The all-purpose Snarf thread

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Your extreme dualism does not allow for free will here on earth, but rather, relegates it to the realm of eternity. This contradicts the catholic belief that we really do have free will here on earth, and it makes every passage in Scripture in which God appeals for us to change our ways utterly nonsensicle.

[Snarf]

Well, like I said, we have conscious will, it just isn't "free" in the corporeal realm. For a person to live a righteous life, or to turn away from its habit of sin, she has to be reminded of the fires of hell. By espousing total reductionism I'm not saying that we don't experience volition or are capable of influence. Where Scripture tells us that we have a choice in our eternal destiny, it is influencing the way we live our lives.

The funny thing about Coeternalism is that it began in total orthodoxy with the idea of metaphysical consequence--that virtually every facet of reality has an influence upon us that ultimately shapes our immortal destiny. As I state numerous times, belief in an eternal soul would make little sense until the advent of modern physics and psychology, so Scripture doesn't mention it. Just like how it wouldn't make any sense to tell the early Hebrews that they evolved from rodents.

To provide an example of metaphysical consequence, I was once strangely compelled to go to a youth rally in December 1999 that ultimately led to me going to Rome in June of 2000. Without having gone to Italy, I wouldn't be nearly as spiritual as I am now. I realized that my soul willed for me to become a stronger Catholic, but it did so in such a way that was totally subconscious and indicative of some form of prescience. I realized that there was an intimate coalescence of my soul's will and the will of God, and over a three year period I gradually came to realize that the soul has to exist beyond time for this to work.

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

What I mean by coeternal is simply that the soul exists beyond time. If you want, you could call the soul eternal and God super-eternal, but I chose the name "coeternalism" firstly because "coeternal" is a term frequently used by Augustine, especially in his arguments against the Platonist idea thereof. That and the name "eternalism" was already made, and it applies to the scientifically-sound idea that all of time exists arbitrarily in simultanaeity.

Time is a construct of science and its subsequent application in human consciousness. That's it. It's an eternal mystery how God can be timeless and yet create a universe that does comprise time, so it should be no surprise that He's capable of creating anything else outside of time. I would not dare to place human souls on the same level of existence as God, and I articulate that quite clearly. God's will is both active and abiding, on account of his timelessness. So in the prose form of my summary of Coeternalism, I stoop to using the term "God created human souls, THEN created the world", even though in eternity there is no concept of before or after. There is a concept, however, of planes of existence, and God is the highest.

I honestly wish I didn't have to believe in Coeternalism, like I said. I'd much rather be the Roman Catholic I was on and off through my life. I still consider myself loyal to Rome and Her Church. I don't want to cause strife, I want to glorify the Church. But believing that the soul is just a mysterious energy that steers the body ad hoc is just denegrating.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 02:26 PM']I honestly wish I didn't have to believe in Coeternalism, like I said.  I'd much rather be the Roman Catholic I was on and off through my life.  I still consider myself loyal to Rome and Her Church.  I don't want to cause strife, I want to glorify the Church.  But believing that the soul is just a mysterious energy that steers the body ad hoc is just denegrating.
[right][snapback]828470[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No one said you have to believe in this nonsensical heresy but yourself. (And you still have the free will to reject it.) The only thing that is keeping you is your own intellectual pride.

"Co-eternalism" and its implications negate everything Christ and His Church has taught for 2000 years.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that basically, you are claiming that human souls are like angels which make a choice for good or evil, then are "embodied" on earth, and "live out" the good opr evil they have previously chosen. (Although even the angels are not co-eternal with God the way you describe, but are "Aeveternal." They have a beginning.)

This hypothesis is absurd in so many ways, I don't have time to describe them, but, if true, it makes our lives on earth, Christ's Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Ressurection, and the Catholic Faith completely meaningless.

If souls are good or evil for all eternity, what good was Christ's Redemptive Passion?
After all, according to Co-eternalism the souls for all eternity would already be in their state of eternal damnation or bliss.
Christs Redemptive Sacrifice then could have changed nothing, and had no purpose.

And what about those persons, those souls, that repent of a life of sin and wickedness and convert before their death, and are saved by accepting Christ? If these souls are saved and united to God for all eternity, why would they live a life of sin and wickedness before converting?
And likewise, those that begin good and turn to wickedness and are damned?

Indeed, what is the point of these souls being "incarnate" in flesh at all if they made a choice for all eternity "before" being incarnate? Why not just be like the angels who never had bodies?

[quote]But believing that the soul is just a mysterious energy that steers the body ad hoc is just denegrating.[/quote]
It seems you have a very inadequate understanding of the Catholic understanding of the soul. I suggest you study St. Thomas Aquinas and other orthodox Catholic theologians, and try to understand this better, before you make your own contrary assertions.

[Snarf]

I didn't write about Christology for the precise reason that it requires far too much attention to be in the scope of the diatribe. I will probably write a brief summation of Christ's importance over holiday break.

And I have read plenty of Aquinas, thank you, Captain Condescending.

I think Christ's Passion makes all the sense in the world in my theory. One soul decided for all that sin would be in the world, and there had to be an equilizer set in place by God Himself to fix the resultant mess.

So yes, you can read a one-page cut-and-paste job from a 220 page book and label me as ignorant. But what's that word you threw out... pride? Pot, meet kettle.

I swallowed my pride when I felt that the religion I'd followed for years was wrong, and I left the Church. When I found a proper solution to my particular challenge (something that the great theologians NEVER prognosticated), I gladly embraced the Church once again.

And if you want to throw the title of "anathema" at me, go ahead and try. The only case that comes close to allowing you to do so is the anathemization of Origen, and I differ from him in not believing the soul to pre-exist the body within the universe itself.

[i]No one said you have to believe in this nonsensical heresy but yourself.[/i]

You're right. Pure reason dictates that I should be a deist, but I've experienced enough that I have faith.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 07:14 PM']I didn't write about Christology for the precise reason that it requires far too much attention to be in the scope of the diatribe.  I will probably write a brief summation of Christ's importance over holiday break.

And I have read plenty of Aquinas, thank you, Captain Condescending.

I think Christ's Passion makes all the sense in the world in my theory.  One soul decided for all that sin would be in the world, and there had to be an equilizer set in place by God Himself to fix the resultant mess.

So yes, you can read a one-page cut-and-paste job from a 220 page book and label me as ignorant.  But what's that word you threw out... pride?  Pot, meet kettle.

I swallowed my pride when I felt that the religion I'd followed for years was wrong, and I left the Church.  When I found a proper solution to my particular challenge (something that the great theologians NEVER prognosticated), I gladly embraced the Church once again.

And if you want to throw the title of "anathema" at me, go ahead and try.  The only case that comes close to allowing you to do so is the anathemization of Origen, and I differ from him in not believing the soul to pre-exist the body within the universe itself.

[i]No one said you have to believe in this nonsensical heresy but yourself.[/i]

You're right.  Pure reason dictates that I should be a deist, but I've experienced enough that I have faith.
[right][snapback]828668[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The point isn't that you haven't read, it's that you refuse to admit that perhaps the Church and Her fathers know better than you. You seem to fancy yourself smarter than them, and come up with something that makes absolutely no sense. I'm no great philospher myself, but the traditional views of the Church on this topic make FAR more sense than your hypothesis, and are much more rooted in reality.

I'll leave Jeff to tear your axioms apart.

[Snarf]

I agree that Augustine and Aquinas were right for thinking the way they did, and I admire them greatly. If I were in their place, I wouldn't have come to the same conclusions as I have in my own place.

The fact is, in a handful of instances the Church's views DON'T make sense. The Church's logic is far more elegant and aesthetically appealing, but in a trivial number of instances it simply doesn't par up to reality. It violates the conservation of energy, reductionism, and physical determinism. I want to keep the Church and Her Glory. I just want to see Her making sense. Coeternalism isn't any less far-fetched than the current schema, it just seems so since it's so far removed from the status-quo.

In summation, what I would LOVE to see is evidence of how the soul could go about steering the body without violating reductionism. I'm all ears.

[philothea]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 07:58 PM']In summation, what I would LOVE to see is evidence of how the soul could go about steering the body without violating reductionism.  I'm all ears.
[right][snapback]828694[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Have you read any of Penrose on quantum consciousness? (I think he's loopy, personally, but then I don't get hung up on reductionism.)

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 07:58 PM']I agree that Augustine and Aquinas were right for thinking the way they did, and I admire them greatly.  If I were in their place, I wouldn't have come to the same conclusions as I have in my own place.

The fact is, in a handful of instances the Church's views DON'T make sense.  The Church's logic is far more elegant and aesthetically appealing, but in a trivial number of instances it simply doesn't par up to reality.  It violates the conservation of energy, reductionism, and physical determinism.  I want to keep the Church and Her Glory.  I just want to see Her making sense.  Coeternalism isn't any less far-fetched than the current schema, it just seems so since it's so far removed from the status-quo.

In summation, what I would LOVE to see is evidence of how the soul could go about steering the body without violating reductionism.  I'm all ears.
[right][snapback]828694[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Snarf, the fact of the matter is, if you are hung up on reductionism, then you have a whole lot more reading to do regarding philosophy of the mind (with which you have already displayed only a very limited familiarity), the problem of qualia, the phenomenological nature of consciousness, etc.

