Consciousness

[NatsuTerran]

The problem, at least for me, comes from two directions.

First, how can the soul be existent when so much of what neuroscience demonstrates is more or less incompatible with a soul. If my idea of a soul is a straw-man, then that is on the theist to rectify. I frankly do not see any possible way to sync up mainstream Christianity with all of the verified facts of evolution, geology, psychology, biology, etc. And even if you can find someone who thinks they know it all, it ends up either falling back to a completely faith-based deistic position, which is also easily explained/accounted for in terms of how predictable such behavior is for such a person through psychology, cognitive dissonance etc, or otherwise the adage applies "Ask a different theist, get a different answer." Which is basically to say that they just make things up. I guess it's not so much attacking a soul, you can always insert a god of the gaps argument, but I think free will is conclusively destroyed by science from many, many angles. Regardless of where you are on nature vs. nurture, the choices are still entirely contingent. (which by the way, nature plays an immense part in individual's personalities, as can be seen in Bouchard and Lykken's 1990 study on identical twins in different environments. They would end up with more or less identical perspectives on life, and behaviors. Environment is still a major factor, however. But when all of this stuff gets applied to the shaping of human beings, it's kind of impossible to argue that the purpose of life is contingent on a divine being in any way. I feel like I shouldn't even have to spell it out this much, but most theists never draw the connection, w/e.

The second issue for me, is that I like to base my philosophy on track records. I am not agnostic about whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not. I am pretty confident that it will. Do I *know?* Well no, I don't. But I think the track record dramatically favors that it will, due to the entirety of my experiences in life, and the lack of scientific information broadcasted stating that the sun wouldn't rise. If it was a religious source saying it wouldn't rise tomorrow, that doesn't hurt my views that it will rise, these people have been wrong millions of times before about rudimentary things. If it is scientifically evidenced that it would not rise, I would then most likely believe it, depending on the scale of research.

Track record is everything in forming beliefs. Which is why many people cling to their parent religions, because their parents are evolutionarily supposed to be one of the most trustworthy sources of information; it's evolutionarily necessary for youth to take credence in a parent's advice. But when I look at the pathetically sad track record of religion and spiritual beliefs, I am forced to adopt a rejection of anything supernatural simply due to how wrong these people have been for centuries upon centuries. Even if there were to be something supernatural, I could not be blamed for not believing in it, simply due to the sheer amount of red herrings (false beliefs) that exist to mask the actual one. Every religious person relies on special pleading for their own religion of choice, but they all end up being similar to any other red herring when examined objectively.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The "soul" as an entity separate from a living, physical human being is not an essential element of Christian anthropology.  The English "soul" is a translation of the Koine Greek "psuche", which is also the root word for the English "psyche" and "psychology."   The "soul" simply relates to the mind, which will cease to exist when the body (including the brain) dies.  The hope of Christianity is in a resurrection, not in a disembodied soul state.  Once this is understood, the supposed conflict between Christianity and neuroscience disappears.

[Too Few Lions]

The "soul" as an entity separate from a living, physical human being is not an essential element of Christian anthropology.  The English "soul" is a translation of the Koine Greek "psuche", which is also the root word for the English "psyche" and "psychology."   The "soul" simply relates to the mind, which will cease to exist when the body (including the brain) dies.  The hope of Christianity is in a resurrection, not in a disembodied soul state.  Once this is understood, the supposed conflict between Christianity and neuroscience disappears.

Bruce, in koine Greek the word psyche can also mean soul in very much a spiritual way, and nothing to do with the mind. It is also used that way in the NT, eg when Jesus says,

'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (psyche). Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell'  (Matt 10.28)

'What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul (psyche)? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?'  (Matt 16.26)

Let's not forget that we also have the word  pneuma in the New Testament, that very much translates to 'spirit/soul' in English. It appears in the New Testament 385 times, of which 93 appear in relation to 'the holy spirit', but the other 292 don't. In these examples below it clearly refers to the idea of a spirit/soul;

When Jesus raises Jairus' daughter  we read 'They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.  But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!"  Her spirit (pneuma) returned, and at once she stood up.' (Luke 8.53-55)

Again when Jesus dies in the gospels we read 'And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit (pneuma).' (Matt 27.50)

elsewhere Mary says, "My soul (psyche) glorifies the Lord and my spirit (pneuma) rejoices in God my Savior (Luke 1.47)

Early Christians believed in a dualism of body/soul, and some (like the Gnostics) in a tripartite system of body/psyche/pneuma, based on earlier Greek philosophy. Paul referred to this trichotomy when he wrote 'May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit (pneuma), soul (psyche) and body (soma) be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (1Thes 5.23)

Elsewhere in the letters of Paul we see the dualism of body/soul;

'Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit (pneuma) may be saved on the day of the Lord' (1Cor 5.5)

So I say, walk by the spirit (pneuma), and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.' (Gal 5.16-18)

'A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the spirit, from the spirit will reap eternal life.' (Galatians 6.7-8)

I think mainstream Christianity has always taught that the soul/spirit exists independently to the body, and that's still what the majority of Christians believe to this day.

[NatsuTerran]

Yeah, that just seems like moving the goalposts to me. The vast majority of Christians would likely disagree with that assertion that the soul isn't spiritual but just the resurrected mind. And besides, magic is magic either way you look at it. It never ceases to amaze me how much religion squirms around to meet science halfway. All of the moderate religious people of today who believe in evolution etc. would be hounded as heretics if they were warped back just a few dozen years ago, if not still to this day depending on the location. The religion is evolving because it has to.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The hermeneutic issue, IMO, is interpreting a Jewish anthropological concept in a Greco-Roman world and language. The Jews had a much more holistic view of man - there was not the dualism that you find in Hellenistic thought. So, for Jesus (who spoke Aramaic, not Greek) to speak of "body and soul" probably meant to him the physical body and the essential life of a person, not a physical vs. a disembodied "spirit" or "soul."  His idea of eternal life was resurrection.  The person's "soul" meant that to God, this person was still alive, even though his body was dead and in the ground.  He would live again in the resurrection. Man could kill the body, but he could not kill a person's standing with God, who had not forgotten the person and intended for that person to rise again.

The "spirit" (pneuma) also means "breath" or "wind."  It is the translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic ruach.  So to say that Jairus daughter had her "spirit" return to her simply meant that she started breathing again.  

While I agree with you that the Gentile Christian church, steeped in Hellenistic thought, has usually interpreted these passages in a dualistic fashion, I think the way that Jesus and the apostles thought about them was more in terms of a unified anthropology that expected the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in disembodied soul. But that's just my opinion.  In any event, like modern day conservative Jews, I think that when a person dies, he/she is dead, period. The hope is in resurrection, not a disembodied soul.

[pytheas]

The hope of Christianity is in a resurrection, not in a disembodied soul state.  Once this is understood, the supposed conflict between Christianity and neuroscience disappears.

Once this is understood, there is no argument. You cannot agrue with psychotics.
Christianity conflicts REALITY,  not the instrument (science) we use to agknowledge it (reality)

[Too Few Lions]

The hermeneutic issue, IMO, is interpreting a Jewish anthropological concept in a Greco-Roman world and language. The Jews had a much more holistic view of man - there was not the dualism that you find in Hellenistic thought. So, for Jesus (who spoke Aramaic, not Greek) to speak of "body and soul" probably meant to him the physical body and the essential life of a person, not a physical vs. a disembodied "spirit" or "soul."  His idea of eternal life was resurrection.  The person's "soul" meant that to God, this person was still alive, even though his body was dead and in the ground.  He would live again in the resurrection. Man could kill the body, but he could not kill a person's standing with God, who had not forgotten the person and intended for that person to rise again.

I disagree entirely with you there Bruce, all the earliest Christian writings are in Greek, and Greek is the mother language of both the New Testament and Christianity. Personally I'm skeptical there ever was a historical Jesus, but even if there was he must have been fluent in Greek as he quotes the Greek version of the OT in the gospels, and is clearly aware of the teachings of earlier Greek philosophers (particularly Plato), as he pretty much copies their teachings. But that's not very surprising anyway, many Jews of the first century were thoroughly Hellenised, spoke Greek as their first language, studied Greek philosophy, and used the Septaguint rather than the Hebrew Bible.

But the Jews also had a dualistic idea of body and soul anyway, it's not just a Hellenistic idea. This duality is in their creation myth, Yahweh breathes the life (nephesh/ pneuma / spirit / soul) into the body he has made from clay/soil and this is man's soul, the divine spark derived from the god.

'And Yahweh formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' (Gen 2.7)

The "spirit" (pneuma) also means "breath" or "wind."  It is the translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic ruach.  So to say that Jairus daughter had her "spirit" return to her simply meant that she started breathing again.  

the gospels were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic. This passage clearly refers to her spirit returning to her. What about Matt 27.50? Did Jesus yield up his breath when he died? Or Luke 1.47? Is Mary saying her breath rejoices in God?

While I agree with you that the Gentile Christian church, steeped in Hellenistic thought, has usually interpreted these passages in a dualistic fashion, I think the way that Jesus and the apostles thought about them was more in terms of a unified anthropology that expected the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in disembodied soul. But that's just my opinion.  In any event, like modern day conservative Jews, I think that when a person dies, he/she is dead, period. The hope is in resurrection, not a disembodied soul.

Bruce, you're entitled to your views, but the most majority of Christians have always and still do believe in a dichotomy between body and spirit/soul. I think Jesus (and clearly Paul) believed in that division too.

[pytheas]

I think Jesus (and clearly Paul)

+1 for the whole passage
the extend of Paul's definition of "christianity" is such that it should be called "paulianism", "paulists".

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The hope of Christianity is in a resurrection, not in a disembodied soul state.  Once this is understood, the supposed conflict between Christianity and neuroscience disappears.

Once this is understood, there is no argument. You cannot agrue with psychotics.
Christianity conflicts REALITY,  not the instrument (science) we use to agknowledge it (reality)

So, are you calling me psychotic?

[pytheas]

The hope of Christianity is in a resurrection, not in a disembodied soul state.  Once this is understood, the supposed conflict between Christianity and neuroscience disappears.

Once this is understood, there is no argument. You cannot agrue with psychotics.
Christianity conflicts REALITY,  not the instrument (science) we use to agknowledge it (reality)

So, are you calling me psychotic?

No, I am not, we are conversing blindfolded, how can I call you anything?

Do you respect Yourself, if you have earnestly convinced yourself to believe that you can Hope to be Resurrected?
I recommend a visit to the morgue, befriend a coroner, get drunk with the grave janitor. the quick and the ...not quick

I hope to get a better job or a better community around me, my children to get a good education, or to take the right choices in their life. other people hope to meet the right partner, love or wealth. Or be restored in their health.
You see what I am trying to imply,

to hope that I will be raised form the dead is akin to hoping that the invisible lines of cosmic essense that wrestle with my veins in a screaching sound will stop, tangle away and vanish with a flash. the story belongs either in a comedy show or in the psychiatry ward.

It's not Your story, and I am not convinced you Really invest hope into it.

Sane people live with illusions, bubbles around them. Ultimately we dont need to pay royalty to any "illusion" provider, its our choice. Psychotics, usually turn towards the church, the religion,  in an effort to objectify and deal with a very real illusive "reality", they have no choice.

So, it does not matter what I call you, forget me- the question of importance is :

1a) Are you?
1b) Do you want to resemble one?
2) how much self-realisation do we owe to ourselfs?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The hope of Christianity is in a resurrection, not in a disembodied soul state.  Once this is understood, the supposed conflict between Christianity and neuroscience disappears.

Once this is understood, there is no argument. You cannot agrue with psychotics.
Christianity conflicts REALITY,  not the instrument (science) we use to agknowledge it (reality)

So, are you calling me psychotic?

No, I am not, we are conversing blindfolded, how can I call you anything?

Do you respect Yourself, if you have earnestly convinced yourself to believe that you can Hope to be Resurrected?
I recommend a visit to the morgue, befriend a coroner, get drunk with the grave janitor. the quick and the ...not quick

I hope to get a better job or a better community around me, my children to get a good education, or to take the right choices in their life. other people hope to meet the right partner, love or wealth. Or be restored in their health.
You see what I am trying to imply,

to hope that I will be raised form the dead is akin to hoping that the invisible lines of cosmic essense that wrestle with my veins in a screaching sound will stop, tangle away and vanish with a flash. the story belongs either in a comedy show or in the psychiatry ward.

It's not Your story, and I am not convinced you Really invest hope into it.

Sane people live with illusions, bubbles around them. Ultimately we dont need to pay royalty to any "illusion" provider, its our choice. Psychotics, usually turn towards the church, the religion,  in an effort to objectify and deal with a very real illusive "reality", they have no choice.

So, it does not matter what I call you, forget me- the question of importance is :

1a) Are you?
1b) Do you want to resemble one?
2) how much self-realisation do we owe to ourselfs?

1a)  No. I function at a high level professionally and socially, and live a very fulfilling life.
1b)  No, and no one except an occasional atheist has ever suggested that I resemble a psychotic. 
2)   IMO we owe a very high degree of self-realization to ourselves. Faith in future bodily resurrection is just that - faith. It is not a claim of absolute knowledge.  I've experienced enough to convince me that there is a reality beyond this one, and I keep my mind open to what possibilities exist because of that reality. A visit to a morgue would only confirm what is obvious to all - dead people stay dead for the time being.  What may happen in the future is a matter for faith, not knowledge.  I do have the ancient testimony of the early Christians about Jesus, and I do have enough personal experience to convince me that Jesus is alive.  That may not convince anyone else, but it's sufficient for me. The experiences have created faith, and that's where it stands.  Other than that, the hopes I have for my life sound similar to yours.

On a lighter note, besides being an attorney I'm also an ordained minister, and from time to time I do both weddings and funerals. I like to joke that I prefer funerals, as I am much more successful.  Only half the people I have married are still wed, but all the people I have buried are still dead.  So far, I'm batting 1000. Resurrection could vastly alter my success rate, however.   

