Is the existence of immaterial souls necessary for Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThunderSandwich
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
The “soul” is not “material”, so it cannot be equal to the “material mind”.
Click to expand...
technically the mind is not material either. the term ‘material mind’ is only used to imply that the mind is observable in the physical world.

is that your summary of the article?
 
JimG said:
Not coterminious; but mind is seen as a faculty of the soul, at least by Frank Sheed.
Click to expand...
Sure. The mind serves the soul but the soul, like life itself, is not essentially a biological phenomenon. God is “living” but God is not a biological phenomenon.
 
its really important that we write down a simple definition for the following ideas:

soul
spirit
mind
life
 
AgnosTheist said:
technically the mind is not material either. the term ‘material mind’ is only used to imply that the mind is observable in the physical world.

is that your summary of the article?
Click to expand...
In the context of the OP, yes. It is the spiritual attribute of our soul that makes us “created in Gods image”. Thesefore, this make the “immaterial soul” essential for a Christian.
 
ThunderSandwich said:
john, regarding the question of how conscious mental states can represent abstract objects, I certainly don’t have an answer for that, and I don’t think it’s possible to answer it without a clearer understanding of what consciousness is.
Click to expand...
it’s not just a matter of how a physical mind can represent abstract objects, but how a purely physical mind could ***be acquainted with ***objects that have no spatiotemporal properties.

and i’m not sure how a better understanding of the nuerobiology of consciousness will be helpful, since this argument relies only on the most general features of such consciousness: namely, what must be true simply if mind is completely reducible to brain.
40.png
ThunderSandwich:
I don’t find it persuasive, but I won’t attempt to refute it either. As for the argument from free will, I would find it persuasive if I believed in contracausal freedom.
Click to expand...
you don’t have to believe in “contracausal” freedom (whatever that might be) - just in freedom simpliciter, whatever it turns out to be.
40.png
ThunderSandwich:
I can think, at the moment, of some apparently strong arguments for each side. Of course, our brain chemistry determines our conscious experiences, and our conscious experiences direct our actions; and the connection seems so close that I find a physical mind to be a far more economical explanation than an immaterial soul.
Click to expand...
it’s not so clear that our conscious experiences are determined by brain chemistry…

thus, the “zombie” and “qualia” arguments against materialist reductionisms:
  1. even in some imagined future time, when neurobiology had been perfected, and you were able to know every true proposition about my thoughts simply by analyzing scans of my brain-states, there would still be something you didn’t know: namely, what it is like to have my first-person experiences of my thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
in other words, if you were to be a person born blind, you could know every true proposition about my brain-states and experience, say, of the color red, and you would still have no idea what it’s like to see red.

what that means logically, is that there is something ***in addition ***to physical brain-states that constitutes consciousness, such that once god sets all the physical facts in a world, he needs to do something more to set the facts about consciousness.

which means that mind is not reducible to matter.
  1. along the same lines, it is logically possible that there are other worlds that are physically identical to this one in every way, but whose inhabitants actually lack any subjective conscious experience - that is, they are zombies.
but if that’s true, then, once again, mind cannot be reducible to matter.
40.png
ThunderSandwich:
Another argument is that a soul outside of the material universe should not be able to experience time.
Click to expand...
immaterial souls are joined with material bodies to make persons, and it is persons that experience time, not souls.
 
AgnosTheist said:
The fact that physical damage of the brain results in the corruption of abstract thought is enough scientific proof.
Click to expand...
right…so, because damage to the power cord of a television results in damage to the picture, the TV’s picture must be “in” the power cord.
 
AgnosTheist said:
But there is hardly a difference between the soul and the material mind. Like what is the soul like between someone who dies as a 2 yr old, and somebody who dies in their 20s? would the 2yr old soul be talking ‘gagaga’ in heaven, while the other can talk clearly?
Click to expand...
You’re joking, yes?

Before I return all of you to the stratosphere and philosophy, might I mention that here, in the flesh and blood world, most two-year-olds are well beyond ‘gagaga;’ they speak in brief but complete sentences. Most people in their 20s, while speaking (articulating) clearly are not necessarily able to speak sensibly.

However, all are promised as a matter of faith, that they will be physically perfected in heaven - and I have no idea what constitiutes that physical perfection in the plan of God.
 
john_doran said:
right…so, because damage to the power cord of a television results in damage to the picture, the TV’s picture must be “in” the power cord.
Click to expand...
By using the power cord as an anology to souls, that would suggest that souls are as generic as power cords. completely devoid of individuality (or attributes that makes one unique from another).
 
catharina said:
You’re joking, yes?

Before I return all of you to the stratosphere and philosophy, might I mention that here, in the flesh and blood world, most two-year-olds are well beyond ‘gagaga;’ they speak in brief but complete sentences. Most people in their 20s, while speaking (articulating) clearly are not necessarily able to speak sensibly.
Click to expand...
Yes, Im joking- partly. I have a smart 6yr old daughter so I am fully aware of what 2yr olds are capable of. By saying ‘gagaga’ i was exaggerating the immaturity of the 2yr old in order to drive the point of intellectual difference between a 2 yr old and a 20 yr old.
 
AgnosTheist said:
Yes, Im joking- partly. I have a smart 6yr old daughter so I am fully aware of what 2yr olds are capable of. By saying ‘gagaga’ i was exaggerating the immaturity of the 2yr old in order to drive the point of intellectual difference between a 2 yr old and a 20 yr old.
Click to expand...
Good.

I don’t know your religion but as a parent, you might appreciate this quote:

"Psalms
Chapter 8
1
For the leader; “upon the gittith.” A psalm of David.
2
O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! You have set your majesty above the heavens!

**3
Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have drawn a defense against your foes, to silence enemy and avenger." **
 
AgnosTheist said:
By using the power cord as an anology to souls, that would suggest that souls are as generic as power cords. completely devoid of individuality (or attributes that makes one unique from another).
Click to expand...
???

i am not likening power cords to souls - i am likening one bad argument to another bad argument.

i’m saying nothing at all about souls.
 
Rev 20:4 . . . I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God . . .

That scripture says it all in my opinion. Their souls were in heaven, and not left in their chopped off heads.

P.S. that was a great Master Chief video. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top