08 Feb '11 01:30>2 edits
What follows here is a response from Doward to me in my other "souls" thread that did not get a response from me acknowledging the care and time he put into it. I brushed it off (unfairly perhaps) because of irritation that the raison d'etre for my other thread was to demonstrate that
- an atheist's (in particular my own) claim that one needs not invoke the notion of a soul is defensible - and a challenge to theists that they show I am wrong;
and that the majority of responses treated the thread as
- an inquiry into what is the nature of a soul and how best one should go about describing it, quantifying it etc...
These are two distinct discussions with entirely different agendas. That said, the response doward gave would have been a reasonable answer had my, or someone elses question perhaps been:
"how does one assess the function of a supernatural soul (which by definition of "supernatural" puts it's description beyond the means of humans to articulate) and quantify it's contribution to the character or 'essence' of a person given we have only natural means at our disposal?"
Perhaps others will respond to it whilst I get round to preparing my own (given that it is an answer to a different question than the one in my other thread)
This thread can be treated as an apology and acknowledgement I could have handled the situation better.
- an atheist's (in particular my own) claim that one needs not invoke the notion of a soul is defensible - and a challenge to theists that they show I am wrong;
and that the majority of responses treated the thread as
- an inquiry into what is the nature of a soul and how best one should go about describing it, quantifying it etc...
These are two distinct discussions with entirely different agendas. That said, the response doward gave would have been a reasonable answer had my, or someone elses question perhaps been:
"how does one assess the function of a supernatural soul (which by definition of "supernatural" puts it's description beyond the means of humans to articulate) and quantify it's contribution to the character or 'essence' of a person given we have only natural means at our disposal?"
Perhaps others will respond to it whilst I get round to preparing my own (given that it is an answer to a different question than the one in my other thread)
great, we've established that there is either no need to continue this thread, or that the soul is supernatural, or "extra' natural if you prefer.
Since we seem to be determined that the thread should continue, then lets say for argument sake that the soul is "extra" natural.
Are there ways of measuring things that are not natural? We can measure the horsepower of a car. its torque, wheelbase and other attributes. The things we are measuring are of course physical carachteristics and physics itself. What if we were to determine the value of a car? Is that not a measurement? to be sure it is.
So how do we measure the value of a car? generally speeking market conditions determine how much we pay for a car, but that does not give us its value. You see, after we are done with a car, we trade it, then the next person does etc until it goes to the junkyard, and even then it has value as scrap.
So we can calculate the monetary value of a car over the life of a car, but that is not the same as value. For many people a car represents freedom, ability to work and a useful tool to generate income. Those things need to be included as well.
Many people value their specialty cars beyond any reason. They treat the cars better than they treat their pets, and spend inordinate amounts of money tracking down "original parts".
So we see that finding the quanitative and qualitative value for something simple like a car can be an enormous task, how much more so to find the value or measure of one's soul? Some people spend inordinate money feeding their soul, nurturing it and seeking "redemption" or reconciliation (pick your poison).
Does the soul perform any useful tasks for us (as a car might)? Good question, but to know that we need to further define what a soul is. There is a term called Tripartite. It refers to the human being as being made of three parts: body, spirit and soul. We know what comprises the body, and the spirit would be called that aprt of us that makes us alive, the spark of life (science still doesn't know how this happens).
Perhaps one way to look at it is this: Our souls are the essence of who we are. It is the complete history of what it means to be Doward. Yes if I am injured and brain functions go to nil, then that is part of my history of who or what it means to be me. It does not erase the numerous preofound thoughts I might have had, or the millions of dumb ideas I may have had. Think of the soul as the history of the being. Yet this does not completely define the soul, but it is a good start.
This thread can be treated as an apology and acknowledgement I could have handled the situation better.