What is the soul?

[Michael]

People tend to talk about souls as if they are real, yet I've never encountered a decent description of what a soul actually is.

From an atheist perspective, it doesn't look like souls exist at all.

And, assuming for the sake of the argument that souls do exist, why do some souls go to heaven, some go to hell and others reincarnate as cows?

So, will anybody have mercy upon my soul and try to answer the question? ;)

[Non Sequitur]

People tend to talk about souls as if they are real, yet I've never encountered a decent description of what a soul actually is.

From an atheist perspective, it doesn't look like souls exist at all.

And, assuming for the sake of the argument that souls do exist, why do some souls go to heaven, some go to hell and others reincarnate as cows?

So, will anybody have mercy upon my soul and try to answer the question? ;)

There are a couple of ways to answer these questions.

question 1: "Why do some souls go to heaven?"

Answer 1: Well the typical Christian answer (and this can be a mostly universal statement for the religion since Vatican II) is that faith is what brings a soul to heaven. Hell, in my opinion is for those who want to be apart from God (some do). The ultimate Christian hope, however, is not that your soul goes to heaven, but that your body and soul get resurrected from the dead in the New Heaven and the New Earth

Question 2: "Why do some souls get reincarnated"

Answer 2: This is an Eastern religious belief, that as a Christian, I do not believe or condone. From what I have learned (feel free to correct me anyone) is that the belief depends on your actions in this life. The details of the belief vary depending on what religion you actually are.

On a side note, the Bible is not all together clear that something called a "soul" exists. The belief really comes from Greek Philosophy. Greek Philosophy makes a body/soul distinction. Typically the belief is that the soul is good and the body is evil. While this can be found in Christianity, I argue that this distinction is not Biblical. The Bible is quite clear that the body and soul are both created good (and thus valued by God) and that they are inseparable. One could argue, however, that the soul is not even mentioned in the Bible.

[The Drunk Guy]

The soul, to me, is the defining factors that make someone stand out as an individual. It is that essential, deep-down voice that drives us in all our endeavors.

As for punishment and reward...that's just scare tactics. I feel that the soul simply dissipates into the universe, recirculating it's energy into the flow of life.

[SMadsen]

I can only reply to the question "what is the soul": The soul is a solution to the paradox of simultaneously existing mortality and immortality. A paradox brought on by the unimaginable non-existence, i.e., the inconceivable invalidation, of the ego.

[The Drunk Girl]

There are a couple of ways to answer these questions.

question 1: "Why do some souls go to heaven?"

Answer 1: Well the typical Christian answer (and this can be a mostly universal statement for the religion since Vatican II) is that faith is what brings a soul to heaven. Hell, in my opinion is for those who want to be apart from God (some do). The ultimate Christian hope, however, is not that your soul goes to heaven, but that your body and soul get resurrected from the dead in the New Heaven and the New Earth

Question 2: "Why do some souls get reincarnated"

Answer 2: This is an Eastern religious belief, that as a Christian, I do not believe or condone. From what I have learned (feel free to correct me anyone) is that the belief depends on your actions in this life. The details of the belief vary depending on what religion you actually are.

On a side note, the Bible is not all together clear that something called a "soul" exists. The belief really comes from Greek Philosophy. Greek Philosophy makes a body/soul distinction. Typically the belief is that the soul is good and the body is evil. While this can be found in Christianity, I argue that this distinction is not Biblical. The Bible is quite clear that the body and soul are both created good (and thus valued by God) and that they are inseparable. One could argue, however, that the soul is not even mentioned in the Bible.

I would have to agree with you on your first answer of what Christianity teaches about the body and soul. But, your side note is what confuses me. I find it somewhat contradictory when you say that the Bible is not clear that a soul exist, but it is clear that both are created good.

The soul is mentioned numerous times throughout the Bible as well. This is the first reference to that:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
(Genesis 2:7)

Some even mention in the margins that the word "soul" has been substituted for the word "life." If this is the case with these two words being interchangeable, it would make sense that with your soul living on one would have everlasting life.

[Michael]

There are a couple of ways to answer these questions.
Your reasonable and thoughtful reply is apparently interferring with my nefarious attempts to get a good argument going here! :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

Your reasonable and thoughtful reply is apparently interferring with my nefarious attempts to get a good argument going here! :shrug:

haha thank you. I would like to take all the credit, but i believe that it is also due to the size of the subject. Contained within my first answer is more than a thousand years of Christian discussion. We could go into why faith and not works? What is Hell, or for that matter What is heaven? so many places to go.

[SMadsen]

I would have to agree with you on your first answer of what Christianity teaches about the body and soul. But, your side note is what confuses me. I find it somewhat contradictory when you say that the Bible is not clear that a soul exist, but it is clear that both are created good.

The soul is mentioned numerous times throughout the Bible as well. This is the first reference to that:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
(Genesis 2:7)

Some even mention in the margins that the word "soul" has been substituted for the word "life." If this is the case with these two words being interchangeable, it would make sense that with your soul living on one would have everlasting life.
Indeed. The concepts of a life force and soul are very often one and the same. It's only to fit into various religious and philosophical tenets that properties are added and subtracted to make the soul fit the particular dogma.

Basically, the soul is simply the life force which one cannot conceive the termination of. I will even venture into saying that if you ask a person who has no problems conceiving of death being an obliteration of mind and body, it will turn out that the soul is a non-issue to that person.

[Michael]

I can only reply to the question "what is the soul": The soul is a solution to the paradox of simultaneously existing mortality and immortality. A paradox brought on by the unimaginable non-existence, i.e., the inconceivable invalidation, of the ego.


Indeed. The concepts of a life force and soul are very often one and the same. It's only to fit into various religious and philosophical tenets that properties are added and subtracted to make the soul fit the particular dogma.

Basically, the soul is simply the life force which one cannot conceive the termination of. I will even venture into saying that if you ask a person who has no problems conceiving of death being an obliteration of mind and body, it will turn out that the soul is a non-issue to that person.
Your points are excellent ones that I'm in agreement with.

I might add that you are as bad as Non Sequitur here for spoiling my nefarious plans! I figured this thread topic was a good one for a lively discussion and I'm still trying to find an angle here that you guys can't just pour cold water onto! :D

(that is not a criticism - Non Sequitur and SMadsen have delivered brilliant posts on this topic - the kind of posts that are really hard to argue with) :)

[Michael]

question 1: "Why do some souls go to heaven?"

Answer 1: Well the typical Christian answer (and this can be a mostly universal statement for the religion since Vatican II) is that faith is what brings a soul to heaven. Hell, in my opinion is for those who want to be apart from God (some do). The ultimate Christian hope, however, is not that your soul goes to heaven, but that your body and soul get resurrected from the dead in the New Heaven and the New Earth

Forgive my pedantry here, but wouldn't this 'resurrection from the dead' in "the New Heaven and the New Earth" involve some kind of transfer of souls from the 'old Heaven' rather than actual resurrection? Or is that a double-rise from the dead? (rise once to go to heaven when one dies, then rise again from the dead to go to the New Heaven when that occurs).

That seems rather convoluted. :ummm:

That of course is only pedantry. There's no reason that Christian theology can't have a convoluted process here, if that's what God commands.

The only real comment I have to make is about the last point. I do consider it odd that in common parlayance, this is never or only rarely alluded to. The immediate expectation of heaven is apparently placed 'front and center' for Christian theology in common practice and in all common or popular representations of Christianity. This does seem like a bit of a 'bait and switch' trick since 'heaven' that many Christians think they are heading for is NOT actually eternal - it is only a stage on the way to the "New Heaven" which is back on planet Earth.

Question 2: "Why do some souls get reincarnated"

Answer 2: This is an Eastern religious belief, that as a Christian, I do not believe or condone. From what I have learned (feel free to correct me anyone) is that the belief depends on your actions in this life. The details of the belief vary depending on what religion you actually are.
First of all, I have to say that Christianity is ultimately an Eastern religious belief.

Secondly, I don't see how you can draw such a distinction between the 'reincarnation of souls' and the 'resurrection of souls' for New Heaven on Earth? The very possibility of one suggests the possibility of the other. These ideas are rather closely related - certainly from the atheist perspective of 'death equals nothingness'.

On a side note, the Bible is not all together clear that something called a "soul" exists. The belief really comes from Greek Philosophy. Greek Philosophy makes a body/soul distinction. Typically the belief is that the soul is good and the body is evil. While this can be found in Christianity, I argue that this distinction is not Biblical. The Bible is quite clear that the body and soul are both created good (and thus valued by God) and that they are inseparable. One could argue, however, that the soul is not even mentioned in the Bible.
Biblical scholarship is such a linguistic and historical minefield that I tend to avoid that kind of discussion as I'm no way qualified to address it.

That being said, you are correct that the 'distinction' of the body and soul is a concept closely associated with Greek philosophy (aka platonic dualism).

However, I'd say that Christian interpretations of Christian theology has overtly been associated and intimately involved with Greek philosophy since Augustine of Hippo at the very least. Neoplatonism is the philosophic school that represents this and it has been rampant in Christian philosophy for many centuries. That is to say, I don't think you can truly draw a clear distinction between "The Bible" and "Greek philosophy" any more than one can draw a clear distinction between Socrates and Plato. They may well originate separately, but our understanding of one, tends to be interpreted through the other.

[Non Sequitur]

Forgive my pedantry here, but wouldn't this 'resurrection from the dead' in "the New Heaven and the New Earth" involve some kind of transfer of souls from the 'old Heaven' rather than actual resurrection? Or is that a double-rise from the dead? (rise once to go to heaven when one dies, then rise again from the dead to go to the New Heaven when that occurs).

That seems rather convoluted. :ummm:

That of course is only pedantry. There's no reason that Christian theology can't have a convoluted process here, if that's what God commands.

Well the reason it is convoluted is because the Bible is not all together clear on the subject. We get allusions to what will happen (like the "New Heaven/New Earth" imagery), but there is no place where the subject is spelled out step by step. I actually think this is deliberate in order to prove to people that God is the only one who really knows the answers to this stuff. We are supposed to focus on the here and now.

but, my general way of thinking about it goes something like this: when one dies, the soul goes to Heaven, there who knows what will happen, but if we use the C.S. Lewis thought process, we become more "solid" as he writes in the Great Divorce (great fiction book by him on the subject). There is no "double rise from the dead" because the only resurrection is the bodily one. the resurrection of the dead will happen when God see's fit.

The only real comment I have to make is about the last point. I do consider it odd that in common parlayance, this is never or only rarely alluded to. The immediate expectation of heaven is apparently placed 'front and center' for Christian theology in common practice and in all common or popular representations of Christianity. This does seem like a bit of a 'bait and switch' trick since 'heaven' that many Christians think they are heading for is NOT actually eternal - it is only a stage on the way to the "New Heaven" which is back on planet Earth.

Your statement is true, and I consider this a huge problem in Christianity today (especially in America) because it leads to all sorts of nasty things. The reason for this is that Christianity (and especially American protestantism) has never fully defeated the heresy of Gnosticism (great heresies never really die). For those who don't know, one of Gnosticism's prime beliefs was that the soul is good and trapped in the evil body. The goal is to separate the soul from body by achieving the secret knowledge, or gnosis. This belief can be found in Christianity if we substitute understand knowledge to mean faith in Christ. Once you have achieved this "secret knowledge" (that Jesus is the savior) than your soul is saved (sound familiar?) and you will meet Jesus in heaven. The reason this is so prevalent today is because it is so easy when compared to orthodox doctrine. When one devalues the body in favor of the soul, you can devalue creation also (something we see in much of Evangelical Protestantism in America with it's almost anti-environment approach). Works become nice, but not necessary because they are works of the flesh.

