The Existence of the Soul

[R_McGeddon]

1. we make free choices. a choice is free only if it is not caused

That means the fear of hell causes people to follow God and is then not a free choice.

 

[JimO]

That means the fear of hell causes people to follow God and is then not a free choice.

You assume that the abstract fear of hell is sufficient cause. I disagree. It is a relationship with God and the love and acceptance I receive from that relationship that motivates me, not the fear of hell. For someone who utterly rejects the notion of God, they simply cannot comprehend this and any free choice in favor of God is, naturally, attributed to a fear of hell.

But, as I stated above, the atheist refuses to accept evidence that is not “scientific”. A relationship with a superior Being (God) is incomprehenisble, but fear (that can be experienced and proven) is comprehensible and considered “scientific”, thus, it is the only explanation the atheist will accept.

This is the pattern that most of the debates between theists and atheists takes.

 

[mosher]

That means the fear of hell causes people to follow God and is then not a free choice.

The choice to fear God is itself a choice opposed to love and just viewing hell as a result. Thus, still even here freedom is not absent.

 

[mosher]

You don’t know this for certain, the same as I don’t know for certain the opposite.

What you are not understanding as most moderns and post-moderns cease to understand is that we are not imposing on man this thing called a soul but rather we identify these aspects about man an identify the operating principle of these aspects the soul. Thus it is not an imposition of a construct but it is an identification of what is.

 

[Kepha15]

You don’t know this for certain, the same as I don’t know for certain the opposite.

I know this for certain because it’s just good common sense. Read mosher’s comment…he said it best I think. If not from a soul, where does this subjective quality come from? And why is it unique to you, of the 6.5 billion people (and trillions of other living things)…this idea of a subjective point of view?

 

[john_doran]

That means the fear of hell causes people to follow God and is then not a free choice.

i’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here…

if you’re simply stating the tautology: “if the fear of hell causes a person to follow god, then that person’s following god is not the result of a free choice”, then sure. but so what?

the fact that some actions are not the result of free choices in no way entails that there are no actions that are the result of free choices. that makes as much sense as saying “some animals are not dogs. therefore no animals are dogs”.

are you perhaps trying to make some other point?

 

[nucatholic]

There was quite a big response to my post, so it took me a while to figure out what some of you were trying to say.

John Doran, You say we have free will, but it is not so obvious that this is true. I’ve been reading into the free will/determinism problem for a while now and I can honestly say that I do not lean either way yet. The determinist camp has the compatibilists and the non-compatibilists and each argument has its own nuances and consequences. I think the compatibilist camp is interesting myself. If it were true, then your argument fails to convince because our actions and choices are determined but are still free in a sense. Some philosophers even argue that determinism is necessary for free will, and they have presented some pretty interesting arguments for this.

Now to address your first argument, let us go back to the Blank Slate. We are only acquainted with things that were first introduced through the senses. We can construct any number of “immaterial” things by simply taking our ideas of things experienced through the senses and jumble them together or build on them. It is not clear in any sense of the word that we are acquainted with the “immaterial” depending on how you want to define such an ambiguous term. I think the rational thing is to take the default position and assume that there is a natural explanation for these things. Remember extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. We are just one member of the animal kingdom and yet we insist that we are not only rationally and mentally superior (true with ample justification) but metaphysically superior (meaning we have an additional basic property of existence: the soul or spirit which is not obvious in any way).

JimO, I agree with you that many atheists don’t have your best interests in mind. However, I do have reasons why I ask people to reexamine their faith and I honestly think that our society would be much better off if faith in Allah or YWH went the way of faith in Zeus and Isis. After all, it was faith that convinced intelligent people to hijack a plane and fly it into the WTC. You might object on the basis of the content of Islamic faith and Christian faith but the method of arriving at these two faith systems is exactly the same. So if I can convince people to question their most fundamental beliefs, then we wouldn’t have so many whackos claiming absolute certainty about political and social issues when that certainty is derived from belief in something that doesn’t appear to exist no matter how hard people try to claim it.

What I ask everyone is to be consistent in one’s epistemology. You don’t believe Mormons when they come to your front door do you? Of course you don’t, because they have no evidence for their beliefs. Like I said earlier, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you came to a conclusion about something in physics the way you came to a conclusion about Jesus or a god, I’m afraid the physicists wouldn’t take you seriously (to put it nicely). We should apply the same method of acquiring knowledge in every area of belief.

 

[Kepha15]

nucatholic, I noticed you curiously left off mentioning my response to your post. I’d love to hear your answer for this rather simple question.

 

[Nullasalus]

After all, it was faith that convinced intelligent people to hijack a plane and fly it into the WTC. You might object on the basis of the content of Islamic faith and Christian faith but the method of arriving at these two faith systems is exactly the same. So if I can convince people to question their most fundamental beliefs, then we wouldn’t have so many whackos claiming absolute certainty about political and social issues when that certainty is derived from belief in something that doesn’t appear to exist no matter how hard people try to claim it.

If you want people to question their most fundamental beliefs, why aren’t you having them question the ones that make them regard 9/11 as a repulsive act?

Or is it more that you’d rather they question certain beliefs, because you happen to disagree with the conclusions they arrive at, and hope that you can dismantle the beliefs you dislike while deftly leaving the ones you do like, alone?

If there’s one thing that’s been proven since the onset of secularism and militant atheism, it’s that no deity is necessary to compel men to acts of brutality and… well, evil. Mostly because the (un)belief systems have a knack for sophistry - when there’s no ultimate truths, Stalin at his bloodiest can be a saint if you play your cards right.

As far as consciousness, soul, and otherwise goes, it’s a complicated philosophical question - but there’s good arguments on both sides. David Chalmers has some interesting arguments about the hard problem of consciousness - namely that reducing consciousness to a purely physical process is unlikely at the moment, and may be forever so. Worth reading up on it related to these topics. For my part, I don’t know what to think about a soul - but I think it’s obvious that humanity operates at a far higher level than the next-closest-creature, and we’re the odd duck of creation in many ways. That alone is worth pondering.

 

[melbourne_guy]

If there’s one thing that’s been proven since the onset of secularism and militant atheism, it’s that no deity is necessary to compel men to acts of brutality and… well, evil.

I believe this to be very true, and it makes me laugh when i see people trying to argue that hitler , stalin, mao, and pol pot were theists.

 

[JimO]

So if I can convince people to question their most fundamental beliefs, then we wouldn’t have so many whackos claiming absolute certainty about political and social issues when that certainty is derived from belief in something that doesn’t appear to exist no matter how hard people try to claim it.

Are you saying that all the wackos out there are wackos because of their religious beliefs? Come on, you know that’s a weak position. There are wackos in every walk of life. Most of the serial killers, rapists, murderers, and other criminals are agnostics or atheists. Even many of those who use religion as an excuse for conquest are not faithful followers of their own religion. As a scientist, you cannot tell me that you really believe that statistically there are more religious wackos than there are agnostic or atheistic wackos.

Also, everyone has a moral code or code of ethics that they follow. For some, it is based on religion, for others it is based on the general consensus, and for even others, it is based solely on self interest. By your statement I would guess that you don’t believe in any moral absolutes. If not, then what is worse for society, to have moral absolutes that remain unchanged or to have “evolving” morality wherein something that is considered a heinous crime today will be acceptable tomorrow? What if you become the victim of such a shift, like the Jews in WWII Germany or a handicapped child in China? No athiest making this argument has ever produced evidence that moral absolutes are worse for society.

Like I said earlier, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you came to a conclusion about something in physics the way you came to a conclusion about Jesus or a god, I’m afraid the physicists wouldn’t take you seriously (to put it nicely). We should apply the same method of acquiring knowledge in every area of belief.

You missed my whole point. You cannot use the principles of physics to prove the existence of God and that is precisely why you make this statement because you know it to be true. There is more evidence for the existence of God, the soul, life after death, and other spiritual things than you could possibly ever research in your lifetime, but it is evidence you will discount before even looking at it. Thus, I repeat my analogy. You are a blind man asking me to prove to you that light exists. You have supressed the faculty that allows you to examine the evidence.

Indulge me for a moment. Suppose I am correct and God exists and He created the universe. Well, then He’s a lot bigger than anyone even considers or can comprehend. How big is the universe? Well, God is outside it and contains it. It does not contain Him. How could one derive an equation that equals God? God IS the equation. God is physics and evolutionary biology and mathematics. He defines these systems, they do not define Him. If He could be defined, condensed, proven, then He would not be God.

So, what next. He sends His Son to show Himself to us. To enter the universe. He humbled Himself to share our humanity. He allowed Himself to be defined, to be contained, to be sensed (touched, heard, felt). How much more proof does anyone want? There is more historical and archeological proof for Christ than any other person that ever lived. It’s not the lack of evidence, it’s your refusal to examine the evidence objectively that is the problem. Many have tried and failed to prove the claims of the Church wrong; not the metaphysical claims, but the historical, archeological, and yes, even the scientific claims. There have been countless miracles that defy scientific explanation that are documented in detail. Pick five and scrutinize them. My guess is that you would refuse even to do so.

There is evidence - plenty of evidence. It just cannot be condensed to a sound bite in a post. If you really want to know, it’s there. If not and you just want to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of those struggling in their faith, then I repeat my assertion that the vast majority of atheists have no real interest in the well being of others, only in justifying to themselves that they are correct. God could appear in a blast of lightning to these types of people and after He was gone, they’d convince themselves that there was no scientific evidence of His appearance so it must not have happened.

 

[john_doran]

John Doran, You say we have free will, but it is not so obvious that this is true. I’ve been reading into the free will/determinism problem for a while now and I can honestly say that I do not lean either way yet. The determinist camp has the compatibilists and the non-compatibilists and each argument has its own nuances and consequences. I think the compatibilist camp is interesting myself. If it were true, then your argument fails to convince because our actions and choices are determined but are still free in a sense. Some philosophers even argue that determinism is necessary for free will, and they have presented some pretty interesting arguments for this.

all of this is fair enough: the argument from free will is only compelling if you actually accept the premises, one of which being that there is such a thing as free will, and that it has the properties i described.

if you want to present an argument either that persons do not make free choices, or that it is unlikely that they do, then i can respond. but until then, you have not responded to the reasoning i presented.

nucatholic:

Now to address your first argument, let us go back to the Blank Slate. We are only acquainted with things that were first introduced through the senses. We can construct any number of “immaterial” things by simply taking our ideas of things experienced through the senses and jumble them together or build on them. It is not clear in any sense of the word that we are acquainted with the “immaterial” depending on how you want to define such an ambiguous term. I think the rational thing is to take the default position and assume that there is a natural explanation for these things. Remember extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. We are just one member of the animal kingdom and yet we insist that we are not only rationally and mentally superior (true with ample justification) but metaphysically superior (meaning we have an additional basic property of existence: the soul or spirit which is not obvious in any way).

i’m not sure you’re getting at here, other than simply to say “it’s not clear that we are acquainted with immaterial objects”…

i think it is clear…

 

[R_McGeddon]

I know this for certain because it’s just good common sense.

It’s not good common sense it’s just what you believe, neither is it certain. The Sun rising tomorrow is certain, the existence of a soul is a belief.

Read mosher’s comment…he said it best I think. If not from a soul, where does this subjective quality come from?

The point with this is, nobody knows. We all have our opinions and beliefs but not one of us has any concrete evidence either way.

 

[JimO]

The point with this is, nobody knows. We all have our opinions and beliefs but not one of us has any concrete evidence either way.

