The idea of an eternal soul says we came into the universe. It suggests we are not a part of nature, but spiritual visitors in a material world. Thus, the only world we know is depreciated. Matter is dumb and “there must be something more.” And the environment suffers abuse. — Art48

Good analysis. This error began with Plato and institutionalized by Christianity.

If we are a product of the universe, and the universe is not dumb, where does the error of believing in an eternal soul come from?

If we are a product of the universe, and the universe is not dumb, where does the error of believing in an eternal soul come from? — Angelo Cannata

From wishful thinking perhaps?

If we are a product of the universe, and the universe is not dumb, where does the error of believing in an eternal soul come from? — Angelo Cannata

Plato and Christianity.

Aren't wishful thinking, Plato and Christianity products of the non-dumb universe as well?

The idea of an eternal soul says we came into the universe. — Art48

What/who's idea is this? You must present some identification for this idea. Except of course if it is yours, which I will have to assume. Which agrees with my never having heard about such (unfounded) things as the ones you are presenting in your description regarding the human soul.

It suggests we are not a part of nature, but spiritual visitors in a material world. — Art48

Why have you changed "universe" to "nature"? What's the difference between them in the current context? That is, if we are not a part of nature, are we also not part of the universe? I believe that you refer to both as physical, material. In which case, the soul (non-physical, non-material) is separate from them. Is that right?

Thus, the only world we know is depreciated. — Art48

What does that mean? Has it diminished in value over time?

Matter is dumb and “there must be something more.” — Art48

Do you mean matter is stupid? How can that be? It makes absolutely no sense. Matter can be neither intelligent nor stupid.

And the environment suffers abuse. — Art48

What this does have to do with anything? And, even if it is assume that soul exists, couldn't it suffer abuse too?

***

I took up your statements one by one. They are all unfounded: either they are unclear or they make no sense. Considering also the fact that you call the idea of soul "pernicious", I can easily assume that you just despise or even hate the idea of the existence of "soul" and that you are not willing to find the truth about the existence or not of a soul. If you were, your title would e.g."Does sould exist?" or something similare. Then you would start about as follows: "Let's see whether the human soul exists or not." And you will then present sensible arguments in favor or against the existence or non-existence of a soul. Or present a list logical statements (a logical scheme), like "Let's assume that ...", "If 'A' is true then ... " etc. For me, examples also are vital. They make points clearer.
Well, anything will do except your presentation of the subject! :smile:

So, I would suggest that you re-examine and present anew the subject ...

It does not begin with Plato or Christianity. Read your old books. If nothing else it is a very useful fiction.

It does not begin with Plato or Christianity. Read your old books. — Moses

Gosh.

The idea of "soul" was first recorded in the Upanishads (atman) in about 1,500 BCE but also was central to shamanic oral traditions throughout Eurasia, Africa & the Americas as well, maybe for tens of millennia before.

Having grown up in Christian culture(Roman Catholicism) I became aware of a split in the ideas about life after death. On one hand, there is the idea of the immortal soul, which seems to go back to Plato and Eastern traditions. On the other hand, there is the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world.

I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting. I know that some people have thought that the soul may continue until the end of the world. It would seem like many disembodied souls waiting to get their bodies back in glorified form, although some have suggested that the resurrection bodies would be spiritualised, rather than simply flesh and blood.It all seems a tangle of the mind-body problem.

You should be thanking me. I made you smarter today. I’ll stop doing it.

You should be thanking me. I made you smarter today. I’ll stop doing it. — Moses

I have no idea what you are talking about.

.

Jack Cummings: I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting.

Yes. Saint Augustine (presumedly) has been in heaven for about 1,500 years, in the company of God, enjoying the beatific vision. But if the world ends tomorrow, Augustine gets his body back. Is that suppose to make him happy? “Well, gosh, I thought I was happy before but now that I’ve got this old thing back, I know what happiness really is.” It’s absurd.

I believe Jews believed in the resurrection of the body, Greek believed in souls, and the Church merely threw both ideas in the pot with little regard for logical consistency.

The universe has become me (and everything else). — Art48

So, how did that happen? There's nothing in evolutionary biology which accounts for the existence of DNA, as the theory pre-supposes the existence there being something able to sustain heritable changes in order for evolution to occur. There's nothing in the physical sciences which accounts for the nature of mind, other than the assumption that it is something that must have evolved, given that the mythological accounts of religion can't be scientifically valid.

If we understood ourselves correctly—as temporary manifestations of something vast and ancient beyond comprehension—that would be enough. — Art48

I think this impulse or sentiment you're expressing is actually the residuum of the religious accounts. However notice that science generally, and evolutionary science in particular, rejects any ideas of teleology or the notion that evolution evolves 'towards' anything, other than successful reproduction and adaption. As far as science is concerned, while you may feel subjective admiration towards life, it is something very like a chain reaction, chemical scum, in Stephen Hawking's estimation.

It’s absurd. — Art48

Your interpretation is what is absurd. Why do you think, were beings to dwell in some extra-terrestrial psychic dimension such as 'heaven', that time in the human sense would have the same meaning? What if, in those domains, one second is the equivalent of aeons of time on earth? What if, in their understanding, what we regard as existence is merely a phantasmogorical illusion? We have no way of judging that.

The fundamental idea of immortality is to find 'the deathless', something beyond all change and decay. It's not like necessarily being reborn in a fancy condo with your tennis racket and dog, there to live forever, as the popular myth has it. The way it is depicted in religious lore, as it's plainly something outside ordinary comprehension it is presented in images of angels and harps sorrounded by clouds, a concession to the popular imagination. I recall reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in traditional lore, angels were actually sometimes awe inspiring and terrible forces. Nowadays they're cute little cartoon images on birthday cards.

Your post shows little comprehension of the subject at hand. I'm not going to try and persuade you one way or the other but if you're going to post about such a subject, at least try and understand it a little better.

:up:

You have provided no argument. All you've done is assert that we are not souls but matter and then expressed your disapproval of the eternal soul thesis.

What's your case?

I quite like physicalism. The mind is either matter or energy and we all know that neither matter nor energy can be created/destroyed! If the mind is a pattern in matter-energy, we can always recreate it (re resurrection/reanimation; designer bodies! :scream:)

Bartricks: You have provided no argument. . . . What’s your case?

The original post is more of a person observation about the desirability and undesirability of two views: 1) we came out of the universe and are natural beings versus 2) we came into the universe from heaven or some other supernatural place and are supernatural beings, i.e., eternal souls.

As to evidence for view 1), sciences which address our origin support the idea we came out of the universe. For instance, the most abundant elements in the universe in order are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. Helium is a “noble gas” that doesn’t combine easily with other elements. The most common elements in the human body in order are: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen.

As to evidence for view 2), there is none. The existence of the supernatural has never been demonstrated. True, many people find the idea of an eternal soul comforting, and many religions teach it. But in my view, none of that constitutes evidence.

Ad infinitum = Ad nauseum :vomit:

Eternal $\to$ Cannot die (a disability rather than an ability).

Are there eternal souls? As we don't know and have no way of finding out, we might learn to live with uncertainty, unless anything less than certainty is unthinkable. Alternatively we could pick our favoured answer and then deride the opposite one and its proponents. I think both strategies are in operation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.