Would we be "us" no matter which sperm fertilized the egg?

[tonyrey]

The other side of this is, of course, what does the soul do without a brain? I propose that 99.999999% of them (us) go completely unconscious.

What do the other 0.00000.1% do? And why are the vast majority disadvantaged?

 

[greylorn]

What do the other 0.00000.1% do? And why are the vast majority disadvantaged?

Tony,
Kindly keep in mind that this reply reflects my best theories on the subject, and although IMO they can be justified from well-selected New Testament passages, my source for the ideas is a combination of physics, psychology, neuroscience; plus studies in hypnosis, reincarnation, and NDEs (Near Death Experiences).

Souls are not created by God, so He is not to be blamed for any advantages or deficiencies they have with respect to one another. God simply provides a brain-body mechanism and some soul-brain integration circuits which allow the soul to acquire knowledge through experience. The abhorrent PC term “disadvantaged” does not apply.

The amount of knowledge that a soul must obtain in order to survive its death as a conscious entity is considerable, and cannot be obtained in a single lifetime. Therefore, souls incapable of retaining consciousness without a body are stuck back into a new body for additional instruction and experience. The small percentage who graduate and do not need bodies again, get to go to work for God.

Kind of like The Apprentice, except that the game is bigger and the required skill set ranges within all possible human abilities.

And in case you’re wondering, I do not figure on making the cut.

 

[4Horsemen]

Some aspects of these assertions are correct. Others are not, and some are in between.

My reasoning sounded like a dualistic approach which I didn’t really mean. However, it is my understanding that the soul animates the body. It is the spiritual principle in man made in God’s image. The unity of body and soul make us temples of the Holy Spirit.

The problem with conventional versions of soul-brain duality such as this is that they do not account for the behavior of animals. Critters at all levels, from worms to chimpanzees, exhibit a considerable amount of volition. It seems reasonable to assume that human bodies share the characteristics of their animal predecessors, except for a brain-level linkage to soul, and that human bodies therefore have plenty of volition all by themselves.

I’m not a New-Ager, but it seems obvious that animals have an animating principle which is not like a human soul, but it is, nonetheless, what gives life. An animal’s “soul” cannot seek and find God or understand moral precepts, but God created these creatures and called them good as is all of His creation. And because God exists in the “Eternal Now” (in God there is no past, present, or future) all that He created and willed is part of Him held in memory and continued existence.

In support of this, one might argue that the tendency of humans to procreate with as many partners as possible is the consequence of the body’s inherent volition to do so; and that the inhibitory component of man comes from soul.

St. Paul admits that the flesh is at war with the spiritual part of man.

There have been many cases in neurological lore which are indicative of human bodies without soul, but these are never recognized by scientists or religionists at face value.

The evidence from this supports your claim about the brain’s limitations. However, it appears that brains w/o souls are often good enough to convince observers that they are fully functional human beings. (e.g. The Soul of Anna Klane)

I read a review of the aforementioned book. The author called it “trite and ham-fisted”. A body cannot operate without a soul, but the soul can without a body. Think of the many apparitions/visions of saints to holy people on earth.

Your notion that the body is given form by the soul is incorrect and contrary to common sense.

Philosophers throughout the ages have ascribed to this theory. I think it originated with St. Thomas Aquinas. The word “form” here doesn’t mean shape but life principle. At least that’s my understanding.

While I accept the idea of a mental mechanism which exists in humans independently of the human body, I’ve done a bit of study and research on their interrelationship and find it quite a bit more complex than the outline you’ve offered.

I’m sure it is much more complex than either of us can imagine.

One simple conclusion which you may come to appreciate in time, is that the ideal soul-brain relationship involves quite a lot of intense, interrelated duty-sharing. By itself, the brain pretty much clunks along, like a toolbox sitting in the trunk of a car. Only when the soul fully engages the power of its brain (pulling out that toolbox and putting its contents to work) does the full power of a human being emerge.

I agree with that.

