What, why and when about "the soul?"

[Windwalker]

Incidentally, the second comment that you responded to in that post is attributed to me, but written by @TagliatelliMonster

Oops, sorry about that, I fixed it. I'll put together a reply to your post a little later. Thanks.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

… we have to ask ourselves what we mean by reality, and what we mean by knowledge.

Here is what I mean by these words:

Reality: All that is real and existent.

Knowledge: Reasoned expectation based on experience. From the moment we are born, what we know about the world around us is gained through our experience of it, and since we are a species that can communicate complex ideas, we also gain knowledge through the experiences of others. Knowledge is held with degrees of confidence and is not an absolute. Clearly, one of the limits to accurate knowledge is the amount and quality of the information used to draw reasoned conclusions. This is one reason why knowledge is held with degrees of confidence. If new information arises in regards to a phenomena, one must then reformulate their expectation and revise their understanding, or knowledge of that phenomena.

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 would disagree with this characterization that our biological senses provide an idealized representation of the world. I would argue that our biological senses provide accurate information (statistically across the population as a whole) about the macroscopic world around us, within their biological limits. These senses of ours have been refined over millions of years of evolution. If they did not provide accurate information, our primitive ancestors could not successfully find food, mates, and perceive threats in a timely manner. In short, they would not have survived to reproduce.

For knowledge acquisition, there are limits to what can be learned through passive observation. If multiple observers experience a thunderstorm event, they will all agree that the event objectively happened, however, the observers cannot say why the thunderstorm happened simply by experiencing the event. More information is required in order to form a reasoned conclusion to the question of why, that information must be sought, acquired in some way. In essence, it must be experienced.

And of course, in addition to the quality of the data, our confidence in our knowledge is limited by our confidence in the reasoning behind the conclusions we draw. We have learned from long experience all the ways that we human beings can get things wrong, and as such, we can never rely solely on our own perceptions of the world beyond our simple macroscopic interactions with it. For knowledge beyond simple perception that relies more heavily on reasoning, active steps are required to mitigate for potential human error in the knowledge acquisition process. It is this mitigation process that boosts our confidence in the knowledge that we hold.

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 would rephrase it by saying that we can only know nature (reality) by experiencing it, and for hard problems, formal scientific inquiry is required to obtain the necessary data or information and to do it in a way that mitigates the problems associated with we fallible human beings. To describe my position as one that insists everything in nature <can> be quantified, is not an accurate reflection of my comments. In fact, my signature states my humble acknowledgment that all of reality is not yet know and may never be known. I would insist that facts tell us facts about the world, and with those facts we must draw reasoned conclusions. The laws of nature and the laws of science are simply the conclusions drawn from currently know facts. Specifics of those conclusions in science are held with varying degrees of confidence. So in addition to being comfortable with the unknown and unknowable, one must also be comfortable with holding what is considered known with degrees of confidence, where new data and new information can prompt a reevaluation and reassessment of what is known.

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?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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 believe that a "soul" - or rather a "living soul" - is a spirit that is housed by a physical creation.

This is why Adam was referred to as a "living soul" the moment God gave him the "breath of life" - which I understand to be the placing of his spirit into his physical body.

As to when the spirit - rather than the "soul" - enters the body - it is difficult to tell.

The Bible claims that God "knew" us before we were "formed in the belly" and that - at least Jeremiah the prophet - had been "sanctified" and "ordained" before he came out from the womb. (Jeremiah 1:5)

And Ecclesiastes 12:7 claims that our spirits return to God after our physical death.

So - the Bible claims that not only does God know us before we are placed in the womb - but He is able to interact with us while we are in the womb.

Therefore - I believe that the spirit enters the body sometime during our incubation in the womb.

I also believe that our spirits were with God before we entered the womb - as per Ecclesiastes - but as to what we were doing?

I believe that we were actively involved with God's work.

For when God was rebuking Job - somewhat - He claimed that the "sons of God shouted for joy" at the time when Earth was being created.

I believe that these "sons (daughters) of God" were the spirits of all Mankind and we joyous because we had either witnessed or participated in a great work and were about to begin the Great Plan of God.

Either way - the Bible teaches that the spirits of Mankind were present when the Earth was made and that we were with God before we entered into mortality.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

How so?

You dismiss the question “What is real?” as an appeal to mystery?

Nope, you simply framed it that way. I think what is real is what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, I believe I've been pretty clear about that many times.

Do you think it not worth asking?

Of course, I just don't see the value in making up imaginary answers, to make us feel better about reality, as place holders for our ignorance.

At some point it becomes inevitable that both philosophers and scientists must ask themselves this question.

Great, but I was not talking about asking the question, I was talking about appealing to mystery, as if that represents an answer to anything.

