But I do believe that when you die, it's just poof, you don't exist anymore. Why should you exist anymore? You're just a bunch of organic compounds. I do think the fact that you sort of cling to your soul is part of pride or belief that there's justice and fairness and some sort of closure in this world.
Hey, maybe you won't be able to find out whether or not you have a soul after you die. What if you have a soul that doesn't give you awareness of being a soul? What if you're not you anymore? What if you forget everything, and the concept of a soul disappears? The point is, there's a difference between speculation in a scientific paradigm and that in a religious/emotional paradigm. Speculation means to draw conclusions based on incomplete evidence, and that's the heart of science. You never form hypothesis when you already have all facts in front of you. However, when you do so in a religious paradigm, the facts you use are different. For example, that your brain rots after you die is a scientific fact. (Unless you accept the paradigms of the matrix, or whatnot.) That you have a gut instinct believing that there must be a soul isn't a scientific fact; it's an emotion. The point of that point is, speculation done with a scientific paradigm is very different from that done in a religious paradigm.
Who says someone had to have decided that there be a fabric of space-time? It could have been an adjective-less accident.
Yeah, of course these scientific speculation hold more credibility (at least for me) than emotional rationalization but I guess humans are just more comforted by concrete evidence, which is an integral part of science as well.
My physics examples are merely a demonstration of how you can keep asking the question of how the universe started until you get to how did matter come to exist. So even if we do solve the problem of the brain chemicals vs. soul by proof/evidence, the physical existence of the universe (which might seem even more impossible to reconcile) is going to still be a topic of competition between the scientists and the religious people.
But I do believe that when you die, it's just poof, you don't exist anymore. Why should you exist anymore? You're just a bunch of organic compounds. I do think the fact that you sort of cling to your soul is part of pride or belief that there's justice and fairness and some sort of closure in this world.
Hey, maybe you won't be able to find out whether or not you have a soul after you die. What if you have a soul that doesn't give you awareness of being a soul? What if you're not you anymore? What if you forget everything, and the concept of a soul disappears? The point is, there's a difference between speculation in a scientific paradigm and that in a religious/emotional paradigm. Speculation means to draw conclusions based on incomplete evidence, and that's the heart of science. You never form hypothesis when you already have all facts in front of you. However, when you do so in a religious paradigm, the facts you use are different. For example, that your brain rots after you die is a scientific fact. (Unless you accept the paradigms of the matrix, or whatnot.) That you have a gut instinct believing that there must be a soul isn't a scientific fact; it's an emotion. The point of that point is, speculation done with a scientific paradigm is very different from that done in a religious paradigm.
Who says someone had to have decided that there be a fabric of space-time? It could have been an adjective-less accident.
Reply
My physics examples are merely a demonstration of how you can keep asking the question of how the universe started until you get to how did matter come to exist. So even if we do solve the problem of the brain chemicals vs. soul by proof/evidence, the physical existence of the universe (which might seem even more impossible to reconcile) is going to still be a topic of competition between the scientists and the religious people.
Reply
Leave a comment