Souls and religion

[Marat]

The theory that the incoherences of the Bible can be explained away as translation errors or as corruptions of the text over time itself refutes the existence of God, in the following way:

 

1) God is defined as infinitely wise, so he would know better than to communicate his most vital message to humanity in a form which would only confuse people into not believing in him.

 

2) If the Bible were written by human authors in a primitive time, they probably wouldn't have had the insights that come from modern, sophisticated hermeneutics, so they would likely have been naive enough to invent a story that an infinitely wise God would communicate his greatest message to mankind via a hermeneutically unreliable, written text.

 

3) Therefore, it is most likely that the Bible was written by naive people without much understanding of hermeneutics and its difficulties than by an infinitely wise God who would have known better than to entrust his message to a text in the ideas, language, and philosophical assumptions of a given time and place.

[Incendia]

Yes, but what does all that have anything to do with souls?

[Dekan]

Yes, but what does all that have anything to do with souls?

A soul probably isn't a physical thing such as an arm, or a leg.

 

More likely, the word "soul" just means - a kind of "record" which God keeps, of our actions.

 

Good actions, earn us a plus point on the record. Bad actions, earn us a negative point.

 

Then when we die, God adds up all the points on our record (or "soul"). If they add up to to an overall "plus" mark, we're rewarded by going to Heaven. If they add up to an overall "negative" mark, we're punished by going to Hell.

 

Does that seem a reasonable interpretation of the word "soul"?

[Brainteaserfan]

A soul probably isn't a physical thing such as an arm, or a leg.

 

More likely, the word "soul" just means - a kind of "record" which God keeps, of our actions.

 

Good actions, earn us a plus point on the record. Bad actions, earn us a negative point.

 

Then when we die, God adds up all the points on our record (or "soul"). If they add up to to an overall "plus" mark, we're rewarded by going to Heaven. If they add up to an overall "negative" mark, we're punished by going to Hell.

 

Does that seem a reasonable interpretation of the word "soul"?

Not according to the Christian God. The only way, according to the Bible, to God and heaven, is through Jesus Christ, because otherwise, our record would add up to an overall "negative".

[Incendia]

Dekan...what you are describing sounds like Karma.

 

That is not how souls work. I already know souls aren't physical...I never said they were.

Souls are a spiritual, immortal part of you. They live on after death and go onto the afterlife.

[Dekan]

Dekan...what you are describing sounds like Karma.

 

That is not how souls work. I already know souls aren't physical...I never said they were.

Souls are a spiritual, immortal part of you. They live on after death and go onto the afterlife.

 

Yes, "Karma" is I think, the same thing as "Soul". A record, in God's mind, of what each human being does, during our life on Earth.

 

The same concept, expressed by a different word.

 

I can't see any need to suppose that "Souls" are some kind of independent entities. But if you want to do so, I don't think it makes any difference. You could say "The soul lives on after death" , or "Death doesn't erase God's memory of your actions", and that amounts to the same thing, don't you think?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Dekan

[Brainteaserfan]

Yes, "Karma" is I think, the same thing as "Soul". A record, in God's mind, of what each human being does, during our life on Earth.

 

The same concept, expressed by a different word.

 

I can't see any need to suppose that "Souls" are some kind of independent entities. But if you want to do so, I don't think it makes any difference. You could say "The soul lives on after death" , or "Death doesn't erase God's memory of your actions", and that amounts to the same thing, don't you think?

No, they don't amount to the same thing.

 

Karma: 1. (in Hinduism and Buddhism) The sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.

2. Destiny or fate, following as effect from cause.

 

Soul: 1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

 

(source: googled define "karma" and define "soul")

 

IMO, the soul is the part of you that is not physical.

 

Edit: Well said Marat (in 1st paragraph of the next post).

Edited June 29, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Marat]

God could remember your actions in life after you are dead, evaluate them, and give you a plus or a minus, but if you don't have a 'soul' as some version of yourself which somehow survives your physical death, then none of this would matter to you in any practical sense, since you wouldn't be around to experience the reward, punishment, or self-satisfaction of knowing that you 'won the game.'

 

You could go through life with the sense that the moral value of all your actions and omissions was being weighed up and either credited or debited to you, but that really just amounts to taking the moral significance of your life seriously, and is an attitude shared by many atheists.

 

So it seems that religious people need the soul as an entity which is still the self but yet somehow different from the self, in the sense that it can live after death, since otherwise there would be nothing to receive the proper retribution or reward for all the immoral or moral acts committed, and we know that in life there is no fair reward for goodness or just punishment for evil.

