Re: thoughts on Jesus


"Ilas" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA06881FED38lurker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:695013F2vsm4oU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1ih1991.pgql7n1558fhyN%j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxxxxx

If 3, then one wonders at the necessity for the gap itself. Why, for
example, think there is a "soul" if "soul" is never investigable?

I don't follow your logic there, the belief is addressing the gap, not
creating the gap. People talk about the "soul" as an expression for
things we cannot otherwise explain, if we stop talking about the soul
that does not eliminate those things our wonderment at what causes
them.

You know as well as I do that the soul means something very different to
most Christians. It's supposed to be that indefinable part of you that
ascends to heaven after death (or descends to hell),

It is more than that:

"The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the
self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. In these traditions
the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being,
and to be the true basis for sapience, rather than the brain or any other
material or natural part of the biological organism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

and as such it is
religion creating the gap.

So you reckon that if there were no religion then Man would not wonder where
his sapience comes from?

Even if we do find a complete explanation for
the way our minds work, that won't close that gap.

Why would it not?

That's why I quibbled with your definition of number 3 - if an
adequate natural explanation is found for a belief then that belief
has to be abandoned or modified to fit with the natural explanation.

Or you could simply say god chose to do it that way.

Always another option but not one generally taken by the mainstream
religions.

I don't, however, see that science or philosophy has moved on to the
extent that they have an adequate natural explanation for what
religious people consider as the "soul".

And with something that has no definition and is essentially indefinable,
science never can.

There are a few people here who insist that science already has.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... gap, not creating the gap. ... talking about the soul that does not eliminate those things our ... So you reckon that if there were no religion then Man would not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... gap, not creating the gap. ... talking about the soul that does not eliminate those things our ... So you reckon that if there were no religion then Man would not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... gap, not creating the gap. ... talking about the soul that does not eliminate those things our ... So you reckon that if there were no religion then Man would not ... Well, frankly, our cognitive ability is overrated. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... I don't follow your logic there, the belief is addressing the gap, not ... if we stop talking about the soul ... and to be the true basis for sapience, rather than the brain or any other ... So you reckon that if there were no religion then Man would not wonder ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... I don't follow your logic there, the belief is addressing the gap, not ... if we stop talking about the soul ... So you reckon that if there were no religion then Man would not wonder ... primitive manifestations of these behaviors in our closest relatives (not to ...
    (talk.origins)