The Soul

[Michael]

This is another of my "I'm curious" type threads. :)

I'm curious about what people think of the existence of souls - particularly in the context of religion. I've seen atheists express a belief in souls and I've seen religious types express some doubt. :shrug:

So, I think it would be interesting if people could describe their view of souls and how that impacts their world view.

* * *

To answer my own question, I'm definitely in the atheist camp and as such, I don't believe that souls exist. I consider them a figment of the imagination.

[dilettante]

To answer my own question, I'm definitely in the atheist camp and as such, I don't believe that souls exist. I consider them a figment of the imagination.

Can you describe the kind of soul you don't believe to exist? "Soul" seems to be one of those words with many meanings.

[Michael]

Can you describe the kind of soul you don't believe to exist? "Soul" seems to be one of those words with many meanings.

How can I describe what I don't believe exists? :ummm:

That's like defining a null space. :shrug:

Besides, I should think that the structure of this thread is meant to ask what you believe the soul is - that includes your definition of the soul. Use the meaning that you like to use. I'm not trying to prove a point or make an argument here - I'm just curious about the range of opinions on the topic.

[Margot]

How can I describe what I don't believe exists? :ummm:



That's what the dictionary is for. :p

[Donkey]

I use soul much in the same way that I use the word "sin." The "soul" is just an amalgamating term for the consciousness and personality. It is the defining characteristic of the individual, what makes me Donkey, and what makes Michael Michael: what makes us anything other than extremely similar lumps of flesh.

I don't think anybody (well any reasonable person) would deny that this phenomenon exists. Calling it a soul is just a matter of terminology. The difference comes in whether you believe that the soul is seperate or independent in any way from the brain in which it resides. I don't believe that it is, and I think science agrees with me.

As an atheist, I certainly do not believe in the immortal soul, which would remain after the death of the mortal body, but I would not rule out the fact that sometime in the future you could "download" the conscious and personality onto an artificial host.

[Non Sequitur]

This is another of my "I'm curious" type threads. :)

I'm curious about what people think of the existence of souls - particularly in the context of religion. I've seen atheists express a belief in souls and I've seen religious types express some doubt. :shrug:

So, I think it would be interesting if people could describe their view of souls and how that impacts their world view.

* * *

To answer my own question, I'm definitely in the atheist camp and as such, I don't believe that souls exist. I consider them a figment of the imagination.

I am probably closer to the "soul doesn't exist" camp than the "soul exists." I might acknowledge that the soul exists in some way, but that there is no body/soul division like in some Greek philosophy. One caveat: I have heard the soul described as the "breath of God" that animates all life (see Ezekiel 37:1-14 ) and in that sense I believe a soul exists.

as for impacts, there are a few. First, not believing in the soul throws into question the whole concept that after we die the our souls go to heaven. That belief is completely unfounded (Biblically speaking) and Gnostic in character. Second, the body/soul distinction is usually followed by a distinction between the physical realm in the spiritual realm with the physical being evil and the spiritual good. If one rejects (or redefines the "soul") than this distinction goes out the window (which is good because this distinction is also not biblical and heretical).

[dilettante]

How can I describe what I don't believe exists? :ummm:


Well, if you can't define it then how do you know you don't believe it exists? That is to say, unless the idea of "soul" (or "God", or "unicorn" or whatever) has some definition behind it, then it doesn't make any sense to say you [don't] believe in it; it would just be a meaningless collection of letters.

E.G. Donkey believes in a soul as "an amalgamating term for the consciousness and personality. It is the defining characteristic of the individual..." but not as something "separate or independent in any way from the brain in which it resides".
When you say you don't believe the soul exists, which soul don't you believe exists?

I only raise the point because it seems like so many discussions about religious-related terms never settle on definitions for them, and people end up using the same word to mean different things without realizing it.

Anyway, I agree with Donkey in seeing the soul as "the defining characteristic of the individual", and I might use "innermost being" as a synonym: it is the essence of one's personality and the source of one's choices.
However, I have less conviction as to whether the entirety of one's "soul" (as defined above) is contained in one's physical body. And I find that such uncertainty doesn't really bother me.

[Daktoria]

This is another of my "I'm curious" type threads.

I'm curious about what people think of the existence of souls - particularly in the context of religion. I've seen atheists express a belief in souls and I've seen religious types express some doubt.

