NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, I'm going to bump this if it goes un-replied.

This is specifically for those who claim that atheists are those who do not declare a belief in God.

What is the difference between "natural" and "atheistic"?

EDIT: Yes, that was a typo.

Please define natural.

Please define natural.
"Of nature".. being everything material in the physical world.

The former applies to everything. The latter applies only to one who is capable of belief.

Do you want an argument, or an explanation of what I define it as? Because I'm not sure the meaning of a term can be reasonably argued...

"Of nature".. being everything material in the physical world.

Like animism?

The former applies to everything. The latter applies only to one who is capable of belief.

Do you want an argument, or an explanation of what I define it as? Because I'm not sure the meaning of a term can be reasonably argued...
That will suffice, thanks, though I'm waiting for more responses.

Like animism?
No. Not in the least.

...
Since you deleted your post, I will delete my reply.

No. Not in the least.

Are you sure that you don't mean 'materialistic', then?

Are you sure that you don't mean 'materialistic', then?
This is the thing.

Is 'atheistic' not simply 'materialistic'? It seems that it applies, at least for some people.

A total rejection of any sort of idealism.

So... what is the difference between 'natural' and 'atheistic'?

Natural and in Naturalism?

I am reading Dembski's book(it's meh so far) and he argues that Naturalism is basically the severing of God from Science and Nature(ala Huxley).

So in this case, the athiest says there is no God and the Naturalist just doesn't talk about him.....

Natural and in Naturalism?

I am reading Dembski's book(it's meh so far) and he argues that Naturalism is basically the severing of God from Science and Nature(ala Huxley).

So in this case, the athiest says there is no God and the Naturalist just doesn't talk about him.....
I do not ask this question with any founding in either of those authors.

I just ask out of curiosity, from a layman's standpoint.

This is the thing.

Is 'atheistic' not simply 'materialistic'? It seems that it applies, at least for some people.

A total rejection of any sort of idealism.

So... what is the difference between 'natural' and 'atheistic'?

An atheist would be a person who does not believe in any deity. They could be materialistic or as humble as they please. The materialist believes that material is the highest measure of a person, or at least of themselves, while an atheist need not make such assumptions. Many atheists attempt to be good people or adhere to a philosophy based on Darwinism, that nice people should be allowed to survive and that one who is nice is more likely to survive because people are less likely to kill said person.

A naturalistic person, under the previous definition laid down by The Black Forrest, could be either an atheist or a deist.

Materialism tends to be used also as the antonym of supernaturalism--the belief that all aspects of the world can be explained in terms of the material world, without needing to resort to spirits, souls, or chi. It is likely that that definition is what Willamena is using.

Materialism tends to be used also as the antonym of supernaturalism--the belief that all aspects of the world can be explained in terms of the material world, without needing to resort to spirits, souls, or chi. It is likely that that definition is what Willamena is using.

Except she stated that her definition of 'natural' was not synonymous with 'materialism' of any definition.

Overall, I find the lack of specificity on the definition of the term 'natural' to be somewhat lacking. Overall, from what's been said, I would say the two are completely seperate entities.

An atheist would be a person who does not believe in any deity. They could be materialistic or as humble as they please. The materialist believes that material is the highest measure of a person, or at least of themselves, while an atheist need not make such assumptions. Many atheists attempt to be good people or adhere to a philosophy based on Darwinism, that nice people should be allowed to survive and that one who is nice is more likely to survive because people are less likely to kill said person.
Did Darwin really propose that? (Geek)

Am I mistaken that you equate materialism with a lack of humility? Where does that stem from?

A naturalistic person, under the previous definition laid down by The Black Forrest, could be either an atheist or a deist.
It would seem to me that the deist equates god with nature, no?

From what I can see, the question is this:

Athiesm is often described as 'absence of a belief in a god or gods'.

The natural world is full of things that do not believe in a god or gods. My cat, your liver, that rock, your neighbor's house, a newborn baby, and the river that runs through my town do not believe in god. What, if anything, about the nature of athiesm makes these natural things not atheistic?
--

Willamena,
A diest is one who holds that a devine being may have once acted on the universe but has not been doing so since things were set in motion. God as clockmaker.

From what I can see, the question is this:

Athiesm is often described as 'absence of a belief in a god or gods'.

The natural world is full of things that do not believe in a god or gods. My cat, your liver, that rock, your neighbor's house, a newborn baby, and the river that runs through my town do not believe in god. What, if anything, about the nature of athiesm makes these natural things not atheistic?

But do you know for a fact that your cat, my liver, that rock, my neighbor's house, a newborn baby, and the river that runs through your town do not believe in a deity? If so, how?

From what I can see, the question is this:

Athiesm is often described as 'absence of a belief in a god or gods'.

The natural world is full of things that do not believe in a god or gods. My cat, your liver, that rock, your neighbor's house, a newborn baby, and the river that runs through my town do not believe in god. What, if anything, about the nature of athiesm makes these natural things not atheistic?

Perhaps it is that we know that another human being does not believe in a deity, but we cannot be sure of anything else's opin on the matter?

Materialism tends to be used also as the antonym of supernaturalism--the belief that all aspects of the world can be explained in terms of the material world, without needing to resort to spirits, souls, or chi. It is likely that that definition is what Willamena is using.
Except she stated that her definition of 'natural' was not synonymous with 'materialism' of any definition.

Overall, I find the lack of specificity on the definition of the term 'natural' to be somewhat lacking. Overall, from what's been said, I would say the two are completely seperate entities.
To me, the difference between 'natural' and 'material' is significant. The only thing that would be 'natural' and not 'material' is the human mind, but that is only because materialists tend to deny that humans have mind.

I do think that materialism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.

But do you know for a fact that your cat, my liver, that rock, my neighbor's house, a newborn baby, and the river that runs through your town do not believe in a deity? If so, how?


The same way that you know there is no invisible, heatless-fire-breathing, incorporeal dragon living in your garage. There is no evidence for it, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You could go further and say that we can't know anything for a fact other than our own existance, and even that is based on logic, which we can't know is real, but then I will tell you to turn of "The Matrix", leave, and come back when you're done with your useless psychological bullshit and ready to participate in the discussion.

Did Darwin really propose that? (Geek)

No. It's simply applying Darwin's theories to humans and it's the argument many atheists I know use against Christians when the Christties say, "But where would you get morality from without Our Holy Book of Contradictions!?"

Am I mistaken that you equate materialism with a lack of humility? Where does that stem from?

Generally people who are materialists tend to hoard things. It's entirely possible for a wealthy person to have complete humility (like a millionaire living in a single bedroom, single bath, one-car garage house), while a materialist is intrinisically against such lack of displays of decadence. A materialist is liable to live well beyond their means to generate the appearance of wealth, while one who is not materialistic does not feel the need to generate such an appearance.

It would seem to me that the deist equates god with nature, no?

Deists believe that a creator made the universe and then left it be. That is to say, that the deist god takes about the same active role in day-to-day life as an atheist's god. So to speak.

From what I can see, the question is this:

Athiesm is often described as 'absence of a belief in a god or gods'.

The natural world is full of things that do not believe in a god or gods. My cat, your liver, that rock, your neighbor's house, a newborn baby, and the river that runs through my town do not believe in god. What, if anything, about the nature of athiesm makes these natural things not atheistic?

That is a fair re-stating of my question, except that I hold that no being other than man can or would ask that question.

The same way that you know there is no invisible, heatless-fire-breathing, incorporeal dragon living in your garage. There is no evidence for it, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You could go further and say that we can't know anything for a fact other than our own existance, and even that is based on logic, which we can't know is real, but then I will tell you to turn of "The Matrix", leave, and come back when you're done with your useless psychological bullshit and ready to participate in the discussion.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In fact, one can only disprove things, which would yield a net result of having disproved everything and proven nothing. If your mind is too feeble to wrestle with such thoughts, that is your problem, not mine.

That is a fair re-stating of my question, except that I hold that no being other than man can or would ask that question.

Would you include other intelligences other than man? If there were, say, another lifeform of equal alleged sentience as human kind? Would you say that they, too, might posit such ponderings?

That is a fair re-stating of my question, except that I hold that no being other than man can or would ask that question.

Sorry... the intent was to re-state your question, should have marked it more clearly.

Deists believe that a creator made the universe and then left it be. That is to say, that the deist god takes about the same active role in day-to-day life as an atheist's god. So to speak.
See, this makes no sense to me because atheists have no god.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In fact, one can only disprove things, which would yield a net result of having disproved everything and proven nothing. If your mind is too feeble to wrestle with such thoughts, that is your problem, not mine.

