Freethought & Rationalism Archive

01-31-2002, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Proud atheist:


Scientific objection?

Please tell me what journal you got this "scientific" information about souls from.

Science should be able to demonstrate that each generation is incarnate from the previous generation and includes a design for the next generation to compete for its survival. This would be contained somewhere in the RNA/DNA or evolution would not be possible.

Cloning, as we know it today, does not have this factor built in its design and so this is where my objection would be. For example, if we clone the same animal for 1 billion years, the rest may have changed in effort to survive in an ever increasing complex bio/socio environment. The clone will not have changed and can therefore not survive on its own.

Amos

Valmorian · 01-31-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:

Cloning, as we know it today, does not have this factor built in its design and so this is where my objection would be. For example, if we clone the same animal for 1 billion years, the rest may have changed in effort to survive in an ever increasing complex bio/socio environment. The clone will not have changed and can therefore not survive on its own.

Amos

So your argument is that cloning interferes with "survival of the fittest"?

Of course, we already have been doing this for a long time with medicine. People who would have died and therefore not passed on genetic diseases are now living long enough to reproduce.

01-31-2002, 10:09 AM

Yes, which is very minor, I agree, and we can clone for fun until the real need arises and perhaps fill the need then. I have no objection but just thought of making that point which is based on the theory of evolution and actually kills it.

We can also say that with medicine we made the environment much more compettitive and the complexity of anitbiotics would prove this. Also the idea of "staff infections" point to this.

Amos

Theli · 01-31-2002, 11:57 AM

Quote:

So your argument is that cloning interferes with "survival of the fittest"?

If we follow Amos model on cloning a single speices of animals for many billions of generations, based on an unchanged DNA-code taken from the original speciment, that speices would have big problems adapting. Unless it's natural enviroment would remain unchanged.
This is why I can't understand why some people insists that evolution must be false. If all species of animals would be incapable of evolving most of them would die out. The enviroment on earth is changing all the time (slow, but still changing).

Back to the soulmatter...
Amos, as I understand from your idea of a soul, it's not excacly trancendent, but is limited/connected to a single conscious living organism.
My initial question was based on the trancendent/eternal soul.

Ender · 01-31-2002, 05:43 PM

Theli
Check out this "atheist on his deathbead" story for a <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000444" target="_blank">witty answer</a> about the ludricrous notion of souls:

Quote:

the setting is summer, 1776, where Hume lay, suffering from the same disease that also claimed his mother. Despite this, he kept calm and placid, and retained his customary witty and loquacious conversation skills for all the visitors who paid their respects in the town of Edinburgh.

Among the elite received, James Boswell, a diarist and the biographer of Samuel Johnson (who is reputed to be the most distinguished literary figure of his era). Boswell, a timid and fearful man, had a weak spot for whisky and the fairer sex. Since he obsessed over eternal damnation, Boswell inclined towards religious piety. For the longest time, he was both repelled and fascinated with the legend of Hume, whose insurgent attacks upon religion and churchgoers were unheard of in his time. Boswell, just like Samuel Johnson, was morbidly fearful of death. He could not pass up an opportunity to go and see Hume the God Denier on his deathbed to ask whether he had changed his mind on his blasphemy about the immortality of the soul.

"Don't you believe," asked a jittery Boswell, "that there is life after death, that your soul will live on after you are dead?" With utter ease, with the urbane humor and irony that had made Hume a celebrity, he retorted: "Yes, it is possible that the soul is immortal. It's also possible that if I toss this piece of coal into the flames of that fire, it will not burn. Possible, but there is no basis for believing it-not by reason, and not by sense perception, not by our experience."

Hume chuckled as Boswell staggered out of the room, all flustered and stammering, his neurotic fear of death exposed by seeing Hume inexorably wasted away. Hume tossed out a few more zingers, which with his gift of total recall, Boswell wrote down when he arrived home. Hume had said, "That the soul is immortal and that people should exist forever is a most unreasonable fancy. The trash of every age must then be preserved and new universes must be created to contain such infinite numbers."

~WiGGiN~

01-31-2002, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:

If we follow Amos model on cloning a single speices of animals for many billions of generations, based on an unchanged DNA-code taken from the original speciment, that speices would have big problems adapting. Unless it's natural enviroment would remain unchanged.
This is why I can't understand why some people insists that evolution must be false. If all species of animals would be incapable of evolving most of them would die out. The enviroment on earth is changing all the time (slow, but still changing).

But evolution is not the problem. The denial of the intelligent design behind evolution is my objection. The question now becomes: who is in charge of this and if this intelligence is called God we must properly define God. To do this in religious terms is not possible because it would remove the mystery of faith and defeat the entire purpose of the mythology and church. To do this along the line of metaphysical naturalism is OK but this should not become part of religion because it would destroy the purpose of religion. 

Back to the soulmatter...
Amos, as I understand from your idea of a soul, it's not excacly trancendent, but is limited/connected to a single conscious living organism.
My initial question was based on the trancendent/eternal soul.

