Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 303 (336028)
07-28-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by kalimero
07-22-2006 12:07 PM


Why not, if I gave you evidence that what you think you feel is a soul, is actually something else - wouldnt you consider that maybe you got it wrong?
Sure and I have and maintain my belief.
Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.
spirituality? why is it different from any other hypotheisis and how can you proove that?
Like you typed below, its unprovable but I cannot prove that. Spirituality is something that requires faith for belief, not scientific proof.
I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist
I never said that, and thats not how science works - science moves forward by revealing things that, preveously, were thought to either not exist or were not thought of at all, it wouldnt be able to do that if it assumed that anything not masured by science doesnt exist.
I disagree but I don’t feel like arguing how science works and it is OT.
then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.
I dont, anyhting I can proove to exist objectily (tentativly) is considered science - I dont know of any other way of prooving things. So if there are thing I cant proove - it would be futile to belive in them as long as I have something prooven that explains it, though I would not stop test it (if I can). In the case of spirituality - we all agree it is unproovable (by science, whatever that means, what else is there?) so there is no reason to go on believing in it as long as there is a prooven expaination.
I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something. Now, if a proven explanation discredits something that I believe, I’ll most likely stop believing it. This hasn’t happened WRT the soul.
Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.
All truthes (tenativly) have to be prooven - do you agree?
and all that is prooven are truthes (tentativly) - do you agree?
What else exept science can proove anything?
Yes, yes, and nothing.
Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.
I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically.
Then how did you proove it? What evidence do you have?
I can’t and I have no objective evidence. The evidence I have is personal and subjective. To me, it seems like my soul exists. I have no reason to think that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, I believe in the existence of souls.
As far as the title of the thread, I believe that souls are unique to humans. I see no reason to believe that animals have souls too.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by kalimero, posted 07-22-2006 12:07 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by kalimero, posted 07-29-2006 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 303 (336418)
07-29-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by kalimero
07-29-2006 12:31 PM


Of course you would - you never actualy intended to give it another thought
.|.. ^.^ ..|.
You know nothing of my intentions, and damn....talk about
quote:
Assertions.
But anyways....
That kinda pissed me off so I'll give you a real reply some other time. But just so you know, I did give it another thought. I was atheist for a while. I stumbled across my faith again though. One of the reasons I came back was because of the seemingness of the existance of my soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by kalimero, posted 07-29-2006 12:31 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by kalimero, posted 07-30-2006 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 303 (336875)
07-31-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by kalimero
07-30-2006 1:53 PM


I think you have made your intentions quite clear:
...

You dont intend on providing any kind of scientific evidence for the "soul".
Yes, that's true and I have no problem with that, and take no offense when you point that out. But that is not what you said before. Here is the part that pisses me off:
would you still maintain your belief? Of course you would - you never actualy intended to give it another thought - thats because you have faith.
I have given it another thought and I intend to give it another thought again. For you to assert that my faith is thoughtless is not cool.
I dont think you can stumble across faith. By its nature, faith is the lack of something (meaningful) to stumble upon. Faith is, IMHO, the anti-thought, providing people with false hope and taking away the one thing that really makes us human - our brain. (a bit poetic, i know, but as long as we are not doing any science...)
As someone who is claiming to have faith, let me tell you that this is not what it is like.
but I do believe that if you are going to debate someone on the science forum
I already gave you the scientific response, there is nothing to discuss. That doesn't mean that we cannot have a meaningful discusion away from the science. We might as well. Besides, maybe you can learn something from me about what it is actually like to have faith. Something more than a dictionary can tell you. But you are going to have be a little more respectful and not insult me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by kalimero, posted 07-30-2006 1:53 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by kalimero, posted 07-31-2006 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 303 (337392)
08-02-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by kalimero
07-31-2006 2:43 PM


then you are trying to say that you are both skeptical and not skeptical {faith} of the "soul" at the same time - this is of course a logical contradiction.
Yes, this is what I'm saying.
I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory, but it might be a little illogical. I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical. Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.
all I said was that your use of the word faith, if used to describe your experience correctly, is contradictory to a skeptical point of view (giving it another thought) - you cant do them both.
Well, I have done both.
I took a skeptical view of the soul and realized that it was not a parsimonious explanation. This didn't remove the feeling that I do, in fact, have a soul. I looked into the scientific explanations for said feeling and determined that the existance of the soul is compatible with their findings and not ruled out. I also saw that this area of science is underdeveloped and difficult to "put a finger on", so to speak type. So, from my skeptical point of view and my feelings, I determined that I most likely do have a soul and on top of that, I have faith that I have a soul.
I don't see the contradiction, but I do see how I could be being illogical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by kalimero, posted 07-31-2006 2:43 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by kalimero, posted 08-02-2006 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 303 (337397)
08-02-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by ramoss
08-01-2006 7:45 AM


I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.
The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent.
That certainly is a problem. I think it could be considered a fault of science, or positivism, that without detection, things are assumed to not exist. Now, I understand why parsimony is important and agree, but there does seem to be some limitations to science.
The counter argument could be that we'd have to assume that everything exists if we don't assume that nothing exists without detection. I think this is a little overboard. There are things that people profess to exist that science has not dicovered and I think its important for science to continue to assume theses thing do not exists, but I don't think its good for other people to completely write these people off because science doesn't see it.
Assuming that something exists that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable (without getting into how), would it be completely unknown to science? Would science fail in the discovery of this thing? Should we only believe in things that science can find? Should we take that assumption, without scientific detection things don't exist, and apply it to our entire lives?
I'd say no, because, to me, it seems like my soul does exist. While this might be some sort of detection, it isn't recognized by science, so it is assumed to not exist. I don't think I should go ith science on this one. Especially when my soul is apparent to my self. I just wouldn't be being honest with myself. That is when science becomes a religion.
ABE:
I don't think you should reply here because it is too off topic. I proposed a new topic that you should reply too if it is approved. It is titled "Can parsimony turn science ito a religion?"
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ramoss, posted 08-01-2006 7:45 AM ramoss has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 303 (337440)
08-02-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by kalimero
08-02-2006 3:38 PM


I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory
Please provide an example.
My story in the post you replied to was the example.
but it might be a little illogical
Whats the difference between "a little illogical" and just plain illogical?
I dunno, your gonna have to ask robinrohan
But seriously, a contradiction is totally illogical, but something that is not positively illogical, but based on poor logic or not from a logical conclusion, would be a little illogical, IMO.
I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical.
"formally illogical" as opposed to what? Is there another kind of logic I dont know about?
quote:
from wiki:
Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic.
Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content, where that content is made explicit. (An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. We will see later that on many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same thing. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, since one may wish to investigate logic without committing to a particular formal analysis.)
Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.
Do people always do your homework for you?[/sarcasm]
This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.
I think it does. If it was a logical contradiction (illogical) then I'd have a problem with it. But if it just wasn't based on the logical conclusion (what I meant by a little illogical) then I don't have a problem with it. Because religions don't have to comply with formal logic, thats not its place.
Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.
So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?
Yeah, don't you think it is?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=skepticism
Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Read the two definitions and tell me they are not contradictory.
I read them both and don't see how they are neccessarily contradictory. I was skeptical about the soul, then I figured that it does exist, now I have faith in it. What's the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by kalimero, posted 08-02-2006 3:38 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by kalimero, posted 08-03-2006 9:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 303 (337921)
08-04-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by kalimero
08-03-2006 9:19 AM


Yes I do, does this mean that you have a problem with religion?
Or maybe religion is an informal logic?
I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.
Like I typed before, religion can be a little illogical, no problem, the problem comes in when there are stark contradictions, when its very illogical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kalimero, posted 08-03-2006 9:19 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by kalimero, posted 08-05-2006 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 303 (338499)
08-08-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by kalimero
08-05-2006 3:05 PM


I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.
Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?
Why do you think it should? I mean, according to the religion, God has magical powers. How would you hold that up to logical scrutiny? You'd just conclude he didn't exist, I guess. But for those who believe he does, what is logic going to do for anything about God? Why should they have to?
So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure.
Thats retarded. Don't you remember me typing something like that religion could be a little illogical but not science?, IIRC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kalimero, posted 08-05-2006 3:05 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 303 (338500)
08-08-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Ben!
08-07-2006 5:59 PM


all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers. For believers, it doesn't have to be logical.
Exactly. I don't see whats so hard to understand about this.
Cognitive dissonance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Ben!, posted 08-07-2006 5:59 PM Ben! has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 303 (338503)
08-08-2006 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by kalimero
08-07-2006 6:52 PM


