Is There a Soul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itinerant1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Zatzat, I wonder whether you and Itinerant1 are talking at cross purposes. Of course there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of an eternal soul – it’s a theological / philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But I think you said you accept the idea on the basis of faith, right?
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, Itinerant1 was quite clear;
Originally Posted by itinerant1
The evidence which you assume does not exist not only exists but it is conclusive.
Click to expand...
I’ve asked for Itinerant1 to produce the conclusive evidence, however Itinerant1 has produced nothing.
 
Zatzat said:
I appreciate your response, however what you’ve written is not conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
Why do you seek conclusive evidence? There is no conclusive evidence for the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection. If there were what would be the purpose of faith?
 
StAnastasia said:
If it’s Catholicism it’s of an old style leave-your-brains-on-the-church-doormat variety. More than three centuries ago Catholics who were involved in the early extraterrestrial life discussion doubted that all the stars in the universe were created just to twinkle for us. See Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (Cambridge University Press, 1982)
Click to expand...
Just to refresh one’s memory. What was referred to as straight up Catholicism has nothing to do with extraterrestrial life discussions. It has to do with our relationship with God. Remember God.

**
**The precise reason all of humanity is so Blessed and so Created is that in the entire Universe ONLY humanity holds the possibility of acknowledging God’s magnificent universe; only man can thank God and freely choose to [OR NOT TO] love God in return for all that God is and does for us.
**
This is such a great statement on behalf of humanity. I am glad I have the opportunity to repeat it.

Blessings,
granny

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 356-357 and following.
 
StAnastasia said:
Why do you seek conclusive evidence?
Click to expand...
Intinerant1 claims this evidence exists, I want to see it for myself.
Originally Posted by itinerant1
The evidence which you assume does not exist not only exists but it is conclusive.
Click to expand...
There is no conclusive evidence for the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection. If there were what would be the purpose of faith?
Click to expand...
Exactly, I agree.
 
StAnastasia said:
That’s a news flash, Granny. I would have pegged you as a blind fideist, with your constant criticism of my approach of looking analytically at the content of Christian claims. When confronted with an analytical approach to a theological question you always retreat to an unquestioning embrace of the catechism.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Oh my! It is not one’s approach that is the problem, it is one’s conclusions.

I am so analytically practical that I see no reason to reinvent the wheel – another popular expression in my neighborhood. In other words, it is simpler and more correct to go to directly to the horse’s mouth. Ooops, that’s another neighborhood expression. Let me try again, please. In other words, the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church *can express the teachings of Catholicism far better than I could.

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Church – www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
StAnastasia said:
… I would have pegged you as a blind fideist, with your constant criticism of my approach of looking analytically at the content of Christian claims…

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, where, if ever, is it appropriate to turn to fideism? You use modern science to come to some conclusions (evolution) but not others (existence of soul, resurrection of Christ), or at least that’s the impression I get from your postings, since you say elsewhere:
StAnastasia said:
There is no conclusive evidence for the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection. If there were what would be the purpose of faith?
Click to expand...
So do you rely on fideism to get to some articles of faith but not others? Or does your belief in the soul come from more than that ?
 
grannymh said:
Let me try again, please. In other words, the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church *can express the teachings of Catholicism far better than I could.
Click to expand...
Appealing to a book does not constitute logical analysis.
 
StAnastasia said:
Why do you seek conclusive evidence? There is no conclusive evidence for the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection. If there were what would be the purpose of faith?
Click to expand...
To give rouge theologians something to overturn?
 
Zatzat said:
I appreciate your response, however what you’ve written is not conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
I would think it is unless you can offer conclusive evidence that there is a biological function for developing cognition to know eternal realities, that reveal I will discontinue to be eternally ,even though I’m biologically hardwired to contnue to be eternally.

Why did living matter develope indioviduals with the cognitive ability to be aware of eternal realities if eternity does not pertain to biological life?
 
itinerant1 said:
Not so quickly. While Signature is creationist,…
Click to expand...
Oh, so have you read the book? Or only a review of the book? Or perhaps a review of a review of the book? Why do you say it is creationist?
itinerant1 said:
…the fact we live not on earth but on an earth-moon system, and the implications this unique system has for the development of life is as sound as science gets. The scientific facts involved significantly reduces the estimated probability of life arising on other planets, but by no means eliminates that possibility.
Click to expand...
The earth-moon system is rare. There are many many other factors as well. Privileged Planet (the book, I haven’t seen the DVD) has extensive information and references and I really think you’d enjoy this book, as well as Signature.

Incidentally, PP does not claim to “eliminate” the possibility. Nor does SITC claim to eliminate the possibility of life on other planets. Both books merely try to put things in perspective.
 
HelenaMT said:
Just out of curiosity, where, if ever, is it appropriate to turn to fideism? You use modern science to come to some conclusions (evolution) but not others (existence of soul, resurrection of Christ), or at least that’s the impression I get from your postings, since you say elsewhere: So do you rely on fideism to get to some articles of faith but not others? Or does your belief in the soul come from more than that ?
Click to expand...
Fideism is not something one relies on. Rather, “fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

I argue that the claims of religion are subject to philosophical analysis and – where relevant – should be considered in light of what other disciplines (including the sciences) have to say.

A fideist would say “all humans and only humans have immortal souls” because this is what the catechism declares.

A non-fideist would say, “OK, let’s look at this claim in light of what we know about human nature from genetics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, and other disciplines.” The claim that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls” may turn out to be true, but it may not be one that is supportable by anything other than faith.
 
Zatzat said:
I appreciate your response, however what you’ve written is not conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
When I was in high school, I stamped my foot, looked up to the sky and demanded – God, if you exist, I want to know right now. Nothing happened, Not a tad of conclusive evidence. The only thing left for me to do was to reason God’s existence on my own. Which I did and I have believed in God ever since.

I would share with you my reasoning so that you could use it to determine your soul’s existence. The only thing is – it was the worst kind of reasoning possible. So bad, that I rarely I admit to it. Yet, it worked. 😃

In post 110, you mentioned being told you had a soul. Maybe that is all the proof you need to embrace the idea of soul. Maybe you need to realize that you are a person with great dignity because you are the pinnacle of creation. It is our spiritual soul which distinguishes us from all other creatures. What I am trying to say is that one should not depend on a bolt of lightning from the sky to get us to accept something spiritual. We are loved by God as individuals.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
 
Benadam said:
Why did living matter develope indioviduals with the cognitive ability to be aware of eternal realities if eternity does not pertain to biological life?
Click to expand...
It could be argued this illusion of transcendence is a trick of our neurological wiring.
That fact that you can imagine eternal realities doesn’t guarantee they exist.
 
StAnastasia said:
Appealing to a book does not constitute logical analysis.
Click to expand...
Try reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The sections regarding the sole parents of the human species are marvelous. As for the spiritual soul, I will take the teachings of the Catholic Church on faith any day in the week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top