Coeternalism

[Guest Aluigi]

btw, you do realize that we're discussing mysteries of the Catholic Faith here which can be infinitely known but never fully comprehended by our finite minds, right?

[Snarf]

"Our souls do not now exist in eternity."

That falls flat when you consider the converse: does eternity have within it our souls? -no, not yet- so if there's a before and after state in it then it's not really eternity. The Catechism generally avoids this by usually calling souls immortal instead of eternal despite the Gospel's preferential use of the latter term.

I guess what it comes down to is this: Coeternalism is necessary to mend the rift between religion and science. What I would like to see is an alternative explanation for how this could be done. This is not a Thomist/Calvinist debate, as I would like to operate under the framework of science and ontology rather than pure spiritual construct.

Edit: Many times I've delved into these matters and come out thinking that it doesn't really matter and we'll all find out about it all when we die. I realized, however, that you can't just cop out like that because there is a battle raging between science and religion, and given the present state of things the religion I love so dearly simply cannot triumph without renovation. I personally think that my theory is simple enough for anyone to understand so long as they put forth the effort, but if the mysteries of eternity are too intimidating then you would simply profit from remaining silent. Don't accuse me of hubris, you pretty much forced me into saying that.

Edited October 3, 2004 by Snarf

[Guest Aluigi]

science has no insight into the nature of immaterial souls. the soul is not merely the intellect. the soul is not merely the emotions of a man. the soul is the essence of a man, that which we cannot fully know. Science cannot touch the immaterial, and thus I fail to see your scientific argument! You base it off psychology? Our minds are part of our body. it is naturally intimately united to our soul, and in the end after the ressurection of the body it will be perfectly united.

Anyway, are you making the claim that our intellect is our soul? That is not the case. The soul is what animates us, what our essence is. It is embodied such that the angels (who are spirits without flesh) are in awe.

So, yeah, if we want to proceed "scientifically" you have to define for me what you think the soul is. Because it is not just the intellect nor the emotions of a person. In face, the intellect and emotions tend to be more part of the flesh than of the soul, though they affect the change in the state of our soul.

[Guest Aluigi]

by the way, yes, the nature of eternity demands that that is somehow false, that because it is eternity time cannot apply, but we look at eternity from our window within time, and God works intimately within time and manipulates the nature of eternity for the sake of the ordered governance of His creation.

[BurkeFan]

Do you deny that we are creatures?

[Enda]

I think that all these psycological observences like through MRIs and other things are really just pysical manifestions of the soul's intellect and will. We know the soul gives life to the body, so if God created the brain He would have to have it give life to brain through it's intellect and will.

[Snarf]

"the soul is not merely the intellect. the soul is not merely the emotions of a man."

Correct, and I would extend that to say that intellect and emotion could exist in full absence of the soul. That's what reductionism is all about.

"the soul is the essence of a man"

Science tells us you can't attribute cognitive or emotional processes to the soul. So, I think it had come to a time when religion must completely overhaul its definition of the soul. That was one task I took up in writing my thesis, so I won't delve into that here.

I don't deny that we are creatures, I hold staunchly to a materialist view of human lives. I do believe in souls, just not in the orthodox manner.

"I think that all these psycological observences like through MRIs and other things are really just pysical manifestions of the soul's intellect and will."

That goes back to the ghost in the machine argument. An immaterial soul can not possibly interact with a material mind. If you think that it does, how do you propose so?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I haven't read your website thing and I've only skimmed this thread (because I am short on time) but a couple things came to mind whilst skimming.
First of all you seem to give a great deal to some vague idea of a scientific reductionism which makes the free-will impossible. You mentioned psychology specifically. A couple years ago I remember being interested in reconciling the classical understanding of free-will with Freudian psychic-causality. I imagine Freud is not "scientific" enough for you. What is your bag anyway? My suspicion is perhaps cognitive science, behaviourism or cognitive-behavioral psychology. Am I correct? Perhaps biosocial/"evolutionary" psychology? I happen to know a little bit about these things. The main impression I had was that I think it is wise to really know the Catholic take on things before deciding that it should be totally revised or whatever. I must say, I am pretty familiar with modern psychology and philosophy of mind and I do not share your conclusions.
Something else that occured to me is that if you are trying to operate on an empirical/materialist framework how on earth do you even bring the soul into it? It seems to me that if you think science has done away with the idea of free-will and that intellect and emotions are entirely reducible to material causality there is really no room for the soul and no logical basis for asserting the existence of it. What do you mean by soul anyway? I suspect that you may use rationalist argumentation so my first impulse would be to identify the first principles from which you base your conclusions. In any case I suggest slowing down a little bit because my impression is that you are jumping to some very hasty conclusions.
And the pre-existence of the soul thing is condemned as "Origenism", this was before Augustine. I'm not sure how much you care about being in line with the Church, but the view you've expressed strikes me as highly problematic in this regard. Also some of what you describe seems to just be pointing toward the fact of God's foreknowledge. All souls exist from all eternity in the mind of God, if you want to talk about it in this way, but this is a not actual existence. Also the use of the word eternity in the Bible does not necessarily suggest the philosophical notion that you assume. It is always in reference to the future. I imagine if you looked into the Greek it would be eisegetical to import the idea of eternity as transcending time when what is meant is a future duration of time which has no end (I admit I'm speculating, but with confidence). And I would grant that you can have an unending chain of finite being in the future, but this is not the case with the past as can be shown logically and philosophically. Also you seem to be implying that there are only two possibilities to the so called mind/body problem, materialism or dualism (you made reference to the Cartesian ghost in the machine thing). In fact the Catholic approach is hylomorphism, neither dualism nor materialism.
Also if you approach Catholic faith from a rationalistic mentality you necessarily loose the Catholic faith. Sure faith and reason do not contradict, but faith still transcends reason and cannot be reduced to "scientific" propositions. I would also suggest a critical examination of your basic methodology if you in fact share the Catholic faith and intend to remain in the faith.

I hope I have time to discuss this stuff with you in more detail later.

Shalom.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 3 2004, 06:57 PM'] I don't deny that we are creatures [/quote]
You would have to to say that we are co-eternal with God (which is the standard meaning of co-eternal).

[Snarf]

"First of all you seem to give a great deal to some vague idea of a scientific reductionism which makes the free-will impossible."

If by "vague" you mean "accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community", then sure.

"I imagine Freud is not "scientific" enough for you."

I've never had the occasion to read much more than his historical discourses, so I don't really feel much of anything for him. I do, however, presume most of the criticism levelled against him recently to just be counterfactualism, which doesn't settle well in my mind.

"What is your bag anyway?"

I'm most versed in physics, so I prefer to tackle the issue with that slant. I have read a few books that incorporate psychology, enough at least to gather than any well-respected scientist has abandoned the classic notion of free will. In my thesis I mention the relation between quantum mechanics and the uptake of neurotransmitters in microtubles, but next year I'll be taking a class on the mind to better understand the implications thereof.

"The main impression I had was that I think it is wise to really know the Catholic take on things before deciding that it should be totally revised or whatever."

Well, all with which I had to work to get a firm grasp on the orthodox Catholic stance were City of God, Aquinas' Summa, and the Catechism. If you could point me to a database of the ecumenical councils, I'd be happy as a clam. But since you admit to having not read my thesis, I can only assume you greatly underestimate my familiarity with the teachings of the Church.

"And the pre-existence of the soul thing is condemned as "Origenism", this was before Augustine."

Origenism's ontology of the soul came to vaguely similar conclusions but by an inferior path. So by not endorsing Origen's work, I don't think the Church's condemnation thereof necessarily precludes my theory. It would be nice if I could get a hold of the precise wording of those rulings.

"All souls exist from all eternity in the mind of God, if you want to talk about it in this way, but this is a not actual existence."

My notion of the soul is very metaphysical, but in short I hold that its existence in the mind of God is more or less sufficient. I personally feel that my conception of the soul is much more cogent than the one prevailing among modern Christians, though it's difficult even for me as its creator (as far as I know) to grasp. I read Owen Flanagan's The Problem of the Soul, and it did a wonderful job of smiting the popular idea of the soul.

"Also the use of the word eternity in the Bible does not necessarily suggest the philosophical notion that you assume. It is always in reference to the future."

I agree that such was what the evangelists had in mind when they employed the word "eternity", but I also believe that the word maintains its philosophical definition in biblical context by means of metaphysical consequence.

"Also if you approach Catholic faith from a rationalistic mentality you necessarily loose the Catholic faith."

My life has been marked by periods of essential atheism, agnosticism, and fervent Catholicism. Consequentially, for me to abandon my faculties of reason is to deny a certain part of my life, so while I recognize the mistakes I've made I can not refuse to learn from them.

"You would have to to say that we are co-eternal with God "

Not true, as Augustine demonstrated with the example of a foot eternally lodged in the sand. Even without one pre-existing the other, the footprint in the sand is the creation of the foot itself.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 2 2004, 08:25 PM'] I was already aware of the technical discrepancies between my idea and the Church, and had you looked at the website you would have observed that I quote the Catechism more than once in its formulation. That souls are eternal was an idea first posed by the Platonists, so Augustine contended with this thought at length, this I know. The point that I raise is that the orthodox position is perfectly cogent, but only without the a priori of modern science.

Science tells us inarguably, concretely, and objectively that the free will proclaimed by Boethius, Augustine, and Aquinas simply can not possibly exist. Even as a student of science, I have a profound and unflenching love of the Church, so it became my obligation and sacred duty to resolve such incongruity.

So, I would like scrutiny to show where the theory is faulting. That does not mean simply yell out "IT'S NOT WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS SO IT'S WRONG!!!" The Church has had good reason for the affirmations is has made through history, but that does not preclude the possibility that a revision is necessary for its continued perseverence. So, to spell it out, retort with logic, not just the obvious remark that my idea is new and unpopular.

This probably conjurs up feelings that I am guilty of presumptuousness and lack of faith in the power of Mother Church. This is not the case, as so far as my human limitations allow. My faith in the truth of the Church is anchored by an understanding of its logical skeleton, which I maintain is remarkable and flawless. I simply affirm that society has outgrown this logic, and so it must be revamped. [/quote]
Your view of the soul is more Islamic than Christian.

[Guest Aluigi]

i just need to jump in here and say this cause i rarely have an oppurtunity to say it anymore:

I agree with ICTHUS.

[Snarf]

Well, I've been meaning to write a supplemental article on Christology, but haven't got around to it yet. Maybe this weekend. I did write an article on Original Sin, which definitely strikes me as more Christian than anything.

[CatholicforChrist]

I think some people have confused the practical sciences with science in general. We can come to an understanding of truth about our souls, which are immortal, even though they are immaterial insofar as we can know this by theology, which is the highest science. Practical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc) only deal with the physical, not the supernatural, but philosophy and certainly theology can deal with the supernatural order. I just thought that should be clarified. Also, the fact that God is omnipotent and knew when each soul is created does not mean that these souls actually existed eternally; perhaps that is one of the assertions that could clear up the (practical) scientific absolutism behind this theory. When something seems to be true in practical sciences but contradicts philosophy and especially theology (not to say anything of the defined teaching of the Church), there is more than enough of a reason to condemn the supposed discovery of the practical science.

[Snarf]

Condemning empirical science is intellectual suicide, no matter the motive. I sincerely doubt that God is so stupid as to create a reality that contradicts His own will. Id est, if He wanted us to believe in the classic notion of the soul, we would have been created incapable of discovering the underlying physiological processes of the mind. If He didn't want us to believe in evolution, he wouldn't have allowed for the fossilization of so many extinct organisms. If He didn't want us to believe in the Big Bang, he would have probably tweaked the element ratios so that they wouldn't agree so perfectly with the cosmological predictions thereof.

I'm not making science my god, I'm affirming that God is a scientist.

[Guest Aluigi]

the fact that we can analyze the psyche has nothing to do with the nature of the soul. how do you jump from that to the soul must be eternal? it's so illogical!

[Snarf]

Illogical is judging a proposition based on two arbitrarily selected axioms without giving heed to the logical process that bears them. So, nyeah!

It's really very simple. It's scientifically impossible for some spiritual entity, a soul if you will, to steer a human life because all of human action is already accounted for by reductionistic means. Introducing determinism, we see that those reductionistic means were predicated by the earliest moment of the universe, i.e. the big bang. So, for a soul to guide a life, it must have expressed its form before the big bang. Since time itself didn't exist before the bang, the soul must be eternal: it lacks both beginning and ending.

It's really not that difficult, and not at all illogical.

[Guest Aluigi]

that's simply not true. science can explain certain aspects of human behavior and thought process, but science has never found the essence of a man. that is why psychology is always changing, they can't apply the same principles to everyone. to claim that the big bang determined every motion of a living creature is simply false. if we were simply randomly moving based on the way particals were originally dispersed throughout the galaxy we would not have reason, thought processes, spirituality. the consciousness of a man, the reason and animation of the life within him, as well as that which distinguishes him from the animals (gives him a rational mind and a higher level of self-awareness) remains unexplained by the study of the human brain. the movement of molecules today on the minute scale (as in, day to day life of human beings) has no correlation to the force of the big bang. on a larger scale (planets, stars, etc.) yeah, their motion tends to be the result of the big bang as well as gravity. but living creatures move of their own free will, in no way predetermined by the force of the big bang.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 5 2004, 11:35 PM']
If by "vague" you mean "accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community", then sure.

