God V Science (again)

close
more_vert
nigelswift N
nigelswift Sep 17, 2008 11:49:28
Replying to stray

"I also think that the idea that the concept of the eternal soul is somehow diametrically opposed to evolution is well, dumb tbh."

I think it IS diametrically opposed unless you make a very specific leap of faith (which Christiansd do, in their millions).

If evolution is accepted then Man is merely an advanced form of amoeba, having developed through all the intervening stages. Yet if religion is also accepted then at some moment in that journey "God" interverned and imbued all subsequent humans (or pre-humans? or post amoeboids? Which?) with a soul. It works, and it unites evolution and religion, but you need to reeeeally want it to.

S stray
stray Sep 17, 2008 11:59:49
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
It works, and it unites evolution and religion, but you need to reeeeally want it to.
Sure, but this is an issue for Philosophy (or even evo. psych. perhaps) and not for science. I mean this in terms of debating the issue of the soul with religion as to it's existence. Any description of a soul, in terms of any faith, cannot be dealt with adequately by the scientific method. Therefore, science cannot effectively argue against it without actually seriously compromising its method. You see what I mean ?

Or do you have a physical experiment that can prove the existence, or lack of, of the soul other than a subjective (or at best a sophistic) argument ?

Obviously if you have a faith then you have to attach some kinda purpose to life, or more accurately faith creates it. The concept of a soul is a shorthand way to create a purpose. So is an afterlife, but again, as we're dealing with Christianity here (as no other faiths are pushing their creation myths quite like they are), the christian concept of heaven and when/how you get there is very, very wooly to say the least.