pilgrim.1:


Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this hubris! So many, many natural scientists are quite often dogmatic and are too secure in their assumptions and presumptions to state theories as FACT! They do not call them "speculation" or "conjectures"! This "happy to confess" harrumph is why other scientists have sadly noted that science itself is not understood for what it truly is - because so many "scientists" are abusing its significance by speaking fom both sides of their mouths! It is really sad to note that people would be going about with the kind of statement in your quote, and that is one reason why many people get so confused by this dogmatic idea whereas we know for a fact that many scientists are too assertively certain of their postulations!

Interesting turn of phrase, Pilgrim. I have taken interest in the following from your quote;

1) Dogma and dogmatism
2) Hubris
3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists
4) The conflation of theories with facts.


1) Dogma and dogmatism

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. (Source : wikipedia.)

All propositions and theories in science are only held tentatively. Any scientist who says otherwise is really not a good scientist. The philosophy behind science is to avoid dogmatism. The fact that all scientific propositions are held only tentatively does not mean that they are not held with certainty and with conviction.

There are many theories in science that are NOT in dispute today, namely atomic theory, gravitational theory, the theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, etc, etc. All scientist welcome new ways of looking at things and also welcome challenges to establish theories. For science would not have achieved such great successes if it was dogmatic by nature.

Contrarily, religion thrives on dogma

2) Hubris

Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this hubris!

What does this statement really mean? What can it mean? That is an interesting way to use the word "hubris"

Hubris means - excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

Is this what you meant?

Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this excessive pride (or self-confidence; arrogance)!

Does that make any sense at all? I know you are in the habit of using (or misusing and abusing) this word (hubris), charging critiques of religion of displaying hubris. But how can that be? The critiques of religion are the first to admit ignorance of a lot about reality. However, the religionist claim to know not only God but also his mind. Who is displaying greater hubris in this case?

3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists

So many, many natural [b]scientists are quite often dogmatic

This is quite some charge and you could make your case stronger if you could give examples of scientists acting dogmatically

4) The conflation of theories with facts.

Can you give examples were respected and established scientists have conflated facts and theories? Make your case a bit stronger and than making vacuous accusation of this nature.

Hallo huxley,

Quite a while we discussed, and I would like to open with something in yours:

huxley:

Can you give examples were respected and established scientists have conflated facts and theories? Make your case a bit stronger and than making vacuous accusation of this nature.

I haven't been making vacuous accusations, and in just a bit of what follows, I shall oblige by pointing out some scientists who are as dogmatic as you assume to hold only in terms of religious reviews.

huxley:

Interesting turn of phrase, Pilgrim. I have taken interest in the following from your quote;

1) Dogma and dogmatism
2) Hubris
3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists
4) The conflation of theories with facts.

Good delineation, I very much appreciate.

huxley:

1) Dogma and dogmatism

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. (Source : wikipedia.)

All propositions and theories in science are only held tentatively. Any scientist who says otherwise is really not a good scientist. The philosophy behind science is to avoid dogmatism. The fact that all scientific propositions are held only tentatively does not mean that they are not held with certainty and with conviction.

Now, now, dear huxley. . . calm down. Lol.

Wikipedia, if you notice, did not apply dogmatism only to "religion" - it also includes (rather politely) that dogmatism is also found in other 'ideology or any kind of organisation'. To this end, we know quite a lot of atheists who are as dogmatic in their assertions as to occlude the validity of other opinions that do not square with theirs. We could just look up the simplistic definition of dogma by Wikitionary -

In its etymology, dogma is given as -
From Latin dogma philosophical tenet,
from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) opinion, tenet, literally that which
one thinks is true, from dokein to seem good, think (see decent).
Treated in the 17c. -18c. as Greek, with plural dogmata.

As to its noun by the same Wikitionary -
'An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion,
especially one considered to be absolutely true,
regardless of scientific proof.'

