The all-purpose Snarf thread

[Snarf]

1. There exists a God in some form, whose existence is necessitated by the nature of creation, who willed into creation all that exists both tangibly and ethereally.*

*I personally believe in the Catholic view of the Trinity, but that isn't here relevant except for coalescence with the faith.

2. God and ethereal matter exist in a state of static eternity detached from and parallel to the perceptible phenomenon of time.
3. Souls entail part of creation, and may be defined as ethereal bodies who exist for the pleasure of God and pertain generally to the passage of one human life.
4. Souls exist eternally in heaven or hell, the former being an abiding state of bliss and the latter being a malaise consequent of detachment from God.
5. The soul is therefore an entity created by God and thus comprises a lower level of being, but in the absence of arbitrary time between them they may rightly be judged as coeternal with God.
6. In order to merit their respective place in eternity, souls undertake an actualization of life which entails passively assuming consciousness in a human being and thus observing the passage of time.
7. Souls that exist in heaven pertain generally to lives marked foremost by caritas, and souls in hell pertain generally to lives marked foremost by cupiditas.
8. The purpose of the tangible universe is to render complete God’s creation of the souls, providing them with a means to justify or earn their place in eternity.
9. The passage of the universe, especially in terms of human history and discourse, entails remarkable intricacy in order that it represent the immense number of souls and ethereal bodies. The universe was designed in this manner in that, by the single act of creation at the beginning of time, cosmogony, evolution and human history would naturally unfold in a manner consistent with the laws and patterns of science.
10. The intricate nature of corporeal events requires an appreciation of all events as being immutable and necessary, and this entails a transcendence of time wherein a seemingly trivial transpiration may be required to accommodate a necessary event, no matter how spatially or temporally distant.

Most of these comments were made to be as vague as possible so that different religions can espouse them, but aside from the coeternal aspect of the soul I see my PERSONAL views as tying closely to those of the Roman Church. In my poisition, I have to be as ecumenical as possible without compromising my own Catholicism. I've been called a heretic here before, but my central argument is not that the Church was wrong for teaching of an eviternal soul any more than it was previously for teaching that the Earth was probably created in six days or that the sun orbits the Earth. I concede that it's different that the historical aspect of the Hexammeron was never considered a part of dogma, but my point is that the time has come for serious investigation into how the soul can be responsible for our lives when science clearly dictates that it cannot.

As far as the remark goes that Dennett is a compatibalist, that might be the case but he seems to mock the idea that the soul is responsible for the will by likening it to Casper, in his book [i]Consciousness Explained[/i]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Forgive me if this might sound harsh, but I am extremely skeptical with regards to issues of credibility.

You make claims that science "clearly dictates" against a causally empowered soul, but only defend it with broad claims and generalities. You make recourse and appeals to philosophy of mind, but when questioned you show little actual knowledge beyond the ability to name-drop.

Anyways, credibility issues aside, I see no compelling reason to grant you premise 2, and thus I would not grant you premise 4. 5, then, does not follow. 6 and 8 I categorically reject, as they seem like a thinly-veiled double predestination, which is incompatible with God's Goodness. From this I also reject 9.

I will also not grant you 3, because your definition of a soul does not have any reference to a corporeal body, and I see no compelling reason to embrace such a radical dualism.

10 I could accept provided you are saying that all events are necessary via subsequent necessity rather than preceding necessity. 7 I am hesitant to grant to you on account of the use of the term "generally."

lol, I read through my response, and I do want to apologize, it sounds harsher than it is meant to be

[Snarf]

Well, the research I present in the book is more based on neuropsychology than philosophy of mind. I admit that I read little philosophy of mind except for experts on philosophy or experts on mind, I didn't look much at the middle ground. I believe you would find that I articulate such matters much more clearly in the book itself, but you don't seem interested in reading it. Lack of credibility? Sure. We'll see how much my views have changed when I get my degrees.

Speaking of which, I have to state that I'm not afraid to change my mind. As I say in the appendix, the "problem of the soul" drove me to lose faith for some period of time, and I was devastated. I was jubilant when I found the answers to the particular connundrums I was facing.

And while if you define dualism as that which treats mind and soul as completely separate entities, I do fall into that category, you really can't associate what I'm saying with classical dualism because I do not purport that the soul steers the body on an ad-hoc basis--that's the direct opposite of what I believe.

If you take the contrary side, monism, and state that the ethereal soul and the physical mind are united... it just gets really ugly. Free will ceases to exist, or else you're left with a really watered-down version of free will that amounts to no more than a coin-flip.

I have studied the philosophical arguments, including formally at the University of Chicago on a class devoted to the subject. I have no argument against free will from a philosophical perspective, whatsoever. I quoted Anselm in the theodicy thread, and I think that he, Augustine, and Aquinas have done wonderfully to establish that divine prescience do not undermine human liberty.

Reductionism, however, does. I have never seen a convincing argument for how the physical mind can beget any semblance of "choice", whether Socratic or Augustinian or Existentialist. I openly welcome you to prove me wrong, you can believe that it would relieve a great deal of pressure in my life. At any rate, it would give a chance to write another book to fix the last one.

And yes, I clarify that the soul is intimately tied to a corporeal body. I do not believe in body-less souls unless they belong to angels, in which case they are not human souls. I come from a medical family that happens to have a history of mental disorder, so I have a great deal of experience in seeing how the chemistry and anatomy of the brain affect one's mood, behavior, and decision-making abilities. For instance, I have read Aquinas' arguments on intoxication being a sin, but it runs into the inescapable conflict that the mental faculties are compromised due to chemical influence. Aquinas would say that the soul sins by choosing to drink, and thenceforth the will is compromised and become subject to the mind. But at what point does the transition take place? It's a slippery slope.

[Cow of Shame]

You know, it seems like something I wanna get into & argue, but I just can't bring myself to really care all that much.

*shrug*

Sorry dude. I'd love to tear you a new one on this stuff. I feel like I'm lettin' ya down.

[Snarf]

There there. If you really wanted to be snide, you'd say "If this is your all-purpose thread, then you don't need to post anywhere else, right?"

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 13 2005, 11:01 PM']You know, it seems like something I wanna get into & argue, but I just can't bring myself to really care all that much.

*shrug*

Sorry dude.  I'd love to tear you a new one on this stuff.  I feel like I'm lettin' ya down.
[right][snapback]824350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


do you know how much of a jerk you sound like here?

[Aloysius]

well, then he's sounding as he intended to sound....

[N/A Gone]

that is sad...why?

[Didacus]

Snarf, you've obviously given much thought to your axioms... may I suggest taking them one-at-a-time ot the debate board for discussion... I think they would make most interesting threads (and you get to act like you're own gooroo in for the lenth of a thread!)


THUUUNNNNDDDDDEEERRRR CATS!!!

[Aloysius]

I donno... I think that's just his twisted style

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]And while if you define dualism as that which treats mind and soul as completely separate entities, I do fall into that category, you really can't associate what I'm saying with classical dualism because I do not purport that the soul steers the body on an ad-hoc basis--that's the direct opposite of what I believe.

If you take the contrary side, monism, and state that the ethereal soul and the physical mind are united... it just gets really ugly. Free will ceases to exist, or else you're left with a really watered-down version of free will that amounts to no more than a coin-flip.[/quote]

Snarf, before I reply, I do want you to know that I appreciate your openness and desire to discuss this further, rather than becoming entrenched.

First, I think that the above is a gross oversimplification, and that you can indeed have a soul-body unity that preserves free will in its integrity.

However, let us imagine that I grant you the above two points. I still do not see how your epiphenomenalism "saves" free will - a passive soul that is embodied simply for the purpose of providing posterior justification for a calvanistic double-predestination style eternal judgement simply doesn't make sense in my mind.

[God Conquers]

I don't see how souls could be co-eternal while still being a part of creation.

If they are part of creation, then they need to have been caused. This implies a pre-existing entity which caused them.

If souls were not caused then it would mean they caused themselves, which means souls are themselves or are a part of God.

