G
grannymh
Guest
Lots of people do not like the idea of a spiritual soul in humans. Do not know why. The spiritual soul gives us the power to know God, which in my humble opinion makes us the pinnacle of creation.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
Even God can’t make another God. Regardless of how perfect He makes a being, that perfection is still relative to-and less than -His, and that’s the source of all imperfection. To create or not to create, that is the question, concerning rational beings with free will. Because free will, coupled with imperfection, is what provides the potential for a being to be stupid enough to think he’s more perfect than God, and this is where all our problems stem from. This is what our separation from God stems from.
G
greylorn
Guest
It might do that, if the soul had been created.
Nonetheless, the soul does give a few of us the opportunity to engage in interesting conversations.
More of these could be had if someone recognized that if the “soul” is in any way connected to a physical brain-body system, then the soul itself is physical by definition.
G
grannymh
Guest
The spiritual soul in itself does not contain material/physical parts which is why it is not “material/physical” by definition. By definition the spiritual soul is non-material.
Instead, the spiritual soul uses, but is not physically connected with, the brain to operate in the material domain. The non-material soul can also operate in the spiritual realm.
The glitch is that one needs to understand, not necessarily believe, the meanings of two different domains.
G
greylorn
Guest
Needing to understand is not a “glitch.” A glitch, by definition, is something which is amiss, wrong, or failed.
The glitch in this case is the inability of religionists to accept the basic definition of what physics is, and to insist that they can insert their own beliefs into physics in a meaningful way. Naturally they figure on doing so without studying any physics.
Plain and simple: Anything which interacts with something that is physical (such as the human brain) is itself physical.
I cannot make it simpler than that.
Does it help to note that a thing can be non-material and physical? There are many examples: electromagnetic radiation, electric and gravitational fields, etc.
The soul can be (and I propose that it is) non-material, but if its existence has any relationship at all to human beings, it is definitely physical.
All I’m trying to do here is clarify the nature of soul. I’m not an atheist proposing that there is no such thing-- I’m proposing an understand of soul that an atheist or agnostic could take an honest, logical look at in the context of reality.
Why is it so hard to drag religionists out of the dark ages?
S
Shike
Guest
Sure no problem, under that definition the soul can definitely be physical, though non-material. But then it shows that not everything physical is under the domain of science.
For one, it is quips like these. It is easier to teach someone if they respect you.
And two, not everything was as backwards as you think in the “Dark Ages”, or at least you cannot reasonably think so.
I don’t know why Catholics or merely Christians as such (“religionists” is the wrong word) are being targeted as peculiar to the “Dark Ages”. The Catholic Church has existed in every period of history for the last two-thousand years… it grows and it shrinks, but it prefers to hold on to the teachings of the Apostles. The Church has no problem with science and for the vast majority of history has had no problem. In fact, the Church has been the largest contributor by far to the scientific field of astronomy. You know very well that many priests and other “religionists” have been brilliant scientists so it is not really a question of being in the “Dark Ages”.
Ultimately, your misunderstandings are founded on an erroneous relationship between philosophy and science.
G
grannymh
Guest
The rational soul is completely spiritual which is why humans are made in the image of a Pure Spirit. (Note: image is a different word from clone.)
While physical electromagnetic radiation, electric and gravitational fields, may not be considered matter like flesh and guts, they are still an operational part of the material world and thus are not considered spiritual or supernatural. Some people may offer that the spiritual can affect the material/physical world; but that does not automatically mean that the spiritual is material/physical in disguise.
G
greylorn
Guest
It actually opens a more interesting possibility-- that the nature and properties of the soul can be studied by a science equipped to do so. I propose that it be named paraphysics, to remove it from the control of parapsychologists, who have been indirectly but incompetently studying the soul for well over a century.
There are actually several experiments which provide excellent inferential evidence for the existence of soul, and are indicative of some of its properties.
You are correct that not everything physical is, as you put it, “under the domain” of science. With respect to physics, that has been the case since Galileo’s time, which began with the study of the motion of matter. The more ethereal forms of reality have yielded their secrets more grudgingly. Electromagnetism’s discovery came long after Newton’s work, and the discovery of dark energy, which cannot be seen with any instrument known to man, is just over a decade old.
I won’t be around when the existence of the soul is formally announced, but even if I was, I have no atheist friends to gloat in front of. It will happen in your lifetime. The only impediment to it is religion.
Respect is overrated, and in any case cannot be had by someone like myself, who is seriously out of agreement with conventional beliefs of all varieties. Experience has shown me that being nice is a good way to be ignored. Can’t teach someone who’s not paying attention.