[pytheas]

we owe a very high degree of self-realization to ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian
Lucian admired the works of Epicurus, for he breaks off a witty satire against Alexander of Abonoteichus, who burned a book of Epicurus, to exclaim:

What blessings that book creates for its readers and what peace, tranquillity, and freedom it engenders in them, liberating them as it does from terrors and apparitions and portents, from vain hopes and extravagant cravings, developing in them intelligence and truth, and truly purifying their understanding, not with torches and squills and that sort of foolery, but with straight thinking, truthfulness and frankness.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl167.htm

Faith in future bodily resurrection is just that - faith.  I've experienced enough to convince me that there is a reality beyond this one, and I keep my mind open to what possibilities exist because of that reality. What may happen in the future is a matter for faith, not knowledge. I do have the ancient testimony of the early Christians about Jesus,

that(ancient testimony) is knowledge therefore, how come? I thought it was a matter of faith, as you said

 

I  have enough personal experience to convince me that Jesus is alive. 
The experiences have created faith,

hence with the  knowledge  of exactly what you should want to hear  ancient and multiply modified targeted and enriched as well as the private right to personal experience with or without society's confirmatory aprooval, we can have faith:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

[Ecurb Noselrub]

that(ancient testimony) is knowledge therefore, how come? I thought it was a matter of faith, as you said

There is an objective component to faith that comes from an historical analysis of the testimonial evidence that is available. Much of what is written about Jesus is not out of the ordinary, such as him being a Jewish male who preached and had disciples, and ultimately was crucified and buried.  Those matters are in the province of normal history, and, IMO, the preponderance of the evidence supports the historical Jesus. It is only when the claims of his resurrection are considered that personal subjective experience and faith enter the picture, as resurrection is outside the normal scope of human experience.

I  have enough personal experience to convince me that Jesus is alive. 
The experiences have created faith,

hence with the  knowledge  of exactly what you should want to hear  ancient and multiply modified targeted and enriched as well as the private right to personal experience with or without society's confirmatory aprooval, we can have faith

The statement "exactly what you should want to hear" is where the issue is. In my own self-analysis, I have the responsibility to guard against confirmation bias. That's difficult, and the degree to which I have overcome it is always subject to criticism.  That is an additional reason why religious beliefs lay in the realm of faith, and not knowledge. But that's all religion should be claiming anyway.

[pytheas]

There is an objective component to faith that comes from an historical analysis of the testimonial evidence that is available. Much of what is written about Jesus ,

I use all analysis from historical, archeological, experimental physical and testimonial, psychological, behavioural and biological. It hasn't been written from a Nickean fixed perspective, and it corroborates to the independent outsider.
The moment religious christian propaganda goes of emperial stature, you have more reason to suspect calculated refabrication of everything you read in your bible. The Name of the Rose is a beautiful film by the way

the evidence supports the historical Jesus.,

about 50 if I remember well, and the best resemblage married and had children and died of relative old age, what not?

It is only when the claims of his resurrection are considered that personal subjective experience and faith enter the picture, as resurrection is outside the normal scope of human experience. ,

as it happens the entry with thomas who insists in poking the holes with his fingers, is extremely smart.That is what normal human behaviour is, and it's not the way, yes? Normal human behaviour is to challenge, to strive for better when oppressed or exploited or simply cheated, but that's not the way, oh yes!

In my own self-analysis, I have the responsibility to guard against confirmation bias. That's difficult, and the degree to which I have overcome it is always subject to criticism,

the judgement with which we are all judged against- the boy who sees the naked king- would say: failure to guard, philosophical suicide as Albert Camus would define it, cherry-picking support for blind faith is the human perspective

That is an additional reason why religious beliefs lay in the realm of faith, and not knowledge. But that's all religion should be claiming anyway.

which is unfortunately our problem
if you were an orthodox priest here is when I would attack (and be banned)

faith, religious faith exists independent of its subject. I have faith in the faith-producing human characteristic. My religion is human religion  and love, temperance, transendence, justice and empathy are human values hardwired in our behaviour. I can give meaning to good people  and bad people, I hold responsibility and rights for every living act under our sun, moon or darkness. You are blaspheming against the best and achievable  human if you negate the origin of religious ideal towards a personal fiction god. You are- have the capacity to become- god, not your "god". worthless AND all-important at the same time.
Eternal for the moments streaming in and out of consiousness, Immortal in the impersonal observer eyes of the soul monkey we share it with your jesus and any serial killer alike, as long as there is a breathing society.

I guess I am angry with priests because you give out bony fish to the needy who come, instead of teaching them to fish.
 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I guess I am angry with priests because you give out bony fish to the needy who come, instead of teaching them to fish.

I seem to have fallen into some category that your personal experience has caused you to construct. I sense that it will be impossible to communicate with you without you viewing me in the box in which you have placed me (which box seems to double as a target for dart-throwing). Nevertheless, I've enjoyed the conversation and I think that I have gained something from hearing your perspective.