-
So I have been told by hardcore christians that animals don't have souls and therefore they don't go to heaven (or hell). What I don't get is that how can we have souls, but they can't b/c we are animals too! We are mammals, yet other animals in our family and all don't have them?! Doesn't make logical sense to me, unless science is somehow wrong now?!?!
-
If the soul is what animates the body
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"
Genesis 2: 7 (KJV)
what then motates these walking shells of supposed nothingness?
These supposed "hardcore christians" are seriously lacking in logic. From where do they gather their biblical info to support this stance?
Regarding delivery to heaven or hell, the beast possesses no self-determination but is governed by instinct. The law has no hold upon the ignorant, as they know not to be held accountable. Hence, delivery to places determined by the prerequisite of personal choice is a foolish philosophical endeavor. One cannot be held accountable for what they have not been taught. Have you ever seen an animal contributing to your Sunday school discussions? I don't think you ever will. Therefore, I find it a farcical scene to see an animal set before God to answer for his deeds or misdeeds, the trial requisite for entry to heaven or hell according to Christian doctrine. You needn't be a theologian or believer to spot the ridiculosity of what currently confounds you.
Personally, I think those who purport this line of thought are bozos. Atheist or believer can spot that gaping hole in logic. If people have souls; animals as living, animated beings must also of necessity possess souls. The differentiation in my opinion is determined by accountability. Man is accountable insofar as he is educated. The animal is a creature governed by instinct and incapable of theological and moral instruction, therefore not accountable.
I hope this helps. Personally, I think this sort of contemplative navel-gazing is a waste of time, but it's always fun to weigh in on such perambulations to make one feel all important and stuff. Thanks for the opportunity.
Al -
I take it that a philosophic argument as to why I don't believe there's such a thing as a soul at all, would really be of help to the discussion? hehe
-
-
It would actually please me so, lol. I don't believe in them that much either...kinda...not sure yet.
=] Ash
-
-
We don't even know
if we have souls, so it seems silly to exclude Fluffy and Duke from our species-specific collective fantasy. -
-
Don't be silly...
of course we have souls, Bill. Haven't you ever read of the experiment wherein the body is weighed before and after death? Immediately after death the body weighs 21 grams less. Scripturally, the "worth of a soul is great in the sight of God" and here you're saying it's "much ado about nothing".
Twenty-one grams is not nothing. Check it out, Billsy. Google "soul, 21 grams". I think Fluffy and Duke just gained some weight.
Al -
-
Gotta love it. I don't think any religious people/philosophers have ever asserted that a soul would or should weigh anything. In fact it ridicules the whole concept of the soul (i.e. it is a NON-PHYSICAL part of you that doesn't die when the PHYSICAL body dies, lol). And yet this bizarre (and dubious) fact is leapt upon as evidence.
Change the argument to suit the evidence I guess.
Having done some research and biblical reading, according to the bible only god and humans have souls, even angels don't. So if you're christian, I'm afraid fluffy and Duke shall indeed not be waiting for you on the other side.
-
-
-
Uh....yes, Mr. Science?
I recall the many lively debates between you and bible lady Hannah in the which you endured a sound thrashing, all the while holding doggedly to scientific fact. The little 21 grams tid-bit? Scientific fact. Interpretation? Go what ever way you wish. But please, explain it away for me, Mr. Science. That, I gotta see. Google it "soul, 21 grams". Read for yourself and then get back to me.
Regarding religious people and philosophers, what do they care as to the weight of a soul so long as they are in full comprehension of the worth of a soul?
Also, please define "non-physical" if you would please. Your premise would suggest that it is anything without mass, this according to your statement that the soul doesn't weigh anything. Hmmmm...an object in space is weightless and therefore has no mass, yet it exists because I dun seen the space shuttle go up and then by golly I dun seen it come back down again. Interesting, isn't it?
Please, I need you to elucidate more clearly upon your premise, as what I have to go on is insufficient according to the scientific logic you most apparently appear to espouse. Please, do tell...
Also, a question: What is your take on the theory of relativity regarding mass at the speed of light?
Oh, and please, spare me the nasal allusions to your correspondence courses at Oxford. Dude, I'm a plumber. Bible thumper lady didn't care, nor do I. Am I bible-thumper? No. But I do dig such conversation so I'm happy to pick up the gauntlet where Hannah left off...just for kicks.
Al
p.s. Also, the terminology here needs to be corrected. The word 'soul' is being used as the word 'spirit'. The soul is the union of body and spirit, each being a separate thing. 'Soul' is the combined union of both.(See Genesis 2:7, KJV) When death occurs, the spirit leaves the body, hence the 21 grams. So the word "spirit" is an more apt term. -
-
*sigh* Right...
If you are actually going to pick up where Hannah left off then this is a waste of our time because she was impossible to debate with. What she did (consistently) was never reply to the arguments I was making. She would reply to a different argument and claim victory. Now, whether she was deliberately or accidentally completely miss-reading/miss-interpreting/ignoring my arguments, I do not know, but whereas I consistently replied to precisely what she was saying, she never gave me the same courtesy.
I sat down on several occasions and went "Look, this statement in the bible is in direct contradiction to the ENTIRE corpus of roman law and historical sources (which is big), the whole or historical and archaeological academia, and, more than that, it made no sense if you thought of it in practical terms. What do you think regarding this? Is the bible still completely infallible?"
I made this point several times, very clearly. And she utterly ignored it. If you "wish to take up the gauntlet", please argue in a rational logical way in response to the arguments made, because ostriches do not make good debaters.
Okay, I shall deal with our scientific weight/mass disagreement first:
I’ll start by getting us set straight on definition then reply to your point. There is a fundamental difference between mass and weight (Yes?). This is why they have two entirely separate units, namely Newtons and g, one Newton being equivalent to 10g. Newtons are the measurement of weight and vary in accordance with the force being exerted upon them, therefore in space one’s weight is negligible (although actually there is a small amount of gravity in space, but that’s by the by). Ones mass on the other hand is constant (note CONSTANT). This never changes and is the same on the moon, on earth, in space and in the kingdom of heaven after the Eschaton time. Weight is not a constant, but mass is, unless, as you so rightly suggested, one is accelerating to speeds approaching that of light. However, unless you would like to start a separate thread discussing general relativity, I do not, (please correct me if I am wrong) see how this is relevant, as the body is neither constantly in space or accelerating to speeds approaching that of light upon death.
Now, I assume we agree with all this, so we are both on the same page. So, to the argument!
*I* said that as the soul was supposedly non-physical (i.e. had no mass). If something has mass (which we have established is a constant) it cannot have weight either, and so I said that as souls should have no mass, it cannot have weight. Therefore the loss of the soul would not be indicated by a net change in weight. YOU replied that by implication a weightless space shuttle had no mass, when clearly it does, thus proving that my argument was fallacious by its implications. However, this is a miss-step in logic on your part. While a lack of mass inherently means a lack of weight, a lack of weight does not inherently mean a lack of mass, because the two are not bi-conditional. My statement holds, but you cannot reverse-engineer the logic back the other way. It simply doesn’t follow. By comparison, saying that all long-jumpers are human cannot be used to argue that all living humans are long jumpers.
Now, let us get into the theology and allow me to help with the terminology, as you seem so very eager to get it correct. I’m afraid you have your terms wrong in terms of your PS, and the KJV quote doesn’t help. Allow me to elucidate:
The Bible makes use of two words for spirit. Pneuma (πνευμα
and Paraclete. (παράκλητος (Parakletos). The former can be roughly translated from the Greek as breath, whilst the latter can be translated as shepherd or comforter. Please forgive my use of transliteration but it would be a real bind to continually use the Greek so I shall settle with the English. Anyway the origin of the Pneuma, the first Holy Spirit, occurs in Genesis. In which God, as John later amends, uses the Logos to breathe life into Adam, animating the clay and giving it spirit. HIS spirit, the Holy spirit. Some good points of reference are; John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” And Genesis 2.7 “the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Note this translation, does not misleadingly say “soul”, as the KJV inaccurately does). Adam being of course the Hebrew for earth.
So God animated the earth with his spirit, his word, his breath. John the evangelist later affirms that this is in fact Jesus (John 1.10 and 1.14) “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.” “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” This is the Pneuma. It is the animating force of God that is present within everyone. Genesis 1.27 clearly indicates that God made us in his image but imparting us all with a fraction of himself. This is the spirit that has always been with us and keeps us from being clay. However, after the fall this was not enough. Fast forward to John and he states that God sent Jesus (the incarnation of the Logos) to light our path effectively (John 2:1).
Now, pertinent to our discussion is the use of the word "paraclete" here. It is used to describe the intercessory role of Jesus. And in John 14:16 Jesus says "another paraclete" will come to help his Disciples after him, confirming that Jesus is the first paraclete. The Paraclete is what Christians generally mean when the refer to the Holy Spirit, it is translated as comforter, shepherd or helper, much like Jesus. It was best described by the famous scholar Reverend Bultmann as the “intangible and ever- present being of Christ while he is away”. It is only needed until the Parousia, the imminent return of Jesus, and until then it is God/Jesus’ gift to watch over his flock – John 20:22 “And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit”.
So, there are two spirits referred to in the Bible, these both being entities or portions of God which God gives to us. Not something that can be stained by sin, or provide individual consciousness.
Souls on the other hand, the non- physical (YEP you heard it , non physical), portions of ourselves that are the only enduring bit, the bit that serves as a spiritual accounting slab with a measure of plusses and minuses, these are quite different. The word itself occurs relatively infrequently in the Bible, in fact the Gospel of John does not mention it at all (but then John does not mention heaven or hell either, but hey, that’s Realised Eschatology for you). There has been long and heated discussion about whether our bodies will return at all at the judgement, and if they do, whether they will be recognisable. Revelations is unclear on this but it appears most likely that the body will be different, but the spirit will make us recognisable to each other as we will see what truly is. So theologically the soul is completely separate from the body, in fact it MUST be in order to perform the role it is supposed to.
Interestingly, Christian attempts to provide a physical reality and presence for the soul originate with Aquinas who in his struggle to provide justification for very early abortion (roughly 9 days), argued that the soul was introduced to the body at a certain early point in the pregnancy and that it could be located once it had arrived (and so abortion before this was allowable, as there was no soul). Before that Christians assumed that the mechanism worked in an inscrutable way- much like much like God. More entertainingly, Aquinas borrowed his idea from the pagan Aristotle. Anyway, pre-Aquinas people assumed that the soul was intangible, non physical, incorporeal, and therefore could not be measured. And this is still the prevailing view today anyway.
My point put simply is that, according to Christian doctrine, the soul is an entity that cannot be measured. Therefore this whole 21 grams thing is nonsense as evidence for the existence of the soul, whether the science is accurate or not (see my PS.). It may be a very interesting and bizarre scientific fact, but it is not relevant to the discussion (at least on a Christian basis anyway, which is what we are discussing). I am not in any way arguing that the soul doesn’t exist, merely that this does not count as evidence.
So just to recap:
1. Your logic invalidating my argument that, as a non-physical thing, the soul should have no weight was based on illogic.
2. You are using the terms “soul and spirit” incorrectly, and that KJV quote you gave is incredibly misleading, and Christian doctrine does not agree with you.
3. Theologically, the soul must be non-physical to serve the purpose it is supposed to. It is entirely separate from the body, in fact it must be, so it’s absence might be detectable, but not in the weight of the body.
Kind regards,
Iorek
PS:
NOTE 1: I note that you quoted a KJV. I would like to point out that if you want serious academic and theological discussion you should not use a King James. They sound wonderful, but the reason that not a single church continues their use is because of the extraordinary inaccuracies introduced as a result of being based upon inaccurate Latin translations (Jerome’s - bless him, he meant well - Vulgate) rather than the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible, unlike the Koran, never makes claim to infallibility (how can it when the letters are purely the advice of Paul, who in many respects disagreed with Peter, Rock and founder of the Church). But it is a beautiful document that deserves to be read as accurately as possible; for my sake, your sake and for God’s sake, please get yourself a better copy.
NOTE 2: Following your advice, I did indeed google the 21 grams to better examine the scientific evidence, and found the following (which I assume you either haven't read, or have excellent arguments to dismiss) regarding the so-called conclusive study into this question:
"Firstly, six (as in the six dying patients) is not a large enough sample size. When I studied statistics, my lecturer convinced me that, concerning people preferring one cola to another, "8 out of 10 is not statistically significant, but 16 out of 20 is".
Second, he got "good" results (ie, the patient irreversibly lost weight at the moment of death) from just one of the six patients, not all six! Two of the results had to be excluded because of "technical difficulties". One patient's death did show a drop in weight of about three-eighths of an ounce - but this later reversed itself! Two of the other patients registered an immediate loss of weight at the moment of death, but then their weight dropped again a few minutes later. (Does this mean that they died twice!?) Only one of the six patients showed a sudden and non-reversible loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce (21 grams).
The third problem is a little more subtle. Even today, with all of our sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to determine the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular death, brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc?"
-
-
Forgive my tardiness
But I am currently laboring to bolster my high school physics education and sunday school instruction further in order that I may answer you in an intelligent fashion. I've been doing a lot of reading, and still have more to do. Apparently there is no current research validating my theories so I am postulating on my own. Answers will be forthcoming, and I am certain you shall she shocked and awed at my scintillating replies...That is, when I have become sufficiently well versed in quantum mechanics as I am currently laboring to do. Have no doubt that I shall pose an intriguing theory. And really what can I do? Everything is postulation and perception if you really think about it.
Forgive me, I must catch up to your Oxford educated self. But have no doubt but that will, soon.
Bear with me. As you can see by my failure to delineate between mass and weight I have a lot of catching up to do.
Al -
-
Okay...
I'm sorry that my first comment on this topic was mocking and somewhat flippant, because that obviously annoyed you. We've only been responding in kind ever since, and it's not productive. This whole over the top verbosity and the utterly pointless snide remarks and sarcasm really isn't getting anyone anywhere. And this is about a sensible discussion not a question of who's a better smart ass. Might I propose we both drop it from this point on?
Now, just to finish clearing the air:
Why, oh why, do you keep banging on about the fact that I'm at oxford? I mentioned it once to whatever her name was once because she was acting like I was an uneducated idiot who wasn't worth her time, to which I basically responded "Give me some credit, I'm at oxford, I can't be a complete moron". Nowhere in any of my arguing have I implied that I'm better than you or employed any intellectual snobbery.
If you have a problem with the university I'm at, then tell me and maybe we can deal with the issue, but don't keep referring to it as if I'm making a big deal out of it or rubbing it in your face. Because that simply isn't the case.
My being at oxford is in fact highly irrelevant, as I am neither a physicist, nor a theologist. Indeed, I have not studied either for at least three years, lol! The only thing I can profess that I might have you at an advantage for is a knowledge of classical greek with which I can read the new testament in the original, but this is hardly a theology degree.
Now, purely out of interest... I don't quite get what quantum mechanics has to do with anything. Lol! I mean, our whole physics question was (I assume) resolved because it was a result of us both using terms loosely, and my argument works on the premise that the soul is not a physical thing, yours on the fact that it is. Therefore, surely, any future basis of your argument should be with theology, whether the soul *is* physical or not. How physics (especially not quantum mechanics of all things, lol) can feature in the future of the argument escapes me, lol.
Unless you're research will prove that something with no mass can have weight... which sounds like it would be groundbreaking and probably earn you a nobel prize, lol.
Anyways, I look forward to any replies you might have, and hope that all dialogue shall be given and recieved in a better spirit in future.
Chris -
-
Oh, please no...
don't drop it.
I like these kinds of discussions and if I can box an educated and intelligent person into a conversation with me to act as an sounding board for my crazy theories and ideas that's like gold to me.
Iorek, you're sharp. But I have noticed that intellectual ego swell a bit when talking to Hannah and also others. Your initial "*sigh*" is just one of many hints at your intellectual condescension. Being as how you're an Oxford man, I grant you that as it is no small feat to be accepted into that prestigious institution. To be honest, I rather look forward to your feedback on the theory I am presently postulating. And truly, I have had a terrific time researching Bose-Einstein condensates and learning about how the photon has no mass; about relativistic mass and invariant mass. I'm getting an education and it has been quite thrilling. If you puss out on me now I shall be quite pissed as I have some interesting theories to pose to you and would very much enjoy your educated feedback.
Iorek, I am not an educated man. I have an high school education and am self-taught in everything else. But I am intelligent and can think very well, having scored high on various tests regarding such. But I lack knowledge, so in that department I in all humility defer to those who have it; until I catch up.
So, I am gonna win the Nobel Prize and finally justify science to religion once and for all, but I'm asking for your feedback as I do so. I know you're a good guy, Iorek. No offense taken and may we continue in the spirit of discovery. I've often said I'm gonna discover the secret behind life(who made who, etc.) and share it with the world(half kidding, half serious). This is a good start.
-
-
-
-
-
Well,
In the nicest possible way mate, my "sigh" was a response to the fact that your reply was incredibly snide, lol. Obviously you were annoyed with me, but... you were going a long way out of your way to try and ridicule or put me down as much as possible within one message, lol. I figured it didn't bode well for the discussion ahead, hence the sigh. There was nothing intellectual about it. The fact that you said I got thoroughly trounced by hannah either demonstrated that you were trying to gloat unjustifiably, or you hadn't actually read the argument properly. And I sighed because I was thinking "Here we go again" as arguing with Hannah was one of the most pointless, unrewarding and unproductive things I have ever done.
We have proved ourselves better than our initial posts, however.
And don't worry, I meant could we drop the sarcasm, not the argument.
Chris
(And I still don't see how on earth you're getting advanced physics into this, mate, lol) -
Fun to read
I am an interloper here, quickly hiding my M.Ed from U of Toronto as being neither here nor there. Although it served me well, it was a thousand years ago anyway, and this is now.
Gentlemen, do please continue the debate. It is the best thing I have read here for a long time!
Terry -
-
Fun to argue too
Currently we're waiting upon Plumeister's research, hehe. Which I'm really intrigued by, because he seems to be focussing on the physics part of the argument, rather than the theology (which surprises me, because I would have thought the theology was infinitely more debatable). Which would seem to suggest that he's about to argue that souls are capable of having weight while no mass. Which my physics education, as far as it goes, is currently stumped on.
This is all so intriguing! hehe
Chris -
-
Okay, I got some good stuff
cooking up right now with heavy duty quantum physics, but mathematical proofs(I am no mathematician) I am sure will prove problematic as I am certain you will demand them, wanting more than simply my opinion. As I am about to embark on my own principia, Newton style, I'll be asking for some slack time(It took Newton years and he was an educated man). So as not to drag this out in waiting, I thought I'd begin on the religious front while I'm cooking up the Quantum mechanics part.
So, first off, I think we need some common ground. First, I wish to establish the nature of God as you see it, as this is central to all our discussion. What is your belief regarding the Nicene Creed? Because I think it is bogus. I believe that the trinity is just as it's name implies, three separate entities unified in purpose. God, the Father. Jesus Christ the Son and God of this World, and the Holy Spirit. What is your understanding regarding this and why?
Just want to lay down some ground rules and find some common ground. Then I feel I can progress, having some ammo supplied by you to work with. I will address your other points, one by one, but I have felt the need to address the above mentioned point first, if you would be so kind.
I look forward to your reply.
Al
-
-
-
I have been following this debate since the question has been posted, even to the point of researching the mentioned arguments. I do hope that this does not end here as the arguments that Plumeister are to present might be interesting. And Lorek...your thought process and presentation of arguments are precise. Debating is such a beautiful thing, so long as its not mixed with fallacies.
-
....
And I thought I wouldn't be getting that many posts on here...wow! Boy was I wrong! Keep it up guys, I am curious to see who wins...or who gives-up first seeing how that's the only way one could win it seems. -
People are animals. We eat, breath, sleep, etc. just like every other animal. Deep thought makes us very special animals. If we have souls then why couldn't other animals also have souls?
-
Yesh
Oh course animals have souls.
Did you know that humans are actually animals?
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
skipeople
Aug 24 9:50 AM 2007
Reply