Soul Food, part 2
For those of you just tuning in, this is the second part of a really long train of thought on the existence of an ‘immortal soul.’ It will make a lot more sense if you read part one before jumping into this post
( Read more... )
Your first general aruement/contention concerns the begining, end, and creation of the soul. You point out (quite astutely) that in the modern day and age, the definition of life, as well as the start, end, and rescusitations of life, have been greatly blurred. As is the case, it is no longer possible to say that humans have souls, and other things do not, leaving out eggs and sperm and other organisms that may partially fight the definition of life. Moreover, you address the issue of the location where the soul "waits" to be sucked into existence in the form of a human body.
ALL of these arguements are very good, and to be honest, I find it difficult to posit any direct refutations. In fact, I might even go so far as to agree with you in that humans cannot be separated from all other creation in their special, other dimensional qualities. It is either all, or everthing. Now it is time for some of MY nerdiness to shine through. I would propose that all creation, existence, all atoms (however you want to word that) are equally as "otherwordly" as every other atom in creation; thus, humans are not special. It may seem ridiculous, but yoda may have been on to something: perhaps there is "force" in everything; "the tree, the rock..." etc. This would tie in to a later arguement of yours regarding resurrection and the inherent problem of the fact that we are, in fact, made up of particles that may have at one time or another been other human beings. As Sophie's World says, "We are all stardust." However, if all creation is equally footed in this special quality, then there is no contradiction.
As for human consciousness, I can offer no definitive support of its continuation after death. However, while I was reading, one "arguement" (and I use the term lightly) did come to mind. It all hinges on whether or not one believes in free choice. In the universe, there are two possibilities for humans: either we are completely biological and thus we really don't have free will (we are simply machines that respond to our environments, albeit in a complicated way. But fundamentally we are still nothing more than machines). The other option, of course, is the one that most humans ascribe to, and that is that we possess some mystic quality that allows to overcome this natural tendancy. Unfortunately, this is impossible to prove. But it is interesting to think about: either we are nothing more than machines, or we are something more. Why is it that humans possess the quality of self-examination. No other animal, organism, or anything we have ever encountered (including AIs, at least so far) can claim to really be "self-aware" in the greater sense. If we humans really are nothing more than animals, why are we so substantially different from animals in that one, singular way? (*shivers. the thought of AI drives me to go on to another huge discussion of computer intelligence and awareness, but I shall resist).
Reply
My final point about your post concerns something that was surprising to me: you tend to think VERY spacially, and never allow for the option of something outside of the dimensions in which we live. While it is true that many religious people (even today) still think of heaven as "somewhere" and God as "somewhere" etc, I would propose that many atheists also take a simple-minded view of the situation, such as "My cat died and so God cannot exist" or "The world isn't perfect and so God can't exist." For the sake of arguement, let us combine these two groups (and anyone else who overly simplifies the issues) into one group labeled "stupid people" and leave them out of it. For the rest of us, perhaps a stupendous minority, the IDEAS of heaven, hell, eternity, God, etc should never be described in terms of location or physical existence. I think that even an average religious thinker would claim that all these forces exist outside the physical arena and thus cannot be described in its terms. Thus, some of your agruements about "where would the soul go?" after a body has died is somewhat irrelevant, as are arguements concerning the speed of the sould; the soul is not physical and thus is not bound by physical laws. Most people would never claim that the soul was "here" only that it existed elsewhere in connection to a particular person. THIS IS NOT HOW I FEEL SO I CAN'T DEFEND THOSE CLAIMS. I'm just saying, one can't describe an item unless it itself subscribes to certain rules, and all major religions as far as I know do NOT describe the soul as physical, thus one cannot apply physical laws to it.
Sadly, I think this twenty minutes of response trumps all the intellectual "thinking" I had to do today at school. Damn. All those wasted hours. If only the world were not so poorly made. Hope your day was slightly less boring somehow. And that carnival arrived.
Reply
As for your spacial point, I can definately imagine of some fourth dimension, some astral plane, or etherealness that houses souls, ghost, angels, demons, heaven, hell, the Easter Bunny for 354 days out of the year, and baby Jesus's pet cow, but that doesn't make it a real place. I can also imagine someone with a 25 inch penis, in fact, I'm sure I could even create one in Photoshop, but imagining it doesn't make it real.
But I see your point, there may be something else out there and true, we cannot prove its existence, or non-existence. But where did the idea come from in the first place? Science? No. It seems to have come from simple minded people who wanted a satisfactory answer to explain away events beyond their understanding. Isn't it more logical in this day and age to NOT believe in such a place, since there is absolutely no evidence that it exists, than it is to hold out for the hope that the primatives were right?
Reply
Where did the universe come from? WHY do the physical laws work the way they do? And, of course, others.
It is, paradoxically, very logical to conclude that SOMETHING, not necessarily god, exists beyond the scope of human understanding due to such questions. Or it is at least very logical to admit that we just don't know.
Reply
Reply
Reply
However, believing that there is order to the universe, purpose perhaps, is different. I think it's ridiculous to say that the universe has no order...and for order to exist, there must be SOME, SOME form of force driving it.
Well, actually, maybe something can have order without a force driving it. I'm not sure on that, I'll admit. But order, yes.
PS: You responded super fast
Reply
Reply
Not saying that some other power willed it per se, but it seems there should be a reason.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment