Post Reply
Page 16 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16
Switch to Forum Live View The Science of "Souls"
5 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2010 - 5:57PM #151
Blü
Posts: 25,269

Wendy


So you're proposing we define the soul in a non-supernatural (ie non-dualistic) way?


As something like, the sense of self, memories and personality of an individual ?


We already have a science of that / those.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2010 - 6:00PM #152
teilhard
Posts: 52,222

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:28PM, teilhard wrote:


One of the Reasons I have SO long deeply LOVED The Life Sciences ( Biology and Its Kin ) is ( in part ) that Life Sciences are ALL  ABOUT The Scientific Study of "Souls" ... !!!


In The Primordial History Universal Deep Mythological Creation Stories, EVERYTHING that has "The Spirit-Breath of Life" ( Genesis 1:30; 2:7 ) IS a "Living Soul" ( Heb., "nephesh" ) ...


In The History of Living Things on The Earth, we see ( EXPERIENCE !!! ) The History of "Souls" ...


In Ecological Sciences, we come to Understand The Ongoing DEEP Relationships of "Souls" ...


Discuss ...



^bump^

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 7:50PM #153
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

I believe Teilhard described it correctly, the soul is an existential reality. Science deals with objects that the senses can perceive but the soul from the vedic perspective says it is a nonmaterial infinitesimal particle of concentrated consciousness. It is a pure reality consisting of being, being has no duality of inner or outer perception. Our perception of inner and outer self is due to the soul accepting the body as a self. This is a perception arising from us being conditioned by our embodiment.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Nov 18, 2014 - 3:29AM #154
Roymond
Posts: 536

Feb 19, 2010 -- 11:59AM, Christianlib wrote:


As usual, I see much more in the way of semantics and misunderstood communications that I see substantive points in the previous discussion.


Small example, you two are using "doubt" in completely different ways, then each arguing over the fact that the other isn't using the term exactly as you use it.


The English language is SO ambiguous at times.  That is why Mathematics is the language of science.  Precision.




I can't pass this up....


My older brother, once a mathematician and now some esoteric combination of mathematician, computer programmer, computer engineer, and systems analyst, once commented that in Heaven there will be only two areas of knowledge left:  mathematics, which describes everything created, and theology, which describes everything uncreated... except that in Heaven we will be with God, so theology won't be necessary, leaving mathematics to reign supreme.


Sealed

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Nov 18, 2014 - 3:38AM #155
Roymond
Posts: 536

Feb 21, 2010 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:


So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it.




Dualism is a logical problem only to those whose geometry of reality is constrained by too few dimensions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Nov 18, 2014 - 3:58AM #156
Roymond
Posts: 536

Feb 26, 2010 -- 8:02PM, Wendyness wrote:


I am not familiar with a God that insists that my soul does not belong to me.  My soul is mine and mine alone, it is up to me to nourish and observe what grazes in my soul.  My soul is my responsibility, not the responsibility of God.




Unless we are a simulation in the mind of God.



But then He gets the chocolate and the rum, and we only get a simulation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Nov 18, 2014 - 4:08AM #157
Roymond
Posts: 536

After reading the entire thread, and reading every instance where tielhard repost his opener, I've decided that I'm not convinced that the opener even means anything.  It's more a tautology than anything, which means that there can't be any science of it in any sense of the word.  Unless the term can be given some actual meaning, we're just going to keep spinning wheels as we have been.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Nov 20, 2014 - 11:00PM #158
JCarlin
Posts: 7,058

Nov 18, 2014 -- 3:38AM, Roymond wrote:


Feb 21, 2010 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:


So returning briefly to the topic of this thread, there are two relevant concepts of souls - the immaterial part of a human, said to live on after the body dies, and containing the person's memories and personality, and the immaterial part of another being indwelling in the person during the person's life and departing at the end.


Both of these run into the logical problems of dualism.


Since no one seems to be inclined to further discussion, that seems to be it.




Dualism is a logical problem only to those whose geometry of reality is constrained by too few dimensions.



Thanks for picking this thread up.  I think adding

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Wendyness wrote:

The soul is everything we are, the sum total package of each unique life. 


to the Blü dualities, we can essentially pick one or two and run with them.  The Wendyness definition is most relevant to modern usage, although it would confuse believers.  Believers may accept the common definition but add one of the dualities as per their dogma. 


Other than her Jungian graft of light/dark duality I have no objection to her quoted definition of soul.  It is in fact what is left after we die, but only in the memories of those whose lives we affected while living. 

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 16 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook