Inconnu

If there is no free will then there is no "me". (?)

Take a car. Remove a wheel and put it aside. Remove other bits and begin to construct another car next to the original one. At what point does the first car cease to be a car, and, the new 'thing' become a car? Well, neither happens, the concept of car is subjective, an illusion, it becomes a car when the observer decides it is most appropriate. We just call a collection of bits a car because it is convenient. The same can be said for the "me", just a collection of bits, better known as Michael Jacks..... sorry

Amaranth

The Value of Emptiness, from the Tao Te Ching...

Anyways:
Admit? I'm sorry, are you implying that science has just been one huge conspiracy, hiding their knowledge of the soul?

Anyways, I'm still wondering how, without material evidence, we are to decide which myths to believe and which to not.

Oh, and welcome back to the thread.

emotional

Don't go putting words into my keyboard. I didn't talk about any conspiracy. It's just that scientists are drunk with the success of the materialist enterprise (because the assumption of materialism does explain a lot of things) so that they think "matter all there is" is etched in stone, for ever and ever, amen. But it is my hope that one day they'll reach a need to break out of the materialist cage and hypothesise the soul. It'll take time, and they'll need more advanced tools than we have now, but I'm hopeful.



You don't need to believe in myths. I don't believe in myths. I believe in constant natural law, biological evolution, Big Bang Theory and all the rest of cutting-edge science. I just happen to believe, in addition, that there is soul underlying all of it. The laws of nature were set in the beginning (the Big Bang) by the Great Soul (more commonly called God). Matter combines into wonderful shapes because of its inherent accord to do so -- its underlying soul.

Amaranth

A question mark at the end of a sentance generally infers that the person is asking a question, not making a statement.

You're right, you didn't. However, when you wrote "scientists will be forced to...admit the existence of anima", it implies that they already know it and are hiding or burying this knowledge. Thus, a conspiracy.

Understanding matter, energy, and forces has given us longer life, better quality of that life, and lower infant death rate just to name a few. We started with spirituality, and moved on to science. Science has proven its superiourity, again and again.

Look, I don't have a source, so I fully expect this to be blown off. None the less, I find it extremely hard to believe that, throughout the centuries, the soul has never been hypothesised. Considering the number of people who believe in it, both scienetist and layman alike, it seems unreasonable to assume it has never been looked for scientifically. The reason this research is not readily apparent is because it found no scientific basis.

Anyone have a source for a study of this nature?

The scientific picture a century ago didn't include relativity. It didn't include quantum mechanics. I wonder how the "interviewer" arrived at the conclusion that science expanding means that to "develop spiritually" is the next step. This seems extremely backwards, considering that to "develop spiritually" was the previous step, before science.

A statement made, then almost immediately contraticted.

Soul? God? Both are ancient myths, unfounded in science and fact.

Amaranth

emotional

[Edited out unnecessary inflammatory commentary - if you'd like to attempt to persuade us into your line of thinking, please open up another thread and do so in a calm and rational manner - BJM]

Amaranth

[Edited to delete that which has already been deleted - BJM]

emotional

OK, I apologise for the minor (?) setback. On with the show:



Science works well because the universe is governed by natural law -- the lawfulness, the consistency of phenomena permits the whole scientific enterprise. While I agree science is antithetical to miracles, or to any violation of natural law, I do not agree science is antithetical to the spirit hypothesis. Currently the only "evidence" for that hypothesis is such as I've presented elsewhere, and is always knocked back very fast (NDEs, OBEs, mediumship, cross correspondes, hypnotic regression -- see the whole lot here). I don't wish to go into a debate about that "evidence", but I do think that the warfare between science and spirituality is artificial -- made possible by the consistency of natural law (which means that materialistic models do work!), and intensified by a quasi-religious fervour (I should know, I used to be a fanatical materialist).



Just give it time. Materialism hasn't run out of gas yet, and we don't yet have adequate instrumentation for doing advanced research into souls, so your picture is still true. But I don't think science 200 years from now will be the same. Alluding to Kuhn -- paradigms do shift.


While I agree that the anthropomorphic God of such religions as Christianity and Islam is a myth, I do not agree about the animistic-evolutionary concept of God. Again, "God" is just a convenient label, and perhaps it should be avoided. I do not believe "God" answers prayers to change reality -- that would be a violation of natural law. As for "soul", you may be thinking about that angel-type imagery so often depicted in the old theisms. No -- soul is simply the driving persona behind each atom, each organism and each star (in short, each living thing). Again, please don't ask me for evidence for this -- I've already been through other threads giving "evidence", only to have it "debunked" by being given a materialistic explanation (the NDE is a good example).

I do not think of God (the Great Soul, Anima Magna) or souls as myths. I believe they are absolutely real. I don't think I'll ever be able to convince anyone here of it, anymore than Christians here succeed in converting atheists. But I have hope that the scientific attitude will change, and be released of the total-materialistic stranglehold.

Goliath

emotional,

Who said anything about evidence? I want proof.

Again, what about atheists like myself who are not materialists and who do not believe in the existence of souls?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Amaranth

Glad to see you're back. No harm no fowl

I concur completely.

And I disagree, mostly. I think any "warfare" between science and spirituality is from those who cannot accept their beliefs being disproven by scientific fact. I need only point at "evolution vs. creationism" to display a vast number of illogical hypothesis put foward nearly daily, most seemingly in the name of defending a belief. I do, however, agree that it is artificial, and of course that the materialistic models work.

I have no doubt that the scientific model two centuries down the line would throw me for a loop. However, I see that as no reason to ignore what is "true" now, nor to accept a hypothesis on something with a very lackluster definition, let alone supporting evidence.

Anyways, if such a thing was discovered and proven, it would at that point be natural and materialistic. It would just be a new type of material, or a different way of looking at an old material. The discovery of atomics, or even quantum particles, does not support belief in the supernatural. Remember, at one time weather was considered a supernatural thing.

I fear we agree again. Perhaps we should stop that, before illusions are shattered

Levity aside; God is too loose a word. It is used to describe everything from Thor to Allah. The only common thread seems to be immortality, and even that gets broken down across a number of myths.

Remniscient of the shamnistic traditions, IMO. How well does this concept hold up to the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Belief is not case enough to debunk science. Agreed?

To which I say this: Science will never prove the supernatural to exist. It may prove that something thought of as supernatural exists, but in doing so, science will also show it to be natural. Such is the nature (I crack myself up) of science.

emotional

Proof comes through evidence. I can't prove to you something when you're going to reject all evidence for it anyhow.



What?! How can you at the same time disbelieve in souls and not be a materialist? If you disbelieve in souls, then you must believe the material configuration of the body constitutes the personality. That's materialism. Or perhaps I'm missing something, then please explain.