Obviously proof is going to be impossible to come by, but we should expect consistency which I don't think Catholic theology meets on this particular issue.

hmmm. SWYDT??
au contraire, my friend.

it seems to me that this avenue of exploring was one of many that are quite close to what one would call "best".

This is such a great post.

I still can't believe I turned up this Hitler Youth song.

Good grief. I acknowledged that I hadn't given an argument for the position. I was only trying to point out that, from the theological and philosophical perspective of a major religion that does believe in the immortality of the human soul, many of the assumptions underlying the discussion in this thread are problematic, especially the view that consciousness is peculiar to human beings.

You've now resorted to talking to yourself?

Me typing "I" doesnt mean that theres an I that exists, any more than typing about santa claus means that he exists. If you want me to use language that avoids using "I" then it could get tedious and confusing for everyone.

this response was expected..
do not discount what you perceive to be unknowable..

everything can exist as a concept.
if believing what you believe is working for you, then keep it up.
if it doesn't work, then keep it up anyway, and see where that takes you.
it is all just for You to experience, cherish, and Accept.

love to you, neeeel.

Perhaps on strictly Aristotelian lines, but I don’t think that’s where the implication lies along Thomistic lines. My read on Aquinas is that it would be wrong and contradictory to think that any individual being has more than one substantial isness. From which, the isness of each person is the ground of his intellective soul, which actualizes his essence as specifically rational (human), and which is immaterial, indestructible and immortal.

What I left out in my remark was the notion of the per se subsistence of the human soul. I just took a sort of shortcut around it by saying that it is the capacity for intellectual cognition that ultimately implies, in the order of discovery, that the human soul must be capable of surviving separation from the body when the human being dies. The human soul's per se subsistence (which just means that it has, of itself, a substantial mode of existence) is known from the fact that it is capable of intellectual acts, which cannot have a bodily organ as their subject; and from its per se subsistence, its immortality is known.

Now, if what you mean is that there is one esse or act of existence in a human being, this is true. But St. Thomas is quite clear that the human soul is itself subsistent and that it communicates its esse to the body. Depending on what you mean by the "isness" of a person (I presume you mean esse), and what you mean by saying that this is the "ground" of the intellective soul, then we may not be in any disagreement.

What?

Hardly. You make it sound like there are vast resources being applied to determine whether or not there is a soul when that is not the case. 'Science', at least that part of science that you think might prove or disprove the existence of a soul is generally involved in other pursuits. Frankly, I think that science makes it harder to be an Atheist than it was in the old days. Once upon a time a doubter could look at the world and think that the world always was and would always be and that no God was necessary. Now we know that that is not only not the case, it is incredibly not the case, the world is strange beyond strange. I don't think that anything can be ruled out given the weirdness that's been discovered.

At any rate, here is a 'Through the Wormhole' episode that readers may enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDu5X...6F37C2DB60F426

The soul is an easily testable claim...if it were material. But the believers in the soul say it's immaterial...just like the invisible ethereal dragon in my garage. Pretty convenient imo.

You say this like it's some 'pro' for the soul. You know what also hasn't been disproved? Leprechauns, pixies, auras, psychics, vampires, werewolves, Zeus, alien abductions, and bigfoot.

Resources haven't been allocated for two reasons (1) as mentioned earlier it's a immaterial claim, so it's both impossible to prove and disprove. As long as the soul doesn't manifest itself in the physical world it's an improvable claim either way and (2) it's a downright silly claim because there's no reason to think one exists. If the soul hypothesis were a TV persona, it would be this guy:



I think the universe is strange enough without inserting an omnipotent and omniscient God into the mix...but that's just me.

Actually this entire post is fundamentally incorrect. The soul is testable and you will inevitably perform the defining experiment, sooner or later. You will not be able to report the results, but that still makes this quite different from the dragon you appear to think is in your garage.

I'm going to ask you to elaborate because I have no idea what you're talking about (unless you're referring to after death). If you are referring to after death, I don't think it works on two counts, (1) you could get a null result. There's nothing to say the soul has to do anything (or even exist) after you die so there might not be a result to report and (2) I could say my garage dragon will visit you after death in the invisible/ethereal land of pixies. Also, on a practical level, it seems like a non-answer to say the only 'test' you can do is to die. If this is the case we're also 'testing' the Zeus hypothesis.

You could get a null result, but I do not see how that invalidates my comment or is in any way a counterargument.

The soul is the concept that captures immortality. For your dragon to visit you, you would have to have a soul or there would be no "you" to visit. Thus your dragon is merely a component of the nature of existence post death. The soul embodies the actual existence of a "post death" existence.

This is incorrect. It is a test. It is feasible and in no way simply hypothetical or impossible. It is not impractical but it is probably undesirable. But it is also inevitable. Thus it is not a non-answer. It very clearly distinguishes the soul and other such spiritual concepts (including God) from concepts that can never be tested at all.

We are testing the God hypothesis. In the process we will also gain insight into the nature of God. At that point we will be able to tell which if any of the depictions of God were accurate. If that is what you are saying, then I agree.