Disprove that there is an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire-breathing, but very much real dragon standing behind you right at this very moment.

EDIT: And thankyou for misrepresenting what I said. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Proof is a concept that is only useful when there are agreed-upon opening terms and rules of manipulation, as in mathematics and logic.

Would you include other intelligences other than man? If there were, say, another lifeform of equal alleged sentience as human kind? Would you say that they, too, might posit such ponderings?
Such people are hypothetical, but yes, I would include them.

The capacity for intelligence is the thing.

See, this makes no sense to me because atheists have no god.

I know. The deist's god takes as much a role in day-to-day life as no god what-so-ever. That what my intent. Sorry for not making it more clear.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Proof is a concept that is only useful when there are agreed-upon opening terms and rules of manipulation, as in mathematics and logic.
I agree; evidence is not proof.

Such people are hypothetical, but yes, I would include them.

The capacity for intelligence is the thing.

Some of the more-intelligent great apes have demonstrated 'capacity for intelligence' and emotion equal to a very stupid human, from the ability to communicate to a concept of friendship and the nature of death. Depending on the complexity of the question, it is entirely possible that a nonhuman might someday posit it.

Some of the more-intelligent great apes have demonstrated 'capacity for intelligence' and emotion equal to a very stupid human,
..no doubt, from a human standpoint.

from the ability to communicate to a concept of friendship and the nature of death. Depending on the complexity of the question, it is entirely possible that a nonhuman might someday posit it.
It is possible.

It is not probable.

I know. The deist's god takes as much a role in day-to-day life as no god what-so-ever. That what my intent. Sorry for not making it more clear.
So, to you is there no difference between the deist and the atheist?

Disprove that there is an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire-breathing, but very much real dragon standing behind you right at this very moment.

EDIT: And thankyou for misrepresenting what I said. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Proof is a concept that is only useful when there are agreed-upon opening terms and rules of manipulation, as in mathematics and logic.

So... let's say that it's the 1500's. Height of the Inquisition and all that. We're living in, say, Italy. There was a marked absence of proof that the Mongol Empire had fallen. Does that mean that the Mongol Empire was still standing? Historically, we know it collapsed following the Black Plague, more than a century before the 1500's.

So, to you is there no difference between the deist and the atheist?

No, there is a difference. The deist may believe in an afterlife and the deist believes that there is a Creator deity. The atheist believes that there is no such Creator deity.

No, there is a difference. The deist may believe in an afterlife and the deist believes that there is a Creator deity. The atheist believes that there is no such Creator deity.
So the deist has some concept of idealism; I agree. But I'm left with no answer to my question.

What is the difference (to the atheist who has "no belief in god") between what is 'natural' and what is 'atheistic'?

I am specifically looking to see if the latter has any implication in "belief" beyond materialism (contrary to statements made earlier, in another post, that the atheist could be someone without belief).

So... let's say that it's the 1500's. Height of the Inquisition and all that. We're living in, say, Italy. There was a marked absence of proof that the Mongol Empire had fallen. Does that mean that the Mongol Empire was still standing? Historically, we know it collapsed following the Black Plague, more than a century before the 1500's.

If you dishonstly claim that I am asserting that absence of proof is proof of absence one more time, I will considder it to be a concession, and have done with this debate, as there is no use fighting a strawman.

I am, however, still waiting for you to show any evidence at all that there is no dragon behind you at this very moment without using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

So the deist has some concept of idealism; I agree. But I'm left with no answer to my question.

What is the difference (to the atheist who has "no belief in god") between what is 'natural' and what is 'atheistic'?

I am specifically looking to see if the latter has any implication in "belief" beyond materialism (contrary to statements made earlier, in another post, that the atheist could be someone without belief).

As far as can be told, most non-human animals act and react with out any moral code other than their own survival (if that much). The difference would be, therefore, that the atheist being holds that there are no deities, whilst the wolf, cat, dog, horse, rock, tree, and auto all cannot be bothered to believe one way or the other. It is not so much that they disbelieve as they may not be able to believe in the first place.

Or am I fucking this up again? o.o;

If you dishonstly claim that I am asserting that absence of proof is proof of absence one more time, I will considder it to be a concession, and have done with this debate, as there is no use fighting a strawman.

Builds character.

I am, however, still waiting for you to show any evidence at all that there is no dragon behind you at this very moment without using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

There is a dragon behind me, though. He's the one typing this from behing my chair. I'm just dictating.

Now you're lying to try to support your point.
Have a nice day.

As far as can be told, most non-human animals act and react with out any moral code other than their own survival (if that much). The difference would be, therefore, that the atheist being holds that there are no deities, whilst the wolf, cat, dog, horse, rock, tree, and auto all cannot be bothered to believe one way or the other. It is not so much that they disbelieve as they may not be able to believe in the first place.

Or am I fucking this up again? o.o;
Guess you don't own a cat or a dog. :)

I like your definition of atheism, and it agrees with mine, but it goes against the attititude of those I am trying to lure an answer from. I guess I will have to wait and see if they reply.

Guess you don't own a cat or a dog. :)

I like your definition of atheism, and it agrees with mine, but it goes against the attititude of those I am trying to lure an answer from. I guess I will have to wait and see if they reply.

Actually, I do (both). :p I just forgot to mention humans in that group of objects that acts only for its own survival.

Now you're lying to try to support your point.
Have a nice day.

Ki su, teknon.

In fact, one can only disprove things, which would yield a net result of having disproved everything and proven nothing.You can prove things, just not general statements (or conversely non-existence statements).
You can prove snow exists by simply showing an instance of it.

Disprove that there is an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire-breathing, but very much real dragon standing behind you right at this very moment.Very simple, fire must have heat to be fire, so the concept of "an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire-breathing, but very much real dragon" is logically inconsistent, and therefore can't be real, and thus not be anywhere in reality, let alone behind me.

What is the difference (to the atheist who has "no belief in god") between what is 'natural' and what is 'atheistic'?

I am specifically looking to see if the latter has any implication in "belief" beyond materialismAn atheist doesn't believe in gods, however he/she can still believe in the supernatural. Spirits, energies, souls, reincarnation, magic, anything supernatural that does not involve deities.
Although, one can extend the meaning of 'athiest' to exclude the supernatural (because it's much easier to talk about athiest than antisupernaturalists)

Guess you don't own a cat or a dog. :)

I like your definition of atheism, and it agrees with mine, but it goes against the attititude of those I am trying to lure an answer from. I guess I will have to wait and see if they reply.


Let me see If I can get a clearer picture of what you are trying to get at.
Youre implying there is a difference between that wich is "natural", and that wich is "athiestic".

Since "athiest" means quite simply, "one who has no belief in a God, or Gods", Im not quite sure what you mean.

Only people therefore, can be "athiestic", since only humans can concieve of the concept of a god, an inanimate object cannot be "athiestic".

If you are assuming that Athiests cant believe in the supernatural, since they dont believe in God, that would be false.
While God, would be considered "supernatural", this does not mean that athiests are obliged to believe in him, if they have a belief in the supernatural.

Let me see If I can get a clearer picture of what you are trying to get at.
Youre implying there is a difference between that wich is "natural", and that wich is "athiestic".
The question of 'is there a difference' is inherent in my question.

If you postulate that natural is "organic". i.e. it occurs and develops without outside intervention, then belief in god is natural since it occurred and developed without outside intervention. This raises a paradox, however, in that if God exists and created the universe, then the universe is not natural, therefore belief in god is not natural. So belief in God can only be natural if God does not exist. And if God exists, then belief in God cannot be natural.

Conversely, if God exists then atheism is natural and if God does not exist, atheism is not natural.

Have I confused everyone? I've certainly confused myself.:p

If I understand the question, I think the answer is: A naturalist has to be agnostic and is most probably an athiest but an athiest does not have to be a naturalist. So, there's the difference.

The question of 'is there a difference' is inherent in my question.


Perhaps, but as I dont think you have a true idea of what either actually mean, I figured I'd ask for clarification.

You provided none.

Perhaps, but as I dont think you have a true idea of what either actually mean, I figured I'd ask for clarification.

You provided none.
Sorry; I didn't get that you were asking for a clarification, I thought you were providing one.

Let me see If I can get a clearer picture of what you are trying to get at.
Youre implying there is a difference between that wich is "natural", and that wich is "athiestic".

