Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 17  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Science of "Souls"
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:15PM #11
2bme
Posts: 1,145

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:12PM, Wendyness wrote:


"Soul" is not a thing, but a quality or a dimension of experiencing life and ourselves.  It has to do with depth, value, relatedness, heart, and personal substance........Care of the soul begins with observance of how the soul manifests itself and how it operates.  We can't care for the soul unless we are familiar with its ways.  Observance is a word from ritual and religion.  It means to watch out for but also to keep and honor, as in the observance of a holiday.  The-serv-in  observance originally referred to tending sheep.  Observing the soul, we keep an eye on its sheep, on whatever is wandering and grazing---"


CARE of the SOUL by Thomas Moore




I believe that a fully developed soul is the evolutionary potential for Man.  For those that still have it, I believe that we have the seed of a soul that could become a soul but it requires being nourished just like any seed needs to be nourished.  How then to nourish the seed of a soul to atain the image of God?


Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God.” Meister Eckhart

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:26PM #12
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:06PM, Blü wrote:


Seems to me that definitions of 'soul' fall into three categories -


1. An immaterial part of each human that continues to exist after that person's body dies and is usually said to contain the person's memories and personality.


2. An emotional capacity or attunement in humans, rather vaguely defined, but in general compassionate, and sensitive to awe and to the arts.


3. A metaphor from either or both of these.


The one that matters in conversations of this kind is the first one.  And as is often observed, the dualism involved has all kinds of problems.



I agree that "Dualism" is NOT helpful ... In General, such either-or Dichotomies quickly are seen to be False ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:52PM #13
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,516

Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... I CAN'T provide a "working scientific definition of 'soul' ... "


Rather, I START my Understanding with The Hebrew Term, "nephesh," which is translated as "living creature" or "everything that has the Spirit-Breath of Life" ... ( Heb., "ruach," meaning "Spirit" or "Breath" ... )




So... soul means life? Well, okay, its pretty banal, but in so far as biology is the study of life, then by that definition, it would certainly also be the study of soul.


However, to whatever degree the term "soul" means something more or other than simply "life," we would, in fact, need a working definition in order to make it a part of science. Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but there it is.


I mean, at the end of the day, if you want to view biology as the "study of Soul" or science entire as the "study of God's Creation," its no skin off my back... so long as it doesn't seep into the science itself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:59PM #14
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:52PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... I CAN'T provide a "working scientific definition of 'soul' ... "


Rather, I START my Understanding with The Hebrew Term, "nephesh," which is translated as "living creature" or "everything that has the Spirit-Breath of Life" ... ( Heb., "ruach," meaning "Spirit" or "Breath" ... )




So... soul means life? Well, okay, its pretty banal, but in so far as biology is the study of life, then by that definition, it would certainly also be the study of soul.


However, to whatever degree the term "soul" means something more or other than simply "life," we would, in fact, need a working definition in order to make it a part of science. Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but there it is.


I mean, at the end of the day, if you want to view biology as the "study of Soul" or science entire as the "study of God's Creation," its no skin off my back... so long as it doesn't seep into the science itself.



Yes, I know that you want a Clean-Neat Separation ... Go For It ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 7:02PM #15
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:06PM, Blü wrote:


Seems to me that definitions of 'soul' fall into three categories -


1. An immaterial part of each human that continues to exist after that person's body dies and is usually said to contain the person's memories and personality.


2. An emotional capacity or attunement in humans, rather vaguely defined, but in general compassionate, and sensitive to awe and to the arts.


3. A metaphor from either or both of these.


The one that matters in conversations of this kind is the first one.  And as is often observed, the dualism involved has all kinds of problems.





I see a fourth category: God as enshrined within a living being. In other words, atman or the Holy Spirit. Containing 1 and 2 above, but larger than both.


And not easily discoverable by science.


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 7:08PM #16
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,516

Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:59PM, teilhard wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:52PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... I CAN'T provide a "working scientific definition of 'soul' ... "


Rather, I START my Understanding with The Hebrew Term, "nephesh," which is translated as "living creature" or "everything that has the Spirit-Breath of Life" ... ( Heb., "ruach," meaning "Spirit" or "Breath" ... )




So... soul means life? Well, okay, its pretty banal, but in so far as biology is the study of life, then by that definition, it would certainly also be the study of soul.


However, to whatever degree the term "soul" means something more or other than simply "life," we would, in fact, need a working definition in order to make it a part of science. Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but there it is.


I mean, at the end of the day, if you want to view biology as the "study of Soul" or science entire as the "study of God's Creation," its no skin off my back... so long as it doesn't seep into the science itself.



Yes, I know that you want a Clean-Neat Separation ... Go For It ...




And you want an unmerited conflation.


Science obeys a very strict set of rules. Yes, I insist that science should follow those rules utterly. You're welcome to study life (the universe and/or anything) in a way that takes into consideration notions of "God" and "Soul," etc ... mix and mingle nature and religion all you'd like. Just don't call it science. It isn't the "Science of Soul." It is the Science of Biological Life, which you are merely surrounding with the philosophical window-dressing of "Soul."


I seemed to recall you voicing support for Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Am I remembering incorrectly?

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 7:10PM #17
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,516

Feb 17, 2010 -- 7:02PM, MMarcoe wrote:


I see a fourth category: God as enshrined within a living being. In other words, atman or the Holy Spirit. Containing 1 and 2 above, but larger than both.


And not easily discoverable by science.




Exactly.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 7:33PM #18
Blü
Posts: 26,191

MMarcoe


I see a fourth category: God as enshrined within a living being. In other words, atman or the Holy Spirit. Containing 1 and 2 above, but larger than both.


Hmm.  I'm not used to the idea that one's soul is actually another being rather than part of oneself, but - why not?


So on this hypothesis, when you're dead, you're dead, and your soul, which wasn't you, severs its connection with you and merges back into the supernatural being it's part of?

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 7:45PM #19
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Feb 17, 2010 -- 7:08PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:59PM, teilhard wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:52PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 6:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... I CAN'T provide a "working scientific definition of 'soul' ... "


Rather, I START my Understanding with The Hebrew Term, "nephesh," which is translated as "living creature" or "everything that has the Spirit-Breath of Life" ... ( Heb., "ruach," meaning "Spirit" or "Breath" ... )




So... soul means life? Well, okay, its pretty banal, but in so far as biology is the study of life, then by that definition, it would certainly also be the study of soul.


However, to whatever degree the term "soul" means something more or other than simply "life," we would, in fact, need a working definition in order to make it a part of science. Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but there it is.


I mean, at the end of the day, if you want to view biology as the "study of Soul" or science entire as the "study of God's Creation," its no skin off my back... so long as it doesn't seep into the science itself.



Yes, I know that you want a Clean-Neat Separation ... Go For It ...




And you want an unmerited conflation.


Science obeys a very strict set of rules. Yes, I insist that science should follow those rules utterly. You're welcome to study life (the universe and/or anything) in a way that takes into consideration notions of "God" and "Soul," etc ... mix and mingle nature and religion all you'd like. Just don't call it science. It isn't the "Science of Soul." It is the Science of Biological Life, which you are merely surrounding with the philosophical window-dressing of "Soul."


I seemed to recall you voicing support for Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Am I remembering incorrectly?



Nope ... I hold that "Science" and "Faith" DO verlap -- PROFOUNDLY -- in actual Human Daily Lives ... not least, because a Human Being IS a "Living Soul" ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 8:54PM #20
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

Feb 17, 2010 -- 7:33PM, Blü wrote:


MMarcoe


I see a fourth category: God as enshrined within a living being. In other words, atman or the Holy Spirit. Containing 1 and 2 above, but larger than both.


Hmm.  I'm not used to the idea that one's soul is actually another being rather than part of oneself, but - why not?


So on this hypothesis, when you're dead, you're dead, and your soul, which wasn't you, severs its connection with you and merges back into the supernatural being it's part of?





Yes. This is my understanding of the Hindu concept of atman and Brahman. Your soul isn't "you" because "you" are a collection of ever-changing phenomenal elements. Your soul is the true you, which "you" (ego) can understand through mystical experience -- or through decades of everyday learning, possibly. A full understanding of this releases "you" from cravings, lusts, greeds, and all other manner of defilements, because the "you" no longer has any need to crave anything on the phenomenal plane. It can draw all that it needs from the real you (atman) and live contentedly and productively.


This is why Buddha said that there was no soul. The prevailing understanding of soul in India back in his day was that it was some part of "you" rather than the totality of atman/Brahman.


My understanding of the Holy Spirit is that it is really the same thing as this atman.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 17  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook