Is apologetics a science?

[McCulloch]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

[bernee51]

What does the soul do?

Your soul is the seat of all consciously and unconsciously willed thoughts, ideas, beliefs, feelings, emotions, memories and experiences of your lifetime. It is the essence of all which can be said to consist of your personal being, identity, personality, ego, self, character which is the accumulated result of your lifetime experiences. One thing that a soul "does" is believe in its experiences and knowledge, whether it believes in itself or not.

The soul then is a composite of "willed thoughts, ideas, beliefs, feelings, emotions, memories and experiences of your lifetime.It is the essence of all which can be said to consist of your personal being, identity, personality, ego, self, character... ".

As these things, and thus the soul, are observable, they are then objects in awareness. In who's awareness are these objects?

[jcrawford]

Not only "could" it be considered but it SHOULD be taken into account since without cognizance, recognition and admission of one's own soulful being and existence into the discussions, who or what may be said to be doing the "scientific" research and cognizing?

You confuse me. I am not sure but this seems circular to me.

According to Van Til and Rushdoony, all reasoning is circular reasoning since it is logically bound to be consistent with the limited categorical imperatives established and imposed by the preconceived and presuppositional premises upon which reasonable thought structures and ideas are rationally built.

Words seldom retain their meaning identical from their roots. Science is derived from the Greek term for I know yes, but science is no longer used as a synonym for knowledge. The word science in English now refers to a particular branch of knowledge separate from mathematics, logic, ethics or history.

Dividing bodies of knowledge up into separate branches or departments doesn't negate the fact that the word science still connotes a body of knowledge.

The term cognitive science is the scientific discipline studying cognition, the process of knowing and thinking.

That is why I consider Christian apologeticists like Van Til and Rushdoony to be expert cognitive scientists in their own specialized area of researching and cognizing the "process of knowing and thinking."

Perhaps you too are a cognitive scientist of sorts. I certainly hope so, since if you are not, I cannot imagine what theory of knowledge or cognition establishes and supports your claims to know anything about anything. Naive realism?

[jcrawford]

If Van Til and Rushdoony were scientists, they would provide scientific testable evidence that there is a Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit works in the ways described.

They do, since their lives and combined works show that they were living examples of the power of the Holy Spirit working in men.

Testable evidence is no longer a scientific criteria ever since Darwin, Marx, Durkheim, Freud and their millions of followers have abused and corrupted what used to be called the "scientific method."

The word "science" can no longer be defined by anyone other that those who call themselves scientists now that we count anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics and politics amongst the "sciences."

[Cogitoergosum]

Natural selection is not metaphysicla or supernatural, on the countrary it is very natural and all around us.

The concepts of "survival of the fittest," "natural" and "selection" are metaphysical and supernatural in nature.

You are wrong natural selection is not metaphysical nor supernatural, it is testable and verifiable.

You don't understand what natural selection is.

You don't understand the difference between observations and concepts, ideas, beliefs and theories about those observations.[/quote]
Natural selection is not a concept, nor an idea nor a belief it is a fact.

[Cogitoergosum]

You don't need a soul to be self aware. All you need is the right mind.

Your mind is that part of your soul which cognizes and reflects upon thoughts and ideas about your brain and soul.

There is no such thing as a soul, all cognition is done in your brain, in your neuron, kill a part of your brain and you will kill corresponding cognition, i fail to see what the soul does.

What does the soul do?

Your soul is the seat of all consciously and unconsciously willed thoughts, ideas, beliefs, feelings, emotions, memories and experiences of your lifetime. It is the essence of all which can be said to consist of your personal being, identity, personality, ego, self, character which is the accumulated result of your lifetime experiences. One thing that a soul "does" is believe in its experiences and knowledge, whether it believes in itself or not.

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

Believing that you exist and believing you have an immortal soul are two VERY different things.

Belief is a faculty and function of the soul, no matter what you believe about it, or what those beliefs consist of.

Again brain not soul.

[jcrawford]

The word Science entered English in the 14th century, in the sense ‘the state of knowing: knowledge’. It comes via French from Latin scienta, from the verb ‘to know’. Scire is the source of a number of words relating to knowledge and awareness, including conscience, omniscient, and prescient.

Ooh and the word Cognition is from Latin cognoscere ‘get to know’; which is the root of the knowing’ words cognitive and cognisance and also recognise.

Thanks for the etymologies of the words we bandy about so cavalierly and nonchalantly without being able to scientifically demonstrate or prove what any of them mean in terms of empirical, physical, metaphysical or supernatural knowledge.

As you brought Sartre up. He would say

The existence of consciousness comes from consciousness itself.’

To what source would Sarte accredit the origin and creation of one's consciousness of one's soul, if not God?

‘what is truly unthinkable is passive existence; that is, existence which perpetuates itself without having the force either to produce itself or to preserve itself. Indeed where would consciousness “come” from if it did “come” from something? From the limbo of the unconscious or of the physiological.