Since "athiest" means quite simply, "one who has no belief in a God, or Gods", Im not quite sure what you mean.

Only people therefore, can be "athiestic", since only humans can concieve of the concept of a god, an inanimate object cannot be "athiestic".

If you are assuming that Athiests cant believe in the supernatural, since they dont believe in God, that would be false.
While God, would be considered "supernatural", this does not mean that athiests are obliged to believe in him, if they have a belief in the supernatural.
I agree that only people can be "atheistic", but that is not where I was headed with this question. The majority of atheists (hard atheists) appear to be materialistic because they express a belief that everything is natural, there is nothing that is not "of nature". At least, their expressed beliefs tend in this direction.

In the light of day, the question does not seem as interesting as it was last night, but it spurred some discussion.

Belief in any supernatural things while discluding one supernatural thing (God) makes no sense. Since all supernatural things are of an unknown nature, there is no rational reason to disclude any one (not that humans are well-known for being rational).

Seriously, I'm going to bump this if it goes un-replied.

This is specifically for those who claim that atheists are those who do not declare a belief in God.

What is the difference between "natural" and "atheistic"?You actually mean naturalism, the belief that there is no magic in the universe. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. You can believe in magic without believing in God. Most people in the western world who are atheists are also naturalists. Many (perhaps most) atheists in the eastern world believe in magic of some sort.

Seriously, I'm going to bump this if it goes un-replied.

This is specifically for those who claim that atheists are those who do not declare a belief in God.

What is the difference between "natural" and "atheistic"?

EDIT: Yes, that was a typo.

I don't see how the two are at all related.

I don't see how the two are at all related.

The implication is that any theistic leanings are not natural. I would agree, except that I have observed that man seems to have a built-in religious instinct. All cultures in history have had some form of religion or another. I believe that religion develops from a combination of the unique human trait of not just self awareness but awareness of OTHER, and our hierarchial social interactions: If I am aware of both other, and other-more-powerful, then logicaly i will concieve of the ultimate other-more-powerful: God.

The implication is that any theistic leanings are not natural. I would agree, except that I have observed that man seems to have a built-in religious instinct. All cultures in history have had some form of religion or another. I believe that religion develops from a combination of the unique human trait of not just self awareness but awareness of OTHER, and our hierarchial social interactions: If I am aware of both other, and other-more-powerful, then logicaly i will concieve of the ultimate other-more-powerful: God.
Yes; that.

Disprove that there is an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire-breathing, but very much real dragon standing behind you right at this very moment.

EDIT: And thankyou for misrepresenting what I said. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Proof is a concept that is only useful when there are agreed-upon opening terms and rules of manipulation, as in mathematics and logic.

Continuously restating a thing, does not serve to make it any more true.

Absence of evidence is in NO WAY related to evidence of absence.

You cannot provide 'evidence' to support me sitting at this computer. All of these words could be generated by a program... or you might be imagining my response.

Thus, what you have is an ABSENCE of evidence.

However, I very much AM here (I have reason to believe my experience is sufficient evidence for me to believe in my own existence)... so your 'absence of evidence' can be categorically proved to NOT equate with 'evidence of absence'.

No, there is a difference. The deist may believe in an afterlife and the deist believes that there is a Creator deity. The atheist believes that there is no such Creator deity.

Actually... an Atheist still might believe in an afterlife - just not in a 'god' related one.

Absence of evidence is in NO WAY related to evidence of absence.Indeed, there is even a more fundamental proof of this.
Suppose that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Then whenever there is no evidence, there would be evidence. Which is a contradiction.

Actually... an Atheist still might believe in an afterlife - just not in a 'god' related one.

Use the force Luke! ;)

Use the force Luke! ;)
I believe he was referring to a symbolic afterlife, such as the way people "live on" in the memory of others.

I believe he was referring to a symbolic afterlife, such as the way people "live on" in the memory of others.

Actually.... no, I was being bizarre.

I have friends who are Wiccan... in practise, although they are, if there is such a concept... Atheistic Wiccans... they practise the 'art', and appreciate the symbolism, and get something 'spiritual' (I guess) out of the whole thing... but don't actually believe in the 'gods' part.

They hold that the 'spirit' is liberated upon death, and returns to the 'collective consciousness' of the world, from which it came.

I like the idea... it's all very karmic, and re-cycle-ish... and kind of fits the whole 'from the earth - back to the earth' concept in a way that most organised religion has never managed (to my satisfaction). I just don't personally buy it.

Actually.... no, I was being bizarre.

I have friends who are Wiccan... in practise, although they are, if there is such a concept... Atheistic Wiccans... they practise the 'art', and appreciate the symbolism, and get something 'spiritual' (I guess) out of the whole thing... but don't actually believe in the 'gods' part.

They hold that the 'spirit' is liberated upon death, and returns to the 'collective consciousness' of the world, from which it came.

I like the idea... it's all very karmic, and re-cycle-ish... and kind of fits the whole 'from the earth - back to the earth' concept in a way that most organised religion has never managed (to my satisfaction). I just don't personally buy it.
Well, I would say that religions are about the person, not the god, and that any survival of spirit/soul past the flesh is certainly a religious concept. As I've mentioned before, the atheist, in putting himself in opposition to people specifically who 'believe in god' would disclude such people... so they are neither theist nor atheist.

I believe he was referring to a symbolic afterlife, such as the way people "live on" in the memory of others.No, he meant an actual, supernatural, but not deity-related, afterlife.

Well, I would say that religions are about the person, not the godI think the dictionary might disagree. On the other hand it's not the dictionary that determines what people mean by what they say, just what meaning people look up if they don't know it.

As I've mentioned before, the atheist, in putting himself in opposition to people specifically who 'believe in god' would disclude such people... so they are neither theist nor atheist.I don't think there is logically any room between theists and athiests. But there's room between theists and physicalists/materialists/anti-supernaturalists/whatever-you-wanna-call-ems, namely for non-theistic spiritualists among others.

Well, I would say that religions are about the person, not the god, and that any survival of spirit/soul past the flesh is certainly a religious concept. As I've mentioned before, the atheist, in putting himself in opposition to people specifically who 'believe in god' would disclude such people... so they are neither theist nor atheist.

I couldn't disagree more, I'm afraid.

If, for example, I were to be working in the lab, and found that I could conclusively identify some non-material signature, or some kind of energetic 'echo', from an 'ex' person, I would have identified some manner in which something of a person might 'live on' past the termination of the flesh... and, what is more, it would be in an entirely 'non-religious' manner.

You are making two mistakes, it seems:

1) Assuming that spirit/soul are involved in any religious sense. The Hebrews did not consider 'soul' to be something extra to the flesh... they considered it the vitality IN the flesh. If that 'energetic' quality continues, we don't have to necessarily leap to conjecture about 'spiritual passengers' or 'ghosts'.

2) You seem to be assuming that whatever afterlife might follow, MUST be some kind of 'construct'... some vision of 'heaven' of some kind. It is entirely possible that the 'vitality' of the body might be able to 'delocalise' after death... merging with the energy of the world, etc. Such could be a form of 'afterlife', but doesn't necessitate any form of heaven, god, or even awareness.

No, he meant an actual, supernatural, but not deity-related, afterlife.

Indeed. Or a 'natural' afterlife... I'm not fussy.

I think the dictionary might disagree. On the other hand it's not the dictionary that determines what people mean by what they say, just what meaning people look up if they don't know it.
Most dictionaries do not disagree. They indicate 'belief in a deity', traditions and rituals surrounding such belief, and immersion in a like community of believers, and belief is about the person, not the deity.

Indeed. Or a 'natural' afterlife... I'm not fussy.
Any 'afterlife' or survival of the spirit/soul/consciousness/'inner being' is not natural, but supernatural.

Any 'afterlife' or survival of the spirit/soul/consciousness/'inner being' is not natural, but supernatural.
To toss in my two cents...what if it were scientifically proven that what we consider to be the 'soul' is actually some form of electrical energy that is released upon death, and 'recycled'? Would that make the soul a natural thing? And would that survival or recylcing of the soul be natural?

I couldn't disagree more, I'm afraid.

If, for example, I were to be working in the lab, and found that I could conclusively identify some non-material signature, or some kind of energetic 'echo', from an 'ex' person, I would have identified some manner in which something of a person might 'live on' past the termination of the flesh... and, what is more, it would be in an entirely 'non-religious' manner.
Okay, but such a thing, detectable in your lab, would be natural, not supernatural. It would not be the 'spirit' (soul/consciousness/whatever) identified by religion as surviving death.

