Soul is a trope. For example:

"Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting
And cometh from afar;
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day."

--William Wordsworth--
--Ode on Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood--

Many RfMers do without such tropes. They have no time for "nonsense" like tropes for "soul".


Yet the concept "soul" is about the most universal concept there is. Almost every human of any time or place has felt a self within that seems apart from the body. Thinking and feeling people of all times and places think about that feeling, remember it, try to understand it and attempt to reproduce it (Art). It's what humans do.

Religion is an art that uses/exploits this common feeling we share, the feeling of our individual selves as selves unlike any other. There are many things we share in common, yes, but ultimately not our self itself. That I don't share in common with you. It's the difference that truly makes a difference. It is itself that which we trope 'soul'; not the 'me myself', but that which animates the 'me myself' (apologies to Mr. Whitman).

Shedding Religion does not mean necessarily shedding the concept 'soul'. Soul, that feeling of being apart and different from the body, precedes Religion. Post-religion the concept 'soul' still exists.

Materialism poo-poos the concept altogether and says, "it's but a trick of the brain. Nothing more." That is too and too gross an assumption, in my opinion.

Human, believing Genius is Childhood Recaptured

>Materialism poo-poos the concept altogether and says, "it's but a trick of the brain. Nothing more." That is too and too gross an assumption, in my opinion.

A critical assumption underlying all of science is that the world can be understood and explained without having to invoke the supernatural - no demons, no fairies, no gods, no leprechauns, no angels, no spirits.

What assumption would you prefer to naturalism?

"What assumption would you prefer to naturalism?"

I would prefer Science not assume anything in regard to *soul" as I've outlined it. Note that I'm talking about Soul as a *trope* for that which feels unique to ourselves and also apart from our body.

In other words, "Soul" isn't necessarily only a scientific construct. Indeed, as you've pointed out, because of the underlying assumption of Science, "Soul" is outside of Science altogether. It cannot speak to that which it axiomatically assumes doesn't exist.

Science can say a lot, but it cannot say everything.

> I would prefer Science not assume anything in regard to *soul" as I've outlined it. Note that I'm talking about Soul as a *trope* for that which feels unique to ourselves and also apart from our body.

Science makes progress because of the assumption of naturalism. Sounds like you want to shield this particular belief from that assumption, making it off limits to scientific inquiry.

> In other words, "Soul" isn't necessarily only a scientific construct. Indeed, as you've pointed out, because of the underlying assumption of Science, "Soul" is outside of Science altogether. It cannot speak to that which it axiomatically assumes doesn't exist.

While it is true that Science cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural (ghosts, demons, angels, fairies, gods, etc.), it often shows that naturalistic assumptions are sufficient to explain things. And it decreases the probability that supernatatural explanations are correct by providing data supportive of naturalistic explanations.

Such explanations could potentially explain "that which feels unique to ourselves and also apart from our body". In fact, there are neurobiology researchers who have made progress in this area (see the work of Antonio Damasio, for example).

> Science can say a lot, but it cannot say everything.

Who said it can? Nobody I know.

Hi Craig:

"A critical assumption underlying all of science is that the world can be understood and explained without having to invoke the supernatural - no demons, no fairies, no gods, no leprechauns, no angels, no spirits."

I agree that this is a critical assumption. However, "supernatural" must be narrowly interpreted so as not to exclude explanations outside of mainstream science when the evidence seems to demand a broader view of reality. After all, relativity and quantum mechanics introduced a new reality that on its face was, and still is, quite puzzling, and counter-intuitive.

"While it is true that Science cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural (ghosts, demons, angels, fairies, gods, etc.), it often shows that naturalistic assumptions are sufficient to explain things. And it decreases the probability that supernatatural explanations are correct by providing data supportive of naturalistic explanations."

Well, yes, science often shows that naturalistic assumptions are sufficient to explain things. But it sometimes shows that such assumptions (as historically defined) are not sufficient, suggesting we broaden what might, at the end of the day, count as naturalistic. After all, modern science does not claim to know all of the secrets of nature.