What makes you think that something MUST be logical?
Because that is what allows me to explain it and make predictions about it. logic is what ties the over all expanation (theory/hypotheisis) with the actual evidence.
OK, now try applying that to a religion or philosophy. THere's not much evidence nor predictions to make.
Humans are not logical, but should strive to be logical for the reasons writen above. but whet somebody says that being illogical is o.k. when there is a logical alternative, then thats like saying: "I dont want to know how this works I'm just glad (joyfull) it does" - which is just ignorant.
Poor metaphor.
The logical alternative to religion is atheism. I believe god exists before I pick a religion. I'm not saying I don't want to know how this works, I'm saying that the how isn't enough information. I want some answers to the why's, and religion can provide some, even is they don't follow logical rules. The belief in god is not a result of the religion, the religion is a result of the belief in god, for me at least. The religion doesn't have to be logical because that is not what it is for.
If we used only illogical arguements to try to understand the universe - what is the probability that we will get it right?
Thats retarded too. Just because we'll allow some illogic doesn't mean we have to have no logic at all.
Regardless, all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers.
But it does do that by this definition:
Cognitive dissonance Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
when it tries to argue 'incongruous beliefs and attitudes' (the bible for example).
The Bible isn't a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by kalimero, posted 08-07-2006 6:52 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 303 (338560)
08-08-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by kalimero
08-08-2006 1:36 PM


So your saying that the purpose of those people is to believe in god, even if they must 'put aside' logic?
Man I really hate replies that start with "So your saying..."
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Like I said, if only you could have graded my tests, I wouldnt have to use logic beacuse my goal would be to get 100% (I would have faith that I get 100%) and so any use of logic would be unnecessary.
That's still retarded. I don't even understand the point of it now.
If I was grading your religious beliefs, you wouldn't lose points because of some logical inconsistancy, or fallacy. But if your beliefs had a direct contradiction, then yeah, you're not getting an A.
But dont you understand that I have faith in physics {/sarcasm) . I dont need logic, and so I can make up whatever physical law I wish as long as it is not self conrtadictory.
But that doesn't work for science. It does works for religion though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 1:36 PM kalimero has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 303 (338569)
08-08-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by kalimero
08-08-2006 1:59 PM


OK, now try applying that to a religion or philosophy. THere's not much evidence nor predictions to make.
What about what the bible says? No predictions in there?
So what? Your gonna write off a whole religion because a book makes a prediction? I still don't see what your getting at. This mostly seems like you trying to trip me up so you can call me out on it rather than actually trying to provide something to the discussion.
I believe god exists before I pick a religion.
based on what?
The seemingness of the existance of my soul and an appeal to authority, et al.
Now, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that it can't justify a religious belief, does it? I mean, when I think about all the great minds throughout history that have questioned the existance of god and concluded that he does exist, it makes it easier for me to believe in him too, no matter that I'm using a logical fallacy and being a little illogical. Do you understand?
So how do you know that you are right if it isnt logical, how do you test your 'why' expanation?
You don't test it. You just weigh it mentally and decide if you believe it or not. The explanations are not an end-all-be-all. They are just suggestions or possibilities, nobody know for sure. But at least they're trying to help.
No but its the prediction a religion makes about the world, which have to be logical. Thats whats so dangerous about religion.
What predictions? Also, you don't have to believe every prediction to be a part of the religion. In my entire catholic upbringing, I don't think I was taught one testable prediction about the world, nothing I could apply logic too. Like, they talked about the 2nd comming of Jesus, but not like they were making a prediction about the world, and even if I consider it a prediction, there's no logic in it to test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 1:59 PM kalimero has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 303 (338573)
08-08-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by kalimero
08-08-2006 1:59 PM


Why don't we start a new thread. This one is almost done and we're not anywhere near the topic.
Just start a topic with whatever discussion is unresolved and quote stuff from this one. I'd start it but I don't know where your going with this or what your getting at and I don't see how you don't see that religion is aside from logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 1:59 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024