Soul

[DavidLeon]

If you claim that the 'soul is moral and it dies' (or doesn't die), I will challenge that claim and ask for verifiable evidence to support the claim (as per Forum Rules).

Replying 'because the Bible says so' may be a valid argument in church, in TD&D, or in Holy Huddle – but it does not work here in C&A

Rather than question / doubt / challenge the origin of the soul belief, I question the TRUTH and accuracy of claims of knowledge about the 'soul' – and ask for verifiable evidence that such thing actually exists.

Never in my time debating has anyone shown ANY evidence that the 'soul' is anything more than imaginary.

Debate question: Does the Biblical soul exist?

[DavidLeon]

Did the ancients have special knowledge of 'soul' or 'life and death'?

There's nothing special about it. They may or may not have adhered to a specific philosophy regarding the immortality of the soul. As far as the Biblical soul they lived and experienced life. Their soul was different than any other, just as one life is different than any other. The words for soul, by the way, are often translated as "life" when in context it doesn't support the tradition adopted from Greek philosophy.

[Zzyzx]

Did the ancients have special knowledge of 'soul' or 'life and death'?

There's nothing special about it.

I agree that ancients had no special knowledge of 'soul' or 'life and death'. They did, however, write of their opinions.

Likewise, modern people have no legitimate claim to such knowledge – and they write their opinions

Debate question: Does the Biblical soul exist?

Only if the term is defined so broadly as to mean whatever an apologist offers to support their 'argument'.

[DavidLeon]

I agree that ancients had no special knowledge of 'soul' or 'life and death'. They did, however, write of their opinions.

Likewise, modern people have no legitimate claim to such knowledge – and they write their opinions

I'm not sure what that is meant to imply. Like I pointed out, the ancients as well as ourselves may or may not have had an adherence to a specific philosophical school of thought. This was expanded upon by respected scholars of their day, the same as a school of thought today. Those scholars, both past and present, weren't infallible in their pondering.

If you intend to establish that the philosopher's speculations on the immortal soul weren't or aren't legitimate who are you to say? To me they sound like nonsensical musings, but so did the science of the past attributing day and night to vapors either from the ground or the sky or the miasma theory.

If, on the other hand you intend to establish that the ancient writers didn't have a legitimate claim to the knowledge of what is translated into the much later English word soul, the Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe, namely a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys, I'm going to have to disagree.

Debate question: Does the Biblical soul exist?

Only if the term is defined so broadly as to mean whatever an apologist offers to support their 'argument'.

Isn't that what debate is? Except for those who simply state their opinion that their argument is true of false without support? You care to redefine soul?

[Zzyzx]

I agree that ancients had no special knowledge of 'soul' or 'life and death'. They did, however, write of their opinions.

Likewise, modern people have no legitimate claim to such knowledge – and they write their opinions

I'm not sure what that is meant to imply.

People (including Christians) seem to have great difficulty deciding what 'soul' means:

In Christian theology St. Augustine spoke of the soul as a “rider” on the body, making clear the split between the material and the immaterial, with the soul representing the “true” person. However, although body and soul were separate, it was not possible to conceive of a soul without its body. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas returned to the Greek philosophers’ concept of the soul as a motivating principle of the body, independent but requiring the substance of the body to make an individual.

From the Middle Ages onward, the existence and nature of the soul and its relationship to the body continued to be disputed in Western philosophy. To René Descartes, man was a union of the body and the soul, each a distinct substance acting on the other; the soul was equivalent to the mind. To Benedict de Spinoza, body and soul formed two aspects of a single reality. Immanuel Kant concluded that the soul was not demonstrable through reason, although the mind inevitably must reach the conclusion that the soul exists because such a conclusion was necessary for the development of ethics and religion. To William James at the beginning of the 20th century, the soul as such did not exist at all but was merely a collection of psychic phenomena.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-r ... philosophy

How can the true nature of 'soul' be determined?

Is the 'soul' immortal as much of Christendom seems to believe? Does it go to 'heaven' (or elsewhere) after death? How can that be determined?

Debate question: Does the Biblical soul exist?

Only if the term is defined so broadly as to mean whatever an apologist offers to support their 'argument'.

Isn't that what debate is?

Apparently “what debate is” means word play to many apologists. Re-define words in attempt to make biblical tales seem rational and/or make sense of nonsense.