 

[InChrist]

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 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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. In response to your last paragraph, yes, I do know of other tools that can help us form a picture of the world, enable us to negotiate through it, and most importantly of all perhaps, assist us in becoming balanced, well rounded individuals able to contribute in positive ways to our respective communities.

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.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

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.

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. It's the whole problem with literalism, be that from atheists or believers. Both are seeing reality in strictly concrete literal terms, imagining God as some sort of creature outside themselves in some place other than the space they themselves occupy. It's a failure of mind to visualize and think in symbolic terms, and that is something real to speak to.

So while it's not meant to insult anyone, do bear in mind 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?

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.

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.

The question then is how does one shift their perspectives like this. That is something that has tangible answers to. It's been talked about throughout the ages, and much of it is found within the Wisdom traditions, which are found buried within religious traditions, for one thing. The "baby in the bathwater" part of religion. But it is also outside of religion as well, of course. In fact, I'd say most religions grow up around these mystical realizations, and later get the barnacles of traditionalism encrusted over them. It takes some chipping away to get to the meat, in other words.

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. So when you speak of emperism being central to truth, I fully agree! But if you are unable to have the experience because they lens of your telescope is scratched, warped, or clouded over, then are you really doing the science?

What these practices are for, is to refine the tools you use to see and do the experiment with. Just making an O shape with your fingers and looking through them at the stars, is nothing like polishing a piece of glass to make a lens to use. I could come up with a thousand different analogies here, but you get the point.

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.

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.

So love is something that we can polish and refine in our lives. And when we do, that causes a major shift in perception of life, others, and ourselves. In other words, all of reality is seen, and experienced differently. Experience is central, of course. I agree with empiricism. It needs to be tangible, not just theoretical through logic and reason. Those too are nothing without actual boots on the ground, so to speak. And that is the complaint about rationalism.

It's like what Paul said,

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
​

It's the exact same thing with rationalism and scientism, and all of these reasoning logical arguments. Without the experience of life through the eyes, or perception of love, they are nothing. They are just disembodied ideas in the head about a world "out there". Even if they have evidence they exist externally, they are not experienced internally, and are therefore, "nothing".

So the kind of experience that shifts how we see the world, which changes for us what is really real or not, what is empirically real, has be an internal thing, not just external knowledge. "If I have the tools of science and can fathom all mysteries, but have not the eyes of love, I am nothing", to paraphrase that. Perspectival shift. This is to point to what is meant by that.

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.

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".

As metaphors become descriptors, they are "dead metaphors". And thus, "God is Dead" is really true, 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.

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.

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.

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".

Now, deepen that a little more, when someone doesn't experience, or can identify with it very well perspectivally, it becomes wholly externalized. This is what happens in religion when it speaks of "God". While "God" ultimately can in fact be realized subjectively (which is empirical evidence), without that subjectively realization, it becomes wholly externalized as a conceptual object. And then it becomes reduced to a 'descriptor'; God becomes reduced to a bigfoot, and a matter where the sciences can weigh in on.

All this is a "dead metaphor". "God is now dead". But only if externalized. Same thing with soul. Same thing with spirit. Same thing with heaven. Same thing with any of these metaphors of something subjectively real.

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 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.

It is pure fiction to imagine that the lens of the empirical sciences is pure and unaffected by the shapes and conditions of the eyes doing the seeing. Truth is much, much more than mere interpretations of facts. It's how it's held and translated. And that comes square back to my first paragraph above.

 

[Bathos Logos]

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 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.

In other words - just a mental construct. One not so logically constructed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

That's the problem with the use of imprecise language when discussing reality. I prefer clear prose.

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.

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?

I take language at face value unless there is clear indication that that language is not meant to be believed literally. 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.

Also, people calling that allegory or metaphor are ignoring what those two are and what the scripture actually is - a wrong guesses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Any atheist with an understanding of nature will experience a frisson looking up at the might sky and pondering the immense distance that drop of starlight has come before activating my retina, and that I connected to it by being made of the same stuff, much made in stars like that. No gods or symbols enter into it at all.

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".

OK, but not for most believers. I prefer to express such ideas without using words like soul and God. They carry so much baggage. They're both kind of ghostly things existing separately from human minds to most people. As soon as one uses those words, those additional meanings are understood by many. That's a good reason to not use them if I don't mean them to be taken literally.

art, poetry, metaphor, etc, are all higher forms of truth than simply the mental analytic-empiric perspective, or the "eye of flesh"

That's not how I use the word truth.