Now, dear huxley, without the bias that "dogma" has often been used solely today for religion, could we deny that the same elements of its etymology and application goes precisely descriptive of the assertive attitude by naturalists with an atheistic leaning?

Let me break this down: we are often told (usually by assertive atheists) that "science" only states its postulations tentatively without assuming anything to be held as "authoritatively". Granted. I noted that is what they say publicly to private friends. However, with a little more prodding, these same assertive atheists are inclined to do just the opposite of holding anything tentatively! What they do often is assert their worldview as "authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion" especially considered as "absolutely true" - and in most cases, without scientific proof.

Now, don't get mad at me so we don't lose focus here. I am often told (as you have done), that science states thing tentatively; but I note also that the same "science" is used to state things in a dogmatic way! There's no denying this, if Wikitionary as stated above is true - unless it is false, then I do not see how atheists should assert anything as "absolutely true". . . which is what you have sadly done below:

huxley:

There are many theories in science that are NOT in dispute today, namely atomic theory, gravitational theory, the theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, etc, etc. All scientist welcome new ways of looking at things and also welcome challenges to establish theories. For science would not have achieved such great successes if it was dogmatic by nature.

The only question I would ask here is this: are you not the same person who once argued to make the theory of evolution a FACT?!? You see, huxley, what I often observe people do is confuse or blur the lines of these discussions. If something is to be held as "tentative", there is no coming back to present that same tentative postulation as a FACT! Presenting it as such would only make people further ask if you're stating such a theory as an "absolute truth" (remember here that the "absolutely true" is defined in Wikitionary as one of the elements of "dogma"? It would only mean that while you decry "religious dogma", you nevertheless are quite at home to present another type of "dogma" - and this is where you certainly do not have a moral ground to assume a superior station to point accusative fingers at anyone.

I have observed already, that religion and science ask very different questions - and they answer these questions quite differently. But for many of us, we deem to read everything in a linear perspective, and in many instances we become the victims of our own arguments!


A second thing I need to clear here is this:

huxley:

1) Dogma and dogmatism

Dogmatism. Here is a very different level of assertiveness than simply adhering to dogma. What's the difference anyway? Here, let's see (from Wikitionary):
_______________________________________________________________________

The manner or character of a dogmatist; arrogance or positiveness in stating opinion.
_______________________________________________________________________

It is a maxim that one could state a dogma quite with a humble spirit; but it is also true that one can state his opinions in dogmatism. Are we not already seeing this very thing among many naturalists (and even religious people as well)? Dogmatism, I dare say, is the philosophy of people like Dawkins . . Okay, okay, I know - the mere mention of his name churns the stomach; but besides him are very many other "scientists" who are quite well known for their dogmatism rather than the humble spirit of an open-minded enquirer.

Just to remind you of one small example, please see this review.

I do hope that we try to keep these two things in distinction - because many people mix them up and assume that "dogma" and "dogmatism" are just terms bandied synonymously, whereas they are not.

huxley:

2) Hubris

What does this statement really mean? What can it mean? That is an interesting way to use the word "hubris"

Hubris means - excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

Is this what you meant?

Yes, that's precisely what I meant. "Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this overbearing pride or presumption!" That statement does not mean that I concluded dear Pastor had indeed bought into this "arrogance"; but he only sounded so! What could I possibly mean, and does it make any sense at all?

Supposing I said rather: "you are sounding as if you have bought into this arrogance", would that statement be carried at all? It all depends on the function of that word or clause in the way that statement was formulated - in this case, it is a noun appearing at the end of that statement.

But leave the semantics and grammar aside for now, and rather ask if it still carries any meaning as applied to what it was connected with? What exactly was the hubris (or hybris) pointing to? It was rather pointing to the "arrogance" in now populist idea that scientists "are happy to confess that they are speculating and making conjectures." This is quite an arrogance in itself because we know that many scientists do not like their works to be written off merely as "speculations" or "conjectures" - they state and postulate their theories as facts! The idea that some of these folks are "happy to confess" to some conjectures and speculations are met with stiff-necked dogmatism from them!

huxley:

Does that make any sense at all? I know you are in the habit of using (or misusing and abusing) this word (hubris), charging critiques of religion of displaying hubris.

It makes perfect sense if you took the time to read it in its context, as explained above! However, you're misreading my use of that word as "charging critics of religion". If a naturalist becomes too driven with his naturalism, one would have to call the bluff, because what such a naturalist is doing also falls within the paramenters of "charging" religiously inclined thinkers with all sorts. So, I don't agree with you that it has been abused - at least not in this case. However, i'm open to see how it might have come across to you as such.

huxley:

But how can that be? The critiques of religion are the first to admit ignorance of a lot about reality. However, the religionist claim to know not only God but also his mind. Who is displaying greater hubris in this case?

I shall refrain from charging anyone at this moment, so I'm not going to say here that the "critics" or religion are either way more guilty.

The one thing to constantly keep before us is this: science is not a worldview as naturalism and religion. Naturalism is NOT science, nor is religion science. But both science and religion are concerned with different kinds of questions; and those who understand these paradigms are not shy at all in stating that science should not be used to adjudicate over supernatural phenomena. It is in this sense that you cannot use a naturalist mindset to peer into the supernatural! To always confuse these grounds is the reason why many people fall back to the pride of atheistic dogmatism.

huxley:

3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists

No, no, no and a zillion times NO! One could clearly state the obvious that, as long as worldviews are concerned, atheists thmselves who hold everything as "science" are quite dogmatic! It would be meaningless to allege dogmatism or hubris against "scientists" - for science is not to be accused of atheistic and naturalistic dogmatism!

huxley:

This is quite some charge and you could make your case stronger if you could give examples of scientists acting dogmatically

As long as we know what "dogmatism" really is, here is just an oft repeated example: "Dawkins The Dogmatist". Dogma and dogmatism are not to be confused.

huxley:

4) The conflation of theories with facts.

Can you give examples were respected and established scientists have conflated facts and theories? Make your case a bit stronger and than making vacuous accusation of this nature.

Oh certainly, huxley, certainly. I would only beg you to hold on for now and let me see Pastor AIO's rejoinders to mine - especially as regards "dark matter". there are very interesting things I need to show him in this regard. That I am reserved on this at the moment does not mean I don't have any examples.

However, to a far lesser degree, we know that Einstein's theories were moderated/adjusted after having been celebrated, wasn't it? I shall come back afterwards to make the connection.

Thanks again for your neat appraisals, very much appreciated.

Hello Pilgrim, Thanks for ya response and I see with most of them except for the below;

pilgrim.1:

The only question I would ask here is this: are you not the same person who once argued to make the theory of evolution a FACT?!? You see, huxley, what I often observe people do is confuse or blur the lines of these discussions. If something is to be held as "tentative", there is no coming back to present that same tentative postulation as a FACT! Presenting it as such would only make people further ask if you're stating such a theory as an "absolute truth" (remember here that the "absolutely true" is defined in Wikitionary as one of the elements of "dogma"? It would only mean that while you decry "religious dogma", you nevertheless are quite at home to present another type of "dogma" - and this is where you certainly do not have a moral ground to assume a superior station to point accusative fingers at anyone.

You may have forgotten the essence of the discussion we had about this subject. If you can track down the thread I would be much grateful. Nonetheless this is how I made the distinction:

Facts ----> The observed changes in lifeforms
TTE -----> A conceptual framework that explains those observed facts of change of lifeforms.

Facts exists quite independently of theories. As we speak (or write) there are an infinity of facts about the world, some observed but trillions unobserved. Some of the observed ones have been explain using a human-developed theoretical framework.

To summarise;

Facts ---> Natural parts of reality
Theory ---> Human-developed explanatory framework of observed facts.

@huxley,

Thanks again for yours. I'm quite refreshed when my assumptions are closely examined and critiqued, for that is what helps my understanding of the realities of our observable world. Let me note just this line in yours briefly:

huxley:

To summarise;

Facts ---> Natural parts of reality
Theory ---> Human-developed explanatory framework of observed facts.