What exactly are you thinking was not rather backward in the European period commonly referred to by honest historians as the “Dark Ages?”
Last I heard, the period in which people emerged from the dark ages was called, the age of enlightenment. During that time, much of Europe was still in the grip of the Church’s Inquisition, which by my less generous standards, is big time dark age.
J
jochoa
Guest
Please consider a few questions:
According to your understanding of physical, do you consider thoughts physical?
What are your thoughts on the following concept: If the spirit of each person existed before the body existed, would the spirit still be physical?
If you consider thoughts and spirits physical, what isn’t physical?
J
jochoa
Guest
Jesus made free-willed beings to perfect patience and kindness and motivation for God, just as He does, so that in Heaven, we all may eternally enjoy an unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy. Therefore, the fullness of our purpose is to help Him experience a limitless happiness, for without us, He is only able to experience a perfect happiness.
Thoughts?
G
greylorn
Guest
IMO “religionist” is the perfect word. It implies a mindset, belief in a set of ideas which are contrary to the evidence of reality.
Your clue is that no one group of religionists can agree with any other on the question of human purpose, with the exception of atheists. So maybe atheists are not really religionists.
[edited]
I find many excellent teachings attributed to Jesus Christ and often use these as guidance for personal behavior, but find little evidence for their acceptance by any Christian church I’ve encountered, including my born-into religion. I have encountered very few Christians who actually follow the teachings of Christ; most were hypocrites. The best men and women I’ve met have been, for the most part, atheists.
The absence of problems between the Church and science is more like why Californians don’t have problems with Eskimos. The Church generally avoids science, offering a belated apology to its treatment of Galileo by building a few telescopes.
[edit]
I worked in the field of space and ground based astronomy for 15 years. I’ve encountered only one Church instrument, a small 90" Vatican-sponsored telescope on Kitt Peak, The other 25 telescopes up there are mostly funded by state universities and the NSF. Using the internet to update my knowledge, I found an advanced 1.8 meter instrument on Mt. Graham and an infrared telescope orbiting the earth, built by some Germans and NASA, but Vatican funded. There is also a Vatican Observatory outside Rome, but this is an old and obsolete instrument, mainly for show.
I am not belittling the Church’s belated interest in astronomy, but am refuting your [edit] assertion of “largest contributor.” The Church is closer to being the smallest contributor. [edit]
In the course of my 15 year astronomy career I encountered only two Christian astronomers. One was a faculty member who I only met once at a party, and who would not discuss the relationship of religion to science. The other was a Jesuit I met atop Kitt Peak, sharing a post observing-night breakfast. He too would not discuss the same subject.
Certainly some Christians have contributed to science. Many, in fact. And many have been forced to conceal their most interesting ideas for fear of religious condemnation.
My opinion is that the Church is mostly interested in keeping science at bay, and has never adopted the attitude that Galileo proposed, that the Universe and the World are the most accurate Words of God that mankind will ever read. The Church has no unique curiosity about science. Why has it not been at the forefront of a search for the soul?
Probably not. After all, there is no relationship between philosophy and science. Science is stuff that very bright people, and sometimes just ordinary but persistent people, do in order to elucidate the workings of reality. They philosophize, but mostly do so informally (as my associates did with me on many occasions), sometimes while awaiting a launch or some event onset, or while traveling together, or over dinner or post-work drinks at a friendly tavern. They generally regard the formal study of philosophy as irrelevant to their work, or to anything else.
[edit]
Now and then a competent philosopher shows up with some genuinely useful ideas, which are immediately either stomped upon or ignored by their feckless peers. [edit]
G
greylorn
Guest
Actually, it does. Except that no disguise is involved. Those who chose to remain ignorant of basic definitions, such as what it means to say that something is “physical” by nature, are going to find themselves on the losing side of arguments that require intelligent discourse.
They may interpret their confusion as perceiving something as “disguised.” They are the same folk who would never recognize Zorro with his mask removed, doomed to an intellectual life of cognitive dissonance.
G
greylorn
Guest
I hope that you have some, someday.
Your theology is confused. Jesus was not the Creator.
J
jochoa
Guest
If the Son was not made, and all things were made through the Son, wouldn’t He be the Creator?
And…
Since Jesus is the Lord, the Lord is God, and God is the Creator, wouldn’t Jesus be the Creator?
Thoughts?
G
greylorn
Guest
Good questions, thank you.
Thoughts are physical. Moreover, they are the most powerful form of physical reality. (I make this claim despite the outcome of the Wilder Penfield experiments.)
Your own religion teaches exactly the same thing. God made the universe by “willing,” meaning thinking it into existence.