 

However, the idea of a self which is somehow, paradoxially, not the self, since it is a self which can live after death, while the ordinary self lives under the constant threat of death and so is defined by it, is philosophically incoherent. The 'I' who in life committed sins and deserved punishment and did good things and deserved reward cannot possibly be identical with an 'I' who lives posthumously and so is beyond that death which essentially defined the 'I' which is responsible for its acts in life. So punishing or rewarding this posthumous 'I' is totally incoherent, since it is punishing and rewarding one person for the sins and credits of someone else.

[Greatest I am]

A soul probably isn't a physical thing such as an arm, or a leg.

 

More likely, the word "soul" just means - a kind of "record" which God keeps, of our actions.

 

Good actions, earn us a plus point on the record. Bad actions, earn us a negative point.

 

Then when we die, God adds up all the points on our record (or "soul"). If they add up to to an overall "plus" mark, we're rewarded by going to Heaven. If they add up to an overall "negative" mark, we're punished by going to Hell.

 

Does that seem a reasonable interpretation of the word "soul"?

 

No. Here is why.

 

It is said that the omni everything God already knows and has always known everything. His famous plan remember.

 

That being the case, the souls would be a redundant and un-necessary appendage. Just a copy of what is already known.

 

Seems that God back up his plan the way we back up our computer files.

 

I guess he does not trust his memory.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[sweenith]

Why does every major religion, or at least most major religions, require the belief in a soul?

 

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. all speak of a soul in they religious texts etc.

 

I don't believe in a soul. There is no evidence for their existence. They have no purpose other than spiritual and as far as I know there is no way to check for their existence without dying and staying dead.

Without belief in a soul there is no punishment after death because there is nothing to ascend/descend/to be reincarnated etc.

 

Do you believe in a soul? Why?

If not, why?

 

Why do all these religious require belief in a soul/ all speak of souls in the religious texts?

 

Why is the idea of a soul so popular in religion?

 

Why is discussion about souls so little in comparison to vast amount of discussion about every other aspect of religion? (As far as I know.)

 

Are there any 'soulless' religions? (If you know what I mean...which is are there any religions that don't talk about souls are all.)

 

Now I'm sure that different religions may mean different things by the term "soul", but with regard to Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, as I understand it, the "soul" is just synonymous with "mind" (as far as philosophy of religion goes, at least). The things that can think and have intentions and beliefs and make choices and so on - those are souls. So in a sense then, you don't really have a soul so much as you are one.

 

Given this definition, your disagreement with religion isn't about whether or not people have souls; rather, your disagreement is about whether or not souls/minds/'you' continue to exist after the death of the body.

 

As I understand it then, when religions (the monotheistic ones at least) talk about souls, they aren't postulating some kind of invisible ghost which is altogether distinct from and in addition to the mind and body, that somehow follows us around. Rather, they're just talking about our minds. So whether or not you agree with them that minds/souls are immaterial objects, you can at least see the rationale for their talking about such things.

 

Also, this notion of soul makes sense out of talk about 'the condition of one's soul,' (as one often hears in religion contexts), for that's just your condition, which betters and worsens in relation to the actions you choose to take, good or bad. So, your conscience is what tells you the condition of your soul.

[Incendia]

Now I'm sure that different religions may mean different things by the term "soul", but with regard to Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, as I understand it, the "soul" is just synonymous with "mind" (as far as philosophy of religion goes, at least). The things that can think and have intentions and beliefs and make choices and so on - those are souls. So in a sense then, you don't really have a soul so much as you are one.

 

Given this definition, your disagreement with religion isn't about whether or not people have souls; rather, your disagreement is about whether or not souls/minds/'you' continue to exist after the death of the body.

 

As I understand it then, when religions (the monotheistic ones at least) talk about souls, they aren't postulating some kind of invisible ghost which is altogether distinct from and in addition to the mind and body, that somehow follows us around. Rather, they're just talking about our minds. So whether or not you agree with them that minds/souls are immaterial objects, you can at least see the rationale for their talking about such things.

 

Also, this notion of soul makes sense out of talk about 'the condition of one's soul,' (as one often hears in religion contexts), for that's just your condition, which betters and worsens in relation to the actions you choose to take, good or bad. So, your conscience is what tells you the condition of your soul.

 

The Greeks separated the mind and soul. The soul was said to be linked to your heart and that is were your emotions lie. That's why some people say things like 'follow your heart'.

 

The way I've always understood it is that the mind and soul a separate entities.

 

I know that Buddhism does not mention the soul, but does instead describes life as energy and that when you die your energy joins the cosmic energy again before being reincarnated. This is probably not true of all forms of Buddhism.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Incendia