The whole idea of the "Soul" - nonsense?

the soul = ego lite

I do not want to take away from what someone else said about logic nor reason not being requisite for faith, because they are correct in saying that. This implies that there is some form of knowing which does rely on logic. This is also true! but it is hard to see how any of these statements could tell us anything about the world. Relying on only logic would be an exercise in the (logical) relationships between words which are necessarily contained in their definitions. So logic does have something to say, but it is nothing you'd be too impressed with. X cannot be Y and not Y at the same time in the same way.

Any knowledge that can say something of interest about the world outside of language construction and logical necessity must be based on some sense data and observation. To believe that sense data correlates with reality, that reality is both stable and potentially observable, and that humans are capable of objective thought all take leaps of faith that are really not any easier to make than those required to believe that which we normally call 'faith'.

So basically science requires faith. This doesn't make me cynical but rather overjoyed that I am not (even potentially) burdened with absolute of infallible knowledge. Thus I am free to live a life of constructed reality and shared meaning. Yay!

I don't know this, but it is my reality and it's the only reality I have. It is also the reality of millions of other people who share the same observations I do. If you have any evidence of a different reality, I'd be interested to hear it.

I don't know this, but the good thing about science is that it is changeable. New findings are uncovered every day which slowly direct science towards total empirical truth.

Science is not based on assumptions at all, only observation. Science has also never claimed to have proven anything. Proofs are for math. Science gives evidence for or against hypotheses. To believe otherwise is ignorant.

Science is the study of the obseveable. It makes no claims regarding morality, philosophy, religion, etc. You can claim that I have been conditioned to believe this, but what else am I to believe? Should I believe that some other "reality" exist that I am unaware of which takes precedence over my attempt to understand my current surroundings?

"Science is not based on assumptions at all, only observation."

Did you know that there is a field of study called epistemology? Observation is one way of knowing which I may or may not chose to believe in.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, not traditional science.

I'm not saying you are required to believe anything. I'm merely stating that science deals with the observable, an area of which "other realities" does not qualify.

math dude...

i bet you flunked psychology

I'm sure I'm entirely wrong about this, but doesn't some of the higher level quantum physics deal with unobservable phenomenon?

If by "unobservable" you mean unable to be seen, then yes. No one has ever seen an electron, proton, photon, etc. Instead of directly seeing what is happening, experiments are performed. The outcomes of these experiments are observeable and give evidence about the design of the universe.

You aren't running your long runs fast enough.

Science deals with more than the observable. It deals with theories, and there are some underlying assumptions that most scientists make. The provable truth content of science = 0. Somehow people get the idea that scientific "knowledge" is superior to other forms of knowledge, and any form of truth outside the realm of science is inferior. I believe in a real universe, with an order that is discoverable by the human mind. Why do I believe this? Because all of my experience confirms it. But, my experience does not prove it. It is only consistent with it. Just as many of my other beliefs are that are outside the realm of science.

SC Slim wrote:

If by "unobservable" you mean unable to be seen, then yes. No one has ever seen an electron, proton, photon, etc. Instead of directly seeing what is happening, experiments are performed. The outcomes of these experiments are observeable and give evidence about the design of the universe.

But, how can we assume that the uinverse has a design?

corredor wrote:

...

\"...So logic does have something to say, but it is nothing you\'d be too impressed with\".

Wow. Are you not the slightest bit impressed with any of the following: computers chips, cell phones, MRI, gene therapies, (need I go on), all of which rely heavily on logic?

The difference between the \"faith\" which is at the root of science and religious faith is that there is an assumption of consistency in natural law which is confrimed in our observations. Arguing for solipsism is an intellectual dead-end. Describing nautral law as it is observed is all science can do, but it gets results - such knowledge converges toward agreement with the real world.

Religious faith is arbitrary and is often in contradiction with our knowledge of real world. It is often inconsisiten both with science and other religions. Perhaps one thing consistent with religious faith is the frequency with which it\'s adherents claim to have special knowledge of the world (or some other imaginary world). But because this knowledge is \"special\", it can\'t be verified whatsoever.

But what I would really like to know is, assuming one has faith, how can it explain any of the issues listed in the opening post.

math dude wrote:

... Somehow people get the idea that scientific "knowledge" is superior to other forms of knowledge, and any form of truth outside the realm of science is inferior...

I agree with your points except this one. The problem is we have two cases where observations in the real world agree with faith "A" and disagree with faith "B". In this situation, science seeks to resolve the conflict by gathering more observations. Religion seeks to dismiss the conflict by just asserting it's authority. Science thrives on controversy. Religion desipises controversy as it is a threat to dogma.

