RE: Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?
March 14, 2015 at 4:21 pm
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2015 at 4:22 pm by Whateverist.)
(March 12, 2015 at 8:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: If what you really want to know is how my definition of human differs from most theists I know, the answer is really very simple: their definition includes a soul and mine does not. But it's possible to be an atheist and believe in a soul, just not a god given one.
This gives me an entry point to the discussion. I am one of the atheists who is happy to attach a meaning to the word soul, albeit a different one from most theists. For me it has only to do with the depth of identity or self. I feel there is something essential about each one of us which is not ours to decide but which must instead be discovered. We then take whatever stand toward what we discover. But the self is there to be known or ignored all the same.
Now I have no metaphysical trappings attached to what I mean by soul. I don't imagine it as a radio receiver pulling in a signal from some cosmic consciousness. Nor do I see it as immortal let alone eternal.
My own theory is that awareness of it arises from the internal awareness of a primal otherness, and its dynamic interaction with the conscious mind. Perhaps it is a remnant of our mammalian and earlier brains and modes of being. I don't pretend to know about its physiology or metaphysical nature. All I know is its phenomenology as experienced directly. This has been a pretty durable belief for me and informs the way I interpret the words and behaviors of others. It feels highly significant, something to be valued and nurtured.
Fortunately for me, by being something I conceptualize as being on-board, I don't need to work it into science. There is really no doctrine to tip toe around it, so I don't experience any cognitive dissonance on its account of which I am aware.
