Is There a Soul?

[Zatzat]

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’ve had similar experience, only it ended up with my reasoning that God doesn’t exist and it took me many, many years past high school to arrive at that conclusion.

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.

Unfortunately not.

Maybe you need to realize that you are a person with great dignity because you are the pinnacle of creation.

I believe this, despite there being no evidence that I have a soul.

It is our spiritual soul which distinguishes us from all other creatures.

I’d suggest that it is our intellect and self awareness that sets us apart from every other species on the planet.

 

[StAnastasia]

Darn spellchecker identified the correct spelling of the wrong word.

So, do you use rouge makeup?

Never. Ricmat, I never trust speelchackers after a near disaster in which I was writing to a “Professor Kaufman).” It was a good thing I proofread it after running it through the checker, because the program automatically changed his name in my letter to read “Professor Caveman.” This would not have been an auspicious approach to someone I did not know.

 

[HelenaMT]

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

Thanks for that, but I already looked that up on wiki myself

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.

I’m with you all the way here.

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.

So, in professing a belief in the soul, the Resurrection, etc, how are you not a fideist? What, in light of genetics, chemistry, evo biology, etc give you reason to believe in a soul? Or are you withholding belief until you see more evidence ?

The way I am understanding it, if you wind up choosing to believe in a soul, or the Resurrection, or any other religious teaching, even if the evidence leads elsewhere, you are a fideist for all practical purposes. Am I getting that wrong?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not familiar with the term “rouge theologians” – are those theologians who use rouge makeup?

It’s misspelled and has a variety of definitions to choose from. Even so, I could smile at it.

 

[grannymh]

I’d suggest that it is our intellect and self awareness that sets us apart from every other species on the planet.

What you are describing are considered powers or faculties of a spiritual soul.

 

[Benadam]

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.

It’s a fact that people for thousands of years have been dying and evidence supports the eternality of it. Evidence supports that no one escapes becoming eternally dead.

Eternal reality exists or as I put it before we eternally discontinue to be. Why would it be biologically functional to know that if I have a natural instinct to continue being?

 

[Benadam]

It’s misspelled and has a variety of definitions to choose from. Even so, I could smile at it.

you mean rogue

 

[grannymh]

In a few hours, it will be 2:00 AM which is when I will spend an hour in Adoration of the Eucharist in our 24/7 Chapel. Sometimes, instead of praying, I sit quietly letting my soul open up to Our Lord’s presence before me. Peace.

Though I often refer to myself as a direct descendent of Thomas the Apostle, I am sincerely grateful for the gift of faith which follows each troubled discernment. If I am a fideist, so be it.

Regarding the use of science as support of faith, the following is the concept of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.”

" In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously.”

Both statements, well said, are by Michael W. Tkacz

Good night,
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

you mean rogue

Going Rogue? as is “Drill baby, drill!”

 

[Benadam]

Going Rogue? as is “Drill baby, drill!”

hehe

 

[DysonSphere]

Donsnow, what is a “mind” without a brain? Have you seen or heard of one?

This sounds like the question of a budding agnostic. I encourage you to consider carefully the possibility.

 

[Benadam]

In a few hours, it will be 2:00 AM which is when I will spend an hour in Adoration of the Eucharist in our 24/7 Chapel. Sometimes, instead of praying, I sit quietly letting my soul open up to Our Lord’s presence before me. Peace.

Though I often refer to myself as a direct descendent of Thomas the Apostle, I am sincerely grateful for the gift of faith which follows each troubled discernment. If I am a fideist, so be it.

I think it is just as fideistic to believe that something is impossible if there is reason to support it is possible. May the Real Presence of Our Lord be real to you as you adore Him.

 

[DysonSphere]

I think it is just as fideistic to believe that something is impossible if there is reason to support it is possible.

I agree.

My position on the soul is agnostic. There are some facts that are well-explained by such an hypothesis, but some seem to suggest that there is no such thing. I suppose I would tentatively accept that there is a component to this universe that cannot be completely reduced to the physical.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks for that, but I already looked that up on wiki myself
I’m with you all the way here.

So, in professing a belief in the soul, the Resurrection, etc, how are you not a fideist? What, in light of genetics, chemistry, evo biology, etc give you reason to believe in a soul? Or are you withholding belief until you see more evidence? The way I am understanding it, if you wind up choosing to believe in a soul, or the Resurrection, or any other religious teaching, even if the evidence leads elsewhere, you are a fideist for all practical purposes. Am I getting that wrong?

First, I am not withholding belief in “soul.” But I do see problems in claiming that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls.”

Second, I think there is a difference between taking something on faith and declaring that faith alone is sufficient for belief.

But the light is waning, and I must return to this on the morrow after matins.

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

First, I am not withholding belief in “soul.” But I do see problems in claiming that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls.”

What specifically are these problems that you are having?

Perhaps a little philosophical therapy may help alleviate your distress over the soul; therapy as in *Plato not Prozac *or some such approach.

 

[itinerant1]

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?

It was a review of a review of a review.

Is the author an advocate ID theory, or not?

 

[itinerant1]

It was a review of a review of a review.

Is the author an advocate of ID theory, or not?

I should add that if the author is an ID theorist, that most likely puts him in the creationist camp, though probably seated at a different table from the YEC crowd.

I have no interest or sympathy whatsoever for ID-ology, YEC-ology, or any other variation of Protestant fundamentalist-creationism, especially when adhered to by anyone claiming to be Catholic. So, don’t even get me started on this nonsense.

 

[grannymh]

First, I am not withholding belief in “soul.” But I do see problems in claiming that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls.”
StAnastasia

Maybe the problem is in accepting that God is creator of the spiritual soul which is essential for human nature. Having a spiritual soul means taking responsibility for one’s actions which can be hard to do.

 

[HelenaMT]

First, I am not withholding belief in “soul.” But I do see problems in claiming that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls.”

So do you think some people *don’t *have souls? Or that some non-humans do? That would be interesting to ponder, but I didn’t think that was Catholic. I’d really like to know what problems you see with the claim you mentioned.

Second, I think there is a difference between taking something on faith and declaring that faith alone is sufficient for belief.

If you take something on faith, isn’t that a declaration that faith was sufficient for that belief? Or do you just rely on faith for that little extra push to get you over to the believing side when you’ve found just enough evidence you find credible?

 

[Zatzat]

It’s a brand new day and another opportunity for Itinerant1 to produce the conclusive evidence for the existence of an eternal soul.

I’ve asked Itinerant1 several times to produce the evidence and the only thing Itinerant1 has done, is to reply with ’ lol ’ and a lecture that concerns my username.

I’ll gladly take a close look at the evidence, but seeing as you’ve yet to produce anything, I’m highly skeptical that this conclusive evidence exists.

Originally Posted by itinerant1
The evidence which you assume does not exist not only exists but it is conclusive.