Life Force

[Protinus]

Luigi Galvani was a Professor of Anatomy at the University of Bolgna in the 1700s. In 1791, he published a curious observation: a prepared frog's leg contracted sharply when touched with a piece of charged metal. Galvani showed that muscle movements could be brought about with electricity...yet it was unclear where the electricity came from...which landed him in a feud with Volta. What Galvani is famous for is that there was a he changed the language. Things like "galvinism", electricity, life, sharp jolts, "kicks" remain with us this day- ever associated with electricity.

So we have idioms that Galvani is directly responsible for: "a spark of life", "a flicker of life"...which lead to "breath of life" and "kiss of life". Electricity was unknown and mysterious...suddenly it began to be talked about and it entered into conversations and tradition. Electricity seemed to be on a borderline between the natural world and the spiritual world or the supernatural.

Galvani "sparked" my interest in biology and I majored in Zoology and on to Anatomy. Many were influenced by his discovery. Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" (1818) infused the supernatural myth of electricity. Frankenstein was a "damned soul" however, a failed medical student who was trying to play God.

So...what I'm trying to say is that life still has this thing about it: is it natural or supernatural? We have come to think of "biology is life" with advancement in molecular biology, organic and biochemistry, biophysics and on and on. We still invoke "life is sacred" and "all life belongs to God". Medical science has been pummeled by public criticism that it seems to be playing with the origin and end of life and thereby "trespassing into God's territory" or the Church's.

The last sentence of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (himself a lightning rod and pariah in Conservative Christian movements) gives a suggestion for the supernatural:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few new forms or one..."

Darwin's views were what is called 'nomothetic creation', that the first creation of life on earth was "special" and supernatural, but that life thereafter was transmitted by purely natural means from one species to the other- from one generation to the next. A believer in nomothetic creation might say that God continues to create life- but He does so through laws.

I frankly believe in something between Darwin's world nomothetic creation on one hand and the inerrancy of the Bible on the other, for example, rejection of all forms of theories about evolution, Adam and Eve were the first human beings, etc.

I was hoping for comments and thoughts.

[Loki]

"a spark of life", "a flicker of life"...which lead to "breath of life" and "kiss of life".

Your post raises very important points, but my first reply isn't in response to those, but rather a technicality.

Hasn't the idea of "breath of life" existed before the 1700s? I thought this was closely intertwined with the idea of spirit being breath, and that without breath, life ceased to exist, ie the thing died.

[Loki]

I am quite frankly between Darwin's world (though heavily seduced by it) and the inerrancy of the Bible, for example, rejection of all forms of theories about evolution, Adam and Eve were the first human beings, etc.

Another moderately tangential post:

As someone trained scientifically, what scientific criteria do you base your biblical inerrancy, rejection of all forms of evolution position?

[Protinus]

Your post raises very important points, but my first reply isn't in response to those, but rather a technicality.

Hasn't the idea of "breath of life" existed before the 1700s? I thought this was closely intertwined with the idea of spirit being breath, and that without breath, life ceased to exist, ie the thing died.


I believe that you are right..."the breath of Life" was in existence...but the wind was created by the "spark of life".

[Protinus]

Another moderately tangential post:

As someone trained scientifically, what scientific criteria do you base your biblical inerrancy, rejection of all forms of evolution position?

I'm sorry, I was not clear. I cited "biblical inerrancy" on the other hand. I believe in evolutionary theory and not the literal interpretation of the Bible as a Creationist would.

[Loki]

So...what I'm trying to say is that life still has this thing about it: is it natural or supernatural? We have come to think of "biology is life" with advancement in molecular biology, organic and biochemistry, biophysics and on and on. We still invoke "life is sacred" and "all life belongs to God". Medical science has been pummeled by public criticism that it seems to be playing with the origin and end of life and thereby "trespassing into God's territory" or the Church's.It looks like the point here boils down to "Is life electrochemical reactions, allowing even for the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts, or is there more to life than electrochemical reactions?"

The first option would put it into what is typically considered the natural realm, whereas the second option would assign at least some part of the supernatural to it.

