SOS: Help with atheist friend, STAT!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sailor_Kenshin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sailor_Kenshin

Guest
Call 911!

I think this (very young) person actually wants to be convinced God exists, and constantly challenges me to explain and define faith.

But I know if I push too hard all is lost.

The latest question: What is a soul?

Got no idea how to answer. This person claims that there are a finite number of souls that recycle—sorta like a Shirley McLane reincarnation thingie.

Where can I go to learn more stuff and better serve this young friend (whose beloved grandma recently passed away)?
 
Maybe a good place to start would be Wikipedia? I know it’s not an “official” reference source, but many people consider it reliable, and it may give you more ideas on where to find information.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Christian_beliefs

I tried doing a simple search for “soul” on Catholic Answers, but came up empty.

Hope this helps!
 
From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

And the Catechism #363:In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

Also check out Catechism paragraphs 362-368.

All more than you’d ever want to know! 😃
 
Hi Sailor,

Souls do not pre-exist us. They are not somewhere waiting to be “assigned”. God creates body and soul together and together they are a person.

The human soul is a spiritual being, that is non-material. However it is intimately united to our bodies gives it it its unity and makes us a person. The soul is what makes us what we are. When we die, the soul is no longer with the body. It switches, temporarily, to an existence of “waiting” to be re-united to the body. The body decomposes. Its elements are separated from one another. They may even be part of another being, plant, animal or human.

When we resurrect, God gives the soul a new body, not necessarily made with the same elements, but, together with the soul, we are the same person, because the soul, which makes us a person, is unchanged. I must suppose that God re-creates our DNA to be identical with the one we had during our earthly life, because DNA contributes to our distinctiveness.

Does this cover all your questions?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi Sailor,

Souls do not pre-exist us. They are not somewhere waiting to be “assigned”. God creates body and soul together and together they are a person.

The human soul is a spiritual being, that is non-material. However it is intimately united to our bodies gives it it its unity and makes us a person. The soul is what makes us what we are. When we die, the soul is no longer with the body. It switches, temporarily, to an existence of “waiting” to be re-united to the body. The body decomposes. Its elements are separated from one another. They may even be part of another being, plant, animal or human.

When we resurrect, God gives the soul a new body, not necessarily made with the same elements, but, together with the soul, we are the same person, because the soul, which makes us a person, is unchanged. I must suppose that God re-creates our DNA to be identical with the one we had during our earthly life, because DNA contributes to our distinctiveness.

Does this cover all your questions?

Verbum
Click to expand...
And how. Can I quote you to this young person? 🙂
 
Maranatha said:
Peter Kreeft’s article The Case of Life After Death reviews the logical proofs for the existence of the soul. Some of the logic points can be understood by a young person.
Click to expand...
I must say that most of those proofs are embarrassingly bad. Some of his arguments have some merit, if you assume that humans have spiritual souls, but he doesn’t really take the time to prove that. To his credit though, he admits that #2 is weak right off the bat.
 
Hi Sailor,

Can I quote you to this young person?

And how!

Verbum
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
And how. Can I quote you to this young person? 🙂
Click to expand...
Verbum’s comments help to emphasize that the body is integral to each human person. If souls were recycled then it would really be a case of each soul putting on numerous “man-suits” (or “woman-suits”) as it continued along its earthly existence. The body a soul was attached to at a given time would have no more significance than the clothes one chooses to wear on a given day.

But how can anybody take such a low view of the human body? It is a remarkable creation, and so obviously and intimately tied in with who and what we are as human beings. It just makes so much more sense based on our individual experiences of what it means to be human, that our one body is every bit as much a part of each human person as is our one soul.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Call 911!
…
The latest question: What is a soul?

Got no idea how to answer. This person claims that there are a finite number of souls that recycle—sorta like a Shirley McLane reincarnation thingie.
Click to expand...
The October 2007 issue of “First Things” had a great article by Avery Cardinal Dulles titled “God and Evolution”. Thought of your question “What is a soul?” when I read this paragraph.