"Such explanations could potentially explain "that which feels unique to ourselves and also apart from our body". In fact, there are neurobiology researchers who have made progress in this area (see the work of Antonio Damasio, for example)."

Well I have read all of Damasio's commentary on this, including his most recent book, Self Comes to Mind. I have also carefully considered Metingers book, The Ego Tunnel, and several other books that attempt to link "the Self" with neuroscience. They get as far as brain-body mapping, which has long been known. But going from this to the idea of the Self, and personhood, is problematic on several levels. First, there is still no neurological explanation as to how and why such mapping results in consciousness, much less and a conscious subject; why does a "self" arises at all. I am not suggesting there cannot be a naturalistic explanation. But your assertion of progress should not be overstated to suggest that neurscience is on the brink of such explanations.

Best Regards,
RS

P.S. I liked MormonLeakes.com. Thank you for that contribution.

Religions comes and goes. It is just a tool to bind people together. Every religion gives people certain outlooks and moral and ethical appetites, and the abrahamtic religions are just about stealing other peoples lives and time. If people still lived in a desert without all the modern means it would have worked just like it did or not did 2000 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 03:12PM by volrammos.

I'm glad I don't feel divorced from my body. Perhaps that's how I escaped the morg. I never bought the hogwash...

WinksWinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm glad I don't feel divorced from my body.

That you said *my* body demonstrates that at some level you experience yourself as apart from your body. What is this "hogwash" that claims your body as it's own?

You can call your Soul "hogwash" if it makes you feel better. ;)

LOL

Human said, "That you said *my* body demonstrates that at some level you experience yourself as apart from your body."

I don't think that is true. Maybe it is a language issue. I would say, "my hand" or "my blood" or "my essence" or "my identity" or my anything.

I am the collection of all the things that comprise me as a biological unit.

Using your reasoning, if you said, "my soul," it must mean that you are something different again than a soul or body.

I think by the nature of the way the brain operates, it is understandable to see your hand through your eyes and say, "my" as a way to describe a component of a whole.

Good point, Dagny, as always.

That we say "my" soul poses problems.

Personally, I don't think science has anything interesting to say about the problems that are posed. By Walt Whitman has a lot of interesting things to say about those problems.


My overall larger point, of course, is to echo the point Bemis makes over and over again: Science's axiomatic dismissal of everything that is not material is *philosophical* and not in itself *scientific*, as some here would suggest.

Good to read you. Cheers,

Human

But I think there are better philosophical arguments than the ones Bemis makes.

What I find interesting is that you don't find the science interesting.

BY the way, you need at least another edit:

"BY Walt Whitman has a lot of interesting things to say about those problems." [emphasis added)

Shouldn't that be "but"?

:)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 08:27PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I find interesting is that you don't find the
> science interesting.
>
> BY the way, you need at least another edit:
>
> "BY Walt Whitman has a lot of interesting things
> to say about those problems." [emphasis added)
>
> Shouldn't that be "but"?
>
> :)

Oh geez, Steve, I would think you'd have enough of your own writing to edit before you go and edit mine (yes, "but").


Hey, Science can't do science upon something Science axiomatically denies the existence of. That's called Philosophy. So, there isn't any science to be interested in.

I find it interesting that you don't understand that.

So why is there a philosophy of science?

Hint: Scientists could go to the North Pole and look around for it.

How's that philosophy workin' for ya? :)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 12:46AM by steve benson.

The materialist explanation is that the rotation of the earth spins the surface of the earth, along with everything on it, into the earth's own shadow.

The materialist version happens to be what is really happening, however much we enjoy "sunsets".

Yep. I like the analogy.

Just as "sunset" is a tropping for the result of the earth's rotation vis-a-vis the sun, which is *real*, "soul" is a tropping for that which is no less *real*.

. . . offer the empirical evidence, please.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 07:43PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . offer the empirical evidence, please.

You need at least another edit, Steve (yuu've), at least.

C'mon, put some soul into it. I bet you've got one, somewhere.

Cheers,

Human

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

Why you talkin' 'bout my shoes?

If the only soul you'll accept as real is a Mormon, physical soul, then I have no proof...and neither do you or the mormons that insist upon the same thing.

