Hi y'all - I think science (and I use the term in its widest sense) over centuries has searched for a soul. Humans are routinely investigated, examined and degradated by ever more intimate and advanced tools. If any matter constituting a soul is tucked away somewhere, I believe it would have been found. If the soul does not consist of matter then I discount it. I do know that alleged "scientists" working for the Design Institute would pay $100B to anyone who could prove its existence thus we come to the usual dead end - is it necessary to prove that a god/soul doesn't exist?
On Sep 24, 3:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “…My understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a > soul, without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana…” – > clog > > In many ways you are correct here Clog. Yet, even HHDL has addressed > such notions as the absolute. So, in this regard, there at the very > least appears to be not only an acceptance but a direct apprehension > of some sort of (perhaps non-anthropomorphic) divine and objective > state. Of course, the notion of negative theology comes in handy here > due to the nature of such apprehensions. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology > > “Science can find no record of this.” – Clog > Of soul? IF this is what you mean, I’m not aware of any such studies. > Of course, this doesn’t mean they haven’t taken place. However, I am > on an email list with many worldwide scientists and Buddhists, > including some I’ve mentioned here, and their goal is to find as many > things in common they have as well as to learn from the other ‘camp’ > recognizing that each has much to learn from the other. > > “Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I think, no one posting in > this thread would subscribe to that (yet.)” – Clog > I still wonder exactly what was being researched here. What sort of > ‘energy’, ‘matter’, etc. was being looked for? This is what puzzles me > in that, as far as I know, common science today does not seem either > interested nor capable of addressing these things. > > “On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness via the > nervous system etc.” – Clog > > This is the area of epistemology where many begin to start to talk > past each other. And, as I’ve said, I’m not evangelical on the whole. > However, since you have brought this up, I’ll jump into the fray. > > There appears to be at least two camps of thought when it comes to > these type of experiments. (Leaving out those who reject science > overall…) > > The first understand that when some sort of instrument exhibits > (registers) some sort of change while attached to anything, that > something is learned. This is fine. Where the apparent difference of > view starts as I understand it is when those in this camp do not > examine, calculate and/or include their own consciousnesses (observer) > into the mix. > Of course, to do so would cause some difficulties. This said, to > ignore and/or reject self observation overall ignores the direct > experience and, thus apprehension of consciousness and ‘being-as- > such’. > > Those in what appears to be the second camp I’m talking about overall > do include such understandings in the mix. > > “When I talk to someone, I can assess their level of conscousness > simply from their responses. If they say they believe in gods, I > naturally assume they are close to being comatose.” – Clog > > Quite humorous, and, a good example of how subjectivity is included in > all analysis. > > On Sep 24, 12:34 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I think I'll jump in here before Jason does as you've > > mentioned "Buddhist Friends." and > > "Either way, we both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole does > > not address such > > things today. . . I hope! " > > I think we need to separate soul and consciousness here. My > > understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a soul, > > without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana. Some souls > > remain outside Nirvana to help others along. Science can find no > > record of this. Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I think, no > > one posting in this thread would subscribe to that (yet.) > > On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness via the > > nervous system etc. When I talk to someone, I can assess their level > > of conscousness simply from their responses. If they say they believe > > in gods, I naturally assume they are close to being comatose. > > > On Sep 23, 3:11 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting foreward?” > > > - Stem> Even if one posits that the moment of conception > > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must then > > > > realize that it is a scientific question. – Stem also > > > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul or other > > > such notions." - orn > > > > Well Stem, I’m not clear about your questions either nor am I meaning > > > to be obtuse here either. I’ll guess as to what you are asking and you > > > can correct me if I am wrong OK? > > > I’m guessing you are asking about my words above that you included in > > > your post. That said, most