I remember the discussion we had on that, though just too lazy at the moment to track it. However, my joy is that we all have come a long way to understand that a theory is not to be confused for the fact. If you remember, I was constantly trying to make the point that a theory was susceptible to alterations, while a fact remains constant (unless and until something directly affects its nature or structure).

In all, thanks for the reminder.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:


Of course, it is a way of deliberately assuming that one cannot see what is stated that makes you assume no substance in what I shared. Put another way, what you are hoping to highlight is the vacant and simplistic assumption that I might have defined "spirit" by saying it is "not human", and then when (if) you had asked what is "human", I might have said it is "spirit".

You see, this simplistic cacophony was what made me highlight the point that, unless you deliberately are given to miss the gist here, then certainly it should not have been difficult to see. For which reason I used the example of dark matter to show you that it is a false assumption to state that definitions cannot be made using what a that entity does not entail! That is a fallacy, my dear, and no matter how you hoot against it, it is still a fallacy. Meanwhile, if one should be honest, the simplistic way you assumed I had explained "spirit' is far different from what I had posted.

What?!!! Are you reading minds now. I'm hoping to highlight what? What has human and Spirit got to do with saying that Spirit is Incorporeal and Invisible.

If someone asked you to describe me and you told them that 'well, he is not Chinese', I guess that would help to narrow the possible number of people I could be to 4/5ths of the worlds population. But it is hardly a sufficient definition by which to begin a search. Where to you start? With looking for oyinbos, or aboriginal australians, or latinos, or negros.
Well I guess that you're right that a negative description is information of some sort about it. But that Spirit is Incorporeal, ie not having a physical body, and Invisible, ie NOt seen by the eyes are negative descriptions. And BTW you contradict yourself by saying it is invisible and then showing youtube videos of demons on guy's shoulders and other such stuff.

At least with Dark matter the scientists start with observable phenomena. Dark matter causes Gravity. They then go on to further classify this cause of gravity as being invisible which is something they find very puzzling. There is so much to say about your posts and you write such long ones too that I'm almost tired before I even start. I've got a busy day to get back to so I shall have to return later.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

What?!!! Are you reading minds now. I'm hoping to highlight what? What has human and Spirit got to do with saying that Spirit is Incorporeal and Invisible.

I'm not reading your mind as I'm not clairvoyant; rather, the way you present your arguments was why I presented how simplistic you have been alleging my rejoinders to have sounded, which was wrong.

Pastor AIO:

If someone asked you to describe me and you told them that 'well, he is not Chinese', I guess that would help to narrow the possible number of people I could be to 4/5ths of the worlds population. But it is hardly a sufficient definition by which to begin a search. Where to you start? With looking for oyinbos, or aboriginal australians, or latinos, or negros.
Well I guess that you're right that a negative description is information of some sort about it. But that Spirit is Incorporeal, ie not having a physical body, and Invisible, ie NOt seen by the eyes are negative descriptions. And between you contradict yourself by saying it is invisible and then showing youtube videos of demons on guy's shoulders and other such stuff.

I did not contradict the statements - they are invisible, and yet I made instances in what circumstances they have been. You asked earlier at one point about what it was that makes them invisible, and my reply was that we don't know everything about their nature to be able to say specifically why that is so.

Pastor AIO:

At least with Dark matter the scientists start with observable phenomena. Dark matter causes Gravity. They then go on to further classify this cause of gravity as being invisible which is something they find very puzzling. There is so much to say about your posts and you write such long ones too that I'm almost tired before I even start. I've got a busy day to get back to so I shall have to return later.

Apologies if what I offer is not scanty - if they were, it doesn't seem that would even satisfy. But when you do reply, I shall point out the few things you requested earlier.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

You see, Pastor AIO, these days when people use these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah et al, we allow them get away with such vague terms - even in the corridors of "science". Nobody rejects these theories from scientists espousing the idea of an entity whose nature they do not know, and in which reality they only infer as being hypothetical, yet undeniable as a reality that is invisible!