The fact is, if you think that determinism is clear cut or set in stone by science, you are sorely mistaken. This is something that we are still debating, and it is relatively heated. The above mentioned things are just an example of things that reductionist theory cannot explain.

Ultimately, your fundamental premise and reason for writing the book is one that is still very much up in the air.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Socrates]

[quote]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]

It seems, Snarf, that you are claiming essentially that souls exist eternally in a state of damnation of eternal bliss based on a single choice of the will and that the physical universe is essentially a clockwork wind-up toy, in which everything, including human thoughts and actions, are physically pre-determined.

Have I got that right?

And according to you, human souls are assigned a corresponding piece of this clockwork toy, which will do a predetermined "good" or "wicked" mechanical clockwork dance, depending on the soul's eternal disposition??

(Sounds like you've got things ass-backwards to me!)

What then is the purpose of this piece of clockwork?
If a soul's decision for good or evil is made outside of the clockwork, why is this clockwork at all necessary? How does it "justify" anything?
The purely spiritual angels did not need to have any physical bodies to merit their eternal bliss or damnation. What is different with humans if they make their choice eternally as you describe??

[quote]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.[/quote]
This is nonsense. This does not account for the importance of conversion, nor of repenting and accepting Christ. How does this account for the salvation of men such as the Good Thief, whose lives were NOT marked foremost by caritas or virtue, but were saved by their calling upon the mercy of Christ.
Humans are saved by the Precious Blood of Christ, not by their own personal virtue. It is the soul's disposition at the moment of death that determines its eternal reward, not whether the the majority of a person's life was marked foremost by virtue or vice.

And furthermore, what of the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, and of Purgatory after death for souls in need of further cleansing from sin after death?

The ultimate end of the saved soul is to live immortally united to its physical glorified body, not to "escape" from time to its eternal state of disembodied bliss. (Sounds more like Buddhism to me)

And if life on earth is only to "justify" a soul's eternal decision, what is the point of Purgatory?

I could say more, but needless to say, this "Co-eternalism" view is in fact completely incompatible with the doctrines of the Catholic Faith and must be rejected.

[Snarf]

[i]if you are hung up on reductionism, then you have a whole lot more reading to do regarding philosophy of the mind [/i]

That's a cop-out, which is not what I was asking for.

[i]Ultimately, your fundamental premise and reason for writing the book is one that is still very much up in the air[/i]

Only in philosophical and religious circles, brother. There is scientific debate about how far Heisenberg uncertainty extends, there are debates about at what point determinism sinks in, in the history of the universe, et cetera. But there is no scientific camp that argues that the soul magically makes ex nihilo acts of will that are actualized by the body. That's not scientific, it's not even sensible. Gilbert Ryle's proclamation of the "ghost in the machine" has dominated the scientific camp since it was made, and I don't think you can disprove that by simply calling me unread.

[i]What then is the purpose of this piece of clockwork?
If a soul's decision for good or evil is made outside of the clockwork, why is this clockwork at all necessary? How does it "justify" anything?
The purely spiritual angels did not need to have any physical bodies to merit their eternal bliss or damnation. What is different with humans if they make their choice eternally as you describe??[/i]

This is something about which Nicolas Malebranche, a 17th-Century priest, wrote extensively. In essence, he said that the purpose of life is to "earn" our place in eternity. In order to merit our place in heaven or hell, we have to actualize a human life as well as witness the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Sure, call it ass-backwards, but it's similar to what Leibniz believed, and he was co-inventor of integral calculus.

I believe in the Resurrection, and in Purgatory, and think that they make even more sense in my system. I speak at length on eschatology in my book (to which I have no access at the moment, until my other computer is set up again). One thing that I talk about in my thesis but neglected in my book is the subject of prayer, which at first seems to pose a problem but I resolve it adequately.

[i]needless to say, this "Co-eternalism" view is in fact completely incompatible with the doctrines of the Catholic Faith and must be rejected.[/i]

Needless to say, you're slightly biased. If it must be rejected, then may it be rejected by the voice of reason and not that of tradition. The best case scenario would be that we could articulate existing doctrine in such a way as to accomodate a scientifically-sound view of the soul. However, right now the Catechism's view of the soul is inchoate and inadequate. I'm not saying that Coeternalism is the only answer, I'm just saying that it's the most sensible one I know. When I was studying parallelism, for instance, I was seduced by its beauty but could not accept it because it renders obsolete the soul's agency over the body. It's obvious that there is more to the soul than just the mind, lest the soul not exist at all.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but things have been busy and I have a much slower connection right now since I'm at home in the country. I did get to go to a Tridentine mass on Sunday, which was quite enjoyable.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]if you are hung up on reductionism, then you have a whole lot more reading to do regarding philosophy of the mind

That's a cop-out, which is not what I was asking for.[/quote]

No, it isn't a cop-out. You are misrepresenting the consensus in the scientific community in order to make your theory appear necessary, when, in fact, it is not.