Regrettably, this occurs rarely.

The other side of this is, of course, what does the soul do without a brain? I propose that 99.999999% of them (us) go completely unconscious.

The soul is in one of three states without the body: Heaven, Hell, Purgatory. How can a sou “go completely unconscious” when it is the animating principle of the material body?

 

[afthomercy]

(a) Christians believe that after death there is no reincarnation, only resurrection - resurrection of life or resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29)
(b) The soul is immediately created by God at the instant of fertilisation.

Post #10 at the following thread contains Aquinas’ explanation of the three different kinds of soul, viz. vegetative (plants), sensitive (animals) and rational (humans)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116704

 

[greylorn]

My reasoning sounded like a dualistic approach which I didn’t really mean. However, it is my understanding that the soul animates the body. It is the spiritual principle in man made in God’s image. The unity of body and soul make us temples of the Holy Spirit.

Do you have a definition of “spiritual principle” which means anything, and which is not circular? Since no one has seen God, declaring that something is made in His image is completely meaningless. Might as well say that the soul is made in the exact image of a framistrat.

I’m not a New-Ager, but it seems obvious that animals have an animating principle which is not like a human soul, but it is, nonetheless, what gives life. An animal’s “soul” cannot seek and find God or understand moral precepts, but God created these creatures and called them good as is all of His creation. And because God exists in the “Eternal Now” (in God there is no past, present, or future) all that He created and willed is part of Him held in memory and continued existence.

“Seems obvious?” To who? Not to anyone who’s paid any attention to microbiological research. Or biochemistry. Or to developments in nanoscale machinery.

Your last sentence is more gobbledegook. What exactly is this, “Eternal Now?” Without an objective definition, this is mumbo-jumbo to me. I don’t care to even try to deal with it, for you will declare it to be whatever you want, to suit your arguments.

IMO if someone believes New Age principles, quacks like a New Ager, and explains his beliefs with New Age platitudes, he could be a New Ager. They’re well intended, so this is not an insult. However, conversations with them are neither conclusive, nor interesting for long.

I read a review of the aforementioned book. The author called it “trite and ham-fisted”.

I checked the Amazon reviews, found the 2-star Keith Ammonn review which caught your attention. Interesting that you’d chose the only negative review of ten, yet from someone who very much liked the book on his first read. I checked other Ammonn reviews and concluded that he’s a progressive-socialist atheist, but probably Christian when he first read the book. Good that he dislikes it now.

However, Douglas Hofstadter, a Pulitzer prize-winning scientist, included two chapters from The Soul of Anna Klane in his book on mind and consciousness, The Mind’s I.

Amazon prints nine other reviews for that book, 7 5-star and 2 4-star. For example, “It may be hard for you to find a print of this book, but if you do, buy it. It is very good. I read in Portuguese some years ago and wanted to read in English (original). It is a pity that is out of market.”

It appears to me that you are one of many common people who makes up his opinion first, then goes about finding justification for it. Since you are obviously more comfortable with the opinions of crude nitwits than serious writers, you do best to stay well within your comfort zone, where you will learn, again and again, that you are right. Not much else to learn there, so with practice you can master this knowledge.

Philosophers throughout the ages have ascribed to this theory. I think it originated with St. Thomas Aquinas. The word “form” here doesn’t mean shape but life principle. At least that’s my understanding.

Well, guess what? Form means shape. Get a dictionary. Even better, read it. Please.

You are certain to win every argument, given your choice to define common words to suit yourself. You won’t win any with me, however, because this is our last conversation. There is no profit in attempting a discussion with one who invents his own dictionary.

I’m sure it is much more complex than either of us can imagine.

Speak for yourself, please.

The soul is in one of three states without the body: Heaven, Hell, Purgatory. How can a sou “go completely unconscious” when it is the animating principle of the material body?

The soul goes unconscious in ordinary sleep. Also, in states of hypnotic somnambulism, post-concussion, coma, and when under various anesthetic drugs.

Your understanding of soul comes from religious beliefs developed a few millenia ago. Perhaps you also believe in an earth-centric universe?

 

[4Horsemen]

Do you have a definition of “spiritual principle” which means anything, and which is not circular? Since no one has seen God, declaring that something is made in His image is completely meaningless. Might as well say that the soul is made in the exact image of a framistrat.

By “spiritual principle” is meant that which is substantial (rather than accidental) in that it is the animating characteristic of life from its lowest forms to its highest. However, at the highest form, which is man, the soul is graced with intellect and will besides the basic anima that is evidence of life. Soul can be thought of as breath, wind. In Genesis God breathed life into Adam. The Greeks called it psyche. It becomes spiritus in Latin and in English soul.

That we are made in His image is analagous to children, whose genes are a combination of their parents. In an indirect sense, children are the image of their parents (and ancestors). Also, we mark the highest virtues in man–what he can aspire to–and the impresssive beauty of the universe and come to an understanding, however rudimentary, of God’s attributes.

“Seems obvious?” To who? Not to anyone who’s paid any attention to microbiological research. Or biochemistry. Or to developments in nanoscale machinery.

Unfortunately, the new philosophers and scientists du jour rely on a mechanistic understanding of life that is composed of purposeless material laws leading to nowhere. Descartes had a view of the soul which was in some ways like Plato’s but his overall conception of human nature was mechanical. He saw the human body and its brain as nothing but components in a robotic sense. Most of those who followed him such as Richard Dawkings, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the company of “Village Atheists” provide little enlightenment but much entertainment according to Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition–A Refutation of the New Atheism.

Your last sentence is more gobbledegook. What exactly is this, “Eternal Now?” Without an objective definition, this is mumbo-jumbo to me. I don’t care to even try to deal with it, for you will declare it to be whatever you want, to suit your arguments.

Think of the “Eternal Now” as a nanosecond that has no beginning nor an end. God sees us not just the way we are at this second (or nanosecond) but he sees our lives all in one glance, so to speak, our past, present, and future, how we start in our mothers’ wombs and how we die. We are limited in our understanding.

IMO if someone believes New Age principles, quacks like a New Ager, and explains his beliefs with New Age platitudes, he could be a New Ager. They’re well intended, so this is not an insult. However, conversations with them are neither conclusive, nor interesting for long.

I’m not a New Ager, by any means. I tend to be more of a traditionalist.

I checked the Amazon reviews, found the 2-star Keith Ammonn review which caught your attention. Interesting that you’d chose the only negative review of ten, yet from someone who very much liked the book on his first read. I checked other Ammonn reviews and concluded that he’s a progressive-socialist atheist, but probably Christian when he first read the book. Good that he dislikes it now.

Why is it good that he dislikes it now, if I may ask?

It appears to me that you are one of many common people who makes up his opinion first, then goes about finding justification for it. Since you are obviously more comfortable with the opinions of crude nitwits than serious writers, you do best to stay well within your comfort zone, where you will learn, again and again, that you are right. Not much else to learn there, so with practice you can master this knowledge.

I find it absurd that you can possibly define me after just a few posts. Do you always generalize, categorize and put people in a box to fit your definitions of reality? Do you not realize you are associating me with what you define as “crude nitwits???” LOL Surely you jest!

Well, guess what? Form means shape. Get a dictionary. Even better, read it. Please.

Form also means “something that gives or determines shape.” The meaning in classical philosophy encompasses more than just a figure.

You are certain to win every argument, given your choice to define common words to suit yourself. You won’t win any with me, however, because this is our last conversation. There is no profit in attempting a discussion with one who invents his own dictionary.

It seems that you are the one insisting upon defining terms according to your own satisfaction. I may not always follow your “reasoning”, but, hey, who am I to object? You’re the expert!

The soul goes unconscious in ordinary sleep. Also, in states of hypnotic somnambulism, post-concussion, coma, and when under various anesthetic drugs.

I believe it’s the brain or part of it that becomes unconscious, not the soul. Besides, you don’t believe in a soul, or if you do, what is your definition according to greylorn’s dictionary?

Your understanding of soul comes from religious beliefs developed a few millenia ago. Perhaps you also believe in an earth-centric universe?

Again, what is greylorn’s definition of a soul? A mechanism made only of matter?
As for an earth-centric universe, I don’t have an opinion since there is not enough scientific information as far as I know. IMO, though, I would think not, that the universe is in motion and what may seem to be a center one minute (or second or nanosecond) may not be the next.

 

[inocente]

Souls are not created by God, so He is not to be blamed for any advantages or deficiencies they have with respect to one another. God simply provides a brain-body mechanism and some soul-brain integration circuits which allow the soul to acquire knowledge through experience. The abhorrent PC term “disadvantaged” does not apply.

The amount of knowledge that a soul must obtain in order to survive its death as a conscious entity is considerable, and cannot be obtained in a single lifetime. Therefore, souls incapable of retaining consciousness without a body are stuck back into a new body for additional instruction and experience. The small percentage who graduate and do not need bodies again, get to go to work for God.

Kind of like The Apprentice, except that the game is bigger and the required skill set ranges within all possible human abilities.

Might make a good theme for a sci-fi fantasy but it didn’t come over as a very enticing philosophy.

Perhaps I got totally the wrong vibes from your explanation, but here’s how I read it: Souls are not created by God and yet are immaterial, implying God is not omnipotent. God is also powerless to simply download the required knowledge and must resort to hoping that souls eventually gain it through experience. The material universe is only a backdrop for souls to gain experience and yet is so badly designed that a soul must go through several bodies. "Soulless” animals and one billion galaxies, each with around one billion stars, don’t seem to bring anything to the party. And all this is for a cosmic game of soldiers.

We could instead start from what we know instead of what we don’t know. We are made of stuff, so maybe what we call our souls is also stuff, or maybe not, we don’t know enough to say. Our lives may have a purpose or maybe we make our own purpose, the jury’s out. God may be as we think He is, maybe not, as opinions differ.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Your notion that the body is given form by the soul is incorrect and contrary to common sense. There are a few billion different kinds of critters in the world, still living. Unless you want to join the new-age nitwits and attribute a soul to every housecat, dung beetle, and rock on the planet, you might want to back off from that assertion. It does not make either scientific or religious sense.

Aquinas provides a slightly more detailed explanation. He equates the word “soul” with “life” then goes on to identify three kinds of soul. The first kind is vegetative (the power to obtain nutrition) and is shared by plants, animals, and humans. The second kind is sensitive (having a nervous system) and is shared by animals and humans. The third kind is rational, and is shared by humans and angels. It is therefore OK to say that all living things have a soul that is their form. As far as animals go, the vegetative and sensitive powers are enough to explain their volition. The rational soul (which Aquinas also calls the mind) is both immortal and incorporeal.

After reading through this discussion, I am wondering why we attribute so much significance to genes. Even if you look at it from a strictly material point of view, the role of genes - other than making a great replacement for fingerprints - is not clear. For example in the simple case of eye colour it is well documented that two blue-eyed parents can have a brown eyed child and vice versa. They try to explain this by saying that there are all kinds of eye colour genes in complex interactions and that gene strengths are random and so on, but these arguments are dubious at best. Given the confusion at the body level, it seems ludicrous to suggest that genes (or any other physical mechanism) define our rational soul or behaviour. It is more plausible that sperm, eggs, genes, flesh and brains have nothing to do with who we essentially are.

 

[greylorn]

By “spiritual principle” is meant that which is substantial (rather than accidental) in that it is the animating characteristic of life from its lowest forms to its highest. However, at the highest form, which is man, the soul is graced with intellect and will besides the basic anima that is evidence of life. Soul can be thought of as breath, wind. In Genesis God breathed life into Adam. The Greeks called it psyche. It becomes spiritus in Latin and in English soul.