Do you know of anything in existence which is not made by the power of thought? Is there a difference between man and monkeys of greater significance than thought?
I do not use the word “spirit” in this kind of context. It has no reasonably well defined meaning.
I prefer not to use the word soul, which is almost as poorly defined, but works as a communication approximation. My preferred term is “beon,” an invented word. I like it because it implies non-creation as well as physicality.
You are getting the idea. If beon, soul, or whatever we name it existed prior to its incorporation within a human body, it would make no sense to claim that upon incorporation it changed the core nature of its being.
Nothing. At least, nothing that relates to our universe, our material selves, or our conscious minds.
That is the point. We live in a physical universe, and its Creator is as much a part of this universe as we are. If something is real, whether you can see it or not, it is physical. If you believe that something is real and interacts with the universe, you’d better include “physical” in its list of properties.
Millennia ago, men correctly realized that there was something about themselves which was not material, which they called “soul” in whatever language they used.
Recently, men investigating the universe in more detail, began with the material— the behavior of matter— but in time realized that there was more to the universe than matter. All aspects of the universe came under the umbrella term, “physical.” That is the stuff that people learn about in a physics course.
The different kinds of things included within this “physical” category has continued to expand, most recently with the discovery of dark energy, a phenomenon oft regarded as the “greatest mystery of the 21st century,” which my trivial theory predicted 40 years ago.
“Soul” should have been incorporated into physics theory centuries ago, but was not because religionists prevented it.
J
jochoa
Guest
Agreed. However in consideration of material creation, isn’t God greater than man, in that God can will a material creation by thought alone, whereas man can only will a material creation through bodily action?
God was not made by the power of thought. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Yes. Purpose. I can think the greatest thoughts imaginable, but if I am not charitable, I am nothing. Where the greatest purpose is to always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to patience and kindness and motivation for God with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self, in order for every individual and relationship of society to experience an unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy.
Since the Creator made the universe, He is not part of this universe. Rather, the universe is part of Him.
Given that your understanding of “physical” is everything, then physics would be the study of everything or anything. And since “religionists” cannot prevent the study of the soul, and the soul is part of everything, then one could claim studying the soul falls under physics.
Also, regarding Jesus as the Creator:
Given God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Catholicism knows: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, God’s name must be Jesus Christ.
My friend, thank you very much for the enjoyable conversation! I am thoroughly enjoying pondering your perspective!
Thoughts?
G
greylorn
Guest
I suspect that as we learn more about the universe and the other kinds of beings which inhabit it, we will find that “being greater than man,” is at the bottom of their To-Do lists.
I could kill the rest of my lifetime listing ways in which the Creator of the Universe is greater than man, and would definitely include your criterion on the list.
I realize that from your perspective, man is a simpleminded being from which God expects virtually nothing, and who will be rewarded forever for managing to pass some rudimentary obedience tests with a score of maybe 40%, and will spend forever in a state of bliss which requires less effort than nose-picking if it does pass.
I see mankind differently. Souls are incorporated into bodies for the purpose of learning, and those who fail, but who do so with a modicum of thoughtful behavior toward their fellows may be given multiple shots at the process like a dummy kept back in grade school.
I see all things as aspects of a learning process which is different for everyone. There are some humans who cannot be potty trained, yet others capable of amazing feats of acrobatics and physical skill. Most humans spend their free time watching TV— while a few others write the scripts. Many of us cannot learn to read, while others create wonderful literature.
Some humans have psychic skills. Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind. He does not know how he does that, but then, you do not know how you control the insertion of an index finger into your nose. I regard this range of skills as indicative of a learning curve. It is possible, I believe, for the human soul, once freed from its body, with lots of training and guidance, to move molecules.
The requirements are time, inclination, and practice.
I do not expect that the expertise of any once-human soul, after any number of eons, will improve upon the Creators’ skills.
You got me there. Agreed. And, thinking upon it, I put “soul” in the same category. God and soul are the components from which thought emerges.
There is way too much disconnected material here for me to deal with. If you were to clarify your points and omit the proselytizing (this is a philosophy section, not Bible studies) I might be able to find something that can be competently addressed.
Methinks that is a matter of perspective. I wrote from mine, of course, which is unique. From yours, it seems that you are agreeing with me although you are trying not to.
So, okay, let’s suppose that the universe is part of God, like a nasty tumor. That makes the entire melange, physical.
One could, but I’d not be in a great hurry to do so. Physics is an interesting combination of mathematics, theoretical artistry, and very hard science. Picking up a religious book, or some metaphysical trash, or channeled nonsense that talks about soul leaves you a long way from physics.