[quote]Ultimately, your fundamental premise and reason for writing the book is one that is still very much up in the air

Only in philosophical and religious circles, brother. There is scientific debate about how far Heisenberg uncertainty extends, there are debates about at what point determinism sinks in, in the history of the universe, et cetera. But there is no scientific camp that argues that the soul magically makes ex nihilo acts of will that are actualized by the body. That's not scientific, it's not even sensible. Gilbert Ryle's proclamation of the "ghost in the machine" has dominated the scientific camp since it was made, and I don't think you can disprove that by simply calling me unread.[/quote]

Snarf, you are admitting to the problem inherent in your argumentation and then act like you can sweep it under the table. If reductive determinism is simply false then there is clearly room for free will. The [i]how[/i] is certainly not settled, but nor should it be at this point, since most scientists are still trying to figure out what to do with Heisenberg. On this point, David Bohm's theory is the [i]only[/i] deterministic theory that offers an explanation, and it is most certainly not as widely accepted as you make it appear to be.

In general, my problem with most of your posts (aside from their lack of orthodoxy) is the fact that you constantly make broad overgeneralizations and caricatures of a number of intellectual discussions, and those caricatures don't hold up to serious scrutiny. When we actually turn to those discussions, things seem far more uncertain than you make them out to be.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 20 2005, 09:56 PM'] The best case scenario would be that we could articulate existing doctrine in such a way as to accomodate a scientifically-sound view of the soul. 
[/quote]

I just don't think we'll ever be able to pin down the a soul's definition by science...

I've got a grasp of physicis, but as far as theology & psychology, I am completely unread. I can appreciate that you want a thorough criticism of your book and theories, but I don't know enough about the building blocks of your hypotheses in order to see if you've stacked them correctly.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 10:57 AM']I just don't think we'll ever be able to pin down the a soul's definition by science...

I've got a grasp of physicis, but as far as theology & psychology, I am completely unread.  I can appreciate that you want a thorough criticism of your book and theories, but I don't know enough about the building blocks of your hypotheses in order to see if you've stacked them correctly.
[right][snapback]836842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


My guess is your grasp of physics is the time youv'e spent in the bar analyzing pool shots or perhaps the force needed to bust a pool stick over your head. It's obvious you don't have much of a grasp of anything else.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:15 AM']  It's obvious you don't have much of a grasp of anything else.

[/quote]

Shame, shame, thess. If you start a name-calling contest in PM, the rules are that you KEEP it in PM. You don't drag a fight INTO someone's house...much less someone's thread about the true nature of the soul.

Although, I think a definition of a fight has to involve both of the parties landing a punch every [i]once[/i] in a while. Otherwise, it's just a red-*ss beatdown.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 11:19 AM']Shame, shame, thess.  If you start a name-calling contest in PM, the rules are that you KEEP it in PM.  You don't drag a fight INTO someone's house...much less someone's thread about the true nature of the soul.
[right][snapback]836845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You started this junior. It is my hope I get kicked off this board. I can't stand your ugly avatar.

Edited December 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:20 AM']You started this junior. 
[/quote]

....you message [i]me[/i], call me a jack***, and say that I started it?

LOL

Here, I started a thread for [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45127"]YOU[/url]

Kindly step out of this thread...

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 11:24 AM']....you message [i]me[/i], call me a jack***, and say that I started it?

LOL

Here, I started a thread for [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45127"]YOU[/url]

Kindly step out of this thread...
[right][snapback]836849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Just so the record is staight cow who said this:

Apparently someone got a big box of poopie under their Christmas tree this year.

Oh so funny. wasn't it. Shall I start posting your pm's?

your good at the lol thing cow. Not good at common sense and knowing when to shut up however.

Edited December 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[Cow of Shame]

*sigh*

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45127"]Let's try again, eh? Move along, move along...[/url]

[homeschoolmom]

C'mon, you two... knock it off....

[Cow of Shame]

You're a bit late to this party, HSMom. Check the time stamps on this & the locked thread.

And if I might quote myself from the start of this...

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:19 AM']If you start a name-calling contest in PM, the rules are that you [b]KEEP it in PM.[/b] 
[/quote]

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame