Where does the Eternalist now sit in the debate between science and religion? Aristotle has clearly had a great influence upon science, in fact many might argue that it was his methods of classification that helped to shape the way that all modern biology is now taught and understood. It took until the 17th century for our understanding of biology to actually start to improve upon the observations that Aristotle had made 2000 years earlier. He was surely a great thinker and so far ahead of his time in many respects. What is really interesting though about Aristotle is the way he saw the world around him and his beliefs about nature and religion. At a time when many Greeks were used to believing in many Gods, Aristotle believed in something far stranger and different than of a world shaped and ruled by a panthion of Gods, for Aristotle believed in Eternalism. When he looked around he did not see a world shaped by evolution, nature or Gods, what Aristotle saw was world unchanging where all the plant life and animal species had always existed. Today we might ask questions about how we come to be, some favour religious explantions such as we and everything we see around us has been created by an all powerful eternal being, indeed many many people around the world do believe in a God of one religion or another. The most common religious belief is that of a single God that has created everything, monotheism, this type of belief being shared by followers of most of the worlds great religions. There are also the people that prefer a scientific explantion, ideas based on evidence, logic and or observation. What we no longer seem to have though is the Eternalist explantion, the idea that we simply might just have always been here. So why did the religious idea of creation survive and evolve for thousands of years whilst the idea of Eternalism seemingly die out? Was it that Eternalism was killed off by religion or science, with people prefering these explanations or could it have been that Aristotle was simply wrong? Is there a place for a modern Eternalist? Like science and religion the concept of Eternalism would have surely evolved over the centuries along with our knowledge and understanding. Perhaps unlike Aristotle a modern Eternalist might see the Universe as having always existed, some might suggest here though that is indeed leading towards a scientific explanation. But would that really be the case or could it be perhaps when we look at religion's perspective that any explantions seem scientific when not endorsing religious doctrine. So where does that leave the concept of Eternalism, is it really in the relm of the scientific as a modern interpretation? Well possibly not, even though perhaps rejected by religion, as clearly it doesn't support any concept of creation, it is at heart about the idea of eternity and the only other place we can really find this idea is from the religious concept of God, the eternal being. So where would this all leave our Eternalist Aristotle if he were alive today, would he swayed by passion towards science and learning the way things work, or would he just perhaps alter the scale of his Eternalist views to match our modern day understanding of the universe? Where would Aristotle himself think that Eternalism sits in relation to either science or religion?
This is a very interesting post, Gorlitz. From what I understand of the philosophy of eternalism -- Time has no 'tense.' The past/present/future are not 'absolutes.' What's particularly interesting about this, is that it doesn't (shouldn't) 'change' God, to a theist. God is eternal. God is timeless. (to a believer) So, to answer your question, I don't think it would have any bearing on the concept of God, for a believer. Just guessing, I envision Aristotle would adhere to the good of the whole. So, to answer your question, I think he would alter the scale of his eternalist views to match our modern day views of the universe. His ideas on justice were quite revolutionary and we still 'use' his law of cause and effect. One thing to touch on that you state here about eternalism and religion. I don't think a theist needs to reject eternalism from a scientific view, simply because it doesn't touch on creationism. To me, it's a concept separate and away, and can complement the religious view of eternity.
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/433/arintro.htm Aristotle's Universe seems to be so incorrect, one would wonder if there is any point in discussing it further!
Interesting, I don't see it that way, scientifically speaking. And he even seemed to "flirt" with the idea of Something beyond. (the "unmoved mover") even though, he believed that the changes outside of the universe were uncaused. Considering the time period, he was revolutionary in his ideas! Just my humble opinion.
Well when I read that I was reminded that the Roman Church was blamed for keeping the world in the Dark Ages, for even when Galileo showed the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe (as is now clearly one of Aristotle's concepts) his work was banned. So it wasn't so much as the Church but the adherence to Aristotle's ideas that was the problem. Now this "“unmoved mover” - a cause of change that is itself uncaused and outside of the universe" seems rather Roman as well. So was that phrase adopted into Christianity too? Yet in some ways it fits into my philosophy as well so I don't totally reject it either. The words, given to me in a dream way back in 1999(??), went something like this: "There are 12 dimensions to the Universe. The twelfth dimension is the "cause of change" putting the energy into the Universe. Therefore it is the unseen dimension." That is rather similar to Aristotle's "All of this movement and change is ultimately explained in terms of an “unmoved mover” - a cause of change that is itself uncaused and outside of the universe". Which was a surprise, for if that was true, the String Theory is the better explanation of the Universe. I have not really explored these ideas further after that time.
I think it's interesting to consider other points of view now and again because it seems certain ideas have just swept away by both science and a modern religious view. It's sometimes easy to forget that there are, or aptly were other viewpoints, so perhaps when we debate science and religion these days are focus has become to narrowed and we don't recognise or consider all the possibilities anymore. I do think what you said about the seperation of creation from a religious view of the world is interesting, once you can seperate these two concepts the whole idea of eternalism is pushed very squarely towards a more religious vision for everything. One of the interesting points about eternalism is that if you take away a starting pointing, any form of creation whether this be scientific or religious, you also take away a need for an end point. What this effectively means is that existence as we understand it will simply continue ad infinitum. Strange as this concept is to accept, it would at least solve one of the most defining questions mankind has asked sinced the dawn of time; "When did everything begin?", the answer to this question, based upon and Eternalist philosophy, would be it didn't, as there was no beginning. This also is perhaps easier to accept than being stuck in the recurring cycle of asking; "Well what came before that?", obviously one of those questions that can never be fully satisfied in a logical ordinary way without reference to some kind of loop or paradox.
I wouldn't be satisfied with that either. You can't solve the problem of how did it begin by saying it always existed. Especially the physical world doesn't appear to have always existed.
As concepts go it does have a few holes to be solved, certainly it needs updating to take account of the knowledge we now have about our planet, evolution and the universe in general. However where the concept still stands up well against both the idea of creation (religion) or a cosmological explanation (science) is that it solves the fundemal question of what existed before existence started. This is a serious problem, no matter how far you take science you are still just following backwards a chain of events, this chain had to start somewhere because if it didn't then you are back to a type of Eternalism where at least something has always existed. The same problem exists within a religious interpretation, because even if you start with the idea of God you have the same question, either God has always existed or he was created leaving us back with what was before God. No nice clear answer. What the idea of Eternalism tells us is that something has always existed and that something always will, it doesn't now tell that this will be forever unchanging because if it did we wouldn't be able to do or invent anything. What it does is allows to stop asking why, and consentrate on how it works.
I know what you mean and it is mind boggling. The modern thing is to say that it all adds up to nothing. Like nothing fluctuated to form both positive and negative, both matter and antimatter and they became separated somehow. I think they need a background energy field for this to happen. So that doesn't sound like nothing either. For where did the background energy come from?
An unfortunate tidbit though about Aristotle. He thought women were beneath men, and he was 'pro slavery.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml
It reflects the social attitude of the day. Even amongst the Lord's disciples they resisted the ascendancy of the women. They were very jealous of the attention Jesus paid to Mary Magdalene . But you can tell she really loved him, and would do anything for him. It makes me cry when I read of her love for Jesus, when she recognized the risen Lord in the garden and said to him "Rabboni" (which can be translated as "husband"). Were they a couple as a lot of modern authors suggest? I would love to find out the truth about that one day. I have this feeling you could help me with that.
I don't think we will ever know for certain, but I'm of the opinion that they were close, like friends. When I read stories about Jesus, he seemed to want to remain "detached," to a degree. Main reason I think was because he knew he had a short window of time (three years) to get his ministry going. To be romantically involved would have weighed him down. It is unfortunate, even today, that we presume men and women can't "just" be friends. I won't get into the apostolic succession, with the priesthood being seen as a vocation of celibacy. Because I think the cynic (even inside of me) may question if early church "fathers" who compiled the bible, wanted the vocation to be that which had celibacy in mind. But, why would celibacy be a necessary factor to preaching the Gospel of Christ? You know? It's not necessary. In fact, the RCC today is looking at potentially letting married men become priests, not just deacons but priests. Even after the Reformation, I want to say that non-Catholics believed that Jesus led a celibate, single life. I think that is a common thread that Christians of all "denominations" believe to be true. I've seen both sides from historians presented about this, so at the end of the day, some think he could have been romantically involved with Mary Magdalene, while others don't believe that. (from a strictly historical perspective) Sufficient to say...The RCC needs reform. But we won't go there for the sake of this thread. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hope that clarifies my position for you?
There is an Eternal Truth. How to tap into that truth is the question. I'm sure if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were just friends, even if they were married yet celibate if you like, under their Law on the death of the childless husband the next eldest brother would have to marry his brother's wife and raise kids for him. Does this explain the St John letters in the NT were they the love letters between them two? They are particularly sweet for some reason. Its been a while since I have read the First, Second and Third Saint John letters.
Sorry but is that fair, I'm at work having to complete the end of month report. Hugs Eternal truth, Eternal existence sure are difficult topics to get your head around. Philosophies change as society develops. Some modern societies are rather scary when you are used to Western culture.
So you can switch it off and on. Is that fair? Hugs. Just listening to CNN and article about child brides in Yemen. Aristotle probably agreed with that too. Video went viral on YouTube. ""Nada al-Ahdal" would rather die than be forced into marriage" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh2fF4ccwI
I read this when u first posted it...and I can't say I've heard this depiction before. I will do some research on it and see what turns up. But, we will never know with certainty. Just wild guessing...I don't think Jesus was married or involved with anyone. The RCC's priesthood was based off the Apostolic succession that involved presumably single men. Only caveat to this is I want to say that Peter was married as a mother in law is mentioned in the Bible. Interesting, at any rate!
How would you research that? Its not the sort of thing you'd find in a NT commentary but I seen the likes of this being mentioned by Dan Brown in his "The Da Vinci Code". He makes suggestions like Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code But if Jesus was married like he suggests, and if they didn't have kids, it would be a brother's duty by law to marry Mary and raise a family on behalf of Jesus. They seem to forget that bit.
Oh, don't look to Dan Brown for your source on anything having to do with the Catholic Church. Lol I don't care what someone believes sbout God, truly...it is a personal choice/decision...but I take issue with people who make up half truths about others' religions and get rich off promoting it as though it were flipping fact! Don't get me started on Dan Brown. :/
Well how would you research it then? Forget Dan Brown, that's all right. Do you trust the Internet? Do you trust archaeological finds? Do you trust old manuscripts? What would you trust? To me the whole thing has to add up. Like at the moment we don't know who John is writing too.
While I work on building a time machine in my garage ... in the interim, this site might help. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! www.fourthgospel.uk.com I'm getting an error message when clicking on it. Just type it into your browser. It should work. Happy researching!
