Maybe you have not read that article recently or posted the wrong one? But it actually agrees with my statement.Your husband’s article is a very interesting read, but seems to end, just as it is about to answer my earlier question about scientific proof for a soul.Laura said:
The first part of the article centres on the idea of science not dealing with moral issues. But it doesn’t claim to be, so highlighting it as a fault is not really fair, or relevant.
I did nearly stop reading at this line, because it is so wrong:
Religion teaches us to be open minded and accepting of possibilities which are far from being "rational".
As there is nothing open minded about religion. Anything that stifles questions is oppressive and close minded.
But then the article goes on to say:
Religions are always "secret" in one respect or another - even if that secrecy is only the declaration that no changes can be made, no questions asked, because the ultimate truth about God is a "mystery," a "secret."
Which totally contradicts the earlier sentence, but does redeem the article.
Any belief system that does not welcome questions has something to hide and so must be flawed.
Speaking as a ‘skeptic’ (but aren’t we all skeptical of something?): death is not an attractive thought. Indeed, psychopaths have an enhanced sense of survival and this concept of a part of us surviving death is just that.Laura said:Probably not. And they probably won't. Those who can't conceive of it probably don't have it as I have already mentioned.As soon as any discussion on the soul starts focusing on life after death it is appealing to the emotional and becomes disreputable. Surely all the 'pseudoskeptics' in the world would be happy to find out they will survive death?
So I stand by the my original statement that surviving death is an attractive prospect to everybody and any belief structure based on this needs to be examined closely and objectively.
Be that as it may, it doesn’t address how a soul could develop based on a physical environment.Laura said:Evolution had to start somewhere. The very fact that a single atom exists depends upon something non-physical existing first.
And if animals don’t have souls, that suggests there is no such thing a ‘lesser soul’ to develop into a human soul.
I know I replied to some of this in an earlier post, but would be very interested in your reasoning behind Dawkins being soulless?Laura said:If you read Dawkins carefully (and he probably doesn't have a soul either, but that doesn't mean he is a psychopath. You don't have to be a psychopath to not have a soul. Non-souled individuals CAN have primitive feelings, also, just as animals have; only they have them in conjunction with a human brain. Not a very good combination from the point of view of the souled people that interact with them, but perfectly fine when they stay with their own kind.) you will discover that he conveniently just "skips" over this point and says quite plainly that he "leaves it to physicists" to figure that one out.
This is a man that has dedicated the remainder of his life to actively freeing people from the shackles of organised religion and is a supporter of various charities. Is ‘souled’ people are more empathic than those without, Dawkins would seem to have a ‘bigger soul’ than most.
If that is the case (you don’t seem too sure) how does it interact with the environment, either to develop or feed into the material brain?Laura said:It is even quite possible that the "soul" is just that: Information that is "arranged" in a special way (think "sphere packing.")
I didn’t have time for these this week, but will have a look at them over the coming week.Laura said:Here's some more reading for you:
So you did not believe in a soul initially?Laura said:Note that I am just giving you a sampling of what is out there and available to someone who is just starting to look into the subject. Been there, done that, have been convinced.
I find this interesting as previously you’ve said that those with a soul know it and those without can’t conceive of it. So is it possible for someone with a soul to be unaware and vice versa?
I am not in any way arguing for or against a soul. I’m just asking questions.Laura said:The fact is, this forum has been created for others who are also convinced. It was not intended to be a place where the merits of the argument for or against the soul could/would be argued. My suggestion to you is do the work, get your hands dirty in the research. If you are still not convinced, then that is fine. There are plenty of forums where you can hang out with your own kind.
Maybe a forum section for people interested, but not convinced, would have value? Somewhere where questions are welcomed? Especially as most of the info external to this site seems to only agree in part with the theory being proposed.