Were you to familiarize yourself with the pseudo-science of parapsychology (I’d suggest Dean Radin’s Conscious Universe as a starter), you would see clearly (I hope) that a whole lot of incompetent psychologists can easily spend a century investigating the soul, knowing not a whit of physics, and therefore learning almost nothing.
If you are curious about these things, wonderful! Study them with an open mind. Trust the physical universe as the most perfect God-written bible, which means, study physics and microbiology (Michael Behe). Take your time. There are simple answers, but they cannot be understood without a lot of background.
That is way too much gobbledegook for my taste. I am a simple man.
This has been a better conversation than I anticipated. Thank you.
G
grannymh
Guest
Catholic theology is that Jesus Christ is True Man* and* True God.
S
Shike
Guest
Well I would hope Christians would not fall under that category. It is possible, you know.
There are many things people disagree on, it does not mean that there is not a right answer or at least some answers that are better than others–your interest in some of Jesus’ teachings shows as much.
Yes, yes. Christians usually fail to live up to their creed. But what would happen if you ever met one that did? (rhetorical). Just because something is hard doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile–your interest in some of Jesus’ teachings shows as much.
I’ve found that if one truly wants to follow Jesus, then one will be a Catholic. The more I read the history of the Church, the more I find it so.
Read my post again. History’s attention span is much longer.
My point exactly. At face value, this assertion is easily refuted. Philosophy can discover the laws of logic which can limit the possible world of discourse–science plays within philosophy’s sandbox.
I won’t argue that there is a lot wrong with modern and contemporary philosophy. A lot of useless junk. But it is useless precisely insofar as it is not true.
I’d like to point out that your commentary on philosophy is also philosophy. You are engaging with one hand what you are taking away with the other.
I’m not going to turn this into a history debate. Even during my time at a secular university there has been much revision in the field of medieval history. It makes some enlightenment sources look like silly propaganda. But the specifics… the specifics…
J
jochoa
Guest
Excellent point my friend! I would definitely agree that our God is incredibly humble. He did come down from Heaven to serve us. Now the question is: Why did He come down to serve us? I know one of the reasons He came down to serve us is to reveal to us the incredible depths perfect patience and kindness has, even in the face of unjust impatience and meanness.
Please consider a couple of concepts:
- God expects us to master the Greatest Commandments, and there is no challenge more difficult. However, He has tremendous mercy to offer given the complexities of being ignorant humans in a very striven world.
- God is also simple. He wants to participate in a Kingdom of non-fearing/free-willed people who will live perfectly patient and kind and motivated for God, so that there will never be a loss of peace, the potential for happiness is limitless, and this will last forever. Where this becomes complex is that God has no option but to create, and if a person analyzes what is required to achieve the goals of creating this Kingdom from nothing, one will understand the Fullness of Truth in Roman Catholicism.
You have a very interesting perspective my friend. Please consider the following question:
If no human soul can improve upon the Creator’s skills (thoughts included), why do you place your faith in Stephen Hawking (reference post #13)?
Please consider the following:
What if it is God’s thoughtful will that created the soul of each person, then God’s bodily will that created the body of each person?
To better help understand all of that seemingly disconnected material, consider the simplicity of what is required to obtain unbreakable peace as an individual:
a. One must be patient with what is willed, for if actions are impatient, there is a loss of peace in society.
b. One must be patient with what is thought, for if a thought is impatient, there is a loss of peace in the individual.
c. One must be patient with the body. This could mean relaxed/tension-free muscles(or not uncontrollably tense). Without patience in the body, one will experience pain and fatigue, following the energy rush.
d. One must want to be patient with the spirit, for if the person does not want to be, there will be a loss of happiness when doing it.
Then follow the same reasoning in order to obtain a limitless happiness and unstoppable energy.
Please note: I apologize for my understandings to be so disconnected. The wisdom and grace of the Word is Amazing and Unbeatable!
Nice thoughts! You are correct in that I am agreeing with you, but I am not wanting to. My reasoning for not wanting to is that if we use the general definition of physical being anything related to the body or brain, thereby making anything of the universe physical in nature, then we are left with physics being universal studies or the study of anything and everything and would still need to further define the branches of physics. I would find it interesting to state that I am going to my physics class to study the Catechisms of the Catholic Church, or that physical skills is all inclusive of acrobatic, psychic, comprehension, reading, writing, and musical skills.
Regarding the physical universe as the most perfect God-written bible: You should check out gospelofcreation.com Really Cool Stuff!
Fair enough: Is Jesus Christ God? If yes, then Jesus Christ is the Creator.
Excellent conversation! Thanks for the excellent food for thought! I look forward to more!
Thoughts?
- Status