Do you plan to respond to the points addressed to you? You seem to take short jabs at others’ comments but avoid dialogue.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Do you plan to respond to the points addressed to you? You seem to take short jabs at others’ comments but avoid dialogue.

If a valid point is put across, I’ll address it. Endless repetition of tired old points does not make a valid argument.

 

[ltravis]

This has been a really interesting topic. I hope it isn’t degenerating like I feared it could. It isn’t fair for nonbelievers to demand the believers to prove a God they accept only through faith, and it isn’t fair for the believers to force the nobelievers to accept something that has no basis is scientific reason. We can only present our viewpoints and why we hold them, and the value we think results from them. I have no problem “losing” a faith argument if it is defined in a purely natural, scientific, or humanistic grounds. My failure, though, would be when the attitude and manner I use to present my faith doesn’t present the love and goodness that is supposed to draw people in.

LT

 

[Kepha15]

It’s not good common sense it’s just what you believe, neither is it certain. The Sun rising tomorrow is certain, the existence of a soul is a belief.
The point with this is, nobody knows. We all have our opinions and beliefs but not one of us has any concrete evidence either way.

Now you’re starting to get really philosophical. To address your first point (or to point out it’s flaw, rather), the sun rising tomorrow is only certain if you accept a number of premises first. One being that you rely on your own senses…using the subjective quality I talked about…to tell “you” that what “you’ve” “experienced” (I’ve said all this before) in the past has been the truth, and that you have “faith” that what you’ve experienced in the past will continue to be true. You have no way of knowing whether or not your senses are reliable, the sun and it’s physics are reliable, or even if the science that tells you the sun will rise tomorrow is reliable.

In fact, the only thing you CAN be certain about is that your experiences told you that you should expect the sun to rise tomorrow. And…once again, how is it possible for you to “experience” anything?

You might say that the “soul” is speculatory, but whatever it is that gives us this subjective quality can be described using the exact properties of what I and every other person on this board would use to describe what a “soul” might be. In other words, you can call it anything you want, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t get subjectivity from a purely objective universe. Not without some kind of supernatural intervention. To suggest otherwise implies a logical paradox.

It’s not just a belief, it really is just plain old common sense.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Now you’re starting to get really philosophical. To address your first point (or to point out it’s flaw, rather), the sun rising tomorrow is only certain if you accept a number of premises first.

It has no flaw and there are only 2 premises.

1. The Sun is there.
2. The Earth rotates.

We would know well in advance before either or both of these ceased to be.

You have no way of knowing whether or not your senses are reliable

Under what circumstances?

And…once again, how is it possible for you to “experience” anything?

Experience is the result of direct participation and observation. It is also accumulated knowledge.

You might say that the “soul” is speculatory, but whatever it is that gives us this subjective quality can be described using the exact properties of what I and every other person on this board would use to describe what a “soul” might be.

If you asked a dozen people on this board to define what a soul is, you would get a dozen different answers.

In other words, you can call it anything you want, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t get subjectivity from a purely objective universe.

What makes you so sure of this?

Not without some kind of supernatural intervention. To suggest otherwise implies a logical paradox.

Care to elaborate?

It’s not just a belief, it really is just plain old common sense.

You referred earlier to the supernatural. Common sense and the supernatural do not go hand in hand.

 

[JimO]

If a valid point is put across, I’ll address it. Endless repetition of tired old points does not make a valid argument.

Oh, I see, you are the ultimate judge when it comes to the validity of a point. I think you just like cherry picking and making quips. It makes you seem very scholastic and keeps you on the offensive. Yours too are tired old points as well.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Oh, I see, you are the ultimate judge when it comes to the validity of a point.

I’m hardly unique, everyone has their own views as to what is valid to them, yourself included.

I think you just like cherry picking and making quips.

The irony, how much of the bible do you cherry pick so that you can disregard the more unsavoury parts?

Yours too are tired old points as well.

They’re not as tired or as old as the religious points.