First of all, I have to say that Christianity is ultimately an Eastern religious belief.

Secondly, I don't see how you can draw such a distinction between the 'reincarnation of souls' and the 'resurrection of souls' for New Heaven on Earth? The very possibility of one suggests the possibility of the other. These ideas are rather closely related - certainly from the atheist perspective of 'death equals nothingness'.

Very true, Christianity is an Eastern religion, I guess i should have clarified.

well for the reasons I stated above, reincarnation of the soul alone leads to some very nasty idea's when mixed with Christian theology (like the devaluation of creation, devaluation of works and morality). Within the logic of Christian theology you need to make the distinction between the souls salvation and body's resurrection or else the system begins to unravel. When one remembers that the body is going to resurrected, then we must logically value creation as a whole because the body is part of creation.

on a more practical note, the reincarnation idea as expressed in Hinduism and Buddhism runs contrary to most of what the Bible says about the process of life and death. Reincarnation and resurrection of the body just don't fit together very well.

However, I'd say that Christian interpretations of Christian theology has overtly been associated and intimately involved with Greek philosophy since Augustine of Hippo at the very least. Neoplatonism is the philosophic school that represents this and it has been rampant in Christian philosophy for many centuries. That is to say, I don't think you can truly draw a clear distinction between "The Bible" and "Greek philosophy" any more than one can draw a clear distinction between Socrates and Plato. They may well originate separately, but our understanding of one, tends to be interpreted through the other.

Greek philosophy has had a huge impact on Christianity. So large in fact, that I find it troubling to say the least. I am speaking Protestant heresy here, but sometimes Augustine's use of Greek philosophy is disturbing (specifically the emphasis on reason).

[Michael]

Well the reason it is convoluted is because the Bible is not all together clear on the subject. We get allusions to what will happen (like the "New Heaven/New Earth" imagery), but there is no place where the subject is spelled out step by step. I actually think this is deliberate in order to prove to people that God is the only one who really knows the answers to this stuff. We are supposed to focus on the here and now.

but, my general way of thinking about it goes something like this: when one dies, the soul goes to Heaven, there who knows what will happen, but if we use the C.S. Lewis thought process, we become more "solid" as he writes in the Great Divorce (great fiction book by him on the subject). There is no "double rise from the dead" because the only resurrection is the bodily one. the resurrection of the dead will happen when God see's fit.
I'll accept that.

Your statement is true, and I consider this a huge problem in Christianity today (especially in America) because it leads to all sorts of nasty things. The reason for this is that Christianity (and especially American protestantism) has never fully defeated the heresy of Gnosticism (great heresies never really die). For those who don't know, one of Gnosticism's prime beliefs was that the soul is good and trapped in the evil body. The goal is to separate the soul from body by achieving the secret knowledge, or gnosis. This belief can be found in Christianity if we substitute understand knowledge to mean faith in Christ. Once you have achieved this "secret knowledge" (that Jesus is the savior) than your soul is saved (sound familiar?) and you will meet Jesus in heaven. The reason this is so prevalent today is because it is so easy when compared to orthodox doctrine. When one devalues the body in favor of the soul, you can devalue creation also (something we see in much of Evangelical Protestantism in America with it's almost anti-environment approach). Works become nice, but not necessary because they are works of the flesh.
Very interesting answer. :)

I never realized this vague similarity of Gnosticism and the evangelicals, but I suppose I should of suspected something of the sort given the history.

Very true, Christianity is an Eastern religion, I guess i should have clarified.

well for the reasons I stated above, reincarnation of the soul alone leads to some very nasty idea's when mixed with Christian theology (like the devaluation of creation, devaluation of works and morality). Within the logic of Christian theology you need to make the distinction between the souls salvation and body's resurrection or else the system begins to unravel. When one remembers that the body is going to resurrected, then we must logically value creation as a whole because the body is part of creation.

on a more practical note, the reincarnation idea as expressed in Hinduism and Buddhism runs contrary to most of what the Bible says about the process of life and death. Reincarnation and resurrection of the body just don't fit together very well.
I'll accept that. Reincarnation and resurrection do appear to be logically exclusive of one another (though, once one enters 'miricle-land' then one can't reasonably expect logic and rationality to be definitive).

Greek philosophy has had a huge impact on Christianity. So large in fact, that I find it troubling to say the least. I am speaking Protestant heresy here, but sometimes Augustine's use of Greek philosophy is disturbing (specifically the emphasis on reason).
No doubt! :D

For me, the most interesting association between Christianity and Greek philosophy is the relationship with Aristotle (aka "The Philosopher"). It is interesting because Plato is often euphemistically called 'Christianity for educated people' - and the overt Christianity of neoplatonism cannot be denied. But it is in the ideas of Aristotle that one can see the origins of the 'demon-secular-humanists' that have always posed the greatest ultimate threat to all religions. The efforts that the Christian Church has invested (over the course of some fifteen centuries - give or take one or two) in the attempt to bring all of Aristotle's thought into compatibility with Church doctrine is beyond measure. It amuses me that the Church 'instinctively' chose to confront the 'threat' rather than embrace the powerful ally.

Only time will tell which was the better strategy - though I don't expect you to see it in those terms! :D

Indeed, if I were to have served as an 'advisor' to an early pope, to the best of my machiavellian mind, I would have advised the adoption of the friendship with Plato rather than aspire to conquer Aristotle. The obsession with Aristotle in the medieval period (scholasticism) I think cost the Church dearly in the long run. William of Ockham and Descartes both follow naturally from the Christian-Aristotle tradition (though, so does Augustine & Aquinas).

[dannydesiliva]

Impossible. If you back up your brain all you have is a copy of your brain. Your 'conciousness' is not part of the information on the disc.

[wphelan]

Impossible. If you back up your brain all you have is a copy of your brain. Your 'conciousness' is not part of the information on the disc.

What is it?

[Michael]

Impossible. If you back up your brain all you have is a copy of your brain. Your 'conciousness' is not part of the information on the disc.

"Back up your brain" is impossible as well. :shrug:

What is it?
Indeed, I second this question.

[Lily]

People tend to talk about souls as if they are real, yet I've never encountered a decent description of what a soul actually is.

From an atheist perspective, it doesn't look like souls exist at all.

And, assuming for the sake of the argument that souls do exist, why do some souls go to heaven, some go to hell and others reincarnate as cows?

So, will anybody have mercy upon my soul and try to answer the question? ;)

You got me, Michael. I suppose that's one of the downsides of not prescribing to any religious doctrine. It's not as if I lie awake at nights pondering the question, but I suppose we humans, self-centered as we are, would like to believe we go on forever, whether that "forever" means in heaven, hell or as a cow. That being so, we have to set rules. You know we love our rules. Voila! Religion.

So here it is: if you're good, you go to heaven; if you're bad, you go to hell. For the Hindus in the crowd, if you seek unity with spirit, you reach nirvana; if you seek earthly pleasures, you come back again as a human. Bad Sikhs come back as cows.

Hope that helps. :)

[SMadsen]

You got me, Michael. I suppose that's one of the downsides of not prescribing to any religious doctrine. It's not as if I lie awake at nights pondering the question, but I suppose we humans, self-centered as we are, would like to believe we go on forever, whether that "forever" means in heaven, hell or as a cow. That being so, we have to set rules. You know we love our rules. Voila! Religion.

So here it is: if you're good, you go to heaven; if you're bad, you go to hell. For the Hindus in the crowd, if you seek unity with spirit, you reach nirvana; if you seek earthly pleasures, you come back again as a human. Bad Sikhs come back as cows.

Hope that helps. :)
Excellent and pretty much holistic description :)