On the other hand, if one were to describe spiritual realities using terms as "invisible", and say they (often) "cannot be seen", which are "incorporeal" in nature, and are "not composed of matter as we know it", immediately we have you and our dear friends arrogating some super authority to yourselves by saying "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT." Where you get such an idea that realities cannot be defined in that manner is beyond me!

Just how did "these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah" get into this conversation. I've got to admit that I am often curious about the mechanism of how your mind works. Is there actually a link that takes you from one idea to another or do you just throw them in with the intent of making people chase Red herrings? Or perhaps you are just amusing yourself at our expense.

Ma cherie, if today a scientist came up with a theory and proof that refuted Einstein's theory of Relativity science would go along with it, no problemo. There is no scientific theory that cannot be overturned with sufficient evidence. Of course individual scientists have biases (not least because their egos cannot bear being surpassed by other scientists) However science is done in a community and scientists are constantly arguing and debating against themselves. It is not taboo or blasphemous to attack any scientific theory. In fact imagine what a scalp it would be for a young scientist to come up with something that overturns Darwin's Theory of Evolution completely. If it were possible, many scientists would be going for it if for no other reason than to gain the notoriety of being the one that did it. Everyday scientists debate with each other and overturn the conventional wisdoms they inherit.

Now, to complain that no one rejects fanciful scientific theories but they pounce on fanciful religionist's theories (yes, they are fanciful too) is putting science and religionism on the same footing. Science is allowed to be fanciful. Religion's claims are altogether different and if a religious theory/idea is proved false the shock to the entire edifice of the religion should be devastating (of course it isn't because religionists have wonderful dribblers like you). It should be devastating because the religionists claim that God has revealed it to them as absolute truth. If it is proved wrong then either God is a liar or they haven't got a mandate from God and they are liars and their entire religionism is a Lie.

If incorporeal means 'NOT composed of matter as we know it', tell me, what are the possibilities of matter as we don't know it?

@PAstor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Just how did "these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah" get into this conversation. I've got to admit that I am often curious about the mechanism of how your mind works. Is there actually a link that takes you from one idea to another or do you just throw them in with the intent of making people chase Red herrings? Or perhaps you are just amusing yourself at our expense.

I don't set out to amuse anybody at anybody's expense. Often is the case that when people discuss these issues, the very next thing is that they would go precisely that route of "cognition and cognitive" talk - which was pointing to this example about the activity of the brain.

Pastor AIO:

Ma cherie, if today a scientist came up with a theory and proof that refuted Einstein's theory of Relativity science would go along with it, no problemo. There is no scientific theory that cannot be overturned with sufficient evidence. Of course individual scientists have biases (not least because their egos cannot bear being surpassed by other scientists) However science is done in a community and scientists are constantly arguing and debating against themselves. It is not taboo or blasphemous to attack any scientific theory. In fact imagine what a scalp it would be for a young scientist to come up with something that overturns Darwin's Theory of Evolution completely. If it were possible, many scientists would be going for it if for no other reason than to gain the notoriety of being the one that did it. Everyday scientists debate with each other and overturn the conventional wisdoms they inherit.

I'm quite aware of all that.

Pastor AIO:

Now, to complain that no one rejects fanciful scientific theories but they pounce on fanciful religionist's theories (yes, they are fanciful too) is putting science and religionism on the same footing. Science is allowed to be fanciful. Religion's claims are altogether different and if a religious theory/idea is proved false the shock to the entire edifice of the religion should be devastating (of course it isn't because religionists have wonderful dribblers like you). It should be devastating because the religionists claim that God has revealed it to them as absolute truth. If it is proved wrong then either God is a liar or they haven't got a mandate from God and they are liars and their entire religionism is a Lie.

Thanks for the compliments in blue, nothing new among all other sorts people have labelled me with. However, to save space, I think that you're just amusing yourself by assuming that science is allowed to be fanciful.