You are making two mistakes, it seems:

1) Assuming that spirit/soul are involved in any religious sense. The Hebrews did not consider 'soul' to be something extra to the flesh... they considered it the vitality IN the flesh. If that 'energetic' quality continues, we don't have to necessarily leap to conjecture about 'spiritual passengers' or 'ghosts'.

2) You seem to be assuming that whatever afterlife might follow, MUST be some kind of 'construct'... some vision of 'heaven' of some kind. It is entirely possible that the 'vitality' of the body might be able to 'delocalise' after death... merging with the energy of the world, etc. Such could be a form of 'afterlife', but doesn't necessitate any form of heaven, god, or even awareness.
I don't think I am mistaken. Enlightenment of the spirit/soul is what religions are about, bringing the person to a place where they not only know god but identify with him. It is supernatural, itself (concretized as supernatural 'ghosts' that depart the body). It is not extra to the flesh, it is 'vitality', 'power', 'life'. It is immaterial.

Survival of the spirit/soul beyond death is a myth, one that 'takes' the individual (the living individual) on a symbolic journey through the afterlife, the place (inside them) where the individual connects with the eternal. The journey is the thing, the destination not-literal; the journey is the symbolic movement of the soul through a phase of enlightenment (knowledge).

The individual human soul in this [the Babylonian] myth is a 'spark' or element of the cosmic or universal soul, the creation of the Mother and Father in the transcendent world of the Pleroma. The soul, 'incarcerated' in the body, has lost all memory of her 'home', and is in great distress: 'Having once strayed into the labyrinth of evils, the wretched soul finds no way out, she seeks to escape from the bitter chaos and knows not how she shall get through':
Sometimes she mourned and grieved,
For she was left alone in darkness and the void;
Sometimes she reached a thought of the light which had left her,
And she was cheered and laughed;
Sometimes she feared;
At other times she was preplexed and astonished.
[myth of Sophia from 'Gnosticism' by Robert Grant]

Like Persephone, the soul cries out in her distress to her Mother and Father in the transcendent world of the Pleroma. As in the earlier Greek myth in which Hermes descends to rescue Persephone, the Virigin Mother Sophia, in response to her daughter's call, sends her son to rescue his sister. Her son is the embodiment of her Light and Wisdom, who descends into the darkness of his parents' furthest creation to awaken his sister to rememberance of her true nature.

To toss in my two cents...what if it were scientifically proven that what we consider to be the 'soul' is actually some form of electrical energy that is released upon death, and 'recycled'? Would that make the soul a natural thing? And would that survival or recylcing of the soul be natural?
The natural world has nothing to do with the supernatural, so anything found in the natural world is (naturally) irrelevant.

The natural world has nothing to do with the supernatural, so anything found in the natural world is (naturally) irrelevant.If the soul is supernatural, and controls our body, it certainly does have something to do with the natural. There is an interaction.
Vice versa, if we can remember anything of our lives after death, in whatever form we may then be, the natural has had an influence there.

Okay, but such a thing, detectable in your lab, would be natural, not supernatural. It would not be the 'spirit' (soul/consciousness/whatever) identified by religion as surviving death.Why not?

Let me see If I can get a clearer picture of what you are trying to get at.
Youre implying there is a difference between that wich is "natural", and that wich is "athiestic".

Since "athiest" means quite simply, "one who has no belief in a God, or Gods", Im not quite sure what you mean.

Only people therefore, can be "athiestic", since only humans can concieve of the concept of a god, an inanimate object cannot be "athiestic".
Of course it can - since an inanimate object cannot have a belief in anything - because it incapable of believing - then, by definition, it has "no belief in a God or Gods" and so is atheistic :)

Any 'afterlife' or survival of the spirit/soul/consciousness/'inner being' is not natural, but supernatural.

Rather depends on what a spirit/soul/consciousness/'inner being' is, don't you think?

It could be something perfectly mundane.

Okay, but such a thing, detectable in your lab, would be natural, not supernatural. It would not be the 'spirit' (soul/consciousness/whatever) identified by religion as surviving death.


The problem is, you seem to find the religious perception of what a soul might be... somehow 'sacrosanct'... don't you agree that, since most organised religion is about subjective perception of reality, ALL of those 'religious' visions of a 'supernatural' afterlife COULD just be subjective interpretations/misinterpretations, of a perfectly mundane phenomenon?


I don't think I am mistaken. Enlightenment of the spirit/soul is what religions are about, bringing the person to a place where they not only know god but identify with him. It is supernatural, itself (concretized as supernatural 'ghosts' that depart the body). It is not extra to the flesh, it is 'vitality', 'power', 'life'. It is immaterial.

Survival of the spirit/soul beyond death is a myth, one that 'takes' the individual (the living individual) on a symbolic journey through the afterlife, the place (inside them) where the individual connects with the eternal. The journey is the thing, the destination not-literal; the journey is the symbolic movement of the soul through a phase of enlightenment (knowledge).

Again - I think you are placing too much weight on one particular 'theory'. Religion could just be viewing the continuation of the electromagnetic forces at work in the body, and how they 'react' when liberated. To try to make that into something that MUST be about 'spiritual enlightenment' or 'ghosts', is to risk utterly missing the point.

Thus - your 'metaphorical' journey, could be 'missing the point'... perhaps the destination (if you like) is VERY real... not to mention perfectly mundane and natural. Our bodies contain energies, those energies dissipate when we die... perhaps our 'afterlife' conceptions are all based on THAT phenomenon? Indeed - since our understanding of our place in the universe is still so basic, our 'energies' may 'linger' in some coherent form we cannot comprehend.... perhaps, returning to the earth as a fully integral unit... a 'consciousness'.... perfectly natural, perfectly mundane.

If the soul is supernatural, and controls our body, it certainly does have something to do with the natural. There is an interaction.
Vice versa, if we can remember anything of our lives after death, in whatever form we may then be, the natural has had an influence there.
How does the soul control our body? What is the nature of the interaction, in your view?

Why not?
It would not be supernatural because it is detectable in a laboratory.

Rather depends on what a spirit/soul/consciousness/'inner being' is, don't you think?

It could be something perfectly mundane.
Actually... it is perfectly mundane.

It's a concept.

I think we've come full circle now, from the moment I met you in a thread online. ;)

Of course it can - since an inanimate object cannot have a belief in anything - because it incapable of believing - then, by definition, it has "no belief in a God or Gods" and so is atheistic :)
According to some. *nods*

How does the soul control our body? What is the nature of the interaction, in your view?I really couldn't say. But either there must be one, or we don't have a soul (separate mental life), or we don't control the actions of our physical body.
It's a big problem for substance dualism to reconcile the gap between the physical and the mental world. Especially since science strongly suggest the physical world is causally closed.

It would not be supernatural because it is detectable in a laboratory.True, but that doesn't mean it's not that same as what religious folk identify as soul.

The problem is, you seem to find the religious perception of what a soul might be... somehow 'sacrosanct'... don't you agree that, since most organised religion is about subjective perception of reality, ALL of those 'religious' visions of a 'supernatural' afterlife COULD just be subjective interpretations/misinterpretations, of a perfectly mundane phenomenon?
Sacred, it is, indeed! 'Sacred' is a meaning, a significance that we apply to specific and particular religious things (things about the spirit). Personally, I find the spirit to be of primary significance, and have had a few occasions just this month to marvel at it.

I would say that all existence takes place from the perspective of the subjective, but that's not necessarily what things are "about". Granted, religion is more "about" that than most topics... but anyway. What you are talking about is concretization of the myth; it is taking the meaning of something (a mundane, subjectively observed phenomenon, like consciousness for example) and making it "as if real". It's a phenomenon itself, of literalisation.

Again - I think you are placing too much weight on one particular 'theory'. Religion could just be viewing the continuation of the electromagnetic forces at work in the body, and how they 'react' when liberated. To try to make that into something that MUST be about 'spiritual enlightenment' or 'ghosts', is to risk utterly missing the point.

