Are there souls?

[cgannon64]

I really don't know. If I beleive in an afterlife, I have to beleive in souls, naturally. But whether an afterlife exists is something I've given up on thinking about for a while. First, becuase it hard to think about it without becoming overwhelmed with fear of death, and second, because its something I don't consider that important.

I have been thinking about related things, however. For example, I've wondered what mental diseases that are physical would mean for someone's theology. If someone is predisposed to schizophrenia, isn't that unjust? Isn't their mind, or soul, basically crippled from the start? And, if a soul outside of the body does exist, what does it mean when the mind is damaged? Is there any way someone who is mentally crippled can "know", in some sense, that their soul is not?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I really don't know. If I beleive in an afterlife, I have to beleive in souls, naturally.

Not really. Reread Plotinus' post.

 

[cgannon64]

I read that part about the resurrection of the bodies.

That is something they don't seem to teach any more, or emphasize, because it seems very strange. Wouldn't that make Heaven a physical place, where I can experience physical things? If I succumb to sins of the flesh here, why wouldn't I do the same there? Modern Christians seem to think the least about Heaven, because it has become a fluid, substance-less idea. Which is why I don't honestly beleive in it.

 

[LLXerxes]

yeah, i do. and our souls get reincarnated after death and such.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I read that part about the resurrection of the bodies.

That is something they don't seem to teach any more, or emphasize, because it seems very strange. Wouldn't that make Heaven a physical place, where I can experience physical things?

Physical, but devoid of the corruption of this world. Like pre-apple consumption Eden (the garden, not Anthony).

If I succumb to sins of the flesh here, why wouldn't I do the same there?

Because ancestral sin wouldn't be there.

 

[Perfection]

I hope so. Otherwise this whole life thing is a complete waste of time.

Why?

Newfangle, you could check out some Deepak Chopra, he breaks everything down to the Quantum level in a quite rational fashion.

That's just new-age goobledygook!

Sounds interesting, but I don't buy quantum mechanics either.

Why not? Quantum mechanics is a highly refined well evidenced subset of physics that has been proven in multiple ways (I'd put denial of it at almost the level of evolution denial)

As for soul, I don't believe in any immortal soul, but I am aware of my own personal identity and that's a great cunnundrum to figure out what the hell it is.

 

[cgannon64]

Physical, but devoid of the corruption of this world. Like pre-apple consumption Eden (the garden, not Anthony).
Because ancestral sin wouldn't be there.

This works. But then I would have to take Original Sin as something that can be seperated from mankind, which is something I have not done. I've always thought of it as a nice explanation for our nature, which cannot be changed. But this belief doesn't fit in very well with an afterlife, becuase our sinful nature cannot be changed. So, I suppose if I am going to beleive in any kind of afterlife, I have to beleive in Original Sin as something that is not inseperable from us.

 

[Narz]

Sounds interesting, but I don't buy quantum mechanics either.

Well, I don't "understand" it all but it rings true to me. Afterall you don't need to understand something to make it real. Electricity is a mystery to most (probably even to most electrical engineers) but that doesn't stop us from using it.

The way I see it "the soul" may not be visible or measurably with any tools we have today but that doesn't "prove" it does not exist. With the tools of the 19th century no one could "measure" or quantify radio waves but they didn't prove they didn't exist.

I figure man (body and mind) are like the radio and the soul is like the transmition. The transmition may appear to end when you smash the radio but is it really gone?

- Narz

 

[Narz]

That's just new-age goobledygook!

Have you even listened to Chopra?

 

[Perfection]

Have you even listened to Chopra?

No, just a guy who happens to give more credence to the good folks at Skepdic

http://www.skepdic.com/ayurvedic.html

 

[Narz]

No, just a guy who happens to give more credence to the good folks at Skepdic

http://www.skepdic.com/ayurvedic.html

Gotta love people who's business it is to poke holes in other peoples arguments but provide no solutions of their own.

Seems the article is mostly name calling.

How any of the above is known, or how anyone could possibly test such claims, is apparently of little concern to Ayurvedic advocates.

It's easy to test these claims. Do studies, see if it works. Of course, if the skepdic site got a hold of any of the research they wouldn't be able to bash the guy...

The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order.

Actually, it was proven. Crime dropped by over 20% during a day (or week or month, I don't remember) when the people meditating focused their energy on reducing crime, I believe it was in the Washington D.C. area but I could be wrong on that.

peddling is quantum gibberish

more name calling...

Except for the benefits of relaxation and meditation, there is no scientific evidence to support any of the many astounding claims made on behalf of Ayurvedic medicine.

There have been loads of studies on the health benefits of meditation, lifestyle change and herbal medicine.

abysmal failure and about the purest poppycock this side of Bombay.

Now, if only the author of this statement could channel his creative energy from attempted witty insults into healing himself perhaps he could cure his impotence. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no mind-body connection...

I skimmed the rest, it mentions one of his patients who died (Wow, a doctor who's had thousands of patients has one who died! What a scandal!) and one man sued him (A famous & wealthy man gets sued! Who would've thought). blah blah blah

C'mon Perfection, you really trust those bitter bastards? A true skeptic does his own research (or lack thereof ).

- Narz

 

[Perfection]

Gotta love people who's business it is to poke holes in other peoples arguments but provide no solutions of their own.

So all those who advocated taking vioxx off the must offer alternative treatment to make their case?

Seems the article is mostly name calling.

With good reason, the quotes I found seemed quite a bit gibberish to me

It's easy to test these claims. Do studies, see if it works. Of course, if the skepdic site got a hold of any of the research they wouldn't be able to bash the guy...

Show me the studies

Actually, it was proven. Crime dropped by over 20% during a day (or week or month, I don't remember) when the people meditating focused their energy on reducing crime, I believe it was in the Washington D.C. area but I could be wrong on that.

Show me the studies. Also, might I add that it could be merely conincidental.

more name calling...

For good reason though, it looks like gibberish to me

There have been loads of studies on the health benefits of meditation, lifestyle change and herbal medicine.

It doesn't disagree with that, it disagrees with BS quantum healing.

Now, if only the author of this statement could channel his creative energy from attempted witty insults into healing himself perhaps he could cure his impotence. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no mind-body connection...

Ummm, who said there is no mind body connection? Who said he was imptotent?

I skimmed the rest, it mentions one of his patients who died (Wow, a doctor who's had thousands of patients has one who died! What a scandal!) and one man sued him (A famous & wealthy man gets sued! Who would've thought). blah blah blah

Well, he claimed to have given them perfect health, if those claims are unfounded at people get hurt it's contradictory evidence to the notion that he is correct.

C'mon Perfection, you really trust those bitter bastards?

Generally yes, Skepdic is a pretty good resource for stuff like this and they've proven thier worth in other debates.

A true skeptic does his own research (or lack thereof ).

Sorry, I don't buy books and crap for every lame ass load of crock that comes drifting my way. I reserve much of my skeptical energy toward more interesting topics.

 

[plarq]

Soul is a collection of information,grows when people grow from infancy to death

 

[Birdjaguar]

You just described the characteristic properties of things that don't exist.

He said this:

Why must a sould be "made" out of something? Presumably it is eternal, and thus outside of our universe, thus exempt from all the physical laws of the latter, thus it needs not have anything you can comprehend making it up.

So I think you have it backward. If his soul is eternal and I'll add; unchanging, permanent and infiite, then it sounds like your world of physical laws and change is the realm of illusion. Nothing in your universe is Real, because it does not last or have any permance. He was actually describing that which does exist and is Real.

 

[Mungaf]

To soul believers:
Do any of you know what Ockham's Razor is?

 

[Birdjaguar]

To soul believers:
Do any of you know what Ockham's Razor is?

Yes. What's your point? Ah...err... I mean edge.

 

[Plotinus]

[cgannon] Have a reread of 1 Corinthians 15. Paul talks about how *this* body that we have now will be raised, but changed.

The Jews - especially the Pharisees - believed that at the end of time God would raise all the dead and judge them. The Greeks - especially the Platonists - believed that the soul is separate and separable from the body, and that immediately after death it is judged. The Christians basically combined these two beliefs. By the time of Augustine, it was generally believed that that when you die your soul goes to wait somewhere that is a bit like its final destination. So the souls of the righteous wait with God whilst the souls of the wicked get a foretaste of divine justice. At the end of time, God raises everyone and reunites the souls with the bodies. Then everyone gets their final judgement and either enters the "new heaven and new earth" or gets flung into the fiery chasm (possibly forever, possibly not, depending on your point of view). Quite what the resurrection body would be like is not clear. Origen was condemned after his death for denying that it would be a body at all, but it's not clear that he really taught that (he was also said to teach that it would be perfectly spherical, surreally, but unfortunately there's no evidence that he taught that either).

So the traditional belief is that heaven is only a sort of celestial waiting room. You can see for yourself that "heaven" does not get mentioned much in the New Testament (apart from in the phrase "the kingdom of heaven", which is used in Matthew's Gospel instead of "the kingdom of God" found in Mark and Luke). This is because the notion of an immaterial destination for souls to go to after death is a Greek idea, not an authentically Hebraic one. In fact the only passage in the New Testament that really supports the notion of a soul which goes somewhere after death is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which the rich man dies and goes to punishment, while the poor man dies and goes to the bosum of Abraham (in fact it is unlikely that this story, or at least this part of it, goes back to Jesus himself).

Indeed, I suspect you will be hard put to it to find any reference to "souls" in this sense in the Bible at all. Bear in mind that "psyche", the Greek word normally translated "soul", had a wide range of meaning, referring simply to the life principle in a living thing; thus it makes sense in Greek to talk about the "soul" of a plant, consisting simply of a nutritive principle. Aristotle, again, had a lot to say about the human "soul", but he seems not to have believed that it could survive the death of the body.

 

[Mungaf]

Yes. What's your point? Ah...err... I mean edge.

My point is that since our studies of the brain seem to conclude that thoughts etc.are caused by reactions inside the brain itself, we have no reason that a force like a soul is acting through the brain.

Newfangle also had it right. Something that exists outside the universe would have no effects on the universe anyways.

 

[Birdjaguar]

My point is that since our studies of the brain seem to conclude that thoughts etc.are caused by reactions inside the brain itself, we have no reason that a force like a soul is acting through the brain.

Your post is 100% correct as you wrote it. I wouldn't change a thing.

Newfangle also had it right. Something that exists outside the universe would have no effects on the universe anyways.

What if the separation you place between the "something" and the universe only exists from our perspective inside the universe, and is a product of our brain's functioning; and from the perspective of the "something" there is only it (the "something"). Wouldn't such a scenario permit the "something" to have an effect on us?

 

[Plotinus]

What if the separation you place between the "something" and the universe only exists from our perspective inside the universe, and is a product of our brain's functioning; and from the perspective of the "something" there is only it (the "something"). Wouldn't such a scenario permit the "something" to have an effect on us?

I don't understand this. Are you suggesting that the something's perception is correct, and that it is the only thing that exists, which would make the universe and its contents only part of the something? In that case, our perception that the something is separated from the universe would be wrong.

Sounds to me an awful lot like what Plotinus (the real one) said about Soul...