You care to redefine soul?

Heck no. I leave definition of 'soul' to people who specialize in fantasy and imagination.

[DavidLeon]

People (including Christians) seem to have great difficulty deciding what 'soul' means:

In Christian theology St. Augustine spoke of the soul as a “rider” on the body, making clear the split between the material and the immaterial, with the soul representing the “true” person. However, although body and soul were separate, it was not possible to conceive of a soul without its body. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas returned to the Greek philosophers’ concept of the soul as a motivating principle of the body, independent but requiring the substance of the body to make an individual.

From the Middle Ages onward, the existence and nature of the soul and its relationship to the body continued to be disputed in Western philosophy. To René Descartes, man was a union of the body and the soul, each a distinct substance acting on the other; the soul was equivalent to the mind. To Benedict de Spinoza, body and soul formed two aspects of a single reality. Immanuel Kant concluded that the soul was not demonstrable through reason, although the mind inevitably must reach the conclusion that the soul exists because such a conclusion was necessary for the development of ethics and religion. To William James at the beginning of the 20th century, the soul as such did not exist at all but was merely a collection of psychic phenomena.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-r ... philosophy

How can the true nature of 'soul' be determined?

Is the 'soul' immortal as much of Christendom seems to believe? Does it go to 'heaven' (or elsewhere) after death? How can that be determined?

You are asking two different questions. The majority of Christendom think the soul is immortal and goes to heaven after death. No disputing that. How can that be determined? By referring to Christian doctrine, scholars etc. I've pointed out that the soul, according to Christendom, comes not from the Bible but from Greek philosophy beginning in earnest in 332 BCE with Alexander's influence on the Jews and in 325 CE with Constantine the Great's influence on Christendom.

It isn't Biblical. The Bible teaches that the soul is mortal, destructible. (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) Keeping in mind that soul isn't even a very good translation of the Hebrew and Greek. Problematic because there isn't an English word that precisely conveys the concept of the Hebrew and Greek.

Apparently “what debate is” means word play to many apologists. Re-define words in attempt to make biblical tales seem rational and/or make sense of nonsense.

Okay. So what?

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council

If one of us determines that the soul is the small lump of Green putty found in one's armpit one midsummer morning then you have to accept the term and debate it or reject it leaving no debate. You can't whine about wordplay and redefining. Besides, an etymological examination of the word as it is used and a dictionary reference isn't wordplay and redefinition just because you aren't aware of it, or if you happen to be wrong about it.

So far I don't see that as having happened. We agree; Christendom adopted the Greek philosophical "soul." The word has superstitious origins. The word is used in different ways by the ancient as well as the contemporary.

The question is does the Biblical soul exist? It's as simple a question as did the Biblical Belshazzar exist? The Hebrew nephesh and Greek psykhe being life or the life of any breathing creature. I don't think even you can argue against the existence of those things as presented in the Bible.

You care to redefine soul?

Heck no. I leave definition of 'soul' to people who specialize in fantasy and imagination.

Maybe that's your problem. You limit the possible use to that narrow parameter.

[Zzyzx]

How can the true nature of 'soul' be determined?

Is the 'soul' immortal as much of Christendom seems to believe? Does it go to 'heaven' (or elsewhere) after death? How can that be determined?

You are asking two different questions. The majority of Christendom think the soul is immortal and goes to heaven after death. No disputing that. How can that be determined? By referring to Christian doctrine, scholars etc. I've pointed out that the soul, according to Christendom, comes not from the Bible but from Greek philosophy beginning in earnest in 332 BCE with Alexander's influence on the Jews and in 325 CE with Constantine the Great's influence on Christendom.

I do not disagree.

It isn't Biblical. The Bible teaches that the soul is mortal, destructible. (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) Keeping in mind that soul isn't even a very good translation of the Hebrew and Greek. Problematic because there isn't an English word that precisely conveys the concept of the Hebrew and Greek.

Those who defend a 'soul' concept are expected to state what it is they are defending.

So, what is a 'soul' as the term is used in the OP

Debate question: Does the Biblical soul exist?

Can't say?

Apparently “what debate is” means word play to many apologists. Re-define words in attempt to make biblical tales seem rational and/or make sense of nonsense.

Okay. So what?

If a position is valid / truthful / accurate, there is no need to play word games in its defense.

