Oops, sorry about that, I fixed it. I'll put together a reply to your post a little later. Thanks.Incidentally, the second comment that you responded to in that post is attributed to me, but written by @TagliatelliMonster
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oops, sorry about that, I fixed it. I'll put together a reply to your post a little later. Thanks.Incidentally, the second comment that you responded to in that post is attributed to me, but written by @TagliatelliMonster
… we have to ask ourselves what we mean by reality, and what we mean by knowledge.
Our knowledge of the world comes from the senses, and is therefore idealised. Whilst it seems reasonable to assume there are real, external objects which exist independently of our minds, we perceive them only as ideations, within our minds. We know them, or properties of them, only indirectly, as imagined objects. So much for reality, though actually realism, idealism and anti-realism are fertile grounds for conjecture in the philosophy of science.
I am very comfortable living with the unknown and the unknowable. I am not the one insisting that everything in nature can be quantified, calibrated, and accurately described, nor that science can offer us more than (often very accurate) approximations of reality. You, presumably, believe that laws of nature tell us facts about the world. I say that is a bold and erroneous assumption; laws of nature, laws of science, are tools which allow us to interpret reality, but the process of interpretation implies at least one degree of removal from that reality. Which then begs the question, are there other tools beside empiricism, logic, and reason, which can bring us closer to reality?
I believe that a "soul" - or rather a "living soul" - is a spirit that is housed by a physical creation.There is another thread, started just today, that asks "when does the soul enter the body?" Here's the link: When does the soul enter the body?
But doesn't this bring up a question? "What the heck is a soul, and what was it doing before it decided to enter a body?" Well, it may not for you, but it certainly does for me.
So rather than disturb that other thread, I thought I'd start on on this subject alone:
"What is a soul, why and when does it 'enter the body,' and what was it doing before?"
The question ‘What is real?’ is one which, it seems, cannot be answered conclusively from either philosophy, metaphysics nor physics. The closer humans get to a definition of reality, the more elusive the concept becomes, and the more open ended the question. Add the prefix ‘objective’ to the subject reality, and reason risks being sucked away by whirlpools of uncertainty.
So it's no more than an unevidenced appeal to mystery, yes that's pretty much the way I see it as well.
Not sure I understand your response here.
You dismiss the question “What is real?” as an appeal to mystery?
Do you think it not worth asking?
At some point it becomes inevitable that both philosophers and scientists must ask themselves this question.
I believe God creates each soul at the moment of conception. That is the beginning of the soul which is the personhood of a human being. It takes the soul to animate the physical body; give it personality and life. The soul did not exist until God created it, but each soul is now eternal.There is another thread, started just today, that asks "when does the soul enter the body?" Here's the link: When does the soul enter the body?
But doesn't this bring up a question? "What the heck is a soul, and what was it doing before it decided to enter a body?" Well, it may not for you, but it certainly does for me.
So rather than disturb that other thread, I thought I'd start on on this subject alone:
"What is a soul, why and when does it 'enter the body,' and what was it doing before?"
I will (eventually, as I find time) go back and summarize what everyone has said in this thread -- but so far, the summary is this: "I believe" followed by a whole lot of other stuff that:I believe God creates each soul at the moment of conception. That is the beginning of the soul which is the personhood of a human being. It takes the soul to animate the physical body; give it personality and life. The soul did not exist until God created it, but each soul is now eternal.
Just my thoughts.
You understand my view correctly. Brahman is "what all exist". So there is no question of any individuality. I am Brahman and so also is a stone. And it is not God. Of course, behind all which seems to exist is 'physical energy'. Forms are but illusions.Interesting to hear you say that. From some of your previous postings, I inferred that you had your own, science based definition of the soul or spirit, as electromagnetic radiation/energy. Or are you saying, and forgive me if I’ve misunderstood the Hindu theology, that you believe in Brahman but not in Atman?
IMO
Reality: All that is real and existent.
To date I know of no other tools besides the empiricism, logic, and reason of scientific inquiry with which to build and grow our knowledge of reality. Are you alluding that other tools exist outside of scientific inquiry? Could you elaborate?
As we've established, I mistakenly had your name in the quote so I wasn't addressing you personally. I know you are able to see more of the subtleties and nuances of life based on our previous conversations. You just frame them differently with language, for the most part. What I am addressing is this general notion that mistakes the fingers pointing at the moon, as the moon itself. In other words, mistaking metaphors as descriptors.I don't see a problem there. I'll tell you what I tell every other poster who implies that others' thinking is too small, too narrow, too myopic. You seem to think that the way that I think is too small and is a problem of some sort. You imply that there is another way of knowing which I have unfortunately never developed, one which alleviates this problem.
Of course I can do better. As I've said countless times to others, one is not seeing something outside what is already fully present at all times right here. It's simply a matter of shifting the perception of how you see it. You're not seeing something else. You're seeing the same thing, but the nature and quality of it is radically different. And the result of the perspectival shift, is a radical change in how life is experienced.If that's correct, you should be able to share some of this wisdom gleaned by this special way of knowing and demonstrate how it would improve a life knowing it. I used to ask such people what they have learned this way, but I never got an answer. None can show me any useful knowledge I've missed out on by not relaxing my standards for belief. So I don't ask any more. I just point out that this is a claim that can't be supported, and thus, one I have no reason to believe. Maybe you can do better.
It also refers to an attitudes and philosophical outlook. It also refers to a condition of the heart as being open, receptive, and willing. It refers to many things, all of which are expressions of that same thing with we experience emotionally as positive. Emotions are really the caboose on the train, not the engine driving it.Love is an abstraction, but it refers to aspects of experience and has an external referent. It refers to both feelings we have and behaviors that manifest from those feelings. Those can be experienced. I experience them both empirically. I feel love. I see how it makes me act. I see others acting that way as well.
As with anything, there are levels of understanding what these metaphors point to. Early on, people may imagine them in literalistic terms. But that does not mean that is all that they are. This is known as reducing a metaphor to a descriptor. It drains the metaphor to be simple a sign pointing to a referent, such as 'bigfoot' points to an mysterious elusive hair creature. "God", as a drained metaphor, or a mere descriptor is of the same level as "bigfoot".Also, we don't discuss love as if it were a substance that is injected into a body and has an existence independent of the minds of men such that it existed before and after its fleshy repository, but we have reified that concept as well, as with Cupid coming to inoculate us with arrows of love.
You are right about how we externalize internal experiences! Just take understanding another step further. It's pointing to something real in ourselves, which we externalize. In other words, it's not "all in your head". It's in your body! It's in your experience of yourself. It's an aspect of lived reality, which we try to symbolize and put into words in order to look at it objectively, in order to process it, talk about it with ourselves and with others about their own subjective awarenesses, in an inter-subjective manner.As far as we know, there is nothing that can be called a soul or spirit that exists independent of minds. As I implied, man has a tendency to attribute independent existence to some of his inner experiences.
I wouldn't phase it as "just being poetic". I would say it is going beyond science and can only be described poetically. In other words, art, poetry, metaphor, etc, are all higher forms of truth than simply the mental analytic-empiric perspective, or the "eye of flesh". The eye of flesh, without the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit, is in fact, myopic. Same thing with the eye of spirit, without the eye of mind. Same thing as the eye of mind, without the eye of flesh. Any domination of any one perspective ignoring of dismissing the others as "just", "only", or "merely", is a myopic view of reality.If one is just being poetic and wants to refer to his inner self as a soul, that's fine. If he wants to talk about it like a substance that flows in and out of bodies and animates them while in residence there, then that is altogether different, and incurs a burden of proof. It's the difference between symbolizing love with the image of Cupid, and discussing him as if he has the independent existence others grant souls.
I believe the idea of "soul" to be that tendency toward hope that human beings have that their existence isn't just a blip in a sea of unending time. People see their existence as "special" in quite a few ways, and not just ego-driven, as they like to cite other human beings as also being this same brand of "special". To face the ultimate ending of that "specialness" tends to be frightening to many, and I believe they come up with this excuse of the "soul" to allay those fears and make it such that it can be put off worrying about until a very late date - possibly even until after death! Or, I suppose, hopefully until after death, where many seem to believe they will still be freely thinking and cogitating.There is another thread, started just today, that asks "when does the soul enter the body?" Here's the link: When does the soul enter the body?
But doesn't this bring up a question? "What the heck is a soul, and what was it doing before it decided to enter a body?" Well, it may not for you, but it certainly does for me.
So rather than disturb that other thread, I thought I'd start on on this subject alone:
"What is a soul, why and when does it 'enter the body,' and what was it doing before?"
