Let's keep it simple

[Spock]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

 

[Heuchler]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

Well the soul is really just our intellect and willpower which is one with our bodies. So essentially the soul is what an atheist would say is encompasses by the brain. We believe that our intellect and wills would last into eternity and really there isn’t a way to say that we are immortal except that our faith tells us and I have faith in my faith:thumbsup: Someone else probably has a better answer or this is something you just have to trust in. Sorry I know you wanted a better answer but thats all i got

 

[yablabo]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

The only way to know for certain that one has an immortal soul is if the one who made it has revealed it. There is a lot of “logical” speculation that I’ve read that natural reason alone can expose this truth, but it’s all speculation without either a direct witness or revelation of the author.

So, the answer is, the method by which one can show whether this proposition is true or false is only divine revelation.

–Nicole

 

[You]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

Its like a common theme in prehistory; the neanderthals buried family/friends with flowers in their graves. Cro-Magnon; The Beaker people; all the bronze-age and iron age people buried their dead with care, with their possessions, and arguably with ritual. The animals they hunted and ate and the domestic animals they kept from neolithic periods onwards were not treated as they treated their own human dead.
The idea of proving everything you encounter is not really an objective stance since often the concept of proving things stems only from the desire to prove them false. The quiet and gentle ideas that float across our thoughts when they are allowed to as in when we lower some person we knew into a grave; whether we are neolithic or microchip-age, tell us quietly that we are now unsure; that we don’t know that that life which was of such great value is totally wasted and gone; but the human instinct always seems to fall in favour of the continuation in some form of a human life.

 

[Spock]

Thank you for the answers so far. Keep them coming.

A long time ago I read an interesting line of thought. The author surmised that the belief in some “immaterial soul” is probably due to the fact that we dream. The prehistoric people probably dreamed about their deceased familiy members and friends, just like we do now. Unlike us, they had no idea what a dream might be, and they probably thought that those dead people were still “around” as ghosts. This is the only reasonable line of thought I ever encountered, which lead to concept of “souls”. Of course it is still a far cry from stipulating an “immortal soul”.

 

[You]

Thank you for the answers so far. Keep them coming.

A long time ago I read an interesting line of thought. The author surmised that the belief in some “immaterial soul” is probably due to the fact that we dream. The prehistoric people probably dreamed about their deceased familiy members and friends, just like we do now. Unlike us, they had no idea what a dream might be, and they probably thought that those dead people were still “around” as ghosts. This is the only reasonable line of thought I ever encountered, which lead to concept of “souls”. Of course it is still a far cry from stipulating an “immortal soul”.

I think I would object to colouring prehistoric people as primitive and dismissing dreams both as a cause and a factor of belief as well as an area of study. “Interpretation of dreams is the most exciting field of psychoanalysis.” - freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/dream_interpretation.html

Prehistoric people were the very same as you and me. Old does not mean primitive.

 

[Paul1Up]

The Huffington Post had an article on life after death, but it was composed of odd explanations involving theoretical physics, quantum physics, etc. I recall that they did mean something like an immortal soul (consciousness after death). I can’t find the article anymore, sorry. Really, it’s too difficult to scientifically prove something like this. For example, there are people who believe that the physical world is an illusion. Scientific methods and tools are constrained to the physical world. So what would an individual even need to look for to prove that our physical world is not an illusion? Work is calling me and now my train of thought is completely derailed. Sorry I couldn’t offer a better answer!

 

[Spock]

I think I would object to colouring prehistoric people as primitive and dismissing dreams both as a cause and a factor of belief as well as an area of study. “Interpretation of dreams is the most exciting field of psychoanalysis.” - freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/dream_interpretation.html

Prehistoric people were the very same as you and me. Old does not mean primitive.

I did not call those people “primitive”, but certainly they were ignorant, or lacking knowledge. And “psychoanalysis” is just a joke.

 

[You]

I did not call those people “primitive”, but certainly they were ignorant, or lacking knowledge. And “psychoanalysis” is just a joke.

‘Unlike us, they had no idea what a dream might be, and they probably thought that those dead people were still “around” as ghosts.’

I don’t know what a dream is; and I think you are speculating that they saw dead people at all, real or in dreams.

 

[Neithan]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

The argument for the incorruptibility of the soul follows on the argument for its subsistence i.e. substance dualism and the immateriality of the rational principle. If you don’t accept substance dualism, then you need to take a step back and deal with the philosophy of mind, perhaps tackling the Argument from Reason.

For someone who accepts substance dualism, then the incorruptibility of the human soul can be argued in a variety of ways;
one of the simplest (in keeping with your thread title):

1. Corruption is a kind of change
2. Change involves movement
3. Therefore, whatever is corrupted, must be moved
4. Whatever is moved, is physical
5. The intellect is not physical
   Conclusion: Therefore, the intellect is incorruptible

(adapted from St. Thomas Aquinas’ II, 55:8*Summa Contra Gentiles *)

Premises 1-4 can be demonstrated empirically. Premise 5 is an anti-panpsychist assumption (something capable of knowledge of the physical, cannot itself be physical or have a physical source).