So, I think it would be interesting if people could describe their view of souls and how that impacts their world view.

* * *

To answer my own question, I'm definitely in the atheist camp and as such, I don't believe that souls exist. I consider them a figment of the imagination.

I think you know my opinion on this because I mention it all the time, the soul has to be believed in as a prerequisite to human rights. Otherwise, our bodies are just natural engines controlled by material predeterminism.

Not only would that mean nihilism is guaranteed, but it would also mean that "people" don't think, so it would be impossible for nihilism to be recognized. Further in turn, it wouldn't even matter if everyone became the last man (and/or when we became it).

[SMadsen]

I believe humans have souls, among others. Or is it ego? Hmm, soul, ego .. there's no difference, come to think of it.

[SMadsen]

I believe humans have souls, among others. Or is it ego? Hmm, soul, ego .. there's no difference, come to think of it.
Of course, this could be rephrased slightly in order to take into account the various conceptions that exist and all share the same designation of "soul". However, limiting it down to the two main types of souls, namely, 1., the soul that means the cognition of the physical being, and, 2. the soul that means the cognitive individual separate from the physical being, it can be argued that the first is the same thing as the ego while the second is a product of the ego. I'm not sure how far those two conceptions are apart, except maybe an inch of delusion.

[Michael]

Well, if you can't define it then how do you know you don't believe it exists?
No one expects me to have an officially agreed upon definition of God in order to be an atheist.

No expects me to have an officially agreed upon definition of the flying spagetti monster in order to be a skeptic.

But all of a sudden, I have to have a fully operational and functional definition of a soul, a definition that I have to be prepared to defend no less, in order to reject belief in the idea of a soul?

That makes no sense. I'd say the onus is on those who believe in the existence of souls to define what it is they do believe in. Thus, the purpose of this thread.

I only raise the point because it seems like so many discussions about religious-related terms never settle on definitions for them, and people end up using the same word to mean different things without realizing it.
Yes, that's perhaps true. But in this case, I opened the thread seeking a survey of opinions on what the soul is and didn't offer a polemic of my opinion for debate. If I did the latter, then you'd be quite right to demand a definition, but I didn't so I won't. ;)

[dilettante]

No one expects me to have an officially agreed upon definition of God in order to be an atheist.

No expects me to have an officially agreed upon definition of the flying spagetti monster in order to be a skeptic.

But all of a sudden, I have to have a fully operational and functional definition of a soul, a definition that I have to be prepared to defend no less, in order to reject belief in the idea of a soul?

That makes no sense. I'd say the onus is on those who believe in the existence of souls to define what it is they do believe in. Thus, the purpose of this thread.


I don't know about "officially agreed upon definitions", but it seems to me like you must have some definition. It's an odd unbeliever who goes around saying "I don't have any idea what an X is! But whatever it is, I don't believe it exists!"

The one who expresses doubt is just as responsible for understanding what it is he's doubting as the one who expresses belief is for understanding what it is he believes. Otherwise both of them are talking about they-know-not-what.

But it is your thread and I can understand the desire not to turn it into a debate over your own views. I was just curious.

[Michael]

I don't know about "officially agreed upon definitions", but it seems to me like you must have some definition. It's an odd unbeliever who goes around saying "I don't have any idea what an X is! But whatever it is, I don't believe it exists!"
I think that you are over-reacting to the point. I don't accept any ideas associated with the existence of souls, so it seemed silly for me to list them all.

Indeed, I strongly regret offering the one sentence of my viewpoint that I did. Clearly I shouldn't have done that, but it seems even sillier for me to ask for people's viewpoints and refuse to provide my own. :shrug:

The one who expresses doubt is just as responsible for understanding what it is he's doubting as the one who expresses belief is for understanding what it is he believes. Otherwise both of them are talking about they-know-not-what.

But it is your thread and I can understand the desire not to turn it into a debate over your own views. I was just curious.
That's my principal point here. I don't want yet another thread where I state my opinion and the rest of the thread is all about a discussion/debate of my opinon - particularly in this case since my opinion is rather a dismissive one.

Besides which, I should think those who believe in souls would have a whole lot more to say about the topic than those of us who are dismissive of the issue. I'm genuinely curious about people's views about the existence of souls. Indeed, given my view of the matter as one of pure subjectivity, I doubt any definition would be viable or fully satisfactory anyway.