Quote:
Without the form, or the formal cause, it would be impossible to account for the unity and specific identity of any substance. In the human composite the form is the spiritual soul, which makes the organism a single entity and gives it its human character. Once the form is lost, the material elements decompose, and the body ceases to be human. It would be futile, therefore, to try to define human beings in terms of their bodily components alone.
End quote.

Regarding reincarnation, we of course reject it due to Church teaching and Scripture (Heb 9:27). I know this carries no weight with your friend. I’m not aware of any published works that present a rational argument for the rejection of reincarnation.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Call 911!

I think this (very young) person actually wants to be convinced God exists, and constantly challenges me to explain and define faith.

But I know if I push too hard all is lost.

The latest question: What is a soul?

Got no idea how to answer. This person claims that there are a finite number of souls that recycle—sorta like a Shirley McLane reincarnation thingie.

Where can I go to learn more stuff and better serve this young friend (whose beloved grandma recently passed away)?
Click to expand...
How old is this “very young” person?

Claiming that there are a finite number of souls that recycle is pretty advanced thought.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Call 911!

I think this (very young) person actually wants to be convinced God exists, and constantly challenges me to explain and define faith.

But I know if I push too hard all is lost.

The latest question: What is a soul?

Got no idea how to answer. This person claims that there are a finite number of souls that recycle—sorta like a Shirley McLane reincarnation thingie.

Where can I go to learn more stuff and better serve this young friend (whose beloved grandma recently passed away)?
Click to expand...
Lee Strobel has some good stuff out for young people: The Case for Creation and 3 other titles.

I know the Christian Research Institute has them. www.equip.org
 
Verbum’s comments can also be supplemented with a look at Aquinas – Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, The Resurrection. Interesting stuff.
Benedictus said:
I must say that most of those proofs are embarrassingly bad. Some of his arguments have some merit, if you assume that humans have spiritual souls, but he doesn’t really take the time to prove that. To his credit though, he admits that #2 is weak right off the bat.
Click to expand...
I have found ‘embarrassingly bad’ a descriptive phrase often applicable to Peter Kreeft’s works in general. I’ve read quite a few of his articles and arguments, and in only one of them have I found myself pleasantly surprised. Beyond that one shining moment, though, I have seen a terrible writer, a philosopher-manque who sees fit to condemn Immanuel Kant as ‘suited for hell’ while being unable to tell the difference between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative, and in the preface to the article linked, a theologian of the ‘neener neener neener’ school. I have no idea why so many Catholics seem to regard him as the Second Coming of Aquinas.

I cannot recommend using his work in an attempt to evangelize to a non-believer; in fact, I heartily disrecommend it.
 
I like Kreeft a lot, but maybe it’s because I don’t approach him with the same expectations I would have of a professional philosopher or theologian. I think of him as like the Catholic version of Lee Strobel, and, given that comparison, he beats Strobel hands down.

The next Aquinas, however? No. I wonder what contemporary writer the rest of you think that might be? Eleonore Stump, maybe? Ralph McInerny? I like J. Budziszewski and Robert George, but again maybe they’re more popular writers than professional philosophers?

John Haldane? Not enough known. John Finnis? Not Thomist enough. Alvin Plantinga? Deservedly famous, but neither Thomist nor Catholic? Hmmm.
🤷
 
cpayne said:
I like Kreeft a lot, but maybe it’s because I don’t approach him with the same expectations I would have of a professional philosopher or theologian.
Click to expand...
The thing is that he has a PhD and is a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, so one could reasonably have certain expectations about the quality of his arguments.
 
Benedictus said:
I must say that most of those proofs are embarrassingly bad. Some of his arguments have some merit, if you assume that humans have spiritual souls, but he doesn’t really take the time to prove that. To his credit though, he admits that #2 is weak right off the bat.
Click to expand...
Well I can’t call you wrong since it’s your personal opinion. I think his arguments are well done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top