lacking, and in which way.
Those early chapters of Genesis are so provocative.”

I often wonder if they are authoritative for us today or just limited to the problems the Israelites faced in ancient Babylone.

I am currently reading a book about historical-critical scholarship by professor Friedman entitled “Who wrote the Bible?” and it often seems hard to believe in a transcendent meaning of a historically contigent text.