(December 14, 2021 at 3:37 am)Belacqua Wrote:

Quote:Soul is more generally about the structure of our animate lives — it is our animation and how our animation functions. The Latin is anima. This includes but is not limited to the actions of the mind. It also includes the activities that the rest of your body is up to right now, including whatever your liver and your gall bladder are doing.

The simplest possible answer is "that which makes us alive." 

Greek philosophers defined the soul in various ways, some of which included some of the actions of the mind. 

As you might expect, Aristotle's answer was the most worked-out, consistent, and hard to argue with: "a system of abilities possessed and manifested by animate bodies of suitable structure." 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

I tend to get the hives whenever I see a 'that which...' definition. Such tend to assume there is only one such thing that does the job and that it is done in some uniform way.

So, if I find out that we are alive because of the differences of chemical potential between molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide together with the enzymes requires for respiration, does that make the 'soul' that difference in chemical potential together with those enzymes?

I suspect most people talking about souls don't see it like that.

As for Ari's definition, the 'system' seems to be much more complex and *physical* than what most people seem to imagine souls to be like.

While a reasonable definition, I would question whether the word is used like that in most discussions. If it is a technical definition, I guess it is acceptable.

(December 11, 2021 at 9:52 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 11, 2021 at 9:27 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I can't speak for the OP, but for me, my athreism is a provisional position, it is not a destination.

This seems very reasonable to me, and wise.

Quote:I am completely open to being convinced a god or gods exist, but without rational, evidence based, reasoned argument, and valed and sound logic to support the case that a god exists, how would we go about figuring out if it is true, or likely to be true? As long as theists continue to fail to provide good standards of evidence to support their claims, my atheism will continue.

I think you'll see that there are two points here that can be questioned.

The first is whether or not rational evidence based reasoned argument with valid and sound logic really has failed to support the case that god exists. 

The second is whether such an approach is the only or best way to support the case that god exists. 

Believe it or not there are fascinating, non-crazy, challenging thinkers who disagree with you on both points.

What evidence, that is verifiable, demonstrable and falsifiable, have theists ever offered in support of the existence of a god? All they seem to do, is point their specific ancient texts, personal testimony, hearsay, and fallacious philosophical arguments.

If demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to demonstrate the existence of a god is not the only way or the best way, please offer another method that can reliably tell fact from fiction.

Because, the same 'methods' that theists currently use to justify their own beliefs, if applied equally to all religions and god beliefs, (and other supernatural beliefs), would have to also allow those other god beliefs to clear the same bar that their own god beliefs clear.

The "fascinating, non-crazy, challenging thinkers" you are referring to; what have they been able to offer up to demonstrate a god exists? If you are referring to arguments like: Kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument (including Plantinga's 'modal' version), teleological arguments, presuppositional arguments, etc, are either valid and/or sound.

Quote:And let me add, that I don't think theists have a rational reason to believe in gods. It is not that my bar is set too high, it's that theirs is set too low.

Quote:Or is set differently. It is hard to imagine, in our place, time, and social class, that sane people could disagree with us, but this is what questioning one's own beliefs consists of.

I never accused theists of being insane. The vast majority are sane. They just have beliefs that are unsupported by evidence, and valid and sound logic.

(December 14, 2021 at 3:37 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 14, 2021 at 12:02 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: So what's the genuine distinction between mind and soul, other than there are two different Greek words for the things?

The description I gave above was: 

Quote:Soul is more generally about the structure of our animate lives — it is our animation and how our animation functions. The Latin is anima. This includes but is not limited to the actions of the mind. It also includes the activities that the rest of your body is up to right now, including whatever your liver and your gall bladder are doing.

The simplest possible answer is "that which makes us alive." 

Greek philosophers defined the soul in various ways, some of which included some of the actions of the mind. 

As you might expect, Aristotle's answer was the most worked-out, consistent, and hard to argue with: "a system of abilities possessed and manifested by animate bodies of suitable structure." 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

I carefully read your previous post when you posted it. There are distinctions I didn't really agree with. Or, at the very least, I was apprehensive about having had read Plato wrong after all these years. But I gave it some thought and concluded that I probably wasn't reading him wrong. 

Soul and mind have been colloquialized over the centuries. The average person may think of "soul" as some floating vaporous thing that leaves our body when we die. They may never ascribe to it sensations of desire or the capacity of thought as Plato did. Those things they would say are things related to the mind or brain. Plato packages all these things together. That's how I understand him, anyway. Things psychologists ascribe to the "mind" in their writings, Plato ascribed to the soul.

What I mean by soul is all the experiential things of our inner world. Maybe the unconscious too. Are you familiar with Jung? He used the word "psyche" in his writings. When I use the word soul (or mind), I basically mean what Jung meant when he used the word "psyche." I've always assumed that Plato meant something similar. Unless I am in error as to how to understand Plato, he agrees with Jung except Plato also thinks the psyche is indestructible, eternal, and can recall things it has learned in previous lives under the right conditions. To me, Nous would just be a part of the psyche. How exactly do we understand Plato differently? And, if I'm in error, I would like to be corrected. I looked up Nous on wikipedia and learned quickly that it can have many different interpretations... from intelligence or cognitive activity to awareness itself. As cognitive activity, I'd say nous is a part of the mind. But if it's awareness itself, then I may be conflating nous and psyche.