The question is does the Biblical soul exist? It's as simple a question as did the Biblical Belshazzar exist? The Hebrew nephesh and Greek psykhe being the life or the life of any breathing creature. I don't think even you can argue against the existence of those things as presented in the Bible.

There is no doubt that the Bible mentions 'soul'. There is a lot of disagreement about what the term means (biblically or otherwise).

My question is whether the 'soul' is immortal and transcends death (as seems implied or claimed by much of Christendom).

You care to redefine soul?

Heck no. I leave definition of 'soul' to people who specialize in fantasy and imagination.

Maybe that's your problem. You limit the possible use to that narrow parameter.

Narrow parameter?

Belief in an invisible, undetectable 'god' that has not been shown to be anything more than imaginary varies from 87% to 64% depending on how the question is asked:

The highest level of belief (87%) comes from a simple yes/no question, "Do you believe in God?" which Gallup last asked in 2017.

Belief drops to 79% when respondents are given three options, one being God is something they believe in. The rest are either not sure whether they believe in God or firmly say they do not believe in God.

Belief in God appears even lower when isolating just those from the five-part question who say they are "convinced" God exists, 64%. While all three measures of belief have exhibited declines, this group's drop has been the steepest. https://news.gallup.com/poll/268205/ame ... e-god.aspx

Forty-five percent of the US population believes that ghosts, demons, and other supernatural beings exist:

Turns out that more than four in 10 Americans believe that ghosts, demons, and other supernatural beings do exist. 

More than one in five (22%) say that demons “definitely exist” while slightly more (24%) believe that they “probably exist.” The numbers are similar when Americans are asked about ghosts: 20 percent say they “definitely exist” and 25 percent say they “probably exist.”
https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifesty ... emons-poll

Narrow parameter -- 45 to 87% is 'narrow'?

[DavidLeon]

Those who defend a 'soul' concept are expected to state what it is they are defending.

So, what is a 'soul' as the term is used in the OP

I've given it many times. The pagan / Christian immortal soul from Greek philosophy contrasts with the Biblical term indicating a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. We are debating the later.

There is no doubt that the Bible mentions 'soul'. There is a lot of disagreement about what the term means (biblically or otherwise).

My question is whether the 'soul' is immortal and transcends death (as seems implied or claimed by much of Christendom).

Not according to the Bible.

Narrow parameter?

Belief in an invisible, undetectable 'god' that has not been shown to be anything more than imaginary varies from 87% to 64% depending on how the question is asked:

The highest level of belief (87%) comes from a simple yes/no question, "Do you believe in God?" which Gallup last asked in 2017.

Belief drops to 79% when respondents are given three options, one being God is something they believe in. The rest are either not sure whether they believe in God or firmly say they do not believe in God.

Belief in God appears even lower when isolating just those from the five-part question who say they are "convinced" God exists, 64%. While all three measures of belief have exhibited declines, this group's drop has been the steepest. https://news.gallup.com/poll/268205/ame ... e-god.aspx

Forty-five percent of the US population believes that ghosts, demons, and other supernatural beings exist:

Turns out that more than four in 10 Americans believe that ghosts, demons, and other supernatural beings do exist. 

More than one in five (22%) say that demons “definitely exist” while slightly more (24%) believe that they “probably exist.” The numbers are similar when Americans are asked about ghosts: 20 percent say they “definitely exist” and 25 percent say they “probably exist.”
https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifesty ... emons-poll

Narrow parameter -- 45 to 87% is 'narrow'?

None of that is germane to the topic. We are debating the possible existence of the Biblical soul. Your parameter is too narrow because the Biblical soul is something you can't question the existence of. Which is precisely why I chose it in this forum.

[elphidium55]

@DavidLeon wrote (on page 1):

There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. 

You are correct -- this seems to be the predominant view of the person as espoused in the Old Testament.

This “Hebrew” view seems attractive at first, especially when compared with the idea of an immortal soul as held by many Greek philosophers at the time. But buyer beware! This more “earthy” notion of body and soul seems to entail one of the following two options:

OPTION 1: When a person dies, both their body and the soul perish. That’s because, on this view, the body and soul are co-dependent realities -- neither can survive without the other. This was not the Old Testament view.

OPTION 2: When a person dies, both their body and the soul persist. On this view, at death, a person just exchanges one kind of existence for another. There is an actual, physical (but shadowy) location, called Sheol, where the “dead” reside in some sort of bodily form. The dead still “live,” but with some sort of diminished capacity. This was the predominant Old Testament view.