But I do agree that things like beauty, love, and purpose are what give life meaning even if I don't call them truth. The word truth is reserved for things that are demonstrably correct. I believe that you and I have discussed just this a few months back. The thinking mind tells us how the world works. We use this knowledge to manage the feeling mind, which is what really matters to us. Lose feeling as with the anhedonism of major depression, and one becomes suicidal. It's my turn to indulge in metaphor: I equate them with the brush and the pigments. The beautiful picture is only pigment, without which there'd be no beautiful picture. But the brush is needed to organize manage them, but is not itself neither beautiful nor part of the picture. That's how it is with reason and the passions. Reason is a tool, a means to an end, itself of no value without a palette of passions to manage.

My emphasis on empiricism is not related to how one should experience life, but on how one should decide how the world works so that he can successfully manage the parade of nonrational conscious content.

 

[viole]

Before birth it is basking in Godliness in heaven.

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?

So, how many souls are there? If they are eternal, then we can assume there are no new ones to be made if the need is required. That number, would allows us to set upper limits to human population until kingdom come.

ciao

- violw

 

[viole]

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.

The soul is the quality of the human system that does not stink if you do not wash it.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Mens sana in corpore sano, sure. Physical exercise has huge proven benefits for psychological well-being

Does it? Just the prospect of going to the gym depresses me to no end.

Ciao

- fiole

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

If it was too much, then thanks for indulging me.

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.

For me, intuition and imagination are included in what I consider to be reasoning. So yes, I value these as well. Importantly, however, it is precisely this aspect of our reasoning ability that allows us to imagine things that do not exist in reality or are impossible to exist. We still must differentiate between what is probable, possible, improbable, and impossible.

As an aside, I think the emotion behind the phrase “the grinding gears of mechanical reason.” might express or identify some level of bias on your part.

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.

Understanding that scientific inquiry is required to identify and explain what is real and existent in the cosmos in no way negates the value of the arts, literature, or other creative pursuits. These are different things and not mutually exclusive. Take human beings out of the equation for the moment. What is left is reality, all that is and existent, minus us. Understanding the reality of the cosmos and how it operates, regardless of, or in spite of, our presence, sets the stage for the environment in which we exist. It is this reality that we need to know and to decide how we wish to exist in.

Add humans back into the equation and scientific inquiry can inform us about how we physically function and all the variables that can inform and shape our personality, from instinct, socialization, education, illness, etc.

Last, we each have individuals needs, wants, desires, fears, and phobias. These are subjective to each individual, yet still real for them. Understanding what influences, forms, and shapes us is key to making informed decisions about how we wish to live and navigate the reality in which we find ourselves.

If we all understand that we are operating in the same reality instead of multiple conflicting artificial constructs of reality, we will remove one obstacle in our efforts to find common ground upon which to compromise and reconcile our conflicting individual needs, wants, and desires.

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.

I certainly have no argument against all the many things we human beings can employ to help us “navigate our way through the bewildering dramas of our lives”, be it prayer, meditation, exercise, psychotherapy, social clubs, etc. It seems to me that all these activities would be more efficacious if they occurred within a framework of actual reality, as opposed to artificial constructs of reality.

Once you allow for the creation and acceptance of artificial constructs of reality, for example a transcendental or spiritual realm separate and undetectable from the physical world, then anyone can place anything they wish into that construct. An infinite number of entities with infinite possible properties can be placed in such a construct. And since it is an artificial construct, there is no verification possible and no recourse for accountability. I see such artificial constructs as a source of stagnation and potential impediment to improvements in the human condition, for humanity as a whole.

 

[Windwalker]

That's the problem with the use of imprecise language when discussing reality. I prefer clear prose.

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.

Again to quote from that favorite essay I found years ago,

Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced.

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online​

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.

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.

I take language at face value unless there is clear indication that that language is not meant to be believed literally.

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.

Like in translating languages, it's a matter of translating words into meaning, not simply a literal word for word translation. Meaning gets lost that way. What is the intended meaning, not a damned dictionary definition of imprecises words that cannot hope to draw a clean boundary around things which are beyond words to express. And that is what is more than evident in this thread to me.

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.

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.

Again, to quote from that same essay as above,

While it is true that the biblical view of creation sanctifies time and nature as created by God -- and therefore good -- it does not follow that the creation accounts as such are to be understood chronologically or as natural history. And while it is true that history is seen as the context and vehicle of divine activity, it does not follow that the creation accounts are to be interpreted as history, or even prehistory. One of the symbolic functions of the creation accounts themselves is to give positive value to time and to provide the staging for history. They are no more historical than the set and scenery of a play are part of the narrative of the drama, or than the order in which an artist fills in the pigment and detail of a painting is part of the significance of the painting.

The symbolic function of creation in valuing time and history becomes clearer when the Genesis accounts are compared with myths whose purpose is to legitimate cyclical time (as in the Babylonian myth of the primeval conquest of Tiamat by Marduk, alluded to in Genesis 1:2), or to those in which time itself is a negative aspect of a fallen order (as in Plato’s myth of the fall of the soul, or similar myths favored by Hindu and Buddhist mysticism).