I just mean that it's possible to end up with a result that would exactly mirror each other whether or not there is a soul. For instance, if the Jehovah's Witness' concept of the soul and afterlife are correct (non-existence with no consciousness), then the 'death experiment' can have no determining result, resulting in an awfully poor test.

Now, as you stated, you are performing a 'good' test with respect to the versions of the soul that would allow you differentiate the results.

Not necessarily (the soul could be destroyed at death per the Jehovah's Witness version).

Not necessarily. It's possible, for instance, that death isn't real and "death" would only take us to another level of the matrix. (I apologize for the absurdity of the hypothetical, but the matrix hypothesis isn't any more or less far fetched than the soul hypothesis.)

Firstly, it can (but doesn't necessarily have to) be a non-answer as demonstrated with the Jehovah's Witness' version of the soul. Secondly, regarding the soul's inherent distinguishment, I could equally posit the matrix hypothetical is also distinguished (which seems silly).

Yeah, isness = esse and esse is the ground of the soul. So maybe, as the soul is the principle of the body, esse itself or God is the principle of the soul.

Well, there are religious practices like contemplation and meditation whereby one can know, in an experiential sense, detachment from the body. Ironically, though, when in that state, the experience isn’t one of detachment [from the body] but rather the experience of oneness, unity or non-otherness. It’s only when one comes out of that state that it’s described as a sense of detachment. So if the soul survives the death of the body, post death I’m not sure one could even test the hypothesis, because I don’t think the post-death experience contains the experience of “what one was,” but is wholly the experience “that One is.”

A very interesting point. It's certainly possible the soul version of *I* is so different from what I currently consider myself to be that *I* wouldn't be performing a test at all.

I have no knowledge of JW theology so I will assume this is an accurate representation. Under this assumption using my definitions, there is no afterlife or soul in JW theology. If the state is indistinguishable from non-existence, then it is effectively non-existence. Put another way, JW is much closer to atheism than to theism.

Sure, the test is a test for the soul as I have defined it. "Soul" is just a word. If you change the definition of the word enough than the test is no longer a test of the "soul".


Sure, but not what I meant by soul.


I would consider this to be a variation on "soul" and afterlife. In this case apparently no religion did a very good job of capturing the truth. A movie franchise of rapidly decaying quality would have come the closest. Who'd have thought?



I think I have addressed all of these points above.

Just FYI (you may already know) 144,000 of the anointed will go to heaven.

That's fair, but I don't think most would consider the matrix hypothetical as a variant of the soul hypothesis. The main objection being that the matrix hypothetical is (probably) a completely materialistic process while the soul hypothesis is (probably) anything but.

When I said no knowledge I pretty much meant exactly that. I am getting mixed messages in this thread though. I thought you said the soul was destroyed and there was no afterlife. Did you mean other than the annointed 144K?


Presumably if it was completely materialistic you would still have to deal with mortality at some point. That would just kick the can down the road a little without resolving the issue.

But I largely discount the matrix scenario. If they were on the right track the last two movies would have been better.

Briefly, the gist of Aquinas’ thesis is that you should de-consider “the soul version of I” as a what and identify it with being-in-act or to be. In other words, you are not what you are, rather, you are that you are. Or, out of the second person and into the first: I am not what I am; “I am that I am.”

Yes. Well, to be fair Jehovah's Witnesses will be 'reborn' into a new body on a new earth. So by their theology if you're not a JW or apart of the 144k your soul will be destroyed.

Maybe, maybe not. We only have knowledge of the programmed physics/universe after all. They may hold no relation to the "real" universe.

lol...I remember intense booing in the theater at the conclusion of Matrix: Reloaded.

Actually, I don't even buy that THIS necessarily exists. Even the definition of "alive" is fluid and fuzzy-- e.g., viruses.

Many people think that the mind they have is also highly personal, having contents that can be there only if they have lived before. Personally, I don't see any other reason to believe into soul, while I do think we inherit stuff from our parents as genes and maybe some more, but there is no soul as we are nothing that much and we can even grow all kinds of bodies that are even freaks and we can put people in states of comas etc. and make them raise from death even, and they all will continue as before and have more or less of their memory there too, it being in the brain.

So, no soul is my view, but I do see a point in seeing that our minds are so highly personal that there is room for doubt if it's all from genes. I think a part is from parents and later of course from other people and we are enough similar in different cultures and so I think I see that that's the only extra part with the genes. The mind stuffs only, from parents and then from others.

I might add that there is no point in one person living again and again and again, there being no purpose in it when it can all be done as evolution of genes and history, knowledge, and if it goes all with the planet, it then will, that not being my problem. I just simply live as my system wants so and if it then continues after death in some form, it will but I don't mind at all if it doesn't as it's none of my business and nothing I can do about it.

The rest of the people who believe into soul without any logical reason are simply believers who feel better feeling so, e.g. are too much afraid of death, that in many people's opinion is nothing to fear as we then will continue or we will stop existing and the fear so is not rational but irrational, that might have some reality in being afraid of getting harmed, that being the fear of death together with losing things that's also a natural reason for a fear, but they are not getting the point that it won't matter anymore when we do not exist anymore.