[Daktoria]

...which is why functionalism and cognitivism always fail - the Chinese Room. ;)

[The Drunk Girl]

I would like to think there is more to us than just this mass that we are. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not, but I guess I will just have to wait until it's my time.

[SMadsen]

I would like to think there is more to us than just this mass that we are. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not, but I guess I will just have to wait until it's my time.
The good news is that there's just enough to us that you want there to be. If you think that humans are unique and marvelous, extraordinary spiritual souls then that's just what we are. If you want us to be created in the image of gods (and there are apparently plenty who want that!) then that's what we are. If you want humans to be destructive, evil and lowlife slimeballs then that's what we are. There's no need to wait.

[The Drunk Girl]

The good news is that there's just enough to us that you want there to be. If you think that humans are unique and marvelous, extraordinary spiritual souls then that's just what we are. If you want us to be created in the image of gods (and there are apparently plenty who want that!) then that's what we are. If you want humans to be destructive, evil and lowlife slimeballs then that's what we are. There's no need to wait.


I think you just about summed up everyone there.

I suppose once I figure out more of where I stand on religion and whatnot I will become more comfortable with topics like this. I see the world in the fucked up light that it is in, but I am always hopeful for something better.

[andrewl]

This is another of my "I'm curious" type threads. :)

I'm curious about what people think of the existence of souls - particularly in the context of religion. I've seen atheists express a belief in souls and I've seen religious types express some doubt. :shrug:

So, I think it would be interesting if people could describe their view of souls and how that impacts their world view.

* * *

To answer my own question, I'm definitely in the atheist camp and as such, I don't believe that souls exist. I consider them a figment of the imagination.


I believe that souls exist in the same way that any property the human mind attaches to an object exists. In other words, the soul exists in the same way that color exists. Take away the human mind from the universe and the idea of color vanishes, so too with souls.

Andrew

[Michael]

I use soul much in the same way that I use the word "sin." The "soul" is just an amalgamating term for the consciousness and personality. It is the defining characteristic of the individual, what makes me Donkey, and what makes Michael Michael: what makes us anything other than extremely similar lumps of flesh.
But Michael is a specific and particular lump of flesh - and Donkey is a slightly different, but also specific lump of flesh.

What more do you need to define the difference between Michael and Donkey other than our own physical and specific lumps of flesh - and all the expressions they are uniquely capable of?

That is to say, what is the soul that is not a part or function of the body?

I don't think anybody (well any reasonable person) would deny that this phenomenon exists. Calling it a soul is just a matter of terminology. The difference comes in whether you believe that the soul is seperate or independent in any way from the brain in which it resides. I don't believe that it is, and I think science agrees with me.
If a soul is 100% dependent upon the brain, then to me, that defines "body".

As for 'science', that field is wide enough to admit a variety of interpretations, and 'science' does provide some support for many (but not all) of them. ;)

As an atheist, I certainly do not believe in the immortal soul, which would remain after the death of the mortal body, but I would not rule out the fact that sometime in the future you could "download" the conscious and personality onto an artificial host.
This is very interesting. This is why I like asking my 'curiosity' questions - sometimes one stumbles upon unexpected answers. :cool:

I suppose I'd have to agree that this specific theoretical concept would likely be possible some time in the future, given present technological trajectories (just seems reasonably possible, in a 'matrix' kind of way).

And that really does raise the question of what to call that which is being 'transferred'. And of course, could the original 'natural' human body host survive the 'transfer' process? If so, duplicate artifical copies might co-exist with the original humans? (why wait for death to begin the process?)

I really am curious about this. :D

[Michael]

...which is why functionalism and cognitivism always fail - the Chinese Room. ;)
Sure, but that argument also proves that the Turing Test isn't sufficient. ;)

And that doesn't deny the possibilility of what Donkey has suggested, which involves somehow transfering/downloading an existing human consciousness onto a new artificial host.

[Non Sequitur]

As an atheist, I certainly do not believe in the immortal soul, which would remain after the death of the mortal body, but I would not rule out the fact that sometime in the future you could "download" the conscious and personality onto an artificial host.

the question then becomes is this downloaded personality really you (and of course really a living being) or is it just a really, really good simulation?

[andrewl]

That is to say, what is the soul that is not a part or function of the body?

It is the name that we give to the sum of all those parts and functions in an individual.


If a soul is 100% dependent upon the brain, then to me, that defines "body".In the same way we can describe the earth as just a planet amongst another 7 planets.

Andrew

[Lily]

This is another of my "I'm curious" type threads. :)

I'm curious about what people think of the existence of souls - particularly in the context of religion. I've seen atheists express a belief in souls and I've seen religious types express some doubt. :shrug:

So, I think it would be interesting if people could describe their view of souls and how that impacts their world view.

* * *

To answer my own question, I'm definitely in the atheist camp and as such, I don't believe that souls exist. I consider them a figment of the imagination.

I've given some thought to the definition of "soul." I don't think it's personality or thought process, congnitive abilities or even supernatural abilities. I don't believe the soul is what animates life. Could I be wrong? Could the soul exist after life? Who the hell knows? For some religious folks, how could one not have a soul? For most scientists, if you can't measure it, it only exists as hypothesis. How does one measure or test a soul, anyway?

Ultimately, I tend to think the soul is one of those words that can alternately give humans comfort and caution. Do good and the soul goes off to some paradise; do bad and the soul ends up in some nasty place. If belief in the soul keeps some people from picking up an AK-47 and blowing away a mall full of shoppers, then why not?

Well, unless you're an Islamist extremist. Then all bets are off.

[Americano]

I've given some thought to the definition of "soul." I don't think it's personality or thought process, congnitive abilities or even supernatural abilities. I don't believe the soul is what animates life. Could I be wrong? Could the soul exist after life? Who the hell knows? For some religious folks, how could one not have a soul? For most scientists, if you can't measure it, it only exists as hypothesis. How does one measure or test a soul, anyway?

Ultimately, I tend to think the soul is one of those words that can alternately give humans comfort and caution. Do good and the soul goes off to some paradise; do bad and the soul ends up in some nasty place. If belief in the soul keeps some people from picking up an AK-47 and blowing away a mall full of shoppers, then why not?

Well, unless you're an Islamist extremist. Then all bets are off.

Or an IDF member guarding apartments being constructed on a bulldozed ancestral Palestinian olive grove?

[The Drunk Guy]

Or an IDF member guarding apartments being constructed on a bulldozed ancestral Palestinian olive grove?
Or a green marine ready to get some trigger time on a convoy mission in Iraq?

[Lily]

Or an IDF member guarding apartments being constructed on a bulldozed ancestral Palestinian olive grove?

Or a green marine ready to get some trigger time on a convoy mission in Iraq?

Yes, I suppose "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, aren't they?

[Americano]

Or a green marine ready to get some trigger time on a convoy mission in Iraq?

Yep.

While not quite on topic, I've often wondered about the souls (to me part of the body as it requires brain power) of aircraft pilots who rationalize strafing, bombing or using rockets to take out 'high value' individuals at the expense of dead children and non-combatants.

[Michael]

Yep.

While not quite on topic, I've often wondered about the souls (to me part of the body as it requires brain power) of aircraft pilots who rationalize strafing, bombing or using rockets to take out 'high value' individuals at the expense of dead children and non-combatants.
That's called 'cognitive dissonance'. It seems to be epidemic, if not necessary, for functioning in our present world.

I might add, though I am an atheist, that such 'cognitive dissonance' may help the pilot to sleep at night, but I can't imagine that it will get him a pass through the Pearly Gates. God's minions might rejoice with the slaughtering and murdering of infidels, but I doubt if God (if god exists) would.

[Americano]

Yes, I suppose "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, aren't they?

With end justifying means indoctrination and training I'd say good/bad are well-defined terms for those participants.

[Michael]

Yes, I suppose "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, aren't they?
Extremely. But that is very inconvenient to ideological warriors so they tend to ignore that and pretend that "good" and "bad" are objective terms since that's so much easier. Totally bullshit, but they aren't selling virtue here.

[Americano]

That's called 'cognitive dissonance'. It seems to be epidemic, if not necessary, for functioning in our present world.

I might add, though I am an atheist, that such 'cognitive dissonance' may help the pilot to sleep at night, but I can't imagine that it will get him a pass through the Pearly Gates. God's minions might rejoice with the slaughtering and murdering of infidels, but I doubt if God (if god exists) would.

As the US Air Force Academy is a bastion of Christian fundamentalism (to a point of formal accusations of discrimination against non-Christians), I'm sure some of the rationalizations would provide big grins for objective psychoanalysts. That's assuming such a person would be allowed to practice at that institution.

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, I suppose "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, aren't they?

Eh, maybe not totally subjective if one operates from certain theological understandings

I might add, though I am an atheist, that such 'cognitive dissonance' may help the pilot to sleep at night, but I can't imagine that it will get him a pass through the Pearly Gates. God's minions might rejoice with the slaughtering and murdering of infidels, but I doubt if God (if god exists) would.

Amen! As a Catholic Bishop supposedly said at Vatican II "Are you sure God ratifies our decisions?"

[Daktoria]

Sure, but that argument also proves that the Turing Test isn't sufficient. ;)

And that doesn't deny the possibilility of what Donkey has suggested, which involves somehow transfering/downloading an existing human consciousness onto a new artificial host.

The turing test isn't used to discover whether or not a computer is conscious, but only to discover whether or not a computer can be designed that fools an observer.

The proposition of downloading consciousness assumes compatibility which is a huge challenge since the mind's physiology has not been identified or mapped out to this day. There have been studies which show brain activity occurring prior of action or even conscious realization, but there is no direct connection between activity and thought. For example, we know that certain parts of the brain coincide with certain forms of thought, but we don't know how those parts function or how to interpret brain activity directly. All that we can do now is indirectly associate brain activity by correlating generalities.

It would be a scary situation to be satisfied with mere generalities because that would imply satisfaction with filling in the gaps by assuming rational style (the problems therein being part and parcel with the rationality discussion thread). At the very least, this would result in political dilemmas where duty of care would be manipulated by claiming that certain people can die since their "minds" can be easily transferred. In reality, their minds wouldn't be transferred at all, but rather only a fake copy of their mental symptoms would be transferred (and possibly further manipulated in order to accommodate for social engineering).

[Daktoria]

You could also see a form of mental eugenics where socially "compatible" personalities would be copied while socially "incompatible" personalities would be deleted.

Talk about a class war or caste system...

[dilettante]

...but I would not rule out the fact that sometime in the future you could "download" the conscious and personality onto an artificial host.

Joss Whedon's recently concluded TV series, Dollhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_%28TV_series%29), is based on that very premise. Not a bad show...though not a terribly good one either. Certainly no Firefly.

[Donkey]

Joss Whedon's recently concluded TV series, Dollhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_%28TV_series%29), is based on that very premise. Not a bad show...though not a terribly good one either. Certainly no Firefly.
No Firefly in terms of entertainment value, but I think it raises deeper moral and ethical problems, as well as making the viewer more emotionally conflicted.

[The Drunk Guy]

No Firefly in terms of entertainment value, but I think it raises deeper moral and ethical problems, as well as making the viewer more emotionally conflicted.
I thought that was just about Eliza Dushku being sexy and dangerous. :shrug:

And I think cognitive dissonance only takes those pilots/soldiers/guards so far. I have a family member that dropped firebombs on Charlie in Vietnam and the word around my family is that he had some major PTSD. I think that PTSD isn't a diagnosis of coming down from the stress of battle, but rather the internal struggle with the immorality of their actions in war.

******************

Now, to answer the OP...

For the most part, I feel like Donkey in that the word represents one person's individuality in conscious thought. It makes sense to say that I have a soul that is powerful and wise, but that it will be extinguished upon my death. It's not so much a religious concept, but a convenient description, seeing as it is a near-universal concept.

[Michael]

And I think cognitive dissonance only takes those pilots/soldiers/guards so far. I have a family member that dropped firebombs on Charlie in Vietnam and the word around my family is that he had some major PTSD. I think that PTSD isn't a diagnosis of coming down from the stress of battle, but rather the internal struggle with the immorality of their actions in war.
Agreed.

Now, to answer the OP...

For the most part, I feel like Donkey in that the word represents one person's individuality in conscious thought. It makes sense to say that I have a soul that is powerful and wise, but that it will be extinguished upon my death. It's not so much a religious concept, but a convenient description, seeing as it is a near-universal concept.
This essentially asserts that souls don't exist as anything independent of the physical body - which appears to be the major sticking point regarding the existence of souls. If souls are just a word synonymous with 'conscious self' then the word is meaningless.

[The Drunk Guy]

This essentially asserts that souls don't exist as anything independent of the physical body - which appears to be the major sticking point regarding the existence of souls. If souls are just a word synonymous with 'conscious self' then the word is meaningless.
'Intercourse' defines sex, yet there are an outrageously large number of words that describe intercourse. Each word provides a connotation that illustrates the 'personality' of that particular sexual encounter. To me, the word soul indicates that something fantastic and wonderful inside each of us.

[SMadsen]

Eh, maybe not totally subjective if one operates from certain theological understandings
Theological understandings are based on the ultimate expression of subjectivity: The invisible friend.

[SMadsen]

Concerning the post above, perhaps I owe it to say that with "ultimate expression of subjectivity" I mean subjectivity mixed with a gallon of appeal to authority and a pinch of liability placement, or with a gallon of liability placement and a hint of appeal to authority, - whichever works best in the given situation.

PS. When buying liability placement by the gallon, it may be labelled differently, such as "comfort" or "consolation", but it's essentially the same product.

[Non Sequitur]

Theological understandings are based on the ultimate expression of subjectivity: The invisible friend.


Concerning the post above, perhaps I owe it to say that with "ultimate expression of subjectivity" I mean subjectivity mixed with a gallon of appeal to authority and a pinch of liability placement, or with a gallon of liability placement and a hint of appeal to authority, - whichever works best in the given situation.

PS. When buying liability placement by the gallon, it may be labelled differently, such as "comfort" or "consolation", but it's essentially the same product.

Bah Humbug! :)

God is good all the time and all the time God is good as the statement goes. While yes, it is a faith statement, if someone operates under that faith statement there is at least one thing in life that is "good" that rises beyond mere subjectivity.

plus to say that religion is about comfort misses the point. Religion is a very uncomfortable thing most of the time.

[Michael]

The turing test isn't used to discover whether or not a computer is conscious, but only to discover whether or not a computer can be designed that fools an observer.
And as the Chinese Room 'test' shows, the Turing Test would be insufficient for even that.

The proposition of downloading consciousness assumes compatibility which is a huge challenge since the mind's physiology has not been identified or mapped out to this day. There have been studies which show brain activity occurring prior of action or even conscious realization, but there is no direct connection between activity and thought. For example, we know that certain parts of the brain coincide with certain forms of thought, but we don't know how those parts function or how to interpret brain activity directly. All that we can do now is indirectly associate brain activity by correlating generalities.
That's probably why Donkey made the point in the context of an indeterminant future time. I think its pretty obvious that such a possibility would be entirely outside the realm of 'reasonable future probability'. :shrug:

It would be a scary situation to be satisfied with mere generalities because that would imply satisfaction with filling in the gaps by assuming rational style (the problems therein being part and parcel with the rationality discussion thread). At the very least, this would result in political dilemmas where duty of care would be manipulated by claiming that certain people can die since their "minds" can be easily transferred. In reality, their minds wouldn't be transferred at all, but rather only a fake copy of their mental symptoms would be transferred (and possibly further manipulated in order to accommodate for social engineering).
But we can't actually do this, so this point is moot is it not?

The future has many possibilities - it is essentially impossible to predict what way things will go even within short timeframes, one can only gamble with probability math.

[Michael]

'Intercourse' defines sex, yet there are an outrageously large number of words that describe intercourse. Each word provides a connotation that illustrates the 'personality' of that particular sexual encounter.
That's the poet's justification for using a particular word. That doesn't address the concept of what that word means.

To me, the word soul indicates that something fantastic and wonderful inside each of us.
That sounds like an article of faith.

[Michael]

Concerning the post above, perhaps I owe it to say that with "ultimate expression of subjectivity" I mean subjectivity mixed with a gallon of appeal to authority and a pinch of liability placement, or with a gallon of liability placement and a hint of appeal to authority, - whichever works best in the given situation.

PS. When buying liability placement by the gallon, it may be labelled differently, such as "comfort" or "consolation", but it's essentially the same product.
<cue race-track announcer voice>

And in the Cynic Sweepstakes, SMadsen moves up 'neck and neck' with Americano as they come around the 'club-house turn' and into the back-stretch!

[SMadsen]

plus to say that religion is about comfort misses the point. Religion is a very uncomfortable thing most of the time.
Indeed, hence the major variation in recipe.