For instance, not understanding how the speaker is using the words, spirit and soul, and imagining they are trying to refer to something concrete and literal.
when the literalist assumes that those who speak with metaphors must be believing in pure nonsense and woo woo because there is no evidence these things literally exist as objects outside ourselves, isn't that insulting to their intelligence to assume that is what they think?
Of course I can do better. As I've said countless times to others, you're not seeing something outside what is already fully present at all times right here. It's simply a matter of shifting the perception of how you see it. You're not seeing something else. You're seeing the same thing, but the nature and quality of it is radically different. And the result of the perspectival shift, is a radical change in how life is experienced.
Right ways of thinking. Displicipled minds and bodies. Good behaviors. Developing awareness through meditation. Etc, etc. These things lead to a change in how we perceive, hold, translate, and experience reality.
when God is drained of symbolic meaning as a word and becomes a matter for observation in the empiric sciences, rather than a mystical realization of the Self, which is experience or known empirically through mystical experience, through connection, through the eyes of higher conscious states, all of which are empirically real.
So "soul" is really not a lot different than speaking about ourselves to ourselves. It the 1st person subject, creating a 3rd person perspective of the self, making the "self" into an object. Rather, better put, it's a 3rd person perspective of a 1st person experience. Understand? That's all that is meant when someone speaks of "soul". It's taking a 1st person experience, and objectifying it as a 3rd person "it".
art, poetry, metaphor, etc, are all higher forms of truth than simply the mental analytic-empiric perspective, or the "eye of flesh"
I can’t remember my soul doing anything of the sort before entering my body. I mean, we are talking of my reserved soul doing that for an infinite amount if time before my birth. How can I not possibly remember that?Before birth it is basking in Godliness in heaven.
The soul is the quality of the human system that does not stink if you do not wash it.To me, a "soul" is a poetic representation of a human being. The concept of a human. An abstract / poetic description of consciousness.
There is no need for it to "enter" a body, because it doesn't exist as a seperate entity in reality.
To me it's like asking when the "juicy aspect" of an apple enters the apple.
It's an invalid question because it assumes the "juicy aspect" is a seperate entity from the apple, while it is in reality just another aspect of the apple itself.
Does it? Just the prospect of going to the gym depresses me to no end.Mens sana in corpore sano, sure. Physical exercise has huge proven benefits for psychological well-being
Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
Besides logic and reason, there are intuition and imagination. Creative thinking, indeed arguably all creative endeavour including new theories in science, would be impossible without these counterparts to the grinding gears of mechanical reason.
To demand of scientific method that it, and it alone, be employed in the pursuit of learning, is a rather one eyed approach to the voyage of discovery. Where, for instance, does that leave the arts? Do you think Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Beethoven, Brahms, Miles Davis, Michaelangelo, Modigliani, Turner. Andy Warhol or Leo Tolstoy have contributed nothing of value to the search for meaning, purpose and understanding? Art speaks the language of the heart, and in doing so communicates directly with the soul. Some things simply cannot be perceived or processed with the intellect alone.
And then there is prayer and meditation. This conversation is, after all, occurring in a space called religious forums, as you may have noticed. Since I believe with a high degree of confidence that God is real and existent, I place a very high personal value on these tools. I do not suggest that they are appropriate for the study of the natural sciences, for that would be like trying to paint a symphony using carpenter’s tools. And one must always select, or if necessary develop and engineer, the right tools for the job.
But I would no more be without prayer and meditation, than without food or light. For we are creatures of the spirit, every bit as much as we are creatures of the mind and body, and my experience tells me I cannot be whole or content, without food for the spirit.
No, it's a matter of expecting precise language that is the problem. It's expecting a reductionist, literalist perspective. And that is what is meant by a lack of imagination. Not imagining nonsense and fluff, but imagining reality beyond the boxes. That is the problem with precise language when it comes to the actual fabric of existence. Precise language is a fiction. Life is a lot more messy and beautiful and robust than mere prose.That's the problem with the use of imprecise language when discussing reality. I prefer clear prose.
Yes, as I touched on in my post why that is so. It's the same problem manifest in religious thought as it in secular thought. Both are reducing metaphors to descriptors, and creating dead metaphors. The problem isn't finding precise language. The problem is in literalist thinking, not being able to understand the truth of a thing beyond its mere definition.And as is evident in this thread, most believers do envision the soul as something that literally exists and can enter then leave the body.
