How to better align theology with science.
The concept of what our ‘beings’ consist of has been an ageless debate. As civilisation has progressed society has developed a sense of ‘being’ founded in source elements of ancient theology. Based on these views it is a widely held belief that a person has a distinct soul and spirit separate from the body.
As these concepts were first postured thousands of years ago, without the insight of modern science, it is a revealing experience to revisit these core tenets in the context of how they were originally conceived.
As an example I will talk to the perspective of the Ancient Greeks. In Ancient Greece the soul was synonymous with the spirit and standardly thought and spoken of as the distinguishing mark of living things, as something that is the subject of emotional states and that is responsible for planning and practical thinking, and also as the bearer of such virtues as courage and justice.
I contend that this early ideology was simply an early attempt to classify what is now fundamentally now known to be the human mind. This is understandable as the mind would have seemed to be an ethereal form in the context of limited information on the physiology of the brain and body. In fact, Aristotle is known to have thought that the heart was the location of intelligence and that the brain was some sort of radiator.
I would argue that all conceptualisation of the soul, religion and Gods, was actually a practical attempt to express the dynamics or aspects of the mind in the context of daily life and experience in Ancient Greece; an early iteration of psychology.
If we accept the above premise then it would seem logical to conclude that the contemporary concept of a distinct soul and spirit is fundamentally flawed. The issue for modern society is to realise this perspective and acknowledge that logically it must be true. That truth being that the soul or spirit do not exist as separate forms but are constructs of the mind.
Once we accept this truth we can free ourselves from mental constructs and focus on the utility of the mind. I postulate that most, if not all, current philosophy regarding the soul or spirit can be transposed to the ‘mind’. As a perspective experiment contemplate this in the context of other religions and theology. Literally replace the word and meaning of soul or spirit with the word mind.
This would also seem to better align theology with science. I don’t think you would have much serious debate over whether your mind exists in reality.
This does not diminish our sense of self but instead brings it into focus. Would not being aware that the mind is our soul bring us closer to our true selves? You can thus have a close active relationship with your ‘soul’ and a better understanding of who you are.
As these concepts were first postured thousands of years ago, without the insight of modern science, it is a revealing experience to revisit these core tenets in the context of how they were originally conceived.
As an example I will talk to the perspective of the Ancient Greeks. In Ancient Greece the soul was synonymous with the spirit and standardly thought and spoken of as the distinguishing mark of living things, as something that is the subject of emotional states and that is responsible for planning and practical thinking, and also as the bearer of such virtues as courage and justice.
I contend that this early ideology was simply an early attempt to classify what is now fundamentally now known to be the human mind. This is understandable as the mind would have seemed to be an ethereal form in the context of limited information on the physiology of the brain and body. In fact, Aristotle is known to have thought that the heart was the location of intelligence and that the brain was some sort of radiator.
I would argue that all conceptualisation of the soul, religion and Gods, was actually a practical attempt to express the dynamics or aspects of the mind in the context of daily life and experience in Ancient Greece; an early iteration of psychology.
If we accept the above premise then it would seem logical to conclude that the contemporary concept of a distinct soul and spirit is fundamentally flawed. The issue for modern society is to realise this perspective and acknowledge that logically it must be true. That truth being that the soul or spirit do not exist as separate forms but are constructs of the mind.
Once we accept this truth we can free ourselves from mental constructs and focus on the utility of the mind. I postulate that most, if not all, current philosophy regarding the soul or spirit can be transposed to the ‘mind’. As a perspective experiment contemplate this in the context of other religions and theology. Literally replace the word and meaning of soul or spirit with the word mind.
This would also seem to better align theology with science. I don’t think you would have much serious debate over whether your mind exists in reality.
This does not diminish our sense of self but instead brings it into focus. Would not being aware that the mind is our soul bring us closer to our true selves? You can thus have a close active relationship with your ‘soul’ and a better understanding of who you are.
Comments (8)
This seems to be a rewrite of your last thread. Same argument. Does the mind have the properties the soul is alleged to have - is it immortal and immaterial? If not, all you have said is the soul doesn't exist. Physicalists have been saying that for generations. This leaves us with the mind and conscious experience. Some even argue that the conscious self is an illusion (e.g., elimitivist Daniel Dennett). How does consciousness relate to mind? The question of what it is like to be you - is that just the mind operating, or is consciousness something which inhabits the mind?
There are lots of words referring to our personal experience and essence out there - mind, soul, spirit, self, identity, ego, consciousness, self-awareness, personality, and character. I could come up with more if I took more time. I think you are right that there is a lot of overlap with these concepts, but it's also true that each is different from the rest. Most arose in the context of different beliefs about human nature.
It is my understanding that many, if not most, theologians see the soul as different from the mind. That belief is central to the beliefs of many religions. I'm not the one to discuss those differences. It seems to me that your attempt to "align" science and religion ignores that. You seem to be asking religious believers to give up important aspects of their beliefs to make them consistent with your scientific viewpoint.
Is this a response to me? You should tag posts and/or quotes if you are responding to a particular one.
As I wrote in my previous response, you are saying that your way of seeing things is better than theists. Since you haven't acknowledged and don't understand their way of seeing things, you haven't given them a credible reason for changing. Your approach is a bit arrogant.
I agree that spirit and soul come from biology but emergence creates a whole new level of reality. I'm an atheist but I believe in spirit and soul and they are important words. Jimmy Stewart in Night Passage uses the word soul with his brother in the movie, adding "it's been awhile since you've heard that word".