Evolution and the soul

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheoloJer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pig said:
Exactly, and not at all.
There is no difference between the substance of mans soul and God, both are spirit. Mans soul is created to live in God, God is spirit - mans soul is spirit.
But mans soul is mans soul and not God. Mans soul is created. God always is.

Exactly, there is no difference between x and y or between mans soul and God. All are spirit. x and y created. God, uncreated.

And now you have shifted the goal-posts from substance and will to persons. A persons will and their souls substance are the same in everyone. Everyone has a will, can create and determine. But persons are unique, they are the unique part of the soul. Each person can will differently though the quality called will has the same source for all.
Click to expand...
There is big difference in created and uncreated being. We are not the same substance as God as to be the same substance is to be the same kind of thing, the substance of something is what it is in its essence(to as the question what is the substance of someting is to ask what it is in itself (i.e. the substance of a chair is “Chairness” for want of a better word, that which makes a chair a chair. That aspect which allows us to identify something as a chair regardless of the material it is made from).

The Divine Substance has no potential to be more, than it is, to change, as it is already perfect. The human sustance (substantial form/soul) has potential to change and improve and so is different by definition. To be spirit is not the substance of a thing anymore than to be green or big is the substance of a thing. A large green cabbage is not the same as a large green piece of broccoli simply because they share the characteristics of largeness and greenness. Spirit/immateriality describes a characteristic of things, it does not define its substance.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, why is will rather than intellect your defining characteristic of a person?
 
Theophorus said:
There is big difference in created and uncreated being. We are not the same substance as God as to be the same substance is to be the same kind of thing, the substance of something is what it is in its essence(to as the question what is the substance of someting is to ask what it is in itself (i.e. the substance of a chair is “Chairness” for want of a better word, that which makes a chair a chair. That aspect which allows us to identify something as a chair regardless of the material it is made from).

The Divine Substance has no potential to be more, than it is, to change, as it is already perfect. The human sustance (substantial form/soul) has potential to change and improve and so is different by definition. To be spirit is not the substance of a thing anymore than to be green or big is the substance of a thing. A large green cabbage is not the same as a large green piece of broccoli simply because they share the characteristics of largeness and greenness. Spirit/immateriality describes a characteristic of things, it does not define its substance.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, why is will rather than intellect your defining characteristic of a person?
Click to expand...
If there was such a thing as a spirit then the substance would be the substance of the spirit. In the same way that we are discussing the greenness of a piece of broccoli - we are talking about the greenness - for the moment, and not defining broccoli, per se. So the substance [subject] [greenness] of the broccoli is the same substance [greenness] of any other green vegetable. Obviously, a broccoli is not the King of the vegetables anymore than the greenness is, but we were, or at least I was, talking about greenness, not broccoli.
Again, the will, because I was not defining a person - just talking about a commonality, will, spirit, etc. Intellect might be in common but also might complicate a pigs mind, broccoli or even greenness is easier.
 
edwest2 said:
This person needs an encounter with the living God. That’s all there is to it. There’s no point in discussing this further.

God is real, but most leading scientists disbelieve in God, especially biologists.

Remember the lie that is repeated here on a regular basis: science is silent about God. There are textbooks that deny our true origin.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
You seem to be casting the Church and science as opposing forces here.
Actually, the majority of scientists DO believe.
59% of Biologists
59.2% of Physicists
73.3% of Chemists
Of these, only 15% overall cited their reason for disbelief as a conflict between religion and science. The rest just didn’t see a reason TO believe, which some sociologists have attributed to higher numbers of children raised in non-religious families entering the sciences, except for medicine (76% of doctors, for example, believe). This is probably due in part to differences in moral duties ect for religious vs non-religious people.

Citations:
Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307 .
Ecklund, E. H., J. Z. Park, and K. L. Sorrell. 2011. Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50: 552–569 .
 
waanju said:
Actually, the majority of scientists DO believe.
59% of Biologists
59.2% of Physicists
73.3% of Chemists

Citations:
Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307.
Click to expand...
For me this raises questions on why there is a frequently occurring claim (I’ve even seen it in this forum) that people of science are anti-religious. At times I’ve seen them here described as misanthropic too.

Here’s another another statistic. This one is from a different year but doesn’t concentrate on the academic scientist.

Biological and Medical
  • 32% believe
  • 19% don’t believer there is a God, but do believe there is a universal spirit
  • 41% don’t believe either
  • 7% don’t know/refused
Chemical
  • 41% believe
  • 14% don’t believe there is a God, but do believe there is a universal spirit
  • 39% don’t believe either
  • 7% don’t know/refused
Physics and Astronomy
  • 29% believe
  • 14% don’t believe there is a God, but do believe there is a universal spirit
  • 46% don’t believe either
  • 11% don’t know/refused
General Public
  • 83% believe
  • 12% don’t believe there is a God, but do believe there is a universal spirit
  • 4% don’t believe either
  • 1% don’t know/refused
Source:
Pew Forum on Science and Bioethics
 
waanju said:
You seem to be casting the Church and science as opposing forces here.
Actually, the majority of scientists DO believe.
59% of Biologists
59.2% of Physicists
73.3% of Chemists
Of these, only 15% overall cited their reason for disbelief as a conflict between religion and science. The rest just didn’t see a reason TO believe, which some sociologists have attributed to higher numbers of children raised in non-religious families entering the sciences, except for medicine (76% of doctors, for example, believe). This is probably due in part to differences in moral duties ect for religious vs non-religious people.

Citations:
Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307 .
Ecklund, E. H., J. Z. Park, and K. L. Sorrell. 2011. Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50: 552–569 .
Click to expand...
I used the words “leading scientists.” If you’re unsure about something I wrote, please ask a question as opposed to assuming.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed
 
TheoloJer said:
I really want to try to avoid an evolution debate, but at the same time, would like to address a video that I saw while watching a youtube video earlier tonight.

It was from a youtube channel called ‘Discovering Religion’ and one of the episodes was basically a venting episode. In this case, the narrator was venting on what grinds his gears-- and one of them included the concept of the soul and evolution…If my interpretation is correct, he questions why human beings proclaim to have a ‘soul’ when animals do not have one-- being that, in his case, human beings are products of the evolutionary process, which we have traits derived from animals. He wants to know how do we know a soul exists?

The link is right here:
What Grinds My ( I mean ‘His’) Gears

I will point out that perhaps this source seems kind of biased, due to his vent against concepts like conversion experiences, thanking God, etc. (then again, I could be wrong).
Click to expand...
Try this. magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F

Again, try this from the Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

Don’t pay any attention to the peanut gallery above. They are always throwing trash and beer bottles onto the ball field. They like to see the players dodge them while trying to catch a fly ball. Such great fun. Remember, Satan is the great deciever. There is nothing he would like better than to get you to think you are just a bundle of nerves without a spiritual soul destined for eternal life with God. Just keep it in mind. If the " Smoke " of Satan can be found in the Church, it can certainly be found in these forums. 🙂
 
There is no evidence that a soul exists.

Until such time that I see demonstrable and falsifiable evidence that the soul exists, I will have no choice but to continue believing that the soul is a fictional manifestation of man.
 
yunat said:
There is no evidence that a soul exists.

Until such time that I see demonstrable and falsifiable evidence that the soul exists, I will have no choice but to continue believing that the soul is a fictional manifestation of man.
Click to expand...
Not true, you have the choice to believe in a soul despite the lack of “proof”.
 
pig said:
Exactly, and not at all.
There is no difference between the substance of mans soul and God, both are spirit. Mans soul is created to live in God, God is spirit - mans soul is spirit.
But mans soul is mans soul and not God. Mans soul is created. God always is.
Click to expand...
So, not the same substance after all.
Exactly, there is no difference between x and y or between mans soul and God. All are spirit. x and y created. God, uncreated.
Click to expand...
Whether it is created or not is not relevant. it’s the same. So, I’ll try to create some stuff out of nothing. Geeh, it odesn’t work.
And now you have shifted the goal-posts from substance and will to persons. A person’s will and their souls substance are the same in everyone. Everyone has a will, can create and determine. But persons are unique, they are the unique part of the soul. Each person can will differently though the quality called will has the same source for all.
Click to expand...
They are completely the same, but still different. Makes lots of sense.
 
pig said:
If there was such a thing as a spirit then the substance would be the substance of the spirit. In the same way that we are discussing the greenness of a piece of broccoli - we are talking about the greenness - for the moment, and not defining broccoli, per se. So the substance [subject] [greenness] of the broccoli is the same substance [greenness] of any other green vegetable. Obviously, a broccoli is not the King of the vegetables anymore than the greenness is, but we were, or at least I was, talking about greenness, not broccoli.
Again, the will, because I was not defining a person - just talking about a commonality, will, spirit, etc. Intellect might be in common but also might complicate a pigs mind, broccoli or even greenness is easier.
Click to expand...
I see we are using the term substance in completly different ways. When you use the term substance to describe the ‘greenness’ of a piece of broccoli, I would use the term accident in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense. the broccoli has ‘greenness’ per accidens, not as an essential component of its very nature. if i spray painted or genetically modified the broccoli to be blue instead of green the substance of broccoli would remain but the ‘accidental’ characteristic of ‘greenness’ would be gone/ likewise when it starts to change colour naturally as it ages, it is still broccoli, even though it is no longer green.
 
Theophorus said:
Animinism is not a religon, it is a term coinned in the 18th century by materialists like yourself to describe the concept of souls in things. In so far as the term covers souls in general Christianity does have an animistic aspect. Sorry if christian belief in souls is a problem for you.
Click to expand...
If you don’t understand the term ad hominem fallacy then please look it up.

Actually I learned about animism from a Doctor of Divinity, a devout Anglican.

To get back to the subject, it remains that whatever our personal beliefs, and whether we like it or not, life is now explained without any need for the supernatural - a virus, bacterium, cell, plant, snail, etc. all grow and survive by physical life processes alone.
 
pig said:
Because eternity does not have parts. It follows because the substance is a creative substance - it wills. Human souls are created from the same substance, they too will. Logic alone says that creating many wills will create many wills, the object of creating a will is to set it free. :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
Catholicism has the soul as the form of the body while Cartesian dualism has it as a substance.

Every religion and school of philosophy has a different view of the soul, which have then been interpreted a thousand ways, so threads like these generally spend more time trying to agree what the soul is and what gets to have one than anything else. 🙂
 
inocente said:
If you don’t understand the term ad hominem fallacy then please look it up.

Actually I learned about animism from a Doctor of Divinity, a devout Anglican.

To get back to the subject, it remains that whatever our personal beliefs, and whether we like it or not, life is now explained without any need for the supernatural - a virus, bacterium, cell, plant, snail, etc. all grow and survive by physical life processes alone.
Click to expand...
Sorry but it is not an ad hominem argument. Animism is indeed a term developed by materialistic philosophers and scientists in the 17th century to describe the belief in immaterial souls and the like. it is much more reecently that is has been presented as a religon in itself. I only associate it with you in so far as you present a materialistic philosophy as you do in your post above. I apologise for my imprudent wording, if you feel that this was an ad hominem attack.

My view is that the soul as formal cause of life is not explained by efficient and material causality(which you describe as physical life processes) any more than describing how my muscles, neurones etc. work explains completely why I am a living being, efficient and material causality/physical life processes simply explain how I am a living being. Formal causality explains why the matter in my body, which we share with all other material beings is arranged in the way it is and not in another way(this should not be confused with genetic expression which is still a part of material and formal causality nor with electrical energy nor with some form of pantheism)
 
inocente said:
Catholicism has the soul as the form of the body while Cartesian dualism has it as a substance.

Every religion and school of philosophy has a different view of the soul, which have then been interpreted a thousand ways, so threads like these generally spend more time trying to agree what the soul is and what gets to have one than anything else. 🙂
Click to expand...
Which is why I was talking about freewill and the soul with total disregard to established norms of language, for the sake of simplicity.
Belorg wants the soul, if there is one, to be a computer. But as I said a computer is no more than the sum of its parts regardless of the materials used to construct it.
The soul is spirit. It doesn’t have parts. It is One. And unlike a computer it has will, a creative will. Or it is will. Which is what all computers lack. It is a unique substance/accident, [see above].
If this universe were made by computer there would be nothing made at all. The computer needs a programmer who is creative and has will. In a computer made universe these things do not exist before they are made, even the computer does not exist.
All that could have existed before the beginning, and the source of our own creativity and will, is simply will and creativity. Which are mysterious descriptions of a non-material, One, reasonable, logical, rational, creative, intellect-having, kind, personable substance I like to call spirit.
 
Theophorus said:
I see we are using the term substance in completly different ways. When you use the term substance to describe the ‘greenness’ of a piece of broccoli, I would use the term accident in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense. the broccoli has ‘greenness’ per accidens, not as an essential component of its very nature. if i spray painted or genetically modified the broccoli to be blue instead of green the substance of broccoli would remain but the ‘accidental’ characteristic of ‘greenness’ would be gone/ likewise when it starts to change colour naturally as it ages, it is still broccoli, even though it is no longer green.
Click to expand...
Yes, confusing. Accidents can disappear but spirit, like energy, cannot be destroyed. Substance is not a good term either. Whatever spirit is is whatever spirit is. Is that better?
 
belorg said:
So, not the same substance after all.

Whether it is created or not is not relevant. it’s the same. So, I’ll try to create some stuff out of nothing. Geeh, it odesn’t work.

They are completely the same, but still different. Makes lots of sense.
Click to expand...
See, I told you. ‘Exactly, and not at all’.

Its like a mother and infant. The mother astounds the infant with her creative genius, and the infant apparently astounds the mother with her creative genius.
 
pig said:
Which is why I was talking about freewill and the soul with total disregard to established norms of language, for the sake of simplicity.
Belorg wants the soul, if there is one, to be a computer. But as I said a computer is no more than the sum of its parts regardless of the materials used to construct it.
The soul is spirit. It doesn’t have parts. It is One. And unlike a computer it has will, a creative will. Or it is will. Which is what all computers lack. It is a unique substance/accident, [see above].
Click to expand...
The deepest mystery about( physical) matter is precisely that when two pieces of matter are combined, the whole is almost always completely diffrent from the sum of its parts. H2O is water and has completely different characteristics than hydrogen and oxigen.
If this universe were made by computer there would be nothing made at all. The computer needs a programmer who is creative and has will. In a computer made universe these things do not exist before they are made, even the computer does not exist.
All that could have existed before the beginning, and the source of our own creativity and will, is simply will and creativity. Which are mysterious descriptions of a non-material, One, reasonable, logical, rational, creative, intellect-having, kind, personable substance I like to call spirit.
Click to expand...
No, pig , those are descriptions of several … substances. if they were one subtstance, there could no be any sort of differentiation.
 
belorg said:
The deepest mystery about( physical) matter is precisely that when two pieces of matter are combined, the whole is almost always completely diffrent from the sum of its parts. H2O is water and has completely different characteristics than hydrogen and oxigen.
Click to expand...
Thats is just chemistry and matter. What happens before chemistry and matter exist.
belorg said:
No, pig , those are descriptions of several … substances. if they were one subtstance, there could no be any sort of differentiation.
Click to expand...
Its more like your personality has many traits, not many personalities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top