proof from logic alone of the immortal nature of the human soul
#21
(05-12-2012, 06:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: For what it's worth, Hume agrees with yablabo/Nicole:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...y-Soul.htm

Not claiming that Hume is the last word on this subject (nor is anyone else), but he does agree with her. Also, in my personal experience, everyone I know who believes in the immortality of the soul also believes in revealed religion. Every atheist I know believes that the sould dies with the body. This would also support her point.

Well, Hume doesn't believe Metaphysics is possible, and was an atheist, so that is no surprise.

I know many people who do not believe in any revealed religion, but are not atheists.  They think they will live on in some fashion after death.  This is normal.  Atheists are a small part of the population, always have been, always will be.  Even in the most secularized countries of Europe, belief in reincarnation is on the rapid increase.  When people are divorced from revealed religion, they don't stop believing in spiritual things, they just become pagans like our ancestors.  Who, like their secularized descendants, believe in life after death.
Reply
#22
(05-12-2012, 06:08 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 02:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:09 AM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: OK, I do understand that the human soul is spiritual, I just don't understand why something spiritual can't die, as I've said. How is it that the spiritual soul does not have parts, which could separate and cause death?

The number 4 cannot die.  This particular set of 4 things might be added to, or subtracted from, divided or multiplied, and cease to be 4.  But 4 itself, it goes on.

(I'm sort of feeling my way around in the dark, so thank you for bearing with me.)

OK. But isn't the number 4 is a form without matter? I, on the other hand, am a form (my soul) and matter (my body). The number 4 doesn't have a body that will die, so it's easy for me to see how it can't die. But what about my soul?!

No problem, it's an interesting question.

The number 4 is a form without matter.  The soul, divorced from the body, is as well.  St. Bernard teaches that the soul, to fully become its form, must have a body, which is the ultimate secret of detachment from the body: that the soul and body  are a unit, and thus resurrection is the ultimate fulfillment of the form of the soul, rather than reincarnation or become "pure form" or something.

I think here we hit on an interesting point: it is not that we need revelation to know that the soul is immortal, but that Resurrection in bodily form is the end game.  Pagans know their souls will go on, but they theorize transmigration (known as reincarnation, but a bit of a misnomer) or becoming pure spirit as opposed to the revealed Christian belief in a bodily resurrection.  We can know that there is a God by natural reason; but the Trinity requires belief in special revelation.  We can know that our souls are immortal purely by reason; but we need special revelation to believe in the resurrection of the dead.

And we can say that people can know there is a God, and can know their souls are immortal without any need of revelation for a blessedly simple reason: they did and they do.  That actuality proves possibility is an old, old standard.
Reply
#23
(05-12-2012, 08:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote: The number 4 is a form without matter.  The soul, divorced from the body, is as well.

But isn't the number 4 a universal, as opposed to the unrepeatable soul divorced from the body? Can they really be compared? I can easily see how a universal cannot die, but something unrepeatable?
Quote:St. Bernard teaches that the soul, to fully become its form, must have a body, which is the ultimate secret of detachment from the body: that the soul and body  are a unit, and thus resurrection is the ultimate fulfillment of the form of the soul, rather than reincarnation or become "pure form" or something.

I think here we hit on an interesting point: it is not that we need revelation to know that the soul is immortal, but that Resurrection in bodily form is the end game.  Pagans know their souls will go on, but they theorize transmigration (known as reincarnation, but a bit of a misnomer) or becoming pure spirit as opposed to the revealed Christian belief in a bodily resurrection.  We can know that there is a God by natural reason; but the Trinity requires belief in special revelation.  We can know that our souls are immortal purely by reason; but we need special revelation to believe in the resurrection of the dead.

And we can say that people can know there is a God, and can know their souls are immortal without any need of revelation for a blessedly simple reason: they did and they do.  That actuality proves possibility is an old, old standard.

This seems to say that divine revelation is needed not for belief in the immortal nature of the soul, but for belief in resurrection. That's easy to understand. But what about my earlier question about the claim in the book that the human soul must be immortal because it has no parts? Do you know how to explain that to me?
Reply
#24
(05-12-2012, 08:03 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 06:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: For what it's worth, Hume agrees with yablabo/Nicole:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...y-Soul.htm

Not claiming that Hume is the last word on this subject (nor is anyone else), but he does agree with her. Also, in my personal experience, everyone I know who believes in the immortality of the soul also believes in revealed religion. Every atheist I know believes that the soul dies with the body. This would also support her point.

Well, Hume doesn't believe Metaphysics is possible, and was an atheist, so that is no surprise.