Sooo... are you a pantheist or a polytheist?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 14 2005, 01:30 AM']do you know how much of a jerk you sound like here?
[/quote]

Your opinion is irrelevant. Snark read it as it was intended, and replied as such.

Although, if you feel the need to have a throw-down over it, I'd be happy to step into another thread to oblige you....

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 13 2005, 11:51 PM']There there.  If you really wanted to be snide, you'd say "If this is your all-purpose thread, then you don't need to post anywhere else, right?"
[right][snapback]824610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Hmmm...good call. I'm typically not quite that clever or observant, though

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 13 2005, 07:52 PM']6.  In order to merit their respective place in eternity, souls undertake an actualization of life which entails passively assuming consciousness in a human being and thus observing the passage of time.


8.  The purpose of the tangible universe is to render complete God’s creation of the souls, providing them with a means to justify or earn their place in eternity.[/quote]

Ah, here's something I can sink my teeth into. It seems like you're saying that the point of creation is to allow souls to be judged. That we must earn our way into heaven. I read that you wanted your statements to be as applicable to as many religions as possible, but I think you do Christianity a disservice with these statements.

I believe that the point of creation is for God to be glorified, and the result is that people are judged. God didn't create the world just so he could judge souls.

How is it that you think that our souls are voyeuristic passengers on our journey through life?

Edited December 14, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[philothea]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 14 2005, 10:44 AM']Ah, here's something I can sink my teeth into.  It seems like you're saying that the point of creation is to allow souls to be judged.  That we must earn our way into heaven.  I read that you wanted your statements to be as applicable to as many religions as possible, but I think you do Christianity a disservice with these statements. 

I believe that the point of creation is for God to be glorified, and the result is that people are judged.  God didn't create the world just so he could judge souls.

How is it that you think that our souls are voyeuristic passengers on our journey through life?
[right][snapback]825061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Careful, CoS. People might start taking you seriously. :

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 14 2005, 02:29 PM']Careful, CoS.  People might start taking you seriously.
[right][snapback]825537[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Heaven forbid.

[Cow of Shame]

How now, wool-sack, what mutter you?

[Snarf]

[i]I still do not see how your epiphenomenalism "saves" free will - a passive soul that is embodied simply for the purpose of providing posterior justification for a calvanistic double-predestination style eternal judgement simply doesn't make sense in my mind.[/i]

Well, first I must clarify that although eternity is static (as Augustine and Aquinas argued), ethereal bodies have their own brand of "will" which is freely chosen by themselves. Souls choose for themselves the sort of eviternal destiny they shall have (heaven or hell), and they are rewarded corresponding lives appropriately. So, I can understand why it would seem that I'm advocating "posterior justification", but I see life not as an examination that one passes or fails, but as an actualization of the soul's abiding (yet freely chosen) nature. So, in some sense we are already "predestined", but in such a way that has nothing to do with Calvinism. We predestine ourselves in that our souls pre-exist us.

[i]I believe that the point of creation is for God to be glorified, and the result is that people are judged. God didn't create the world just so he could judge souls.[/i]

This is a very good point, but prognosticating it in the book I defined souls as "ethereal bodies that exist for the pleasure of God", or something to that end. One passage of Scripture I use is "God saw that it was good", from which I infer that Creation exists because it gives God pleasure. Creation "glorifies" God in that it's intrinsically beautiful and we can thus infer a beautiful deity, but to say that God created the world to glorify Himself is logically equivalent to saying that Creation exists for His pleasure.

In my chapter on morality, I explain that our souls aren't "voyeuristic" because the proper transpiration of history requires the sensation of agency. That is, conscious will is an illusion, but it's a very useful and ultimately necessary one. When I wrote my biology thesis on the evolution of consciousness, I encountered a number of neurolopsychologists in my research that said the exact same thing, except from a sociological level.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Dec 14 2005, 08:32 AM']I don't see how souls could be co-eternal while still being a part of creation.

If they are part of creation, then they need to have been caused. This implies a pre-existing entity which caused them.

If souls were not caused then it would mean they caused themselves, which means souls are themselves or are a part of God.

Sooo... are you a pantheist or a polytheist?
[right][snapback]824879[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]