That's all good and fine if you're speaking of nothing more than something on the level of, "I saw a red car pull into that parking space". But if you're talking about something like truth, beauty, or goodness, you're going to need to be a lot less precise, and hear beyond the words themselves to what they are pointing to. You have to hear what the person is speaking from their sense of vision, their heart, their feelings, their beliefs, their hopes, their desires.I take language at face value unless there is clear indication that that language is not meant to be believed literally.
There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the ancients thought in terms of natural history and science in the way we do, so why on earth are they, or you, or any other person attempting to read it as though they were? No, there is evidence how they more than likely meant these things by doing a comparative analysis of contemporary literature and art and culture of the historical times in which they were written.Believers tell us that the Genesis creation story was not meant literally. It is metaphor or allegory. I reject that. There is no indication that the ancients apart from one or two accounts to the contrary didn't teach and believe that account literally or punish those questioning it for blasphemy.
What is it actually, according to your understanding, and what are you using for support in that understanding? It can't be just reading the words on the page and claiming you understand them outside the historical and culture contexts. That's what fundamentalists do that creates such nonsense readings as to give rise to Creationism.Also, people calling that allegory or metaphor are ignoring what those two are and what the scripture actually is - a wrong guesses.
I gave a very well defined and useful insight. Let me ask you this, can you see the moons of Jupiter through a scratched and dirty telescope lens better or worse than a well-polished highly precise piece of glass? As I said before, everything is radically different, all of life is radically changed, everything is clearer, calmer, more useful, etc. What you gain and glean is simple - clarity and detail. With that, comes knowledge. With that comes depth. With that comes a deeper connection of mind, body, and spirit, or the whole engaged person.I asked for a specific example of a useful insight gleaned using this other way of knowing, one not employed by a strict empiricist. This is just more vague praise for this other way without revealing any specific benefit.
I myself am a critical thinker. But when I hear people dismiss, "that which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms," to quote from Einstein, as woo woo, nonsense, unscientific, and so forth, then they are not critical thinkers in my estimation. They are uncritical, cynics. They are not rational, but irrational. They are believers in only what they can processes literally, reduced to mere prose.Maybe you are offering these as examples of things beyond the purview of the strict empiricist, not available to the myopic materialist. If so, that would be incorrect. Right thinking and right behaving are of great interest to the secular humanist, who is also typically quite contemplative. I'm trying to mitigate the characterization of the critical thinker as an empty vessel, artless, loveless, living a meaningless existence. What keeps coming out are lists like that one that seem to imply that these things are unavailable to those eschewing faith and other soft thinking, by which I mean thought not tethered to evidence.
I did not imply that at all. Of course use whatever word you want, so long as it captures the same meaning as that Unifying fabric of all reality which is the Source of all that is. God is just a word. Of course someone can experience and know that that is. But to simply saying it's nothing but physics, falls woefully short of that, IMO.What does one need the word God for there? You seem to imply that without that concept, one cannot have deep knowledge of self or have spiritual experiences.
They don't need to include it. But you should understand then that others who speak of it, are pointing to the same thing. Rather than assuming they are being "unscientific" or something. They are using metaphors. If anything, understand this.That's simply incorrect, unless one is reifying "spirit" as well. My spiritual experiences don't involve spirits. They involve a mind episodically capable of experiencing a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude, and connectivity to the world.
Perfectly acceptable. So long as you're seeing beyond a reductionist, reason as God, sort of myopic, limited perspective of reality. If you aren't, then you would be able to see it when other are using words like God, or soul, or spirit, to describe just that - the ineffable qualities of life beyond the conceptual mind.OK, but not for most believers. I prefer to express such ideas without using words like soul and God. They carry so much baggage.
So? Then help they understand these are things in themselves, as attempting "debunk" these things tends to create skeptics or rather cynics, "it's all BS!" sort of thinkers. Rather, it seems to me a better approach to transform their understanding of what these are, into actually realized states. Of course they aren't literal! That's my very point. But what they point to is actually real. That is what goes beyond mere prose and definitions. These are metaphors, "symbols of our own transformation", as Carl Jung called them.They're both kind of ghostly things existing separately from human minds to most people.
I'll leave it at this
I will (eventually, as I find time) go back and summarize what everyone has said in this thread -- but so far, the summary is this: "I believe" followed by a whole lot of other stuff that:
- can't be demonstrated
- assumes much
- explains nothing
- are mutually exclusive
You could do that yourself by just reading the posts. As you do, look for:So having passed judgement, you will now review the case?