I know many people who do not believe in any revealed religion, but are not atheists.  They think they will live on in some fashion after death.  This is normal.  Atheists are a small part of the population, always have been, always will be.  Even in the most secularized countries of Europe, belief in reincarnation is on the rapid increase.  When people are divorced from revealed religion, they don't stop believing in spiritual things, they just become pagans like our ancestors.  Who, like their secularized descendants, believe in life after death.

I can only say that my experience has been different. I know quite a few atheists. Most of them were brought up as religious believers, and turned away from religion at some point and became atheists. None of them believes in the immortality of the soul, despite being brought up to believe exactly that. They all believe that the soul dies with the body. And without a belief in God, that seems like the normal and natural thing to believe. Hume's reasoning makes perfect sense to me. If I didn't believe in God, I would be in complete agreement with him.
Reply
#25
This is some of the strangest philosophy that I've ever seen, I think.  Are people here equating the number four to a substantial form which would inform primal matter??  The number four is an accident of quantity.  Unity is substantial, quantity of unity is accidental.  So, how again is four a substantial form?

Also, I am really interested now, what IS the certain evidence found in nature that man's soul is immortal?

-- Nicole
Reply
#26
(05-12-2012, 08:44 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: But what about my earlier question about the claim in the book that the human soul must be immortal because it has no parts? Do you know how to explain that to me?

That just means that the soul is not material, but a form.  And forms do not die.
Reply
#27
(05-12-2012, 09:04 PM)yablabo Wrote: This is some of the strangest philosophy that I've ever seen, I think.  Are people here equating the number four to a substantial form which would inform primal matter??  The number four is an accident of quantity.  Unity is substantial, quantity of unity is accidental.  So, how again is four a substantial form?

Also, I am really interested now, what IS the certain evidence found in nature that man's soul is immortal?

-- Nicole

It's all in Plato.  What ARE they teaching children in school these days?  :P
Reply
#28
(05-12-2012, 08:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 08:03 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 06:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: For what it's worth, Hume agrees with yablabo/Nicole:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...y-Soul.htm

Not claiming that Hume is the last word on this subject (nor is anyone else), but he does agree with her. Also, in my personal experience, everyone I know who believes in the immortality of the soul also believes in revealed religion. Every atheist I know believes that the soul dies with the body. This would also support her point.

Well, Hume doesn't believe Metaphysics is possible, and was an atheist, so that is no surprise.

I know many people who do not believe in any revealed religion, but are not atheists.  They think they will live on in some fashion after death.  This is normal.  Atheists are a small part of the population, always have been, always will be.  Even in the most secularized countries of Europe, belief in reincarnation is on the rapid increase.  When people are divorced from revealed religion, they don't stop believing in spiritual things, they just become pagans like our ancestors.  Who, like their secularized descendants, believe in life after death.

I can only say that my experience has been different. I know quite a few atheists. Most of them were brought up as religious believers, and turned away from religion at some point and became atheists. None of them believes in the immortality of the soul, despite being brought up to believe exactly that. They all believe that the soul dies with the body. And without a belief in God, that seems like the normal and natural thing to believe. Hume's reasoning makes perfect sense to me. If I didn't believe in God, I would be in complete agreement with him.

Atheists are a fringe case, in any society.  Even in secularized, post-Christian society, most people believe in God or at least a "life-force" which is transcendent.  Your assumption is that the next option after Christianity is atheism.  This is not the case, logically or popularly.

And Hume only works if you accept his prepositional ideas about metaphysics, which is pretty much accepting atheism anyways.
Reply
#29
And for what it is worth, I have met many atheists who believe in ghosts, so even atheists do believe in life after death often enough.  Weirdly enough, the Pew Forum Religious Survey found that 12% of declared atheists believe in Heaven.
Reply
#30
(05-12-2012, 09:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 08:44 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: But what about my earlier question about the claim in the book that the human soul must be immortal because it has no parts? Do you know how to explain that to me?

That just means that the soul is not material, but a form.  And forms do not die.

Well, an animal, and a plant has a soul too, but these souls die. How come?

(05-12-2012, 09:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 09:04 PM)yablabo Wrote: This is some of the strangest philosophy that I've ever seen, I think.  Are people here equating the number four to a substantial form which would inform primal matter??  The number four is an accident of quantity.  Unity is substantial, quantity of unity is accidental.  So, how again is four a substantial form?

Also, I am really interested now, what IS the certain evidence found in nature that man's soul is immortal?

-- Nicole

It's all in Plato.  What ARE they teaching children in school these days?  :P

Parmandur, since you're clearly not a sophist, much less a 'base' one, I'm looking forward to your elaborating on 'It's all in Plato'!  :hello!:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)