I've always dug Aristotle's theory of plant, animal souls since I first learned of them in school. It's way more materialistic than Plato's theories. (Perhaps that's why it's an improvement over Plato?) -shrug-

What makes people irrational thinkers? How about tribalism? You have some ideas, or should I say convictions, that become part of the tribe. So when someone is challenging those ideas, those who believe them don’t actually listen to them because they feel like you are attacking their tribe by challenging their ideas. They are obviously not open to actual thinking, but instead, go out of their way into irrationality to “defend” their ideas-identity.

Therefore, it is said that if you believe that a carpenter walked on water, you are a Christian, or if you believe that a man flew on a donkey to the seventh layer of heaven you are a Muslim, so you can imagine that to them it is not merely thinking about if their ideas are right or wrong, but actually losing the whole identity of who they are.

(December 14, 2021 at 3:37 am)Belacqua Wrote: The simplest possible answer is "that which makes us alive." 

Like in "that which makes blood red"?
Kindly demonstrate that there is a "that", before we go to the demonstration that this "that" could be, or in fact is, a soul.

(December 15, 2021 at 4:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: What evidence, that is verifiable, demonstrable and falsifiable, have theists ever offered in support of the existence of a god?

I don't think that metaphysical issues can be settled by such evidence, by definition. You're talking science, but metaphysics is different.

Quote:All they seem to do, is point their specific ancient texts, personal testimony, hearsay, and fallacious philosophical arguments.

Personal testimony can be very persuasive. 

Metaphysics only works through philosophical arguments, and if you've judged that all theological arguments are fallacious then it's reasonable for you to reject them.

---

(December 15, 2021 at 11:06 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Soul and mind have been colloquialized over the centuries. The average person may think of "soul" as some floating vaporous thing that leaves our body when we die. They may never ascribe to it sensations of desire or the capacity of thought as Plato did. Those things they would say are things related to the mind or brain. 

As I wrote before, the Greeks had different views of soul. Some included what we'd call mind, or parts of it, and some not. 

As for the popular image, that no doubt varies a lot as well. If they think the soul can leave the body and still be awake and thinking, then apparently it has sensations and thoughts. Does this theoretical "average person" think that the soul will be aware and awake on Judgment Day, for example? I seem to remember a number of paintings which show the reawakened souls to be very unhappy about going to Hell. 

Quote:Jung? He used the word "psyche" in his writings. When I use the word soul (or mind), I basically mean what Jung meant when he used the word "psyche."

Jung was careful to differentiate what he called the psyche (Psyche in his German) from the soul (seele). I suspect he revived the earlier Greek word (with a new meaning) to specify its difference from the more common German seele.

What he called the psyche included the whole set of processes, conscious as well as unconscious. What he called soul was more like personality, or a function complex. It was less than the whole psyche. 

Quote:Plato, he agrees with Jung except Plato also thinks the psyche is indestructible, eternal, and can recall things it has learned in previous lives under the right conditions.

Plato had no concept of an unconscious mind. For him, mind is thinking consciously. 

As you say, he did think we might have memories from before we were born which could come to the surface, but there was nothing like the active, ongoing, affective unconscious of Freud or Jung. 

There are hints of an unconscious mind as early as Plotinus, and Paracelsus thought we might be perceiving things which we weren't aware that we were perceiving. But the term was coined in the 19th century by Schelling (Unbewusste), and translated as "unconscious mind" by Coleridge. 

So I'm not sure how Plato's ψυχή resembles Jung's, except in name. They are structured and function entirely differently. 

(December 16, 2021 at 6:31 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 14, 2021 at 3:37 am)Belacqua Wrote: The simplest possible answer is "that which makes us alive." 

Like in "that which makes blood red"?
Kindly demonstrate that there is a "that", before we go to the demonstration that this "that" could be, or in fact is, a soul.

I am always bothered when something is defined as 'that which does something'. The definition itself assumes that there is a single thing that 'does something' and that it is uniform across all examples. That is almost always false.

For example, what is it that makes me alive? Well, life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions which, in my case, is driven by the difference in chemical potential of molecular oxygen and sugars and the end products of carbon dioxide and water. The specifics are quite complex, but that is the ultimate basis for keeping the collection of chemical reactions going.

In the case of sulfur archaebacteria, however, oxygen is poisonous and the relevant chemical potential is based on sulfur, not oxygen.

For plants, the relevant aspect is the energy from light captured to drive chemical reactions.

There isn't a single 'that' which keeps all living things alive. And it is a HUGE mistake to assume that there is.

In a similar way, the concept of God as a 'source of being' is, I think clearly, incoherent. Among other things, it assumes that there is such a source, and that it is the same under all cases of 'being'. It also assumes that 'being' requires a 'source' (does the source not exist?).