When one looks at the myths of surrounding cultures, in fact, one senses that the current debate over creationism would have seemed very strange, if not unintelligible, to the writers and readers of Genesis. Scientific and historical issues in their modern form were not issues at all. Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.

What did exist -- what very much existed -- and what pressed on Jewish faith from all sides, and even from within, were the religious problems of idolatry and syncretism. The critical question in the creation account of Genesis 1 was polytheism versus monotheism. That was the burning issue of the day, not some issue which certain Americans 2,500 years later in the midst of a scientific age might imagine that it was. And one of the reasons for its being such a burning issue was that Jewish monotheism was such a unique and hard-won faith. The temptations of idolatry and syncretism were everywhere. Every nation surrounding Israel, both great and small, was polytheistic; and many Jews themselves held -- as they always had -- similar inclinations. Hence the frequent prophetic diatribes against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and “whoring after other gods.”
​

Now that believers mistake it as history, is part of that very same problem of literalist thinking that plagues the modern age. That's the point here. You can't point to believers and say they are in error, while not recognizing the same error being done by those who read scripture as "wrong" scientifically and historically. They are both literalists. They are both lacking an understanding of symbolic thought, historically and presently.

Also, people calling that allegory or metaphor are ignoring what those two are and what the scripture actually is - a wrong guesses.

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.

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 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.

Now, you say a "strict empiricist", and I'd say what I am describing is empiricism. But if you mean empiricism with an unpolished lens, for instance, while that may be empiricism, does that mean you can't have an improved set of eyes? So everything I'm talking about does not deny empiricism, it means improving the vision in doing that. If you never use a telescope, but simply your fingers shaped as a O, that's a disadvantage empirically. If you don't understand the nature of symbolism and can see with that set of eyes as well as with, then it's a misshapen piece of glass and a distorted reality.

 

[Windwalker]

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 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.

I'm all for critical thinking. I'm all for empiricism. I'm not for claiming that anything beyond that is nonsense, and should not be trusted, explored, or respected. That's just religious fear of another kind.

To underscore this with the whole quote I just referenced,

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies

​

These are things which are better "danced out, than thought out", as that essay said so well.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.​

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.

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.

Again with my quotes here, to show what I mean that goes beyond science and religion in understanding these things,

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. John Blofeld quotes Edward Conze on the Vajrayana Buddhist viewpoint: " 'It is the emptiness of everything which allows the identification to take place - the emptiness [which means "transcendental openness" or "nonobstruction"] which is in us coming together with the emptiness which is the deity. By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate' ". At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."​

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85​

God is a way to talk about the Transcendent. It's a face that we put upon the highest realization of our very own existence. It's our 'original face', before and beyond who we are as a separately identified "person".

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.

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.

OK, but not for most believers. I prefer to express such ideas without using words like soul and God. They carry so much baggage.

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.

They're both kind of ghostly things existing separately from human minds to most people.

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.

I'll leave it at this, as I've typed too many words already.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll leave it at this

Thanks for all of that. I'm not sure how I can use it. Presumably, you wrote it out to show me that there is something I'm missing looking through a scratched and dirty lens, but I still don't know what that would be. You seem to imply that the avoidance of symbolic language when discussing how the world works comes at a cost. I disagree. Sure, one could argue that I'm basically saying that I don't see what I'm not seeing, and that's correct, so I'm looking for a tangible benefit to others who say that they see more. How have their lives changed for the better? How would my life change if I viewed life differently? I wonder what value "symbols of our own transformation" have compared to a more concrete discussion of self-transformation using more precise language. I don't see any there. But I appreciate your effort to try to explain what it does for you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

So having passed judgement, you will now review the case?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So having passed judgement, you will now review the case?

You could do that yourself by just reading the posts. As you do, look for:

• Any demonstration of the existence of a "soul" that is NOT a construct of a living, human brain.
• Anything concerning such a thing as a "soul" that was not, from what has been posted here, an assumption based on quite literally nothing.
• Any feature or characteristic of human life that can only be explained by the existence of a "soul," and could not be explained without it.
• Any benefit (or drawback) from the possession of a "soul" that would not exist without such possession.
• Concurrence of understanding of how the "soul" perceives itself (if it does), both before and after death. Does it "know" who it is, for example?

The best I can get out of everything that's been written so far in this thread is that it is mysterious, and mysteriousness is good. Well, I don't disagree with that -- but mysteriousness is not really made any less mysterious by pretending you know what the mystery is. The most rational of secular humanists, when examining the deep mysteries of nature, can get utterly lost and transported in the sheer wonder of it all -- without pretending that he can explain away that wonder by inventing a word.