Seems to me that S.P. is the same old mystical nonsense the ancients came up with because they knew nothing about neurons, chemical interactions, and electricity.

I prefer to use concepts with clear meanings, and not confuse a thing with its analogy. Breath and wind are well defined and are not the same as the S.P. Beliefs are muddled enough without exacerbating the process.

That we are made in His image is analagous to children, whose genes are a combination of their parents. In an indirect sense, children are the image of their parents (and ancestors). Also, we mark the highest virtues in man–what he can aspire to–and the impresssive beauty of the universe and come to an understanding, however rudimentary, of God’s attributes.

Bad analogy, IMO, since unless you’ve discovered a whole new theology, God does not have DNA.

Anyone who comes from a family of any size, or pays attention to the comparative attributes of parents and children, knows that the resemblances are physical, not mental. I.Q. curves, for example, show an unexpected relationship between parents and children. The same bell-curve distribution is found for the offspring of all parents, simply pushed a few ticks lower or higher as a function of the educational environment and parental support for education.

If genetics applied to intelligence, smart parents should have a higher percentage of bright children, and dumb parents a lower percentage. This is not the case.

Unfortunately, the new philosophers and scientists du jour rely on a mechanistic understanding of life that is composed of purposeless material laws leading to nowhere. Descartes had a view of the soul which was in some ways like Plato’s but his overall conception of human nature was mechanical. He saw the human body and its brain as nothing but components in a robotic sense. Most of those who followed him such as Richard Dawkings, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the company of “Village Atheists” provide little enlightenment but much entertainment according to Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition–A Refutation of the New Atheism.

I’m even less keen than you on the worth of today’s philosophers, but I invite you to never again compare Descartes, a serious but questioning Catholic, to Dennet, a knee-jerk atheist. Maybe you should read Descartes. He proposed a soul-concept which I share to some extent. He regarded soul as the mind, or perhaps the principal component of mind, that which is responsible for human thought and consciousness and which differentiates man from animals.

IMO Descartes made only two mistakes, one which was that the pineal gland connected soul to the brain. The other: He adopted the traditional Christian belief that God created the soul.

Dennet does not believe in an identifiable soul, or in God.

Think of the “Eternal Now” as a nanosecond that has no beginning nor an end. God sees us not just the way we are at this second (or nanosecond) but he sees our lives all in one glance, so to speak, our past, present, and future, how we start in our mothers’ wombs and how we die. We are limited in our understanding.

Muddled thinking. A nanosecond is well defined. You might as well define your eternal now as infinity, which in your terms, it is.

If God sees everything past, present, and future, and all of space, simultaneously, he would not be able to distinguish between discrete events.

Why is it good that he dislikes it now, if I may ask?

It means that the book does a good job of sorting hardcore, non-thinking atheists from individuals who are thoughtfully religious or honestly agnostic.

 

[greylorn]

I find it absurd that you can possibly define me after just a few posts. Do you always generalize, categorize and put people in a box to fit your definitions of reality? Do you not realize you are associating me with what you define as “crude nitwits???” LOL Surely you jest!

I’m not defining you— that’s your job. I’m merely giving you my interpretation of how you come across. Could have worded it better. I regard you as someone who is a well programmed believer, and whose thoughts, like most people’s, are limited by his programmed belief system. That’s how brains work. The analysis must apply to you because you are determined to attribute human intelligence to the brain.

I trust you to correct me if I’m wrong.

Form also means “something that gives or determines shape.” The meaning in classical philosophy encompasses more than just a figure.

I find that critical thought is best supported by words which are used in their common meaning. I do not pay attention to those who refuse to abide by this easy criterion, because they are deliberately trying to confuse the meaning of their words. This is called neurolinguistic programming, a common technique of politicians, lawyers, and used-car salesmen.

It seems that you are the one insisting upon defining terms according to your own satisfaction. I may not always follow your “reasoning”, but, hey, who am I to object? You’re the expert!

This response is a tad childish, not your normal style. Care to try that again, and let me know which terms I’ve misdefined, and which reasoning does not make sense? I’ll willingly find a better way to explain it. That’s the nice feature of a conversation. One can correct misunderstandings on the fly and devise explanations tailored to a specific person.

Yes, in terms of the ideas I expressed and their background, I am the expert. Did you mean that as a snide kind of insult? Why exchange conversation with me if you think I’m a know-nothing?

I believe it’s the brain or part of it that becomes unconscious, not the soul. Besides, you don’t believe in a soul, or if you do, what is your definition according to greylorn’s dictionary?

The brain cannot become unconscious, because that is its normal state. The brain is just a machine, like your cat’s. Machines will never become conscious. The best they can do is facilitate the process. Human brains learn to mimic consciousness by being exposed to it, but that is simply an epiphenomenon.

My definition of soul is borrowed from several sources, Descartes, James Clerk Maxwell, and the book I mentioned, which also provides a different and more appropriate name for it (since it is not the normal definition). It was formed in the same catastrophic physical event (no, not the big bang) that brought the entity we call God into specific existence, and possesses only one property besides existence— it is a potential counterforce to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

My in-progress book lays the background for these notions and explains them in much greater detail,

 

[greylorn]

Might make a good theme for a sci-fi fantasy but it didn’t come over as a very enticing philosophy.

Agreed. I do not find my ideas “enticing” either. They simply fit the available evidence. Common religions are designed to be enticing, comforting, and emotionally appealing, telling us what we want to believe and assuring us that good old God will make everything wonderful in the end. I’m not trying to create a religion, and my ideas are intended only for the thoughtful, never for the emotional.

Perhaps I got totally the wrong vibes from your explanation, but here’s how I read it: Souls are not created by God and yet are immaterial, implying God is not omnipotent. God is also powerless to simply download the required knowledge and must resort to hoping that souls eventually gain it through experience. The material universe is only a backdrop for souls to gain experience and yet is so badly designed that a soul must go through several bodies. "Soulless” animals and one billion galaxies, each with around one billion stars, don’t seem to bring anything to the party. And all this is for a cosmic game of soldiers.

You read fairly well. I appreciate that. Here are some corrections.

That immaterial souls are not created by God does not lead to the conclusion that God is not omnipotent.

Now, God is indeed not omnipotent, but this conclusion comes from His ability to have creative thoughts.

Yes, God cannot download conceptual information into a soul. He could download raw knowledge if He cared to do so, but he has more interesting stuff to do. You’ve heard of “free will?” By my theories, it is not something which God has given us, as a gift, but a property inherent in our nature, for which He cannot be blamed since He did not create us.

The physical universe was originally designed for more interesting purposes than that of assisting souls to consciousness. It is brilliantly engineered, as are the bodies which suck the soul into a modicum of self-awareness. However, human souls are truly stupid, the dregs of the universe, and slow to consciousness because of their meager capabilities. They prefer comfort and derive their beliefs from agreement, via the brain, because logic is such a struggle for them.

It is unfair to blame God for our incompetence, and childish to expect Him to compensate for it.

Your last two sentences made no sense to me, so I can’t address them.

We could instead start from what we know instead of what we don’t know. We are made of stuff, so maybe what we call our souls is also stuff, or maybe not, we don’t know enough to say. Our lives may have a purpose or maybe we make our own purpose, the jury’s out. God may be as we think He is, maybe not, as opinions differ.

All my theories start from what we know. They are derived from physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, and other pertinent sciences, plus personal psychic experience and recorded scientific paranormal studies.

However, the “stuff” of which the soul is made has yet to be empirically discovered. Like black holes, the existence of souls has already been inferred from the evidence of human experience. So far, proving the existence of a soul seems also to require inferential evidence, just like proving the existence of a black hole.

 

[greylorn]

Aquinas provides a slightly more detailed explanation. He equates the word “soul” with “life” then goes on to identify three kinds of soul. The first kind is vegetative (the power to obtain nutrition) and is shared by plants, animals, and humans. The second kind is sensitive (having a nervous system) and is shared by animals and humans. The third kind is rational, and is shared by humans and angels. It is therefore OK to say that all living things have a soul that is their form. As far as animals go, the vegetative and sensitive powers are enough to explain their volition. The rational soul (which Aquinas also calls the mind) is both immortal and incorporeal.

Aquinas was doing the best he could with the available data. Were he to make a reappearance today, I suspect that he would have done serious course work in physics, biochemistry and microbiology, and would reach different conclusions about the forces which animate life forms. Perhaps he has returned and is now named Michael Behe, a devout Catholic and extremely competent scientist, still writing books on his favorite subject.

After reading through this discussion, I am wondering why we attribute so much significance to genes. Even if you look at it from a strictly material point of view, the role of genes - other than making a great replacement for fingerprints - is not clear. For example in the simple case of eye colour it is well documented that two blue-eyed parents can have a brown eyed child and vice versa. They try to explain this by saying that there are all kinds of eye colour genes in complex interactions and that gene strengths are random and so on, but these arguments are dubious at best. Given the confusion at the body level, it seems ludicrous to suggest that genes (or any other physical mechanism) define our rational soul or behaviour. It is more plausible that sperm, eggs, genes, flesh and brains have nothing to do with who we essentially are.

‘What you mean, “we,” Kemosaby?’

I don’t set any store by genetics in the usual sense and regard their connection with soul as indirect. They determine some properties of the brain and body which soul uses as it staggers clumsily into consciousness. Soul itself determines (or can) the properties of brain and body as it learns.

The only disagreement I have with you here is your implication that I disagree with you about the value of genetics re: soul.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

The only disagreement I have with you here is your implication that I disagree with you about the value of genetics re: soul.

Gottcha. I use “we” when referring to general social opinion, and didn’t intend to speak for anyone in particular. Genetic theory it has been applied well beyond the point of absurdity and (as I think you might agree) it needs to be reigned in. Behe may have built on Aquinas, but I have yet to see a significant error in Aquinas.

 

[greylorn]

Gottcha. I use “we” when referring to general social opinion, and didn’t intend to speak for anyone in particular. Genetic theory it has been applied well beyond the point of absurdity and (as I think you might agree) it needs to be reigned in. Behe may have built on Aquinas, but I have yet to see a significant error in Aquinas.

Aquinas’ writings are full of errors on fundamental matters, because he lacked the knowledge necessary to build coherent ideas. Behe did not build on Aquinas. He built on microbiology. Hard science.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Aquinas’ writings are full of errors on fundamental matters.

This is kind of getting away from the OP, but just for fun could you identify a fundamental error that he made? Not knowing about microbiology is not in itself an error. One might think a physics course in Newtonian mechanics is nostalgic, yet we still use Newtonian mechanics to solve many (perhaps even most) engineering problems. The fact that Einstein went further than Newton does not make Newton erroneous. You could say general relativity invalidated Newton’s laws, or you could say it simply extended a bunch of valid laws into space-time.

 

[greylorn]

This is kind of getting away from the OP, but just for fun could you identify a fundamental error that he made?

I’d have to get back into reading Aquinas again to do that. Not my focus at the moment. I did that in a couple of respects on CAF about a year ago. Ancient history in forum time.

Not knowing about microbiology is not in itself an error. One might think a physics course in Newtonian mechanics is nostalgic, yet we still use Newtonian mechanics to solve many (perhaps even most) engineering problems. The fact that Einstein went further than Newton does not make Newton erroneous. You could say general relativity invalidated Newton’s laws, or you could say it simply extended a bunch of valid laws into space-time.

You are absolutely correct in all respects on this.

I do not regard Newtonian mechanics as nostalgic, and IMO q/m has wandered off into never-never land, the consequence of some horrid interpretations of the evidence.

