The pernicious idea of an eternal soul
The idea of an eternal soul says we came into the universe. It suggests we are not a part of nature, but spiritual visitors in a material world. Thus, the only world we know is depreciated. Matter is dumb and there must be something more. And the environment suffers abuse.
But we didnt come into the universe; we came out of it. The universe has become me (and everything else). And we know that matter is hardly dumb. Rather, it contains complexity beyond imagination. In trying to understand matter, we are forced to ideas like string theory and quantum field theory, complex theories that may not be complex enough to capture all that matter can do.
If we call matter dumb we insult ourselves, because matter is what we are. If we understood ourselves correctlyas temporary manifestations of something vast and ancient beyond comprehensionthat would be enough.
Why should I care if my finite self persists beyond the life of the body? Most of the time, my finite self focuses on corresponding finite concerns - how to be comfortable; how to gain wealth, power and fameor focuses on entertainment that puts our minds in a passive state, where we can hardly remember an advertisement we saw just a few minutes ago. Of course, our lives are also filled with noble moments, too. Moments of love, of empathy, of elevated thoughts. But these moments pale measured against our infinite self, our vast and ancient larger self, the universe itself.
Eternal existence as a limited, finite self? You can keep it.
But we didnt come into the universe; we came out of it. The universe has become me (and everything else). And we know that matter is hardly dumb. Rather, it contains complexity beyond imagination. In trying to understand matter, we are forced to ideas like string theory and quantum field theory, complex theories that may not be complex enough to capture all that matter can do.
If we call matter dumb we insult ourselves, because matter is what we are. If we understood ourselves correctlyas temporary manifestations of something vast and ancient beyond comprehensionthat would be enough.
Why should I care if my finite self persists beyond the life of the body? Most of the time, my finite self focuses on corresponding finite concerns - how to be comfortable; how to gain wealth, power and fameor focuses on entertainment that puts our minds in a passive state, where we can hardly remember an advertisement we saw just a few minutes ago. Of course, our lives are also filled with noble moments, too. Moments of love, of empathy, of elevated thoughts. But these moments pale measured against our infinite self, our vast and ancient larger self, the universe itself.
Eternal existence as a limited, finite self? You can keep it.
Comments (22)
Good analysis. This error began with Plato and institutionalized by Christianity.
From wishful thinking perhaps?
Plato and Christianity.
Quoting Art48
What/who's idea is this? You must present some identification for this idea. Except of course if it is yours, which I will have to assume. Which agrees with my never having heard about such (unfounded) things as the ones you are presenting in your description regarding the human soul.
Quoting Art48
Why have you changed "universe" to "nature"? What's the difference between them in the current context? That is, if we are not a part of nature, are we also not part of the universe? I believe that you refer to both as physical, material. In which case, the soul (non-physical, non-material) is separate from them. Is that right?
Quoting Art48
What does that mean? Has it diminished in value over time?
Quoting Art48
Do you mean matter is stupid? How can that be? It makes absolutely no sense. Matter can be neither intelligent nor stupid.
Quoting Art48
What this does have to do with anything? And, even if it is assume that soul exists, couldn't it suffer abuse too?
***
I took up your statements one by one. They are all unfounded: either they are unclear or they make no sense. Considering also the fact that you call the idea of soul "pernicious", I can easily assume that you just despise or even hate the idea of the existence of "soul" and that you are not willing to find the truth about the existence or not of a soul. If you were, your title would e.g."Does sould exist?" or something similare. Then you would start about as follows: "Let's see whether the human soul exists or not." And you will then present sensible arguments in favor or against the existence or non-existence of a soul. Or present a list logical statements (a logical scheme), like "Let's assume that ...", "If 'A' is true then ... " etc. For me, examples also are vital. They make points clearer.
Well, anything will do except your presentation of the subject! :smile:
So, I would suggest that you re-examine and present anew the subject ...
It does not begin with Plato or Christianity. Read your old books. If nothing else it is a very useful fiction.
Gosh.
Having grown up in Christian culture(Roman Catholicism) I became aware of a split in the ideas about life after death. On one hand, there is the idea of the immortal soul, which seems to go back to Plato and Eastern traditions. On the other hand, there is the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world.
I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting. I know that some people have thought that the soul may continue until the end of the world. It would seem like many disembodied souls waiting to get their bodies back in glorified form, although some have suggested that the resurrection bodies would be spiritualised, rather than simply flesh and blood.It all seems a tangle of the mind-body problem.
You should be thanking me. I made you smarter today. Ill stop doing it.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes. Saint Augustine (presumedly) has been in heaven for about 1,500 years, in the company of God, enjoying the beatific vision. But if the world ends tomorrow, Augustine gets his body back. Is that suppose to make him happy? Well, gosh, I thought I was happy before but now that Ive got this old thing back, I know what happiness really is. Its absurd.
I believe Jews believed in the resurrection of the body, Greek believed in souls, and the Church merely threw both ideas in the pot with little regard for logical consistency.
So, how did that happen? There's nothing in evolutionary biology which accounts for the existence of DNA, as the theory pre-supposes the existence there being something able to sustain heritable changes in order for evolution to occur. There's nothing in the physical sciences which accounts for the nature of mind, other than the assumption that it is something that must have evolved, given that the mythological accounts of religion can't be scientifically valid.
Quoting Art48
I think this impulse or sentiment you're expressing is actually the residuum of the religious accounts. However notice that science generally, and evolutionary science in particular, rejects any ideas of teleology or the notion that evolution evolves 'towards' anything, other than successful reproduction and adaption. As far as science is concerned, while you may feel subjective admiration towards life, it is something very like a chain reaction, chemical scum, in Stephen Hawking's estimation.
Quoting Art48
Your interpretation is what is absurd. Why do you think, were beings to dwell in some extra-terrestrial psychic dimension such as 'heaven', that time in the human sense would have the same meaning? What if, in those domains, one second is the equivalent of aeons of time on earth? What if, in their understanding, what we regard as existence is merely a phantasmogorical illusion? We have no way of judging that.
The fundamental idea of immortality is to find 'the deathless', something beyond all change and decay. It's not like necessarily being reborn in a fancy condo with your tennis racket and dog, there to live forever, as the popular myth has it. The way it is depicted in religious lore, as it's plainly something outside ordinary comprehension it is presented in images of angels and harps sorrounded by clouds, a concession to the popular imagination. I recall reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in traditional lore, angels were actually sometimes awe inspiring and terrible forces. Nowadays they're cute little cartoon images on birthday cards.
Your post shows little comprehension of the subject at hand. I'm not going to try and persuade you one way or the other but if you're going to post about such a subject, at least try and understand it a little better.
What's your case?
The original post is more of a person observation about the desirability and undesirability of two views: 1) we came out of the universe and are natural beings versus 2) we came into the universe from heaven or some other supernatural place and are supernatural beings, i.e., eternal souls.
As to evidence for view 1), sciences which address our origin support the idea we came out of the universe. For instance, the most abundant elements in the universe in order are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. Helium is a noble gas that doesnt combine easily with other elements. The most common elements in the human body in order are: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen.
As to evidence for view 2), there is none. The existence of the supernatural has never been demonstrated. True, many people find the idea of an eternal soul comforting, and many religions teach it. But in my view, none of that constitutes evidence.
Eternal [math]\to[/math] Cannot die (a disability rather than an ability).