The Existence of the Soul

[JimO]

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

Well, I try at least to address comments and not simply dismiss them.

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

And where have I done that? I’ve read and studied the entire Bible many times and have no problems dealing with what you call the “more unsavoury parts.”

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

Oh really? “There is no God.” “You have no proof.” “If God exists, show Him to me.” “How can an all-loving God who is all powerful allow suffering?” We’ve heard all the objections over and over as I’m sure you have. You really don’t think that these ideas are new do you?

 

[R_McGeddon]

Well, I try at least to address comments and not simply dismiss them.

In some cases it’s ok to be dismissive.

And where have I done that?

I take it by this, you accept the bible in its entirety?

I’ve read and studied the entire Bible many times and have no problems dealing with what you call the “more unsavoury parts.”

What do you mean by “no problems dealing with”?

Oh really? “There is no God.” “You have no proof.” “If God exists, show Him to me.” “How can an all-loving God who is all powerful allow suffering?” We’ve heard all the objections over and over as I’m sure you have. You really don’t think that these ideas are new do you?

I know they’re not new points, but I’ve yet to hear an answer that isn’t a total cop-out.

 

[JimO]

I take it by this, you accept the bible in its entirety?

Yes, I do, if by accept you mean that I believe they are accurate and inspired writings; however, being a Catholic, I am not a literalist because I do not believe that either culturally or historically, things were intended literally, such as the creation narratives. They were not intended as historical accounts or scientific explanations. They are intended to introduce who God is and our relationship to him. Regarding the violent passages, there are good reasons for the actions described. They were written, I believe, candidly and thus, seem harsh, but there are good explanations for those actions.

What do you mean by “no problems dealing with”?

As stated above, I see the purpose of the conquests and wars of Israel (as being the most violent of the Bible passages) and do not try to avoid these less “savory” parts of the Bible.

I know they’re not new points, but I’ve yet to hear an answer that isn’t a total cop-out.

Clearly you and I have both been in numerous debates where these issues are discussed over and over again. The point I try to make is that the atheist typically demands physical evidence for what is not physical. I went into detail on this in an earlier post to nucatholic if you have any interest in reading my amateuristic theological ramblings.

Regarding the all-powerful/all-loving objection, this cannot be understood if one does not understand first, the true implications of free will and second, the value that suffering can have (may Christians don’t even understand this).

Peace

 

[ltravis]

In some cases it’s ok to be dismissive.

I take it by this, you accept the bible in its entirety?

What do you mean by “no problems dealing with”?

I know they’re not new points, but I’ve yet to hear an answer that isn’t a total cop-out.

R McG, would you care to open a new thread and discuss some of those points? I’d love the opportunity and you won’t find a better platform to get your ideas out…

LT

 

[mosher]

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

Everybody. This here is the real point of his argument. He seems to think that the argument is a religious one. I think it may be good to address this. The animosity toward faith is blinding his reason because to assent to an immaterial is by necessity to assent to a God. And he seems to think that God is a matter of religion (which He is not necessarily) he doesn’t want to accept that the immaterial is a matter of reason and not faith.

 

[ribozyme]

Well, what is consciousness? Is it the ability for self-recognition? However, other animals have this ability too so humanity is not unique in this regard. (see: pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0608062103v1)

We exposed three Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) to a large mirror to investigate their responses. Animals that possess MSR typically progress through four stages of behavior when facing a mirror: (i) social responses, (ii) physical inspection (e.g., looking behind the mirror), (iii) repetitive mirror-testing behavior, and (iv) realization of seeing themselves.

If humanity is indeed unique, could one elaborate their case on how consciousness is unique to the human species. Of course, I do expect to see some definitions of consciousness in this thread.

 

[ltravis]

Well, what is consciousness? Is it the ability for self-recognition? However, other animals have this ability too so humanity is not unique in this regard. (see: pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0608062103v1)

If humanity is indeed unique, could one elaborate their case on how consciousness is unique to the human species. Of course, I do expect to see some definitions of consciousness in this thread.

I thought the one of the uniquenesses of humans was not that they have self awareness, but that they are aware of that awareness. I know I have read about that somewhere; can anyone expand upon it?

LT

 

[Nullasalus]

If humanity is indeed unique, could one elaborate their case on how consciousness is unique to the human species. Of course, I do expect to see some definitions of consciousness in this thread.