Asking the question doesn't answer it, and existentialists have no answer for the origin of either their consciousness or souls.

But if we ask ourselves how this limbo in its turn can exist and where it derives its existence….’

Aw, why cut off the best part?

To cut a very long and near impenetrable story short, consciousness is an the active engagement with itself, and cannot depend on further explanation.

So much for existential cognition.

By implication Sarte is saying the Cartesian ontology is a logical mistake.

Sarte's circular reasoning and ideology is a logical extention of Descarte's, since it is solely based on Sarte's thinking alone and proves nothing beyond his own claim to exist.

You cannot posit anything, including the soul, as separate from or an origin of consciousness.

I don't, since I only posit the soul as the seat of consciousness, conscience and all that is relegated to the unconscious.

So if you take Sartre seriously, you cannot assume anything, including the soul, to explain the origin of self-cognition, and perception of existence, other than consciousness in-itself.

Why take a man who said that "man is a useless passion," seriously.

Even if you don’t take Sartre seriously, it still stand as a reference point that throws considerable doubt on your basic assumptions, ....

Sarte's philosophy is no more a reasonable reference point to consider since doubt was the cognitional method Rene Descartes relied upon to establish the fact of his own thinking and being.

and any metaphysical theory of soul and mind would need to be able to defend itself against an existentialist critique.

Rushdoony deconstructs Sarte and invalidates all existentionalist thought by showing such circular reasoning to be analogous to a narcissistic man asking his mirror reflection if he truly is good-looking or is just an image or projection of his mind.

But the point in this thread is that there is no reason to make the assumptions you are making.

The anti-thesis of the point which whoever started the thread is trying to make, is that if reason alone is to be depended on as our faithful guide to the attainment of true knowledge, cognition and wisdom, then there are plenty of reasons for Christians to presuppose the existence of their own souls, and plenty of reasons not to believe in anything Jean Paul Sarte has to say about our Christian consciousness and conscience.

I suppose if cognitive scientists posited a theory of the soul, then that might be different, but there is no intrinsic reason why cognitive science should be equated with any metaphysics produced within Christian apologetics or even existentialism.

You are falsely presuming that cognitive scientists cannot be Christians and cognitive scientists at the same time, and that no cognitive scientist has any interest in cognizing the existence of his own soul.

[jcrawford]

1) Human mind=human brain.

Show me how the brain cognizes the mind, since silence=death.

mind (mind)
1. the organ or seat of consciousness; the faculty, or brain function, by which one is aware of surroundings, and by which one experiences feelings, emotions, and desires, and is able to attend, remember, learn, reason, and make decisions.
2. the organized totality of an organism's mental and psychological processes, conscious and unconscious.
3. the characteristic thought process of a person or group.


Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mind (mnd)
n.
1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.

Medical doctors cannot and do not define my mind for me since they can neither know nor conceive of the thoughts and ideas contained in my mind without my permission to tell them.

2) How does the soul come into cognitive science?

Who is doing the cognizing, you, your brain or your soul?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford

Of course my soul is an "actuality," since I myself am as much a living soul as you are.

No, you are as much a group of living cells as I am.

I am more than just "a group of living cells," like you claim to be, since without a personality, you may be nothing more than an group of living cells.

Since I have yet to hear any convincing argument as to what a soul actually entails, I will have to stick with science on this one and consider that life doens't necessitate a soul.

Biological life neither necessitates nor mandates the need for a soul in animals, but human beings with no souls may have a problem proving that they have even have minds.

In regards to proof: I can see you, I can't see your soul.

You obviously have an advantage over me since I can't see you, but am only communicating with your soul.

How is selection not a natural process?? If I go to the grocery store to buy some apples, will I not select the apples that are the ripest? If I go to the mall to buy a new top, will I not select the top that is appropriate for the weather outdoors? How are these supernatural concepts?

You have to use your supernatural powers of discrimination and decision-making when it comes to selecting a particular apple or "top," otherwise all apples and tops would look the same to you and you couldn't even tell the difference between an apple and "top."

[jcrawford]

"survivial of the fittest" is not a darwinan concept. It was introduced by Herbert Spencer in an effort to put some of the concepts into social sciences.

The term was invented and published by Spencer before Darwin wrote his "Origin of Species," based on and in development and application of the phrase and concept.

"Natural selection" on the other hand, is not supernatural. It is testable , and repeatable.

That only proves that the mental concept and idea of "natural selection" must be a supernatural cognition since nothing which is natural or naturally observed in nature needs to be proved to anyone.

[jcrawford]

The soul then is a composite of "willed thoughts, ideas, beliefs, feelings, emotions, memories and experiences of your lifetime.It is the essence of all which can be said to consist of your personal being, identity, personality, ego, self, character... ".

As these things, and thus the soul, are observable, they are then objects in awareness. In who's awareness are these objects?

As objects, "these things" are only observable as experiences and espressions of the soul, by the soul itself and to those who observe its expressions and behavioral manifestations.