• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution and the Soul

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
See "opinion" :D
I suppose I should have caveat-ed with something like "the traditional take on soul describes something for which there is no empirical evidence," because this is pretty much undeniable. Traditionally, the "soul" (in religious-speak) is a part of you that is still recognizably "you" in some form. Otherwise, there would be absolutely no need to talk about anything "carrying over", or "you" being punished in some way that you would recognize as having been from past transgressions... there would be no talk about a soul "perceiving" anything or having any sort of discernable "memory" of a life led. "Soul" is only recently being re-appropriated as a stand-in for "life force" or some idea of pervading consciousness, or consciousness as an ubiquitous property of the material of the universe which is where (correct me if I'm wrong) your "see opinion" response likely comes from.

Or is it that you think it is only my "opinion" that this religiously-derived definition of "soul" has no empirical evidence to speak of? Can you point me in the direction of evidence that has been gathered that posits a "soul" that reflects the living attributes of its origin in life? As in... a "soul" that is still recognizable as coming from a specific human, because it still shares concordant aspects with that once-living individual. If you have resources that claim evidence for such, I'd be extremely interested in perusing it.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I suppose I should have caveat-ed with something like "the traditional take on soul describes something for which there is no empirical evidence," because this is pretty much undeniable. Traditionally, the "soul" (in religious-speak) is a part of you that is still recognizably "you" in some form. Otherwise, there would be absolutely no need to talk about anything "carrying over", or "you" being punished in some way that you would recognize as having been from past transgressions... there would be no talk about a soul "perceiving" anything or having any sort of discernable "memory" of a life led. "Soul" is only recently being re-appropriated as a stand-in for "life force" or some idea of pervading consciousness, or consciousness as an ubiquitous property of the material of the universe which is where (correct me if I'm wrong) your "see opinion" response likely comes from.

Or is it that you think it is only my "opinion" that this religiously-derived definition of "soul" has no empirical evidence to speak of? Can you point me in the direction of evidence that has been gathered that posits a "soul" that reflects the living attributes of its origin in life? As in... a "soul" that is still recognizable as coming from a specific human, because it still shares concordant aspects with that once-living individual. If you have resources that claim evidence for such, I'd be extremely interested in perusing it.

Ok next time I will say "megadittos" :D
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I was scrolling through one of my old featured threads Inherited sin: yes or no which lead me to this question....do those who believe in evolution also believe they have a soul and if so, at what point in the evolutionary process do you think we developed a soul?

The soul might be programmed simulated consciousness, evolution that happens in our possible simulated universe does not necessarily actually happen in base reality, or in other words, the simulators (God) may not share a common biological ancestor with other forms of life.

I've hypothesized programmed human consciousness in our simulated universe begins at the point where the first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

References:
  1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
  2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
  3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

_70292064_e4380163-homo_georgicus_family-spl.jpg





chromosome_fusion2.png
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In your view ( or as a Hindu ) what about a story, or communication? Does it have a soul? If so, Is it active or inactive? Can it evolve?
A story is an abstract structure. Abstract structures do not have souls. For example a mathematical operator like multiplication, being an abstract structure, will not have a soul.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
A story is an abstract structure. Abstract structures do not have souls. For example a mathematical operator like multiplication, being an abstract structure, will not have a soul.

Thank you.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
A story is an abstract structure. Abstract structures do not have souls. For example a mathematical operator like multiplication, being an abstract structure, will not have a soul.

Are you suggesting that the criteria for what has a soul and what does not is whether the thing in question is abstract or not? Abstract = no soul, non-abstract = soul? What about non-abstract things? Do they have souls?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you suggesting that the criteria for what has a soul and what does not is whether the thing in question is abstract or not? Abstract = no soul, non-abstract = soul? What about non-abstract things? Do they have souls?
Anything that has causal power would have a soul in manifest or unmanifest form.
That is my interpretation of Hindu philosophy .
 

Tranquil Servant

Was M.I.A for a while
Please define "soul".
Well one of the definition results for the word Soul is....
Soul- the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.

But if you ask me, the Soul is what gives us life (aside from the heart or brain which keep us alive) ..... it's the breath of life:triumph:
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Anything that has causal power would have a soul in manifest or unmanifest form.
That is my interpretation of Hindu philosophy .

Not arguing, just trying to understand :)

Communication and stories do not have causal power? Help me with "causal"?
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Postulate: A Soul is eternal, and may not be destroyed.
Postulate: A Soul is not limited to physical boundaries, including space and time.

Conclusion: There is only the One (1) Soul-- it is shared by all living beings, both in the past, the present and also into the future. The Soul inhabits each individual in sequence--from the perspective of the soul-- and exits the body on death, traveling in zero time to the next body in the chain, regardless if that body is in the distant past, the present or the future. The Soul travels through time as needed, looping back upon itself over and over in an Infinite Recursion.

Eventually, in some distant future? The Soul will be Done. Just what it is preparing for, or to Be? Is currently unknown. Perhaps it will travel to a universe comprised of more than 3+1 dimensions, and begin again.

Or? Since The Soul is Recursive? Perhaps it's Journey is Infinite--forever traveling back and forth in Time and Space, to inhabit for an eye-blink (from it's perspective) at a time.

Blink-blink-blink-blink-- each blink a lifetime.

Consequence: We are All The Same Soul. It behooves us to Treat Each Other Well.

:)

(not my idea, exactly, but I have expounded on the concept over the years... I forgot where I first read about the One Soul)
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Postulate: A Soul is eternal, and may not be destroyed.
Postulate: A Soul is not limited to physical boundaries, including space and time.

Conclusion: There is only the One (1) Soul-- it is shared by all living beings, both in the past, the present and also into the future. The Soul inhabits each individual in sequence--from the perspective of the soul-- and exits the body on death, traveling in zero time to the next body in the chain, regardless if that body is in the distant past, the present or the future. The Soul travels through time as needed, looping back upon itself over and over in an Infinite Recursion.

Eventually, in some distant future? The Soul will be Done. Just what it is preparing for, or to Be? Is currently unknown. Perhaps it will travel to a universe comprised of more than 3+1 dimensions, and begin again.

Or? Since The Soul is Recursive? Perhaps it's Journey is Infinite--forever traveling back and forth in Time and Space, to inhabit for an eye-blink (from it's perspective) at a time.

Blink-blink-blink-blink-- each blink a lifetime.

Consequence: We are All The Same Soul. It behooves us to Treat Each Other Well.

:)

(not my idea, exactly, but I have expounded on the concept over the years... I forgot where I first read about the One Soul)

Treat each other well, yes, 100% agree. But all one soul? This ( perhaps not your intention ) doesn't explain the vast emotional and intellectual differences among people.
 
Top