One argument for the soul is based on the difference between a corpse and a living body. In the morning a man is alive, but by the evening he may be a corpse. Now what is the difference between the two? It’s not a difference of material. There is no chemical you could add to the corpse that would make it alive again, nothing material could do that. But there is a difference. Therefore, there is a nonmaterial element without which the body is a corpse. Catholics call it the soul.
:clapping:
No difference in material? A person who has bled to death certainly has a difference in material compared to his bodily state prior to exsanguination. A person whose internal organs are shut down by a disease or trauma, a person whose neck is broken in an accident, a person who suffers a heart attack, all have some sort of quantifiable physical change that leads to their death. I am unable to think of a single cause of death that doesn’t fit this pattern.
The bit about justice might have some weight coming from, say, a Hindu, but it lack punch coming from someone who (presumably) believes it is possible for a serial killer to end up in Heaven while any number of his victims end up in Hell.
Fr. Rumble’s argument has little traction for someone who does not believe that God formed us or the universe and ensured that all our tendencies have a corresponding object.
Then again, it’s possible the serial killer will end up in hell and any number of his victims will end up in heaven.
When my father had a stroke I had to take him to the hospital myself because he was in the van with me when he had the stroke and there was no way he would survive as we waited for the ambulance so I phoned the hospital in advance that I was taking my father to them. They managed to revive him but he was now in a coma. I knew my father was now close to death and it was good that my family was with him during the next two weeks before he died. Now why am I telling you this is because my father was in a certain coma for these two weeks. I decided to ask my mother and my brothers to pray the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy and we prayed it often in the presence of my father. At the end of the two weeks and after praying plenty of Chaplets I noticed my father who was in a coma was slowly breathing his last but before he had died he opened his eyes and moved his head up to see all of us than he put his head back unto the pillow and without any struggle at all he peacefully died giving up his soul to His Lord. It was the most peaceful death I had ever witnessed. The Lord promised extra ordinary graces whenever we recite the Chaplet and seeing the way my father had died had convinced me the Lord takes care of us. There had to be more to life than just we often see. There is much more and witnessing my father leaving this earth had convinced me there is much more.
No, the soul and the intellect are not the same. The soul is the form of a living thing, under Aristotelian considerations of course. The intellect is one faculty of a specifically rational soul.
But putting the blood back into a corpse does not return it to life. Sometimes, especially in the case of a long illness or a death from old age, there is no discernible physical difference between the corpse’s condition fifteen seconds after death and the body’s condition fifteen seconds before death, except for the lack of movement. And there is nothing material you can add to the body to vivify it again. Death is not explainable by physical means alone.
I don’t think you understand the Christian position correctly. You only go to hell if you are guilty of mortal sin. You would want us to excuse a guilty man from punishment merely because he was a victim of another crime, which is not justice, and you would want us to punish an innocent man merely because he once was guilty. This also is unjust.
Please use one of these theories to account for Lazarus, the good man who died in misery, and Dives, the evil man who died in comfort. Without an afterlife, how is there any justice in their case?
Thank you for sharing that.
I differ with the idea that the intellects capacity is extremely restricted at death. It is the association with matter that restricts the soul in its capacities. In this material life we have to reason, and we experience mental fatigue, after rest and regeneration, we think again. When the soul can no longer act in the body because of the bodies inability to sustain the activity of the soul, the soul now experiences a freedom from the extrinsic dependence of matter. Now knowledge is infused directly, instead of being the result of reasoning. Remember the soul is the principle of activity, and a spiritual one so it does not labor with the restrictions of matter. A whole new world is open up to the spiritual soul. St. Paul and others testify to this new revelation, seeing things they can not speak of
Great post, while I agree with the first paragraph, (that is pretty much proof imo btw)…Im not so sure about the justice paragraph, sure, most people think and believe there is something after this life, but we dont know 100% for sure, there is no proof of this and really no way to determine without actually dying. Justice may just a term we like to talk about, maybe it makes no difference in the big scheme of things?
You are correct that simply putting blood back into a corpse that has bled to death will not revive the body, but I see a clear physical explanation as to why that is. Once organs are no longer getting a steady supply of oxygen, they start to suffer damage, particularly the brain. This damage constitutes a physical change, yes? Would you agree that simply replacing the lost blood would be insufficient to revive the person if the damage, i.e. the physical change, has been extensive and irreversible? If you do agree, why would we need an additional, non-physical explanation of why the person has died?
I sincerely apologize if I’ve misrepresented your position. That said, I would likely be unable to agree with your labeling of your position as the Christian position since I am aware of several different Christian conceptions of soteriology and the afterlife. But let’s look at your position:
That’s all you’ve given me to go on as far as what your position is, and I don’t see how this goes against what I proposed with my hypothetical serial killer scenario. A serial killer is obviously guilty of mortal sin by killing his victims, but his victims may also be guilty of mortal sins. If his victims die without first repenting, they would go to hell, correct? But if the serial killer sincerely repents, he will be forgiven and go to heaven. I do not see such a system as being just, which weakens your argument.
I feel a little less bad about possibly misrepresenting your views after reading this. None of the statements following “you would want us” in any way represent something I actually want.
Indeed. And most versions of Christianity fail to present anything that I find reminiscent of justice.
Not in an ultimate sense, no, but they don’t get that in most versions of Christianity, either (unless you’re willing to redefine the word “justice” into meaninglessness). The good may be rewarded and the guilty punished according to “secularism,” but some cases will fall through the cracks. It is unfortunate, but it should motivate us.
There may not be. But neither is there in Christianity. The situations could be easily reversed depending on which man has had their “sins” “forgiven,” and where would the justice be then?
I would agree that replacing the lost blood would be insufficient to revive the person.
Mere repentance is not salvific. So that is not the Christian position.
You’re confusing the notion of justice under positive law with natural law. Crimes/sins are not equal, obviously they are relative to their gravity. But guilt IS equal, you are either guilty or you are not.
Your view is rather pedantic.
There are not “versions of Christanity”. There is only one Christianity, one which you fail to understand.
Not to me. The soul isn’t a “ghost in the machine.” At 365, the Catechism says this:
Our mind depends on our nervous systems to work, in the same way that our senses depend on sense organs.
We can’t. The soul is a revealed truth, not an observed truth. We know that upon the resurrection of the dead, those who died in a state of sanctifying grace will experience life in a glorified, resurrection body similar to Christ’s after his resurrection.
Plenty of philosophers argued for the existence of the human soul without divine revelation.