Also, I still hope to get an answer o your previous comment

math dude wrote:

.... But, the existence of a soul sure does explain a lot of things. .

Please elaborate, this sounds interesting.

The whole basis of science is that "facts" or conclusions are supported by all available evidence. If and when new evidence is found to points to a different conclusions, it's critically analyzed. That's proper science.

We can say that the atomic numbers of various elements won't suddenly change tonmorrow, nor will planetary orbits drastically alter because all the available evidence suggests that such changes would require an enormous amount of energy/force and there's nothing to suggest such a change will occur.

You don't know that I won't turn into Superman tomorrow, but all available evidence suggests that I won't.

Baldy,

I agree that scientists as a whole tend to be a little more rational than your average religious person. But, there are also a whole stock of intellectuals in the Christian tradition that have a more "reasonable" approach. I generally grit my teeth or outright stay away from people who confuse thinking with religious fervor, and use force in place of reason, etc.

As far as a soul explaining things, having a rational intellect capable of comprehending order in the universe is something that almost everyone takes for granted (except for a philosopher steeped in epistemology). A God who created the universe and our rational soul certainly explains the existence of such things. These were assumptions that Newton and his contemporaries made, and many others from other cultures did not.

As far as science constantly revising theories, and religion not, I wouldn't completely agree with that. Many religious people hold fast to a few simple ideas, and won't change, but many religious people I know have beliefs that are contantly being revised as they grow older and have more experiences. Many intellectuals also fall into this category, such as C.S. Lewis, C.E.M. Joad, G. K. Chesterton, and so on.

Can I prove everything that I believe? Of course not. Am I certain of all that I believe? Well, I would say that only God is certain, and I am less than God.

Re. Near death experience:

This might tell us something about the nature of the mind as someone is injured or near death. It's very difficult to swallow that any such observations correlate with reality.

Supposing it were true, we still have not accounted for the previous listed problems. Chek this out for example:

(what do you know, front page of google news today)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/21/health/webmd/main2594763.shtml

(WebMD) Scientists may have pinpointed the area in the brain where morality and emotions clash in dicey situations.

The area is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), report the researchers.

Michael Koenigs, PhD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, worked on the study while on staff in the neurology division of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics.

Koenigs and colleagues studied six people who suffered VMPC damage as adults. The VMPC is involved in emotional responses and social emotions such as compassion, shame, and guilt, Koenigs' team notes.

For comparison, the researchers also looked at 12 healthy adults with no brain damage and 12 adults with brain damage that didn't affect the VMPC or other emotion-related areas.

In the study, participants read fictional scenarios that presented dilemmas, such as sacrificing one person's life to save the lives of others.

For example, one scenario featured a runaway boxcar careening towards a crowd. Study participants were asked if they would push one person off a bridge to save five other people from the boxcar.

Those with VMPC damage were the most likely to agree with that action and similar choices in other personal, emotional, life-and-death scenarios. They also made such decisions faster than other participants.

However, these VMPC-damaged participants handled impersonal, low-stakes scenarios much like the other study participants.

The researchers aren't calling the VMPC-damaged participants cold or immoral. But they say the findings support the theory that the VMPC is involved in making personal, emotional, intense moral decisions.

Baldy wrote:

Re. Near death experience:

This might tell us something about the nature of the mind as someone is injured or near death. It's very difficult to swallow that any such observations correlate with reality.

Right. Did you see the video? In the case of Pam Reynolds, for example, you have, I think, two choices:

1) Pam experienced consciousness while brain-dead, and while brain dead perceived things she could not have had she not been brain dead, but conscious, with her eyes shut, and with clicking devices in her ears or

2) Pam was lying, and someon3e else was also lying, and they engaged in a rather elaborate fraud.

Re: #1)---Pam's actual account was more detailed than is shown in this film. She recounted a dirty joke told about her while brain dead, word-for-word...

math dude wrote:

Science deals with more than the observable. It deals with theories, and there are some underlying assumptions that most scientists make. The provable truth content of science = 0.

Science deals only with the observable. The theories in science are either speculations about the outcomes of certain experiments or, from the other definition, are unifying principles based upon evidence from many areas of science, e.g., the theory of evolution. They still relate to observable phenomenon.

Again, as for proveable, science has never claimed to prove anything. This is actually a good thing. It means that the body of scientific knowledge is moldable as new discoveries are made.

math dude wrote:

But, how can we assume that the universe has a design?

Everything has a design. Please don't infer from this that, because it has a design, it had a designer.