From Whence the Soul ...?

[StuartJ]

Do humans have a soul ...?

Is it a re-cycled soul ...?

Is it a pre-manufactured soul, sitting on a shelf in Heaven, waiting to flutter down and occupy the result of every successful human copulation ...?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 22 by ttruscott]

A society of spirits without a physical universe would mature in the areas of mathematics, poetic expressions of thought and adding the nuances of timing, cadence and accent to the poetry would bring them to the realm of mental singing.

I think you just made that up ... In your imagination. I suggest you imagined a "society of spirits" ( don't know of any real ones) And then YOU decided how this society of spirits WOULD mature.

Of course I made it up - I don't remember what it was like, nor did I get a revelation! But I believe it happened and so I thought a lot about what that would logically imply about our growth as a society...and this is what I came up with. So when someone said life as a spirit without a body was devoid of substance, I shared my thoughts.

Lack of imagination as a virtue....hmmmm.

I think you brought up a pretty interesting thought experiment anyway- what could you think about, without ever having a physical body/experience?

what creativity could a soul have, within the constraints of experiencing no sight, sound, smell, touch..? you might create your own 'mental music' , around an internal sense of timing as you say, but what would it 'sound' like without any external reference for it?

'Gimme the beat boys and free my soul' !

Can we all agree that having a physical body and experience at least makes life a little more interesting?!

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Stuart ...You asked the question

What is your own answer to it please ?

Mine is it's just our consciousness that evaporates when we die

It would be nice to believe it soars above as our own proof of being once alive on

earth .... but nobody really knows ...

I opine that your most salient point is ...

"nobody really knows".

Which leaves the door open for organisms that have evolved to where they can imagine things ...

... to imagine things.

Like gods and angels and talking donkeys ...

... and souls.

I have never encountered evidence of any sort that any organism has a consciousness that continues as some form or other of self-aware entity after our synapses cease to sparkle.

It's comforting to an organism that can imagine its death to imagine that there is a life hereafter.

But ...

In the absence of evidence that there is ...

I expect that our consciousness does indeed just evaporate.

Perhaps it takes courage to mentally assent to that proposition ...

Perhaps it's life-affirming to recognise that that proposition is more likely than eternity with either Jesus or Satan ...

And get off your knees and out of your delusions and get on with what you have in the here and now.

All the best, Newbie.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

My standard question to such demands is to ask the one demanding to explain to me what they would settle for as constituting evidence

Looks like two standard dodges to me right there.

Speaking generally about dodges:

1) Answer a question with a question ...

... gets the focus off the tricky topic immediately ...

... if the dodger wasn't dodging, they could/would give s simple, straight, honest answer.

Crisp, direct answers usually say to me "confidence, competence, and honesty".

Verbosity speaks to me of obfuscation.


2) Ask for an explanation of what is meant by evidence ...

... which can imply that you DO have evidence ...

... and just need to sort out which evidence needs to be provided.

But can mean that you know perfectly well that you have no evidence whatsoever ...

... and are dodging admitting it.

When folks DO have evidence of ANY sort at all, they will slap it triumphantly on the table and shut down the godless ones immediately.

But when they know they have nothing outside what is going on in their own heads ...

They will play dodgems.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

"

Normally the response lacks even any attempts to give examples, and I do not see that changing any time soon. "

I see what you mean!

But we all have 'evidence' for our beliefs, the interpretation of it is usually the issue, is it not?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 34 by Guy Threepwood]

But we all have 'evidence' for our beliefs, the interpretation of it is usually the issue, is it not?

I think it is not. Religious beliefs are formed by indoctrination. It generally starts with the very young and does not involve rational evaluation of any evidence. Once the belief is established, the believer may later attempt to retrofit what they consider evidence in order to shore up or validate their belief. That is the time when interpretation may get stretched to breaking point, particularly when the alleged evidence doesn't stand up too well to close scrutiny.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by StuartJ]

You missed the point entirely, Stuart.

I am not 'dodging' anything. I have answered the OPQ which was asking questions, not demanding evidence. "The Soul" is a metaphysical concept.
I answered the Qs according to my own understanding based upon the particular metaphysical philosophy I am developing. No more and no less.

According to you my answers require evidence, which implies empirical, science-based physical evidence..
Science is not a great device for dealing with answering questions which are based on metaphysical ideas and thus demanding such evidence related to the metaphysical is fallacy for that reason.

This is why I ask you (and anyone else who so demands) for examples as to what you would regard as acceptable evidence, that in doing so I might be able to convince you that your demand is fallacy.

That you appear unable to answer my question shows the reader that your demand is fallacy.

In this, that you claim I am 'dodging' is really nothing more than projection on your part. You still have failed to answer my question as to Q: What are you meaning when you ask? "Do humans have a soul ...?"

Adding substance to your OP blurb by including your own definition of 'soul' could be helpful overall.

But anyway, I have given my answer as to how I define it, as well as shown that as far as I am aware, there is no scientific empirical evidence to support either the existence of the soul or for that matter, the non-existence of the soul.

This because, science is not a great device for dealing with answering questions which are based on metaphysical ideas.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 34 by Guy Threepwood]

But we all have 'evidence' for our beliefs, the interpretation of it is usually the issue, is it not?

I think it is not. Religious beliefs are formed by indoctrination. It generally starts with the very young and does not involve rational evaluation of any evidence. Once the belief is established, the believer may later attempt to retrofit what they consider evidence in order to shore up or validate their belief. That is the time when interpretation may get stretched to breaking point, particularly when the alleged evidence doesn't stand up too well to close scrutiny.

For the record I was personally brought up a staunch atheist, I was taught and convinced of Materialism and Darwinism in state school and from popular TV/media at an early age. As I learned more about reality, yes - up to a point I could find a way to incorporate it into my received beliefs, until they were strained to breaking point.

But that's just me, from a wider perspective, the vast majority of free thinking humanity has deduced intelligent agency from the dawn of civilization till today.
In stark contrast, atheism has only gained massive penetration by virtue of active oppression of any other belief system- e.g. USSR, North Korea, Communist China etc
and where freedom of thought is returning to these places, so too is skepticism of atheism.

So there goes that theory..

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

Adding substance to your OP blurb by including your own definition of 'soul' could be helpful overall.

I have no idea whatsoever of what a "soul" is ....

Other people claim to know about souls.

Hence the topic.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

This because, science is not a great device for dealing with answering questions which are based on metaphysical ideas.

There is no device for dealing with the imaginary. As long as it is nothing more than an idea, there is no reason to accept that the soul is a real entity.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 37 by Guy Threepwood]

atheism has only gained massive penetration by virtue of active oppression of any other belief system

Belief systems try to wipe each other out.

Christian missionaries ranged the planet behind Christian soldiers like ecclesiastical Daleks, exterminating indigenous belief systems.

The former USSR and China are now witnessing a resurgence of religious superstition.

Where Atheism HAS gained massive penetration is in former "Christian" countries, where democracy rules and the educated classes have outgrown the mythology, fantasy, and superstition of Jesus, Satan and the talking animals.

Your use of the word ONLY is just plain wrong.

And if ever your claim had any validity, it is well and truly anachronistic now.