of my words in this thread follow from a > > > short aside I made about when consciousness enters the body according > > > to some Buddhist sects. I do know that most of the focus here is on > > > antitheology and antichristiandom in particular which is fine. I find > > > most of such believers troublesome at best. I merely added something I > > > learned from some Tibetan Buddhists to the mix because I thought it > > > was interesting. This even though the context here was your link and > > > comments about embryos and fetuses. Next Taylor brought up soul. The > > > underlying and rather tacit topic here is abortion. Yes? At least for > > > the fundies. > > > Since you asked about me, I’ll comment about this too. Over the years > > > I’ve had different positions about abortion. I think I’ve even posted > > > to this group about it in the past. Currently, I feel that abortion is > > > killing and that it should remain legal. Please do not question what > > > appears to be a contradiction here…like do I think that killing should > > > be legal. I’m aware of how this appears. > > > However, your question addresses my comment about consciousness/soul > > > and perhaps science, I guess. Again, I’m retelling what was told to me > > > by some Buddhist friends. In a rather simplistic overview and using > > > symbols, they see that the eternal continuum – consciousness – enters > > > the ‘body’ at the moment of conception. This is when the red gem/drop > > > and the white gem/drop unite …it is at that moment that the blue gem/ > > > drop enters this realm and joins the red and blue. The iconography is > > > well known. The existence of this particular cosmology itself can not > > > be questioned. If one wishes to say it does not match their own > > > view(s) of reality, this is fine and I’d even hasten a guess that most > > > Buddhists would agree with the use of such skepticism. > > > Continuing… > > > > “I like your thoughts....somewhat. I am not arguing, nor will I get > > > into argument about, that science has further to go to reach a science > > > of the soul.. Zeus does not throw lighting bolts. It is non- > > > existent....like Zeus...god...reincarnation, etc. When I said that it > > > is a science question, I was referring to the science of development. > > > In other words, Zeus does not throw lighting bolts.” - Slip > > > > I can see you are trying to clarify what you meant and, unfortunately, > > > I still don’t grok. I’m ignorant about what you mean by ‘science of > > > development’. > > > I just googled it and guess you mean the science of child development? > > > If so, I think I can guess what you mean. Are you saying that > > > consciousness can not enter at the single and/or double cell level > > > because the brain has not yet developed? If so, I do understand your > > > stance and do not deny your logic. > > > > You continue with some comment about a Greek god. So, I’ll guess that > > > your meaning there is that, in your view, science does not nor ever > > > will address such things as soul (consciousness/reincarnation?) > > > because you don’t believe they exist. If I’m not getting your meaning > > > here, I apologize. And, I can only guess that you understood my > > > meaning that science does not address these things at all as well as > > > my view that it doesn’t because they are not within the purview of > > > science which is slightly different from your reason. Either way, we > > > both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole does not address such > > > things today. . . I hope! > > > > I almost hesitated to go into it this much because of my not being > > > clear about what you were asking. I hope that at the very least I > > > haven’t confused things further. > > > > On Sep 22, 9:12 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting > > > > foreward? > > > > > > Even if one posits that the moment of conception > > > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must then > > > > > realize that it is a scientific question. > > > > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul or other > > > > such notions." > > > > > I like your thoughts....somewhat. I am not arguing, nor will I get > > > > into argument about, that science has further to go to reach a science > > > > of the soul.. Zeus does not throw lighting bolts. It is non- > > > > existent....like Zeus...god...reincarnation, etc. > > > > > When I said that it is a science question, I was referring to the > > > > science of development. In other words, Zeus does not throw lighting > > > > bolts. > > > > > On Sep 22, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Oh, you are not interested in such imaginary things as the > > > > > 'irrational', are you? (…other than as a means to hone debate > > > > > techniques.) If I misread you, please advise. > > > > > In general, I don't discuss things that specific people reject with > > > > > them. An analogy would be to attempt a serious debate with a > > > > > fundamentalist Christian about the true age of the earth. Most times > > > > > the result is just further entrenchment into an already crystalized > > > > > belief system. > > > > > > On Sep 22, 3:28 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