I'm most versed in physics, so I prefer to tackle the issue with that slant.  I have read a few books that incorporate psychology, enough at least to gather than any well-respected scientist has abandoned the classic notion of free will.  In my thesis I mention the relation between quantum mechanics and the uptake of neurotransmitters in microtubles, but next year I'll be taking a class on the mind to better understand the implications thereof.
[/quote]
You still haven't stated precisely what this is? I disagree that physics and/or psychology have obliterated the Christian belief in the soul. And as far as the statement about the scientific community goes, I'd like to see read statistics for one thing, I can think of many of the great figures in modern science who were very religious people. Alsy most of the physicists and psychologists whom I have known in my own experience were Christians. There are several physicists in my family, my mom for example, who is a devout Catholic and a third order Carmelite.
And for myself, I started reading about physics and psychology in elementary school and for some reason I've never come to the conclusions that you have reached. What is the factual, scientific train of thought? So far I've just heard assertions which strike me as suspicious.

And I will inform all of the scientists I know who accept free will that they are not respectable.

Having read City of God, the Summa and the Catechism is pretty good, I don't want to downplay it, but I still don't think it is sufficient for one seeking to revise Catholic Theology. Augustine and Aquinas wrote many centuries ago, and the catechism is catechetical in nature and doesn't constitute an education in systematic Catholic Theology. You might be surprised by the writings of 20th century Catholic thinkers. Some authors whom you might find compelling: Norris Clarke, Stanley Jaki, Bernard Lonergan, Paul Quay, Jacques Maritain.. there are too many to name really. Many of them are/were scientists. For example Paul Quay had a PhD in Physics, also had a degree in psychology (I think a doctorate but I'm not positive) and Philosophy and Theology. There is a great deal of secular stuff that is pretty good too. I found many of John Searle's arguments to be compelling. He is a very well known professor at Berkeley who writes about the mind and all of that. I would recommend his books, "Minds, Brains and Computers" and "The Rediscovery of the Mind". Even classic secular philosophy would be interesting I'm sure. The history of the development of scientific methodology, empiricism, rationalism, idealism, existentialism, post-modernism, etc.. The epistemological fuondations of science, and philosophy of science should be thoroughly scrutinized (in my opinion) by anyone wishing to bring science into Theology (as Philosophy is an essential part of the process of bringing scientific insight into the Theological sphere). Werner Heisenberg wrote a lovely book called "Physics and Philosophy" which you might like.
How is it exactly that you think physics has rendered the classical idea of the soul impossible? I suppose I should read your thesis since I don't really know what you said. I intend to read it at some point and expect it will be engaging. Does it have to do with theories which try to develop an explanation of consciousness based on quantum mechanics?

[quote]My life has been marked by periods of essential atheism, agnosticism, and fervent Catholicism.  Consequentially, for me to abandon my faculties of reason is to deny a certain part of my life, so while I recognize the mistakes I've made I can not refuse to learn from them.[/quote]
I was not trying to suggest abandoning reason, but it is important to realize and respect faith and reason's distinct but complimentary domains. Because I am convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, I can accept definitive teachings which I may not be able to prove through logic or science. How is the soul different?
Also consider how people in the middle ages lost their faith or adopted strange doctrines because of the prevailing scientific theories or system (Aristotelian science, etc.) People thought that Aristotle had explained the world without God. Similarly with Newtonian physics and all that, many people came up with strange doctrines and thought that everything was figured out more or less. Given history, and the epistemological structure of scientific enquiry, I think it is dubious to rest your faith upon the foundation of science. It is noble to want to reconcile them and come to a deeper truth (Augustine and Aquinas had this tendency), but if your methodology is not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, I do not think your conclusions can rightly be called Catholic Theology.

There are so many theories and proposed solutions to different problems, and different reductionisms. I can't even count the number of reductive systems that have been developed which claim to provide the ultimate answer in explaining man. After an objective overview of the history of thought, to my mind the most logical conclusion would be philosophical skepticism. (ok, I'm being a tad cynical)

I'm rambling on a bit too much.. Would you mind PMing me a link or something so I can read what you actually have to say? Thanks.

God bless.

[DojoGrant]

If the souls are eternal, without beginning, then the souls were not created by God. This seems to be the logical necessity of the proposition.

It is therefore, subsequently, heresy.