You've just essentially admitted that you have no proof for your testimony.

That sounds, well, kinda Mormonish.

And it is not my job to prove a negative--i.e., that the so-called "soul" does not exist.

There is simply no compelling empirical, physical proof that it does exist.

Prove me wrong.

Betchya can't do it. In fact, you've acnknowledged that you can't do it.

Such is the realm of faith.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 07:19PM by steve benson.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 07:45PM by steve benson.

Not all truth is comforting. Get used to the idea that you vanish from existence when you die. That's probably what happens. I'm really happy anyway!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 07:24PM by rationalguy.

Thanks for the sermon.

Cheers.

Thanks for the sermon.

Cheers and beers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 07:33PM by steve benson.

"Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life."

I think there's a clue here. Authority figure in extended family believes in reincarnation. Am I smelling confirmation bais?

"At first, Andrea says she was doubtful."

Nothing like initial doubt to bolster the argument for your conversion.

"James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history."

Were his parents memories acurate? Are they telling the truth? Are they claiming that they were the only ones watching him 24/7? Was he ever left alone with Granny who just happens to believe in . . . . wait for it . . . reincarnation? How hard is it for a little kid to like planes and pick up some basic knowledge of them, like they have pilots who are usually men?

Exactly. More thoughts about that kid and the past life as a pilot:

I vaguely remember when that kid and his parents were on a TV show. The parents were so proud of their special son and did most of the talking. When the kid would answer questions, he would look for approval from his parents.

As I recall, the kid was taken to an air museum early. He played with planes all the time. Of course the parents wrote a book about it. Although I never bought the book, I glanced at it in a library. There’s a reason the parents were hawking the book and you didn’t read about this in Scientific American.

I’ve got a similar story for you. Keep an open mind and don’t let those materialists sway your desire to believe it either!
My son showed some interest in dinosaurs when he was a toddler. Of course I monitored every waking and dreaming moment of his life until he was 12 and can assure you he never saw dinosaur shows or saw any pictures of dinosaurs!

Yes, and he would have dreams about them and walk around the house making REAL dinosaur sounds. He knew what kind of dinosaur he was and described perfectly the area around Vernal, Utah, where they were found. This is obvious evidence he was a dinosaur in a past life.

Because he was telling us experiences he had as a dinosaur that fit what geologists know about dinosaurs, I knew this was proof of reincarnation. It also proves the existence of streaming life force (gooblab) that materialists just can’t prove doesn’t exist!

So, as any good parent would do, I had my son repeat his story many times to me. We wrote a book! You can buy my book and see that children have knowledge we can’t know…because they just came through the veil, er, because they remember past lives! That’s right, just like that kid who went to sit on Jesus’ lap and came back to tell us about heaven!

What’s more likely? Was my kid an actual dinosaur or did he pick up some facts and (with my help) become evidence for reincarnation? Given the facts of what we repeatedly observe, is it more likely that another wonder kid and his parents exaggerated and fabricated or is it more likely that a supernatural explanation is required?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 11:05PM by dagny.

You never took him to a child psychologist who believes in reincarnation?

I find that neglectful.

I always laugh when religious people talk about "materialism" without having a clue as to what it is.

I always laugh when Dave the (and don't you forget it) Atheist pretends that those who disagree with him are religious.

If materialism is souless (and it is), then why is it so prevalent? If the soul is anything more than rumor, why is it just a subject of speculation? There is no demonstrable use for a "soul." Nor can it be measured or weighed.

But we don't let that bother us, and we have gnomes in our gardens. They're just plaster, but we call them "Mr. Winklebottom" and "Grimble Grumble."

There's our soul. The spirit of whimsy. It makes no sense and serves no obvious purpose. But it saves us from a grim, utilitarian existence.

How DARE you accuse my Garden Gnomes of being PLASTER! I'll have you know that Mayor McCoughferson is pure Cast Iron!!

he's well painted and quite delightsome. however, i'm sure that if he turns from the path of righty-ness, he will become reddish-brown and loathsome.

But the OP, as I read it, is a long way from what I understand Bemis to be selling.