On the other hand, many people may have various interpretations to both supernatural revelations as well theories in science. I'm not fazed anytime this happens, because the quarrels between scientists among themselves on the one hand, and among theists on the other hand, are never ending because man's interpretations are always dynamic and never ending.

Pastor AIO:

If incorporeal means 'NOT composed of matter as we know it', tell me, what are the possibilities of matter as we don't know it?

We have often had to adjust our understanding of 'matter'. When we were in school, we were told that matter is in 3 forms - solid, liquid and gas. However, that idea became retired when it was found that a 4th state of matter was detected: plasma! Could it be possible that all we know about 'matter' today may be insufficient when it is revealed that 'matter' exists in forms, states, and structures that we have not been made aware of at the present? Thus my submission that incorporeal points to entities different from 'matter as we know it today'.

pilgrim.1:

@PAstor AIO,

I don't set out to amuse anybody at anybody's expense. Often is the case that when people discuss these issues, the very next thing is that they would go precisely that route of "cognition and cognitive" talk - which was pointing to this example about the activity of the brain.

Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that. But you're talking to me now, it's alright. pele ore mi. (I hope I can call you my friend).

pilgrim.1:


Thanks for the compliments in blue, nothing new among all other sorts people have labelled me with. However, to save space, I think that you're just amusing yourself by assuming that science is allowed to be fanciful.

Nothing new? I bet no one has called you a dribbler before. Okay, if you want me to find more colourful and interesting labels for you I will.

Science is Fanciful, but rigorously fanciful. It is the application of rigor that gives the imaginings of scientists the power that they have today.

pilgrim.1:


On the other hand, many people may have various interpretations to both supernatural revelations as well theories in science. I'm not fazed anytime this happens, because the quarrels between scientists among themselves on the one hand, and among theists on the other hand, are never ending because man's interpretations are always dynamic and never ending.

I'm so glad you've said this.

We have often had to adjust our understanding of 'matter'. When we were in school, we were told that matter is in 3 forms - solid, liquid and gas. However, that idea became retired when it was found that a 4th state of matter was detected: plasma! Could it be possible that all we know about 'matter' today may be insufficient when it is revealed that 'matter' exists in forms, states, and structures that we have not been made aware of at the present? Thus my submission that incorporeal points to entities different from 'matter as we know it today'.

That is why I insist that we need a proper definition of what matter is. For instance, even energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. e equals mc squared. So is energy just another form of matter. We need a definition of what physical is, or natural, before we can start to talk meaningfully about the supernatural.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that. But you're talking to me now, it's alright. pele ore mi. (I hope I can call you my friend).

Lo, I wasn't offended at all. So hugs.

Pastor AIO:

Nothing new? I bet no one has called you a dribbler before. Okay, if you want me to find more colourful and interesting labels for you I will.

Please do - it still would be nothing new from the culture of people labelling me.

Pastor AIO:

Science is Fanciful, but rigorously fanciful. It is the application of rigor that gives the imaginings of scientists the power that they have today.

Okay O. . no be me talk am sha. Could I quote you anyday on that?

Pastor AIO:

I'm so glad you've said this.

Cool.

Pastor AIO:

That is why I insist that we need a proper definition of what matter is. For instance, even energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. e equals mc squared. So is energy just another form of matter. We need a definition of what physical is, or natural, before we can start to talk meaningfully about the supernatural.

That's okay - would you like to propose a proper definition then?

pilgrim.1:


That's okay - would you like to propose a proper definition then?

Well okay, but before we go into matter let's first go into Spirit and soul. I believe that every process of animate and inanimate being is driven by Soul and Spirit. So by Spirit I mean one of the factors that determine events that occur in the world.

Take for instance a man, he wakes up, brushes his teeth, walks out of his home and goes for a run around a park. It is his physical body that goes through these actions. Yet there is a mover that propels his body to make these actions. The mover is one of two entities. His soul or his spirit.

So first I want to define Spirit by distinguishing it from Soul. Now in they bible these two terms are called in Hebrew Ruach (spirit) and Nefesh (soul). In the new testament which is written in Greek they are called Pneuma (spirit) and Psyche (soul).

The soul is the baser part of man, It is driven by lusts, and desires. It makes us feel urges and that in turn causes us to take action to satisfy those urges. For some people certain urges are more pronounced than in other people and this is what gives us different personalities. The souls influence can be totally described by a man's neurology.

[size=14pt]The soul is a source of information.[/size] It get's information through the physical senses. ie. eyes, nose, ears etc. It's source of information is limited. Limited, that is, to location. So one cannot see what is not present. I'm in london and so cannot see what is going on on 42nd street in NewYork. It is not in my present location.

The Spirit too, is a source of information. The spirit is not subject to location and so can inform you about things that are not present, either spatially or temporally. It can basically prophesy. Being not subject to one's circumstances allows the Spirit to be autonomous in it's actions. While the Soul acts according to causes that occurred prior to it's action, The spirit is not subject to prior events. So it breaks the chain of causality.

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.

The spirit is not predictable and cannot be prognosticated. It is not subject to laws of causality and neither can it be determined and this mark of it is seen in people who are born of the spirit. In other words it makes us capable of spontaneous action. unforeseeable action.

These are just a few insights into spirit to chew on for now.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Well okay, but before we go into matter let's first go into Spirit and soul. I believe that every process of animate and inanimate being is driven by Soul and Spirit. So by Spirit I mean one of the factors that determine events that occur in the world.

Yeye dey worry you! What have you said just now? "One of the factors that determine events that occur in the world". . hmm. Wetin be "factors"? When you define dat one finish, wetin be "event"?

Lol, just feeling on the lighter side this evening and teasing you. Don't mind me - me sef, I yeye. . you know.

I appreciate your perspective and look forward to some more. Honestly, I do.

Cheers.

Here's a website discussing the difference between soul and spirit. I don't necessarily agree with all the things it says but I'm just putting it here for all who may be interested in investigating.
http://levendwater.org/companion/append13.html

and

http://levendwater.org/companion/append9.html

pilgrim.1:

@Pastor AIO,

Yeye dey worry you! What have you said just now? "One of the factors that determine events that occur in the world". . hmm. Wetin be "factors"? When you define that one finish, wetin be "event"?

Lol, just feeling on the lighter side this evening and teasing you. Don't mind me - me sef, I yeye. . you know.

I appreciate your perspective and look forward to some more. Honestly, I do.

Cheers.

By event I mean something that happens/occurs. Events are driven by forces that we might not directly perceive. Whether it is the shifting of tectonic plates or a man getting up to brush his teeth there are forces that bring this about. These forces, or factors as I call it, are manifold. So I say that Spirit is one of them. Soul is another factor. But let me hasten to add that these two do not necessarily act independently of each other. yet there are important differences.

These events that are driven by forces (or factors) can be either animate or inanimate. So I think that absolutely everything that exists has a spirit or soul informing what happens to it. This includes rocks, rivers, Trees, herds of Whales, Tribes of people, individuals etc. They all have an informing spirit or soul behind them.

These informing forces (spirits or soul) are various and sometime contradictory so most people and things are in a state of compromise or balance between these forces.

When a specific force/spirit dominates an individual at the expense of other forces including ego-consciousness, then that person can be said to be possessed or seized by that spirit. This will manifest in certain behavioural traits.

pilgrim.1. ohlala, good old days 'em.

well, I won't say for sure but what I know is the a Christian with the infilling of the Holy Spirit cannot be demon possessed, he can be influenced by a demon but not possessed.

Yes , the word '' Christian'' mean a person that is born of Christ and does thing according to his will. A person who is born of the Holy spirit , but '' Christianity'' is a practice of living a life of Christ. So many people do practice Christianity but not yet born again. so , anyone that is not yet born again is possessed by any evil spirit.