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?

[Cogitoergosum]

I wouldn't say that the term "cognitive science" in an oxymoron, but merely rather redundant, since the word "science" itself is derived from the Greek term for "I know."

I am sorry for being unclear.
I was saying "Natural theology" might be an oxymoron.
Even I think it would be best.

Natural theology is an oxymoron just like natural selection is, since there is nothing natural about such metaphysical and supernatural concepts as theology and selection.

Natural selection is not metaphysicla or supernatural, on the countrary it is very natural and all around us. You don't understand what natural selection is.

[Cogitoergosum]

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

You like me, are a collection of cells with an awareness.

Ontological awareness of what? Being a mere "collection of cells" with no soul?

Can you prove you have a soul? How can you qualify it as an actuality?

Proof of one's soul as an actuality is no more necessary than proof of one's existence, since both ontological states of being are epistomologically assumed in accordance with one's capacity for self-cognition, perception and definition.

You don't need a soul to be self aware. All you need is the right mind.
People who get a big parietal stroke, neglect the contro lateral part of their body. If you have a big right parietal stroke, it is like the left side of your body does not exist or does not belong to you. All your perceptions and awareness can be altered with chemicals that interact with different parts of the brain. What does the soul do? Believing that you exist and believing you have an immortal soul are two VERY different things.

[McCulloch]

I did not see the soul mentioned in the definition of cognitive science. However I suppose the 'concept' of the soul could be considered.

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.

I wouldn't say that the term "cognitive science" in an oxymoron, but merely rather redundant, since the word "science" itself is derived from the Greek term for "I know."

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.

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

[McCulloch]

Van Til and Rushdoony teach that the Holy Spirit speaks and relates to our souls through the use of our hearts, minds and brains though, since much knowledge of His wonderful works and grace is transmitted solely through books of knowledge about Him, and we have to use our brains to coordinate and relate what we read with our eyes to that love of Him which resides in our souls.

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.

[Furrowed Brow]

I wouldn't say that the term "cognitive science" in an oxymoron, but merely rather redundant, since the word "science" itself is derived from the Greek term for "I know."

Interesting etymological point. But it contradicts my Reader’s digest WordPower Dictionary.

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.

That would certainly limit the cognitional horizen and perspective of cognitive scientists who deny their own ontological essence, as existentialists like Sarte do for no apparent reason other than egotistical imperatives and qualifying definitions.

Proof of one's soul as an actuality is no more necessary than proof of one's existence, since both ontological states of being are epistomologically assumed in accordance with one's capacity for self-cognition, perception and definition.

As you brought Sartre up. He would say

The existence of consciousness comes from consciousness itself.’

And

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

To cut a very long and near impenetrable story short, consciousness is an the active engagement with itself, and cannot depend on further explanation. By implication Sarte is saying the Cartesian ontology is a logical mistake. You cannot posit anything, including the soul, as separate from or an origin of consciousness. 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.

Even if you don’t take Sartre seriously, it still stand as a reference point that throws considerable doubt on your basic assumptions, and any metaphysical theory of soul and mind would need to be able to defend itself against an existentialist critique.

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

[Confused]

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?

Not using your definitions of cognitive science or apologetics. In fact, not using any reasonable definition of these terms.

Thank you for your support. I have only one small quibble. These were not my definitions. I sought definitions from standard reputable unbiased resources. However, it jcrawford has some authoritative definitions of these words which he feels makes his assertion into a true statement, then he is welcome to present them.

Thank you for your warm Christian welcome to participate in the discussion of how a true cognitive science must of necessity include a valid form of Christian apologetics and epistomology in order to ontologically qualify as a realistic human science which investigates and establishes the inter-related functioning of the human mind, brain and soul.

Someone learned to many big words today

1) Human mind=human brain.

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.

2) How does the soul come into cognitive science?

[Confused]

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. 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.

Proof of one's soul as an actuality is no more necessary than proof of one's existence, since both ontological states of being are epistomologically assumed in accordance with one's capacity for self-cognition, perception and definition.

Now you are speaking about the brains neurons synapsing in response to neurochemicals/neurotransmitters to process information about oneself. In regards to proof: I can see you, I can't see your soul.

Natural theology is an oxymoron just like natural selection is, since there is nothing natural about such metaphysical and supernatural concepts as theology and selection.

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?

[jcrawford]

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 don't understand what natural selection is.

You don't understand the difference between observations and concepts, ideas, beliefs and theories about those observations.

[jcrawford]

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.

People who get a big parietal stroke, neglect the contro lateral part of their body. If you have a big right parietal stroke, it is like the left side of your body does not exist or does not belong to you. All your perceptions and awareness can be altered with chemicals that interact with different parts of the brain.

Without a doubt.

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.

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.

[Goat]

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 don't understand what natural selection is.

You don't understand the difference between observations and concepts, ideas, beliefs and theories about those observations.

"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.

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