The important thing about OPTION 2, the concept of Sheol, is it’s quasi-realistic status. Sheol is not a place outside of time and space -- it’s real and somewhere hereabouts. The denizens of Sheol are not “spiritual” objects but flesh and blood entities. In principle, the residents of Sheol can be located and even interviewed. Sheol is, in some ways, “natural.”

Of course, there is an OPTION 3 – after death, the body perishes but the soul persists. This option has some advantages over OPTION 2. For one thing, the existence of the soul after death is put permanently beyond any disproof. Here the soul is a spiritual reality, totally divorced from any natural constraints. It has absolutely no bodily attributes and can only be accessed metaphysically. In this view, the soul is purely supernatural.

So let’s assess these conflicting options:

OPTION 1: A soul which does not survive the death of the body seems indistinguishable from not having a soul at all. Why not just roll the soul stuff into body stuff and simplify things? It seems like Occam’s razor should shave off this option.

OPTION 2: Having a semi-natural soul is problematic because it is scientifically disconfirmable. We should have been be able to locate Sheol by now but we haven’t. This seems like a case where the absence of evidence really does point to evidence of absence.

OPTION 3: The body dies but the soul lives on. This option only works by presuming the existence of a supernatural realm. That is, it posits a hidden, supernatural reality existing behind a curtain which the natural cannot see through. The soul, as a supernatural entity, cannot be measured, studied or known by scientific methods. The evidence of the soul’s existence comes from such things as dreams, visions, testimonies, scriptures and mystical experiences. This kind of soul is forever unverifiable.

OPTION 4: The philosophical naturalist position: There is no such thing as the supernatural. There is no such thing as souls, full stop. There are only natural causal agents acting on natural causal objects. This seems to me to be the simplest and most productive answer. So no, the biblical soul, or any other soul, does not exist.

p.s. I nearly chewed my own leg off when I read the Vogon quote. Thankfully, I am still ambulatory.

[JehovahsWitness]

What about option #5?


OPTION 5: Soul is just another word for person or animal. Not a seperate entity at all, just a word to describe a living breathing physical being that ceases to exist when he or she dies?



QUESTION What is a SOUL?

ANSWER Biblically, a soul is a physical breathing person or animal . "Soul" is just another way of saying "human being" (or animal), made up solely of a physical body animated by the power of active force from God.

#QUESTION: So if a soul is just another way of saying person or animal can a soul die? Yes, Ezekiel 18:20: "The Soul That Sinneth, It Shall Die"

• At death the person ceases to think, feel, see, or indeed be conscious of anything (see Ecclesiastes 9 verse 5). Like a candle that has been snuffed out he *returns* to the same condition as Adam was before God made him. A complete state of non-existence.

Doesn't the word "DEAD" in the bible just that mean you "continue existing in another form without your body?

• No there is nothing in the bible to suggest that the soul (a person, made out of flesh and blood and "animated" by the power or spirit from God) is immortal or survives the death of the body.

**Sometimes the word soul (nephesh) in hebrew is used to refer to "life" (as a soul) and in those few occassions you'll read her "soul went out" but this no more indicates that the person continued to exist than the english expression: "she lost her life" indicates her life is out wandering around somewhere thinking "oh I'm lost, I need a map" or that if the person looked in the right place they'd find it. To "lose" your life (or for your "soul to go out of you") is just a figure of speech to say "to die".


QUESTION So when a man dies does his soul dies with his body?

• This is like asking of a man that is a doctor..."When the man died did the doctor die with his body? This implies that the doctor is separate and distinct from the man; a soul, like "a doctor" (like "a mother", "a painter" or "an electrician" is just another way of describing the person. The man doesn't die with his doctor, the man IS the doctor, the doctor is the man. The soul doesn't die with the man, the man *IS* a soul.

QUESTION So animals have souls?

• No animals ARE souls (ie living breathing physical creatures).

FURTHER READING

What is a soul?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... is-a-soul/

Blog: Numbers 31:28
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -soul.html


RELATED POSTS


SOUL

Did God create a human body and then put a soul inside him?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 06#p889006

Is the soul immortal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 39#p940639

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SOULS, SPIRIT and ... WHAT HAPPENS AT DEATH?