Yes I understand Theli and I just wanted to give you my answer to this. I should add that my explanation (if I could present it better) would easily explain the existence and need for a soul.

My soul is eternal but not eternal as you peceive eternity to be. Eternity is in the absence of time and does not have to be enjoyed for a certain period of time. Ideally is exists past meno-pauze. Meno is from "I remain", as in "I am eternal."

zootwoman · 01-31-2002, 06:57 PM

Consider reading Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis The Scientific Search for the Soul. The short story is that it's located in the brain.

Theli · 02-03-2002, 02:32 PM

Amos:

Quote:

The denial of the intelligent design behind evolution is my objection.

Hmmm... I don't like that use of the word "design".
I would use the words "complexity" instead.
Design would mean that the lifeforms was engineered to achieve complexity. But life started in a much smaller scale, with much less complexity. If (for example) humans was engineered after a certain design, then why did the design arise from smaller (less complex) forms of life?

Quote:

To do this in religious terms is not possible because it would remove the mystery of faith and defeat the entire purpose of the mythology and church.

Yes, I wrote about this in a past message. The god of religion would not be the god behind the design.
One thing I don't understand with the "designer god" argument is why pointless objects exist in space. If the whole universe was designed by a conscious being, then why is there inhabitable planets? What is the enormous distances between the stars for?
If it all was designed, one would think that everything would look much different.
For instance, the human body is far from perfect, why is that?

I can agree that life is very complex, but I just can't see a designer behind it.

Quote:

Eternity is in the absence of time and does not have to be enjoyed for a certain period of time.

To me "absence of time" would mean unchangable. (read "Define god etc...")

I discussed this issue there, but I stopped when the thread turned repetitive (I hate when that happens).

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

02-03-2002, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
Amos:
Amos:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The denial of the intelligent design behind evolution is my objection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm... I don't like that use of the word "design".
I would use the words "complexity" instead.

OK, how about design for those that understand and complexity for those that do not understand. 
Design would mean that the lifeforms was engineered to achieve complexity. But life started in a much smaller scale, with much less complexity. If (for example) humans was engineered after a certain design, then why did the design arise from smaller (less complex) forms of life? 

The increasing complexity of life proves intelligent design in which the designer uses the external data collecting mechanism of temporal beings (via the ego wherein we are temporal ) to increase the complexity of the internal designer (the soul). 

One thing I don't understand with the "designer god" argument is why pointless objects exist in space. If the whole universe was designed by a conscious being, then why is there inhabitable planets? What is the enormous distances between the stars for?
If it all was designed, one would think that everything would look much different.
For instance, the human body is far from perfect, why is that?

I can agree that life is very complex, but I just can't see a designer behind it.

In my view God has nothing to do with the creation of the planets or even the planet we call earth. God is God of the living and not of the dead.

To me "absence of time" would mean unchangable. (read "Define god etc...")

I discussed this issue there, but I stopped when the thread turned repetitive (I hate when that happens).

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

Maybe you should read the "absense of time" to mean "absense or measured time." For example, in our left brain we measure time while in our right brain we do not.

Amos

Keenanvin · 02-03-2002, 03:38 PM

What happens when we die? Consciousness, memory and personality are consequences of the biochemical and electrical processes of the brain. These properties are dictated by genes, environment, and health, and require a supply of oxygen and energy (ATP). If the brain is changed - injured by trauma or stroke for example, or stricken with cancer - cells die, synaptic pathways are disrupted, energy metabolism can be drastically skewed. These disruptions at the cellular level mean that memories can be lost, personality changed, consciousness ended. Death is a permanent extension of this end of consciousness, and once those cellular changes occur there really is no going back. There is no magick entity of "consciousness", “soul” or “spirit” that exists apart from or longer than the biochemical workings of the brain. -Kv

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2002, 10:09 AM	#13
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Yes, which is very minor, I agree, and we can clone for fun until the real need arises and perhaps fill the need then. I have no objection but just thought of making that point which is based on the theory of evolution and actually kills it. We can also say that with medicine we made the environment much more compettitive and the complexity of anitbiotics would prove this. Also the idea of "staff infections" point to this. Amos

01-31-2002, 06:57 PM	#17
zootwoman Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: austin, Texas Posts: 12	Consider reading Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis The Scientific Search for the Soul. The short story is that it's located in the brain.

02-03-2002, 03:38 PM	#20
Keenanvin Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ohio Posts: 19	What happens when we die? Consciousness, memory and personality are consequences of the biochemical and electrical processes of the brain. These properties are dictated by genes, environment, and health, and require a supply of oxygen and energy (ATP). If the brain is changed - injured by trauma or stroke for example, or stricken with cancer - cells die, synaptic pathways are disrupted, energy metabolism can be drastically skewed. These disruptions at the cellular level mean that memories can be lost, personality changed, consciousness ended. Death is a permanent extension of this end of consciousness, and once those cellular changes occur there really is no going back. There is no magick entity of "consciousness", “soul” or “spirit” that exists apart from or longer than the biochemical workings of the brain. -Kv

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.