 

[Spock]

I don’t know what a dream is; and I think you are speculating that they saw dead people at all, real or in dreams.

Wow. That is a surprise. Most of us had dreams, about reat, or deceased people.

 

[Spock]

The argument for the incorruptibility of the soul follows on the argument for its subsistence i.e. substance dualism and the immateriality of the rational principle. If you don’t accept substance dualism, then you need to take a step back and deal with the philosophy of mind, perhaps tackling the Argument from Reason.

For someone who accepts substance dualism, then the incorruptibility of the human soul can be argued in a variety of ways;
one of the simplest (in keeping with your thread title):

1. Corruption is a kind of change
2. Change involves movement
3. Therefore, whatever is corrupted, must be moved
4. Whatever is moved, is physical
5. The intellect is not physical
   Conclusion: Therefore, the intellect is incorruptible

(adapted from St. Thomas Aquinas’ *Summa Contra Gentiles *II, 55:8)

Premises 1-4 can be demonstrated empirically. Premise 5 is an anti-panpsychist assumption (something capable of knowledge of the physical, cannot itself be physical or have a physical source).

The intellect itself is part of the mind, which is the activity of the brain, which ceases to “work” at the time of death - according to the evidence. But, thank you for the attempt. Do you equate “soul” with the “intellect”? Just curious.

 

[Neithan]

The intellect itself is part of the mind, which is the activity of the brain, which ceases to “work” at the time of death - according to the evidence. But, thank you for the attempt. Do you equate “soul” with the “intellect”? Just curious.

Sure. The soul is the form of the person, of which the intellect is immaterial, subsistent, and incorruptible.

You’re wasting your time if you reject substance dualism.

You still haven’t sufficiently critiqued the Argument from Reason, or adequately demonstrated that you understand it (and no it is not merely an “argument from incredulity,” or an “incorrect dichotomy”).

 

[Neithan]

Oh and I know you like the ‘software-hardware’ analogy for the mind-brain connection, but it has two glaring problems:

1. software does not depend on any particular hardware to exist; and
2. software is not created by hardware

So that analogy would actually support substance dualism, eh?

 

[Spock]

Sure. The soul is the form of the person, of which the intellect is immaterial, subsistent, and incorruptible.

The “form” of an amoeba is constantly changing.

You’re wasting your time if you reject substance dualism.

I don’t think I am wasting my time. I am merely interested in the arguments presented.

Oh and I know you like the ‘software-hardware’ analogy for the mind-brain connection, but it has two glaring problems:

1. software does not depend on any particular hardware to exist; and
2. software is not created by hardware

So that analogy would actually support substance dualism, eh?

Why would those be problems? Especially the first one, since it admits that “transplanting” the software from a “wetware” environment unto a different platform (real hardware) will not influence the operation. As such the activity is independent from the platform, and the assumption of a “soul” is thus rendered unnecessary. No one would say that a computer has a “soul” (at least I hope so…but as they say, God’s zoo is huge, and it takes all kinds).

And since the platform is not relevant, your second objection is invalid, too.

 

[Neithan]

The intellect itself is part of the mind, which is the activity of the brain, which ceases to “work” at the time of death - according to the evidence. But, thank you for the attempt. Do you equate “soul” with the “intellect”? Just curious.

One more thing: just because something ceases to “work” doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, right?

You could say, “it might as well not exist,” but that’s not quite the same.

Just a thought.

 

[Spock]

One more thing: just because something ceases to “work” doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, right?

You could say, “it might as well not exist,” but that’s not quite the same.

Just a thought.

In this case it does. As soon as the leg muscles stop working, the “walking” (activity) ceases to exist. The muscles are still there. The brain cells are still there - at least for a while - after death, but they are not operational any more.

 

[Neithan]

The “form” of an amoeba is constantly changing.

Yes and no. It changes its appearance, but per se i.e. it is still an amoeba. You would know that if you had clicked the link I gave you.
If you really want to learn a Catholic answer to your question, and not just play ‘debate chess,’ I recommend reading St. Thomas’ arguments about intellectual substances.

Why would those be problems? Especially the first one, since it admits that “transplanting” the software from a “wetware” environment unto a different platform (real hardware) will not influence the operation. As such the activity is independent from the platform, and the assumption of a “soul” is thus rendered unnecessary. No one would say that a computer has a “soul” (at least I hope so…but as they say, God’s zoo is huge, and it takes all kinds).

Interesting, but I meant software as in the sourcecode, not the specific ‘installation’ of it.

And since the platform is not relevant, your second objection is invalid, too.

Not sure I agree. It’s a question of source, rather than operation.

 

[Neithan]

In this case it does. As soon as the leg muscles stop working, the “walking” (activity) ceases to exist. The muscles are still there. The brain cells are still there - at least for a while - after death, but they are not operational any more.

So you assume.

Because you reject substance dualism.

We’re stalemated it seems.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

There is no way to know the meaning of terms being used, namely immortal soul.
Sounds like a positive claim without any evidence for it.