God V Science (again)

close
more_vert
Merrick M
Merrick Sep 17, 2008 13:23:09
Replying to stray

stray wrote:
Emotion = soul, to put it simply...Yes I'm joking, but just showing how not only it's philosophically possible to argue for the existence of the soul
No it's not. It's redefining the word so that it fits something we can't deny.

Of course there is emotion, so to say 'emotion=soul' means we all have to concede the existence of a soul. I could similarly say that respiration=soul and you'd all have to agree.

However, what was being discussed was the soul as commonly described by many Christians. That part of you that survives physical death, the bit that sits before the Lord in the afterlife and receives judgement according to your performance in your worldly life.

That definition (which billions of people subscribe to) is incompatible with evolution for the reasons previously given.

S stray
stray Sep 17, 2008 13:26:45
Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:
stray wrote:
Emotion = soul, to put it simply...Yes I'm joking, but just showing how not only it's philosophically possible to argue for the existence of the soul
No it's not. It's redefining the word so that it fits something we can't deny.
:rollseyes: Yes, of course, please reread the first paragraph as to what a radical argument is. We do similar things in maths & physics all the time. The fact that we spend a lot more time arguing on a proof from a more mechanical basis doesn't make the conclusions anymore or less when based on subjective axioms.

Edit : In short the argument , a soul, is unproveable from any angle, its just a concept.

Edit2 : so your definition of the soul is ??

H handofdave
handofdave Sep 17, 2008 13:43:14
Replying to Merrick

Well, there is the reincarnation interpretation, which implies that souls are not born complete, but are 'seeds' that grow thru the incarnation in many, many cycles of existence as many life forms. It's still very anthrocentric in the way it assumes we humans are the last vessel a soul inhabits before it can free itself of corporeality.

If 'souls' are the energy patterns created by our nervous system, and energy cannot be destroyed (as classical physics attests), then souls are eternal, but they do not remain in the same state as we think of them when we die, but become matter which is exploited by other life for the purpose of keeping it's energy pattern stable.

Self-aware entities that can exist outside of the body? Perhaps... it's hard to just discard the experiences of people who've 'died'. If it was just 'the tunnel of light' they experienced, I'd chalk that up to a physiological phenomenon. But then you have people 'coming back' with accounts of conversations with dead relatives and such. Just a variation of the dream state?

Time is not a fixed constant, so it's possible that 'eternal soul' is a metaphor for a sort of supercondensed point of subjective awareness at death that encompasses our entire lives.

I really don't know. The world is full of things we cannot always explain with empirical science. I find using mythology as a substitute for real knowledge a lazy way of filling in the gaps, tho.

G grufty jim
grufty jim Sep 17, 2008 16:53:20
Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:
stray wrote:
Emotion = soul, to put it simply...Yes I'm joking, but just showing how not only it's philosophically possible to argue for the existence of the soul
No it's not. It's redefining the word so that it fits something we can't deny.

Of course there is emotion, so to say 'emotion=soul' means we all have to concede the existence of a soul. I could similarly say that respiration=soul and you'd all have to agree.

However, what was being discussed was the soul as commonly described by many Christians. That part of you that survives physical death, the bit that sits before the Lord in the afterlife and receives judgement according to your performance in your worldly life.

That definition (which billions of people subscribe to) is incompatible with evolution for the reasons previously given.

We agree on a lot of stuff Merrick, but not this.

Philosophically there is no reason why the soul could not be a property of self-awareness. That's just one example out of many, and I provide it because it comes quite close to my own view. I recommend you read some James Hillman (he's a post-Jungian psychoanalyst) if you want to explore this particular idea some more.