How about you start with your own definition of consciousness then? Because, really… even now, that’s a difficulty for many (aside from ‘aware’ versus ‘not’.) Dennett insists that consciousness is nothing but the sum of its parts - explain all the mechanics of the brain, and you’ve explained consciousness. Chalmers argues that that isn’t the case - that experience is fundamentally different from function, and therefore requires its own non-reductive explanation.

However, at this point, anyone’s definition of consciousness (or any that would be meaningful re: this thread) can be denied. We’re in the dark on it, which is the problem with talking about it: Just about any real definition is somewhat easy to attack. And as a result, any definition is hard to defend.

Humanity is unique in their mental faculties and capabilities, unless you actively strive to water down the difficulties with choice of terminology. That much is more or less universally agreed upon. The problems come in with questions of degree. (Well, some apes can apparently be taught sign language - therefore, they’re just like humans!)

 

[JimO]

The fact that we are having this debate is sufficient evidence to show that humans are unique.

 

[ribozyme]

However, at this point, anyone’s definition of consciousness (or any that would be meaningful re: this thread) can be denied. We’re in the dark on it, which is the problem with talking about it: Just about any real definition is somewhat easy to attack. And as a result, any definition is hard to defend.

Hmm… I really think a definition is necessary when one wants to discuss a topic. There has to be some definition though. Initially, I used the definition of self-awareness in this thread, but I found it inadequate.

Regarding definitions, it is really hard to describe transubstantiation without a definition of the word “substance”.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hmm… I really think a definition is necessary when one wants to discuss a topic. There has to be some definition though. Initially, I used the definition of self-awareness in this thread, but I found it inadequate.

This is one topic where what counts as a definition is going to be debated upon - and it won’t necessarily be a result of people being purposefully technical and anal. What comprises consciousness itself is debated - and therefore, so is the definition. Dennet’s definition is ‘the sum of the brain’s functions’. Chalmers’ would likely be ‘That which experiences all of the brain’s functions’ or close to it. And those are just two philosophers - there are more out there. Though those two are the ones whose ‘debate’ I keep reading up on lately.

It’s like talking about measurement re: Quantum Mechanics. ‘Measurement causes collapse’ by one interpretation. Okay, but what’s measurement? Is it the device that measures aspects of the particle? Or is it the person who reads the measurement? You’ll get different (and by this point, irritated) answers depending on which physicist you talk to. The dictionary definition of measurement isn’t going to be helpful. So, you have to prepare to debate the definition(s) first.

 

[dessert]

Wow I barely read any scripture on this entire thread except those with the end ones.My bible definition soul; The life principle of a human being; the IMMORTAL element of man; the spirit; the living individual.
Mathew 16;26 NKJ " For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
This sounds like morality to me but don’t tell the veggie tales they have a soul they may strike.
I have a free will but oh my goodness I try to keep really moral people around me because I get tempted easy!
Sometimes I wish I could walk on water like Peter did, don’t you?
In mathew I think he got a little you know cok and Jesus had to put him in his place like don’t get too big for your britches PETER. Desert DESERT oh no I think I just heard my mother calling.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Everybody. This here is the real point of his argument. He seems to think that the argument is a religious one.

I get the general impression that the soul and religion are intertwined.

The animosity toward faith is blinding his reason because to assent to an immaterial is by necessity to assent to a God.

I have no animosity toward faith, just curiosity.

And he seems to think that God is a matter of religion (which He is not necessarily)

Isn’t it?

he doesn’t want to accept that the immaterial is a matter of reason and not faith.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McG, would you care to open a new thread and discuss some of those points? I’d love the opportunity and you won’t find a better platform to get your ideas out…

LT

I’ll give it a go.

 

[ltravis]

I’ll give it a go.

Cool, I appreciate it! Am I correct in assuming the context is parts in the bible that pose difficulty for a theist who asserts it is inerrant? I’m trust all scripture, so I will leave it up to you to choose any issue (or issues) and post it in the apologetics/scripture section. Hopefully we can gain some new insights. I am not a scripture scholar, but I am faithful and honest. Take advantage…

LT

 

[Kepha15]

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.
Under what circumstances?
Experience is the result of direct participation and observation. It is also accumulated knowledge.

If you asked a dozen people on this board to define what a soul is, you would get a dozen different answers.
What makes you so sure of this?
Care to elaborate?
You referred earlier to the supernatural. Common sense and the supernatural do not go hand in hand.

You seem to be the type to not want to go into great detail about any one topic…so I’m not going to waste my time trying to type out a long response so you can continue to jab and prod at each and every point.

I will say this, however, in response to your “experiences” quote. If experience is the result of direct observation and participation…who is it doing the observing and participating? Who is the subject here? You, of course. And how is it that there is even a “you” in the first place? Why would you describe yourself as “me” in the first place? What does that mean exactly?

You say that subjectivity can exist in a completely objective universe…but you fail to explain how this is even remotely possible. It’s a contradiction. That’s like saying noise can exist in a completely silent room.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You seem to be the type to not want to go into great detail about any one topic…so I’m not going to waste my time trying to type out a long response so you can continue to jab and prod at each and every point.

If I went into great detail about everything I engaged in, I’d forever be in front of my monitor.

Jabbing and prodding, as you put it, is me being curious, questioning and not accepting something just because someone says I should do.

I will say this, however, in response to your “experiences” quote. If experience is the result of direct observation and participation…who is it doing the observing and participating? Who is the subject here? You, of course. And how is it that there is even a “you” in the first place? Why would you describe yourself as “me” in the first place? What does that mean exactly?

This philosophical question has been around since mankind became aware of his own existence and mortality. I also very much doubt that we will ever truly know the answer.

You say that subjectivity can exist in a completely objective universe

Did I, where?

 

[mosher]

I get the general impression that the soul and religion are intertwined.

Only in an accidental way. It is not that man has a soul that he is religious but rather that he has a rational soul that he is religious. As has been stated earlier, the soul is the principle of life (the form of a living thing). So, this is why discussion of the soul does not necessitate discussion about religion as the soul is a matter for the natural order but religion is a matter for the order of grace.

I have no animosity toward faith, just curiosity.

That is good to hear. But your questions and accusations seem to run counter to a mere curiosity. A hermeneutic of suspicion is never a process that leads to the finding of truth but rather it subverts truth for individual perspective.

Isn’t it?

No. God and the things of God are the study of philosophy and not religion per se. God is a study of the natural order and not principally a study of the order of grace Theology is the study of God’s Revelation. Religion is mans response to God.

Not sure what you mean here.

What I mean is that your discussion seems to negate the world of the unseen to a matter for religion (angels, demons and God). Rather, they are the direct object of philosophy prior to the object of theology. So first they are properly to be discussed in the natural order.

 

[Kepha15]

If I went into great detail about everything I engaged in, I’d forever be in front of my monitor.

Maybe if you spent more than 30 seconds on each response, you wouldn’t have to keep going back to your monitor because you’d have answered something adequately.

This philosophical question has been around since mankind became aware of his own existence and mortality. I also very much doubt that we will ever truly know the answer.

I think it’s more likely that you are afraid to and don’t want to accept the answer, my friend. At least I’m the one with the hypothesis. If you don’t think my hypothsis is correct, at least give me the common courtesy of saying why you believe so, instead of dismissing it out-of-hand and then turning around and saying “we will never know”.

If you ask for a persuasive argument, then I’ll give you a persuasive arguement for the soul. You’ve given me nothing.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I think it’s more likely that you are afraid to and don’t want to accept the answer, my friend.

Not at all.

At least I’m the one with the hypothesis. If you don’t think my hypothsis is correct, at least give me the common courtesy of saying why you believe so, instead of dismissing it out-of-hand and then turning around and saying “we will never know”.

I think your hypothesis is incorrect because it is purely based on your beliefs, and there is nothing that can be physically tested.

If you ask for a persuasive argument, then I’ll give you a persuasive arguement for the soul.

Your argument is not persuasive because I’m not convinced.

You’ve given me nothing.

I think that what you believe to be a soul is in fact the result of neural activity. People don’t have a perspective on the world until they’ve had some experiences. Those experiences are stored in memory and can be recalled at any time when similar or new experiences are had. Everything we are is the direct result of the way our brain interprets all the things in life we go through.

Neurology, the study of the brain, is testable. The more it is studied, the more it will be understood. It will certainly take numerous years to completely figure it out, because it is so very complex. It is the fact of our complex brains that sets us apart from the rest of the animals on the planet.

I see that as common sense.