My interpretation of general relativity is that Einstein extended Newtonian mechanics into a new coordinate system which more accurately reflects the way we measure physical events. I think that you and I have found a good base for agreement.

Now after that warm-up, let me recall some complaints about Aquinas. These are entirely my opinions; deal with them as you wish, and please correct the worst errors first.

The Church that Christ founded was about suitable human behavior, with deference to the Creator as understood by the Jews of the day, most of it presented in an oblique style, using “master” instead of Yahweh. This was necessary to avoid an immediate run-in with the Jewish priests.

The Church developed wonderfully and attracted followers without really having a theology, or not focusing upon whatever theology it might have had. After it became a political force, its leaders, dealing with political power for the first time, found that various of his members (the gnostics) had invented various theologies, and felt that unless they did the same, they would lose their newfound power.

Constantine seems to have had something to do with this, and there are various opinions among regular historians and Church historians as to the extent of his role. Augustine of Hippo’s theology came into prominence around this period. Later, Aquinas, best as I can tell, adopted that theology as truth and set about formalizing it. IMO his egregious mistake was in adopting Augustinian theology, or what it had become, as a working axiom.

That prevented him from applying his “logic” to it. Had he done so, chances are good that he would have realized that creative thought and omniscience are mutually exclusive properties.

I guess that when it all comes down to a conclusion, my objections to Aquinas are about the thinking which he did not do. If he’d done it, I could have actually had a life. I’ll never forgive him.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

I guess that when it all comes down to a conclusion, my objections to Aquinas are about the thinking which he did not do. If he’d done it, I could have actually had a life. I’ll never forgive him.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that he caused you so much trouble. I’ve only read a fraction of his output, but I’ve found that a lot of what he said can still be applied to questions today (such as whether genes affect the soul or vice versa). When it comes to the history of theology, or knowledge in general, you may be right that politics and bias play a role. In the end though I like to think that what is correct persists and what is false gets discarded. The tragedy, and the reason why we occasionally slide backward, is that from time to time we chuck out that which is true.

 

[greylorn]

…When it comes to the history of theology, or knowledge in general, you may be right that politics and bias play a role. In the end though I like to think that what is correct persists and what is false gets discarded. The tragedy, and the reason why we occasionally slide backward, is that from time to time we chuck out that which is true.

Yes, we eventually get it right. Should “eventually” be consistently measured in thousand-year intervals? My complaint is that religions take an excessively long time to drop bad dogma, and thanks to their persistent indoctrination of children, way too many people live their entire lives according to false principles.

This persistent indoctrination, the programming of impressionable young minds that the dogma they are given is absolute truth, explains why we pop real truth between the eyes on the rare occasions when it pokes its head out of a hole.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

This persistent indoctrination, the programming of impressionable young minds that the dogma they are given is absolute truth, explains why we pop real truth between the eyes on the rare occasions when it pokes its head out of a hole.

Let’s drop the term “absolute truth” for a second and ask a simple question. If one were to order the following list according to which contains the most truth and which contains the least, what would the list look like in your estimation?

(in no particular order)

1. Scientific Materialism (as defined by Marx)
2. Epicureanism (happiness is pleasure)
3. Catholicism (as defined by the Magisterium)
4. Eastern Orthodoxy
5. Hinduism
6. Syncretism (combination of all religions)

 

[inocente]

However, the “stuff” of which the soul is made has yet to be empirically discovered. Like black holes, the existence of souls has already been inferred from the evidence of human experience. So far, proving the existence of a soul seems also to require inferential evidence, just like proving the existence of a black hole.

Granted this is a widespread intuition and admittedly it’s a little unlikely we’d have invented the MRI scanner before the wheel, but suppose we’d always been aware of electrochemical brain activity, would we ever have developed the concept of an immaterial soul?

A purely material explanation of mind is now on the horizon and once presented there will be a battle to rival geocentrism and evolution, but future generations may lose the desire for an immaterial explanation. It could even be a salvation of sorts which leads us towards a new spirituality.