Life is a continuous process; life only comes from life, from what we've been able to observe, with the exception of however life first got kick-started. Personally, I see no reason for any interference by a divine entity to keep life going at this point. Whether something was required to kick-start it, I don't think anyone can really claim to know. I think the party line is that it would be unnecessary, as there's evidence of amino acid chains and simple replicating molecules forming on their own under favorable conditions. And the beauty of the theory is that life only needed to arise once, so even if the probability of it happening is incredibly small, well, the oceans are pretty big.

But I do understand that talking about life in that manner somehow robs it of its... well, spirit, for lack of a better word. It really is a thing of wonder.

[Protinus]

It looks like the point here boils down to "Is life electrochemical reactions, allowing even for the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts, or is there more to life than electrochemical reactions?"

The first option would put it into what is typically considered the natural realm, whereas the second option would assign at least some part of the supernatural to it.

Life is a continuous process; life only comes from life, from what we've been able to observe, with the exception of however life first got kick-started. Personally, I see no reason for any interference by a divine entity to keep life going at this point. Whether something was required to kick-start it, I don't think anyone can really claim to know. I think the party line is that it would be unnecessary, as there's evidence of amino acid chains and simple replicating molecules forming on their own under favorable conditions. And the beauty of the theory is that life only needed to arise once, so even if the probability of it happening is incredibly small, well, the oceans are pretty big.

But I do understand that talking about life in that manner somehow robs it of its... well, spirit, for lack of a better word. It really is a thing of wonder.

wonderful comments.

But does our view of life and the sustenance, proclivity of life and sanctity of life align us with Church teachings?

[Loki]

wonderful comments.

But does our view of life and the sustenance, proclivity of life and sanctity of life align us with Church teachings?

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

If a soul is supernatural, then it is none of the business of biology, and if the Church says that souls entered into primate evolution at some point, biology can't say much other than that it would be unnecessary.

[Protinus]

If a soul is supernatural, then it is none of the business of biology, and if the Church says that souls entered into primate evolution at some point, biology can't say much other than that it would be unnecessary.
brilliant! That is what I wanted to ask in the OP!! I do not think that the Church proposes this. I am remarkably pleased with how the Church handles these matters in our time versus supression of ideas and putting people to death in the past for scientific inquiry.

[Loki]

brilliant! That is what I wanted to ask in the OP!! I do not think that the Church proposes this. I am remarkably pleased with how the Church handles these matters in our time versus supression of ideas and putting people to death in the past for scientific inquiry.

Well why didnja just ask then? ;)

I think that idea cuts to the heart of the Church's position on science, and science's view of the Church, also. Science is rather unconcerned with the supernatural; it can be tacked on if necessary. The church recognizes that science has no ability to criticize that which lies outside of the scientific method.

[JasonV]

I just caught up with this thread. Interesting observations and comments.

What if "life" is neither electrical, nor spiritual in nature? What if there is no "soul" but only a collective consciousness used by us?

[Protinus]

I just caught up with this thread. Interesting observations and comments.

What if "life" is neither electrical, nor spiritual in nature? What if there is no "soul" but only a collective consciousness used by us?

I don't think much has changed since Darwin...natural science still looks for a one-level linear continuity in accounting for all of nature. As humans, we are nothing if we can't establish contact or connections...we insist on our language as a continuum- that the life world around us is a continuum.

If "collective consciousness" is about human social and historical existence- mediated by showers of continuous linguistic exchange...then I would buy that as a sort of "collective consciousness". We are all about tracing and chasing immensely rich and varied metaphors that surround our idea of what "life" is.

But I think we wince at the idea of "supernatural", distilling biological life as some variant of this. We try to forget ugly old myths about forbidden knowledge and vivisectionists who tried to summon the life force.

[Loki]

What if "life" is neither electrical, nor spiritual in nature? What if there is no "soul" but only a collective consciousness used by us?

Please elaborate on the collective consciousness, and how it is excluded from electrochemical reactions, and the supernatural realm. I don't understand what you're getting at here.


If "collective consciousness" is about human social and historical existence- mediated by showers of continuous linguistic exchange...then I would buy that as a sort of "collective consciousness". We are all about tracing and chasing immensely rich and varied metaphors that surround our idea of what "life" is.


. . . huh?