Of course, the ASSUMPTIONS continue in claiming that 'source' is conscious. Which, frankly, is preposterous. Consciousness is, itself, a complex collection of interactions between different parts to process information. How that can be connected to a 'source for being' is never dealt with. In fact, the question seems never to be acknowledged at all.

But it goes further. Not only is this 'source of being' supposed to be conscious, but it is *also* supposed to be the 'source of consciousness'. And, again, that has all of the problems of the original 'source of being'  concept.

I've stared reading the book 'The Experience of God' and have found another thing that seems quite common among theists. It wants to identify matter as 'inert'. And that is *far* from being the case. In fact, the most interesting aspects of physical things is precisely that they *interact*. And, at the most fundamental level, they are *defined* by how they interact: electrons interact via the E&M force with photons with a characteristic coupling; quarks interact via the strong force with gluons and via the E&M force photons, etc.

Physical things have properties and those properties say how they interact with other physical things that also have properties. They are far from being inert.

Another thing the book seems to be trying to do is place metaphysics above science in terms of its reliability. There I have to laugh. the fact that metaphysics is filled with biases and preconceived notions and cannot test itself except through simple logical coherence is the reason why it is ultimately unable to answer any questions and is thereby unreliable. the reason the scientific method works is because it demands that ALL hypotheses be testable and rejects those that cannot from consideration as ultimately meaningless.

That there is no way to test metaphysical ideas is why they cannot be trusted. Logical coherency is a very poor substitute for actual knowledge. And it is far from clear that metaphysics even manages that level of coherence.

(December 16, 2021 at 10:05 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 16, 2021 at 6:31 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Like in "that which makes blood red"?
Kindly demonstrate that there is a "that", before we go to the demonstration that this "that" could be, or in fact is, a soul.

I am always bothered when something is defined as 'that which does something'.

Me too (obviously)

First of all, its completely meaningless. It adds absolutely no content to what we already know or believe. The only "thing" such a claim adds is the unsupported assertion that there is something special, where it could be either some emergent property/combination of things we already know to exist or a gazillion other causes.

It leaves however, for wannabe philosophers, enough (= all) wiggle room in case they want to backpedal or distance themselves from their own unsubstantiated assertion, by giving no content to attack/criticize if one makes the mistake of accepting said unsupported assertion in the first place.

I can accept such a thought process from some ancient philosopher, but i am expecting more, much more, from a person of the modern age, after science has shown us so often how this kind of conclusion "this which does x" was simply wrong.

Someone invoking metaphysics in
3
2
1

(December 16, 2021 at 6:38 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 15, 2021 at 4:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: What evidence, that is verifiable, demonstrable and falsifiable, have theists ever offered in support of the existence of a god?

I don't think that metaphysical issues can be settled by such evidence, by definition. You're talking science, but metaphysics is different.

So, again I ask, what method should we use for these metaphysical issues that can reliably tell fact from fiction? After all, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, all seem to have their share of 'advanced thinkers', that rely on metaphysical methods for their god beliefs, yet, they all come up with drastically differing and mutually exclusive conclusions. Yet, a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu scientist could all, say, measure the speed of light, and come up with the exact same results.

If a metaphysical method is unable to come up with reliable results for the existence a god, whos fault is that? So, a god lets us discover the single most reliable method for discovering truths and facts about reality, yet this same god hides his existence from those methods.

So, either this god is playing the longest game of hide and seek in history, or it doesn't exist. How would we go about telling the difference between a god that is hiding his existence from reliable methods of discovery, and one that does not exist?  

Quote:All they seem to do, is point their specific ancient texts, personal testimony, hearsay, and fallacious philosophical arguments.

Quote:Personal testimony can be very persuasive. 

Metaphysics only works through philosophical arguments, and if you've judged that all theological arguments are fallacious then it's reasonable for you to reject them.

Only to those with poor standards of evidence.

First of all, it has been demonstrated so often at this point, it shouldn't even have to be mentioned, just how unreliable our memories are, and how easily we can be fooled.  

Do you think that every person with personal tetimony, despite their sincere beliefs that they have had an experience with a god, actually has had one? Are there some percentage of them, that: misinterpreted a natural phenomena, had an unusual but natural change in mental state, been fooled by a conman, etc, that caused them to believe they had an experience with a god?

How do we tell the difference between a person whose testimony of their experience with a god was actually a personal experience with a god, or a person that had a natural experience that they misinterpreted as an experience with a god?

Are you persuaded by the personal testimony for: alien abductions, bigfoot, ghosts, telekinesis, etc?

Quote:Metaphysics only works through philosophical arguments, and if you've judged that all theological arguments are fallacious then it's reasonable for you to reject them.

The thing is, it can be demonstrated, pretty easily, that they are indeed fallacious.

Let me add, that if these philosophical arguments are persuasive, why are so many philosophers atheists?

This survey shows only 16.4% of philosophers lean toward theism -

Philosopher Survery

Another study with similar numbers-

Another Study

(December 16, 2021 at 3:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So, again I ask, what method should we use for these metaphysical issues that can reliably tell fact from fiction?

I don't think there is one. 

You definitely shouldn't believe any statement concerning metaphysical issues.