Thus - your 'metaphorical' journey, could be 'missing the point'... perhaps the destination (if you like) is VERY real... not to mention perfectly mundane and natural. Our bodies contain energies, those energies dissipate when we die... perhaps our 'afterlife' conceptions are all based on THAT phenomenon? Indeed - since our understanding of our place in the universe is still so basic, our 'energies' may 'linger' in some coherent form we cannot comprehend.... perhaps, returning to the earth as a fully integral unit... a 'consciousness'.... perfectly natural, perfectly mundane.
The theory that I place so much weight on is the one that makes sense to me. Like everyone else does, it is the one I will promote most strongly because I believe in it.
:)

The 'metaphorical journey', rather than missing the point, is going to be the point the world begins moving towards. It's not like it was pulled out of the air, a product of guesswork: it is the result of studies in comparative mythology. That this is the meaning assigned to these things by the authors of poetry that have survived to our modern day is evident in comparison to other works, both contemporary and 'child'-works of a similar root 'parent'; and just as the linguist can reconstruct a dead language (Proto-Indo-European) from examining more modern versions and extrapolating roots, so the meaning of mythic story elements is being reconstructed.

Actually... it is perfectly mundane.

It's a concept.

I think we've come full circle now, from the moment I met you in a thread online. ;)

:D I was just thinking that....

Black Cat moment.... there's a glitch in the Matrix....

The natural world has nothing to do with the supernatural, so anything found in the natural world is (naturally) irrelevant.
I’m of the opinion that there is nothing supernatural. There are simply phenomena we can not yet explain with science. Consider so many things that were unknowable before, the size of the planet, its relationship to the sun, the lymphatic system, etc etc. We have explained much with science, but that does not mean we’ve reached our limit. No doubt our scientific understanding will seem primitive in centuries to come…if we manage to last that long as a species of course. So if we consider that everything is natural, but that not everything is yet explainable, we do not have to exist in faith, but rather in waiting. To me, natural phenomena is no less worthy of awe or reverence than supernatural phenomena. Don’t get me wrong…I do not worship science. But I do have a deep respect for the natural…even that which I do not understand.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in a conscious Creator. I'm not sure what the difference is between 'natural' and 'atheistic' though.

I really couldn't say. But either there must be one, or we don't have a soul (separate mental life), or we don't control the actions of our physical body.
It's a big problem for substance dualism to reconcile the gap between the physical and the mental world. Especially since science strongly suggest the physical world is causally closed.
I'll try re-wording: Why do you think a soul must control our body? The way you have worded it suggests something "not-us" that controls "us", which implies that "us" is the body, not the soul.

True, but that doesn't mean it's not that same as what religious folk identify as soul.
It does if the spirit is in any way supernatural.

I’m of the opinion that there is nothing supernatural. There are simply phenomena we can not yet explain with science. Consider so many things that were unknowable before, the size of the planet, its relationship to the sun, the lymphatic system, etc etc. We have explained much with science, but that does not mean we’ve reached our limit. No doubt our scientific understanding will seem primitive in centuries to come…if we manage to last that long as a species of course. So if we consider that everything is natural, but that not everything is yet explainable, we do not have to exist in faith, but rather in waiting. To me, natural phenomena is no less worthy of awe or reverence than supernatural phenomena. Don’t get me wrong…I do not worship science. But I do have a deep respect for the natural…even that which I do not understand.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in a conscious Creator. I'm not sure what the difference is between 'natural' and 'atheistic' though.
That is, I think, a very healthy attitude for today's person, especially in regards to religion. Much more so than those who hear the myths, make them "as if real", and act accordingly.

I began with, and still hold, a similiar attitutude to you, except that I have discovered the 'supernatural' that most people hold is the concretized version (ghosts, monsters, gods and the devil), and that things make much more sense in light of viewing it, and them, as conceptual.

The theory that I place so much weight on is the one that makes sense to me. Like everyone else does, it is the one I will promote most strongly because I believe in it.

Ah... yes, but you are fencing with Occam... you are defending a more esoteric view of the possibilities of what 'soul' MIGHT mean, and what the 'afterlife' (if there IS one) MIGHT be, when more mundane explanations exist.

Example: The body is physical. The 'mind' is a chemical/biological computer. Our imagination of the 'soul' is nothing more than a GIGO permutation of a calculation of stimuli. The afterlife is nothing more than the perception of whatever mundane process causes the energy that 'powers' that computer, leaving the building.

Do I look for meaning behind the myth? Yes - I do.... that is where I am in this 'religious thing'... I have found no story I can believe, but I have found hints of common components... so I am tracing all the stories back to find out what is common 'truth' to all of them.

However, if they all agreed that 'soul' (in some spiritual fashion) was the one common 'truth'... I still wouldn't necessarily assume that means that there is anything 'supernatural'. It's a possibility, sure... but I'm not going to multiply my uncertainties.

Okay, but such a thing, detectable in your lab, would be natural, not supernatural. It would not be the 'spirit' (soul/consciousness/whatever) identified by religion as surviving death.

You guys are talking around each other. You are making the assumption that the soul, by definition, is supernatural - outside of the natural universe. That assumption is completely unfounded, other than to make your argument. A soul could exist within every human being and still be natural. It could even go on - be a ghost or spirit of some sort afterwards, and still be natural. The fact that we know no rules to govern this does not mean that there are no such rules.

Grave, on the other hand, is not making this assumption. The soul may be supernatural - outside of nature - and an afterlife may remove you from the universe and thus from nature. Or, the soul could be a natural part of a human being - spiritual, but still a part of this universe, and thus a part of nature. The afterlife may be, as the ancient Hebrews and some more naturalistic religions today believed, within this universe - even within this world.


On the original question: The truth is, the two words describe different, but sometimes related, things. The word "natural" describes all that is within the universe - all of the rules which govern it, all of the matter, possibly anti-matter, empty space, and any other type of "something" we have yet to discover within it. Note that this defines "supernatural", not as many people would use it - to mean "stuff we don't understand yet" - but actually as that which is outside of nature - that which is outside of the universe and not subject to its rules.

The word "atheistic" describes a philosophical viewpoint which holds that there is no deity. Generally, it also holds that there is no supernatural - that the natural is all that exists.

I'll try re-wording: Why do you think a soul must control our body? The way you have worded it suggests something "not-us" that controls "us", which implies that "us" is the body, not the soul.Well, the usual suggestion is that the soul is the 'us'.
But our body does what we want, right? If I think 'type' I type. But it's my body that does the actual typing in the physical world. So my mental experience can only cause my typing if it can cause my body to do so. It has to affect it, interact with the physical, somehow.
And in the other direction, to see my soul need to get the information from my brain somehow. Otherwise I couldn't be aware of the light that falls on my eyes.

If the soul does not control the body, than our body miraculously just happens to do what we want it to do, without us influencing it. Which is strange. We'd have an illusion of control, but not actual control.

Of course there's also the option that there is no seperate soul. And that our mental experience is just a supervenience on our brain.

It does if the spirit is in any way supernatural.But we don't know either way, which is the point. We don't know whether what we consider soul is 'real' and if so natural or supernatural.
The soul (consiousness) may just be an elaborate illusion.

That is, I think, a very healthy attitude for today's person, especially in regards to religion. Much more so than those who hear the myths, make them "as if real", and act accordingly.

I began with, and still hold, a similiar attitutude to you, except that I have discovered the 'supernatural' that most people hold is the concretized version (ghosts, monsters, gods and the devil), and that things make much more sense in light of viewing it, and them, as conceptual.
This is true...what I see as natural, but unexplained phenomena, is not necessarily how others perceive the same things. And that difference in perception is important. I'm not sure that my reaction to something is going to be that different than the reaction of someone who considers a certain thing to be supernatural though...if something odd happens, I'm likely to be just as weirded out as they:)...but they might have better ways of dealing with it if they think they understand it.

You guys are talking around each other. You are making the assumption that the soul, by definition, is supernatural - outside of the natural universe. That assumption is completely unfounded, other than to make your argument. A soul could exist within every human being and still be natural. It could even go on - be a ghost or spirit of some sort afterwards, and still be natural. The fact that we know no rules to govern this does not mean that there are no such rules.

Grave, on the other hand, is not making this assumption. The soul may be supernatural - outside of nature - and an afterlife may remove you from the universe and thus from nature. Or, the soul could be a natural part of a human being - spiritual, but still a part of this universe, and thus a part of nature. The afterlife may be, as the ancient Hebrews and some more naturalistic religions today believed, within this universe - even within this world.


On the original question: The truth is, the two words describe different, but sometimes related, things. The word "natural" describes all that is within the universe - all of the rules which govern it, all of the matter, possibly anti-matter, empty space, and any other type of "something" we have yet to discover within it. Note that this defines "supernatural", not as many people would use it - to mean "stuff we don't understand yet" - but actually as that which is outside of nature - that which is outside of the universe and not subject to its rules.

The word "atheistic" describes a philosophical viewpoint which holds that there is no deity. Generally, it also holds that there is no supernatural - that the natural is all that exists.

Indeed, my point is that we do not know the nature of 'the soul'. It's just one of those things we cannot rationally prove/disprove... It could be something totally mundane (the electricity in nerves), something not mundane, but still natural (a 'spirit' force that we cannot yet indentify, perhaps)... or it could be something totally supernatural.

I say I don't know... but I can totally see how it COULD be possible to have a 'mundane soul'.

The other point is, even if it IS 'supernatural', it still wouldn't be evidence of any kind of 'god'... since the two things don't HAVE TO BE connected.

Long time, no see, Dempublicents. :) Nice to see you around.

Atheistic means you specifically do not believe in a deity.

Agnostic means you are unsure whether there is one or not.

I never heard a term for it before, but I guess this "natural" makes sense for the state in which you don't know, don't care, and possibly haven't even thought about it.

After all, religious belief is a cultural phenomenon. You aren't born wondering if there's a god. I really wasn't aware of it until I was six. Hell, if I hadn't gone to public school, I might have grown up with no religious belief whatsoever, because my first exposure was the pledge of allegiance.

(After my parents enlightened me to what it was actually talking about, I refused to actually say it and instead muttered an affirmation I believed while everyone else sang out the pledge. Later on the Supreme Court struck it down in schools for the "Under God" phrase but now, I think it's much more insidious politically than religiously.)

Atheistic means you specifically do not believe in a deity.

Agnostic means you are unsure whether there is one or not.


You know, maybe this gets truer, the more times people say it?

In fact, I think...

Maybe...

Yes, maybe.....

No.

Guess not then.

Agnostics believe it is impossible to know (hence, the 'gnostic' bit) for sure, if there is a god. It affects their 'belief' not a jot.

Atheists do not accept a god. Some, more vehemently than others.

Atheistic means you specifically do not believe in a deity.

Agnostic means you are unsure whether there is one or not.

I never heard a term for it before, but I guess this "natural" makes sense for the state in which you don't know, don't care, and possibly haven't even thought about it.

After all, religious belief is a cultural phenomenon. You aren't born wondering if there's a god. I really wasn't aware of it until I was six. Hell, if I hadn't gone to public school, I might have grown up with no religious belief whatsoever, because my first exposure was the pledge of allegiance.

(After my parents enlightened me to what it was actually talking about, I refused to actually say it and instead muttered an affirmation I believed while everyone else sang out the pledge. Later on the Supreme Court struck it down in schools for the "Under God" phrase but now, I think it's much more insidious politically than religiously.)

Long time, no see, Dempublicents. :) Nice to see you around.

Ditto! =)

You guys are talking around each other. You are making the assumption that the soul, by definition, is supernatural - outside of the natural universe. That assumption is completely unfounded, other than to make your argument. A soul could exist within every human being and still be natural. It could even go on - be a ghost or spirit of some sort afterwards, and still be natural. The fact that we know no rules to govern this does not mean that there are no such rules.

Grave, on the other hand, is not making this assumption. The soul may be supernatural - outside of nature - and an afterlife may remove you from the universe and thus from nature. Or, the soul could be a natural part of a human being - spiritual, but still a part of this universe, and thus a part of nature. The afterlife may be, as the ancient Hebrews and some more naturalistic religions today believed, within this universe - even within this world.
I am not saying Grave is wrong, just presenting a contrasting viewpoint.

Everything conceptual, that can be visualized in the imagination, is --while it is there, in the imagination --apart from the natural (physical) world. It is translated by the person in whose brain it occurs; it's translation is an experience for them; it's translation, and the meaning they apply to that, is particular to them and outside observers are exempt from it, except in how it is brought forth by them, in word, motion or art.

It is the most natural thing in the world, for humans, and it is the "above" nature (not a part of the physical world). I maintain that that is all 'the supernatural' is --above nature. Ghosts, spirits, monsters, etc., all of which have a particular mythological meaning that appeals significantly to individuals, and have common meanings in accordance with the conclusions of Comparative Mythology, are things of the imagination. That is where they have significance, value --that is the only place they have value.

The 'soul' that exists within every human being is a conceptual thing, and therefore apart from nature, which is concrete and examinable. It is not an 'unfounded' conclusion at all.

On the original question: The truth is, the two words describe different, but sometimes related, things. The word "natural" describes all that is within the universe - all of the rules which govern it, all of the matter, possibly anti-matter, empty space, and any other type of "something" we have yet to discover within it. Note that this defines "supernatural", not as many people would use it - to mean "stuff we don't understand yet" - but actually as that which is outside of nature - that which is outside of the universe and not subject to its rules.

The word "atheistic" describes a philosophical viewpoint which holds that there is no deity. Generally, it also holds that there is no supernatural - that the natural is all that exists.
I happen to agree, mostly. Thank you for your input.

Atheistic means you specifically do not believe in a deity.

Agnostic means you are unsure whether there is one or not.

I never heard a term for it before, but I guess this "natural" makes sense for the state in which you don't know, don't care, and possibly haven't even thought about it.

After all, religious belief is a cultural phenomenon. You aren't born wondering if there's a god. I really wasn't aware of it until I was six. Hell, if I hadn't gone to public school, I might have grown up with no religious belief whatsoever, because my first exposure was the pledge of allegiance.

(After my parents enlightened me to what it was actually talking about, I refused to actually say it and instead muttered an affirmation I believed while everyone else sang out the pledge. Later on the Supreme Court struck it down in schools for the "Under God" phrase but now, I think it's much more insidious politically than religiously.)

Well, I was amused.... :D

Well, the usual suggestion is that the soul is the 'us'.
But our body does what we want, right? If I think 'type' I type. But it's my body that does the actual typing in the physical world. So my mental experience can only cause my typing if it can cause my body to do so. It has to affect it, interact with the physical, somehow.
And in the other direction, to see my soul need to get the information from my brain somehow. Otherwise I couldn't be aware of the light that falls on my eyes.
So... are you equating the 'soul' with the mental stimulus that controls your actions, or is it something else? Perhaps the 'soul' is the interaction, itself, between mental and physical? Could it not then be a conceptual symbol of that interaction?

I'm not saying that this is what 'soul' is, but the idea that 'it' is some 'thing' that interacts with the physical, that 'controls' us, places it apart from us. The soul needn't be apart from us, 'in control' of us; it may simply be us in control.

If the soul does not control the body, than our body miraculously just happens to do what we want it to do, without us influencing it. Which is strange. We'd have an illusion of control, but not actual control.

Of course there's also the option that there is no seperate soul. And that our mental experience is just a supervenience on our brain.

But we don't know either way, which is the point. We don't know whether what we consider soul is 'real' and if so natural or supernatural.
The soul (consiousness) may just be an elaborate illusion.
Or.... our body does what we want it to do, and so we have soul.

This is the concept of 'vitality' that Grave spoke of earlier.

Thinking of it in terms of something apart form us, controlling us, is looking at it from a certain perspective, objectifying it; there is always another perspective.

'Supervenience'? cool word.

I say I don't know... but I can totally see how it COULD be possible to have a 'mundane soul'.

The other point is, even if it IS 'supernatural', it still wouldn't be evidence of any kind of 'god'... since the two things don't HAVE TO BE connected.
Well, yes, they do, as the whole concept of 'spirit/soul' comes to us through religion, from nowhere else. 'God' is the source of our 'soul'. "Begetting Mother am I, within the Spirit I abide and none see me." (Sumerian psalm)

So... are you equating the 'soul' with the mental stimulus that controls your actions, or is it something else? Perhaps the 'soul' is the interaction, itself, between mental and physical? Could it not then be a conceptual symbol of that interaction?If so it can't be around after the physical part dies, since there can be no such interaction any more.
But the usual concept is that the mental comes from the soul, that the sould is the 'real you'. I don't think you add anything conceptually by seperating the mental from the soul.

I'm not saying that this is what 'soul' is, but the idea that 'it' is some 'thing' that interacts with the physical, that 'controls' us, places it apart from us. The soul needn't be apart from us, 'in control' of us; it may simply be us in control.I would say that's what supervenience means. Just like the wetness of water depends solely on the watermolecules it's made up of interacting, so the soul would be us as physical beings controlling ourselves. And so the end of our bodies would be the end of us.

'Supervenience'? cool word.You get wacked over the head with it repeatedly in courses on philosophy of mind. They usually avoid talking about the 'soul' though, and concentrate on the mental and consciousness. It's only in substance dualism (like with Descartes) that you have an actual soul, that somehow has to control the body.
Other hypotheses are that mental processes are identical to brain processes, or that mental processes are a function computed in the brain (and that means you might compute the function in other media, like computers). There's even some wackier hypotheses, like that the mental is sort of like an extra dimension and consequently everything, including watches, computers, pingpong balls, have mental aspects.
They main mind-body problem, is that we feel like our mental states (e.g. what we want) cause our behaviour. Which I've tried to bring across, although I'm not sure how well I succeeded. And it's a problem because the physical world seems causally closed, so there is no room for a seperate mental life having real influence.

If so it can't be around after the physical part dies, since there can be no such interaction any more.
Just so. That is my view, too.

Religion is for the living, not the dead. The dead don't need it. They're dead.

But the usual concept is that the mental comes from the soul, that the sould is the 'real you'. I don't think you add anything conceptually by seperating the mental from the soul.
I agree. Everything that occurs in the 'inner' us occurs in the mind.

I would say that's what supervenience means. Just like the wetness of water depends solely on the watermolecules it's made up of interacting, so the soul would be us as physical beings controlling ourselves. And so the end of our bodies would be the end of us.
Nice analogy. :)

If the soul does not control the body, than our body miraculously just happens to do what we want it to do, without us influencing it. Which is strange. We'd have an illusion of control, but not actual control.

Of course there's also the option that there is no seperate soul. And that our mental experience is just a supervenience on our brain.
Aren't those two you quoted the same, then, though? Isn't the 'miracle' of the first simply an observed phenomenon?

You get wacked over the head with it repeatedly in courses on philosophy of mind. They usually avoid talking about the 'soul' though, and concentrate on the mental and consciousness. It's only in substance dualism (like with Descartes) that you have an actual soul, that somehow has to control the body.
Other hypotheses are that mental processes are identical to brain processes, or that mental processes are a function computed in the brain (and that means you might compute the function in other media, like computers). There's even some wackier hypotheses, like that the mental is sort of like an extra dimension and consequently everything, including watches, computers, pingpong balls, have mental aspects.
They main mind-body problem, is that we feel like our mental states (e.g. what we want) cause our behaviour. Which I've tried to bring across, although I'm not sure how well I succeeded. And it's a problem because the physical world seems causally closed, so there is no room for a seperate mental life having real influence.
I have to take one of those courses, someday.

Even if 'mental processes' are entirely the result of brain processes, they are never identical. That's like saying the result of a calculation is identical to the paper its printed on, or the characters its composed of.

Well, yes, they do, as the whole concept of 'spirit/soul' comes to us through religion, from nowhere else. 'God' is the source of our 'soul'. "Begetting Mother am I, within the Spirit I abide and none see me." (Sumerian psalm)

No, again I disagree. You are confusing several concepts... just as people have been doing for millenia.

There is something about 'life' that seperates it from the inanimate. The Hebrews described it as being 'a hunger', or a 'fire in the blood'. It has no 'supernatural' connotation, in that guise. It is JUST a way of describing the 'drive' in the meat.

Can it be explained other ways? Sure. I can describe it as biological and chemical reactions, on a small scale, and I can magnify that up to a macro scale.... millions of biological and chemical reactions happening all the time... millions of physical reactions to various stimuli. I can describe it as a meat computer reacting to stimuli collected through 'wet' processes over meat detection devices.

Or - I can describe it as 'fire in the blood'. Both work.

And, neither 'needs' a supernatural element.

The word we use, for the concept in the most ancient Hebrew, is 'soul'.

However, even the Hebrews, later in their history, started to perhaps add more 'significance' to that 'fire in the soul'... just as they adopted greater significance for HaSatan after they spent time in the company of Egyptians.

There is a cross-pollination of ideas.... but it isn't NECESSARY.

If you view 'soul' as purely being 'soul'... purely 'the fire in the blood'... it need not come from 'god'.... it need not have any greater significance. It is a 'technical' term for something observable.

Perhpas, it is worth remembering that the Hebrews believed that the 'soul' died with the flesh...?

No, again I disagree. You are confusing several concepts... just as people have been doing for millenia.

There is something about 'life' that seperates it from the inanimate. The Hebrews described it as being 'a hunger', or a 'fire in the blood'. It has no 'supernatural' connotation, in that guise. It is JUST a way of describing the 'drive' in the meat.

Can it be explained other ways? Sure. I can describe it as biological and chemical reactions, on a small scale, and I can magnify that up to a macro scale.... millions of biological and chemical reactions happening all the time... millions of physical reactions to various stimuli. I can describe it as a meat computer reacting to stimuli collected through 'wet' processes over meat detection devices.

Or - I can describe it as 'fire in the blood'. Both work.

And, neither 'needs' a supernatural element.

The word we use, for the concept in the most ancient Hebrew, is 'soul'.

However, even the Hebrews, later in their history, started to perhaps add more 'significance' to that 'fire in the soul'... just as they adopted greater significance for HaSatan after they spent time in the company of Egyptians.

There is a cross-pollination of ideas.... but it isn't NECESSARY.

If you view 'soul' as purely being 'soul'... purely 'the fire in the blood'... it need not come from 'god'.... it need not have any greater significance. It is a 'technical' term for something observable.

Perhpas, it is worth remembering that the Hebrews believed that the 'soul' died with the flesh...?
I'm not sure what concepts you claim I am confusing (although you are confusing me). The concept of soul (even in the Hebrew tradition, where God breathed it into the Man) comes to us through religion. Are you specifically claiming that the Hebrew concept of 'soul' did not come from something supernatural? It may not BE supernatural (that is my idea, not claimed as theirs, and not deduced from only Hebrew mythology) but it is sourced from the supernatural. You say it does not 'need' a 'supernatural element' to 'make it work', but the metaphorical view does all 'work'.

You seem to think I have made things more complex, but from my viewpoint I have simplified it considerably.

Re your last line, I agree that an afterlife is not required where there is religion and a concept of soul. Religion is for the living, not the dead. The dead don't need it. They're dead.

I'm not sure what concepts you claim I am confusing (although you are confusing me). The concept of soul (even in the Hebrew tradition, where God breathed it into the Man) comes to us through religion. Are you specifically claiming that the Hebrew concept of 'soul' did not come from something supernatural? It may not BE supernatural (that is my idea, not claimed as theirs, and not deduced from only Hebrew mythology) but it is sourced from the supernatural. You say it does not 'need' a 'supernatural element' to 'make it work', but the metaphorical view does all 'work'.

You seem to think I have made things more complex, but from my viewpoint I have simplified it considerably.

Re your last line, I agree that an afterlife is not required where there is religion and a concept of soul. Religion is for the living, not the dead. The dead don't need it. They're dead.

Well, for a start, you are here confusing "soul" with "spirit". The spirit is breathed into man, the soul is an aspect of the flesh.

Unfortunately, many people seem to see these two phrases as interchangable... but they actually refer to very different things.

Perhpas, it is worth remembering that the Hebrews believed that the 'soul' died with the flesh...?

I thought the ancient Hebrews believed in "Sheol", a place where the souls of all the dead (good or bad) went after death?

I thought the ancient Hebrews believed in "Sheol", a place where the souls of all the dead (good or bad) went after death?

It's one of those things where it is:

a) unclear, and

b) becoming more complicated over time.

It is unclear, because sometimes Sheol seems to be a place of damnation, sometimes Sheol seems to be an absolute absence of anything... and sometimes Sheol just seems to mean the bit of earth they bury you in. (That is somewhere in Ecclesiastes, I think. - I can look it up if I need to.)

It becomes more complicated, because the Hebrew traditions as described in Genesis, are a MUCH older tradition than much of what comes after. In the Hebrew, there are many reasons to suspect polytheism in the first few books of Genesis... indeed, a polytheism with some feminine entities. If one looks at the structure of the Creation story in Hebrew, it is very easy to read it as being of a very limited geography, and maybe only one creation of many... each executed by a 'god' (one assumes) with his/her/its own 'chosen people'.

It must be admitted, Cain getting married on his departure from Eden, is much more credible if there ARE other 'tribes'.

The Pentatauch Sheol is usually considered to be the 'void', I believe... a big nothing, in a chthonic manner, somewhere below the earth.

Another confusion exists where you talk about 'what' goes to Sheol. The 'spirit', one could argue, might go to Sheol, in some of it's capacities. The flesh might go, in some other capacities. I'm not sure I can think of a Hebrew reference where the 'soul' goes to Sheol.

Well, for a start, you are here confusing "soul" with "spirit". The spirit is breathed into man, the soul is an aspect of the flesh.

Unfortunately, many people seem to see these two phrases as interchangable... but they actually refer to very different things.
I wasn't aware of anyone who distinguishes between them, until now.

I was aware of people who have included the concept of the afterlife with one, and not with the other, the soul being the human spirit on its journey through the afterlife. I thought that a minimal distinction.

I am not going to distinguish between them, because both 'spirit' and 'soul' are contained in the Sun symbolism as related concepts. I will use 'spirit/soul', but its unlikely I will distinguish between them, no matter how the ancient Hebrews might have used the terms.

Another confusion exists where you talk about 'what' goes to Sheol. The 'spirit', one could argue, might go to Sheol, in some of it's capacities. The flesh might go, in some other capacities. I'm not sure I can think of a Hebrew reference where the 'soul' goes to Sheol.

Well, like Willamena, I have always used "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably. I'm not sure what a separate "soul" would be.

I wasn't aware of anyone who distinguishes between them, until now.

I was aware of people who have included the concept of the afterlife with one, and not with the other, the soul being the human spirit on its journey through the afterlife. I thought that a minimal distinction.

I am not going to distinguish between them, because both 'spirit' and 'soul' are contained in the Sun symbolism as related concepts. I will use 'spirit/soul', but its unlikely I will distinguish between them, no matter how the ancient Hebrews might have used the terms.

That is your right, I'm sure.

The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the one we translate as "soul". It is present in the living flesh, and is not limited to humans. The Hebrew word "ruwach" is the one we translate as spirit. The implication in 'ruwach' is of a wind, or a breath... specifically, the breath of life.

I'm far from certain that Hebrews are the only person to make such distinction... the Vedic concepts of 'atma' and 'jiva' correspond roughly to forms of 'soul' and 'spirit', respectively.

I'm going to have to look into it, but I think there may have been distinctions in Sumerian theory, too... I seem to think 'lil' (as the 'spirit', again in terms of the air, wind or breath) is pretty distinct from some of the more mundane concepts of 'soul' ('bar', 'har', 'izi', 'zi'), which are to do with the body, and how it 'works'.

Well, like Willamena, I have always used "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably. I'm not sure what a separate "soul" would be.

It is something OF the flesh. It is the 'hunger', the 'passions'.... the 'heat'.

The spirit is something that is transient... it moves through the flesh.... perhaps, it causes the 'soul' to animate the flesh.

This is not related, but according to one source I have, there was a distinction made in the twelfth century between souls, which are an emanation of human flesh, and spirits (like demons), that can 'inhabit' human flesh (a reversal or inverting of the concept of the 'spirit' as life being breathed into Man had alread taken place within Christianity).

"Although Christian doctrine taught that human beings had souls and that they were a composite unity of body and soul, it did not, in the Western tradition, teach that the divine, therefore, dwelt within them. Moreover, the identification of the body with evil, and of the soul with a state of primordial and inherited sinfulness, effectively deprived both human nature and nature of any intrinsic divinity."

"Aristotle was a vital factor in this process, for his words, translated into Latin from the beginning of the twelfth century, had a radical effect on doctrinal Christianity through their influence on Thomas Aquinas... Through Aristotle's influence on Aquinas the idea is developed that there are two orders, a supernatural and a natural, and that humanity belongs to the natural order rather than to the supernatural. Soul [at this time] is reduced to the rational principle in human beings, which cannot know God through participation in the life emanating from the source, but can only learn about God. Its knowing is not within it or co-inherent with it, but is something more like intellect, or the ability to reason, which is created by God but not part of God."

"The soul, and even more the body, [in this context] is not then an emanation of the creator, who stands apart from body and soul in a way that the creator stood apart stood apart from creation in Genesis. The effect of this doctrine was to split spirit once again from nature, and the unmanifest life from the manifest."

As a side, the paragraph goes on to say, "Aquinas's thought, steeped in the rigid distinction between universal and particular made by Aristotle, compounded the impact of the doctrine of original sin, for it stated once again that there could be in nature and humanity no indwelling divine spirit. The teaching of Jesus that humanity as the son was part of the Father (just as in the goddess culture humanity had been the child of the Mother) could have bridged this great divide. However, the doctrine of the Incarnation of Crhist developed by the Church could not allow this, for the divine event was interpreted as taking place uniquely, in one man on behalf of humanity, but not within all humanity, nor in the whole of creation. So the insight contained in Jesus' words in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was lost, and the wound in the soul not healed but exacerbated."

Okay, not helpful, but interesting.

That is your right, I'm sure.

The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the one we translate as "soul". It is present in the living flesh, and is not limited to humans. The Hebrew word "ruwach" is the one we translate as spirit. The implication in 'ruwach' is of a wind, or a breath... specifically, the breath of life.

I'm far from certain that Hebrews are the only person to make such distinction... the Vedic concepts of 'atma' and 'jiva' correspond roughly to forms of 'soul' and 'spirit', respectively.

I'm going to have to look into it, but I think there may have been distinctions in Sumerian theory, too... I seem to think 'lil' (as the 'spirit', again in terms of the air, wind or breath) is pretty distinct from some of the more mundane concepts of 'soul' ('bar', 'har', 'izi', 'zi'), which are to do with the body, and how it 'works'.
Well, thanks, and this is all good and interesting, but whether or not I interchange spirit and soul doesn't detract from my insistence that the spirit or soul only has value as a conceptual thing, with significant meaning in terms of its 'actions' within the religious myths, and the enlightenment derived from that, in that context... and that any energy found in a laboratory is not useful in that manner. Not useful at all.

Well, thanks, and this is all good and interesting, but whether or not I interchange spirit and soul doesn't detract from my insistence that the spirit or soul only has value as a conceptual thing, with significant meaning in terms of its 'actions' within the religious myths, and the enlightenment derived from that, in that context... and that any energy found in a laboratory is not useful in that manner. Not useful at all.

What if we were to find that said energy "lives on" as a ghost after death, still with some "self"? That would be an empirical measurement of an afterlife.

I think the point Grave was making was that the concept we label as the "soul" or "spirit" (depending) may have a very mundane cause. It may exist in nature, just as lightning and its causes existed when human beings still ascribed supernatural meaning to it.

Seriously, I'm going to bump this if it goes un-replied.

This is specifically for those who claim that atheists are those who do not declare a belief in God.

What is the difference between "natural" and "atheistic"?

EDIT: Yes, that was a typo.
How hard is it to know that ehre is only ONE defenition for atheist:

a·the·ist [áythiist]
n
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

How hard is it to know that ehre is only ONE defenition for atheist:

Apparently pretty hard. I can find four straight off:

one who believes that there is no deity

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god

Denying the existence of a god or gods is not the same as simply not believing. Thus, there are at least two definitions here. Some would say that the atheist not only denies the existence of a god or gods, but also of anything and everything supernatural.

It is something OF the flesh. It is the 'hunger', the 'passions'.... the 'heat'.

The spirit is something that is transient... it moves through the flesh.... perhaps, it causes the 'soul' to animate the flesh.
Transient I would take to mean non-permanent, in that it does not live forever. Either the soul animates, or it does not.

'Hunger', 'passion', 'heat' are all Mars symbolism, sexuality, not related to the Sun's 'vitality', 'power' and 'life'. Mars is the son of God.

I think the really significant symbolism here, though, is that sexuality is natural, "of the flesh", and the Sun 'spirit' is not; it is held aloft.

What if we were to find that said energy "lives on" as a ghost after death, still with some "self"? That would be an empirical measurement of an afterlife.

I think the point Grave was making was that the concept we label as the "soul" or "spirit" (depending) may have a very mundane cause. It may exist in nature, just as lightning and its causes existed when human beings still ascribed supernatural meaning to it.
How would one measure its sense of "self"? We cannot do that even for living beings.

It's cause is not an issue; religion begins with a spirit/soul that is, and what that 'existence' means to the individual in terms of self-knowledge is what is important.

Transient I would take to mean non-permanent, in that it does not live forever. Either the soul animates, or it does not.

'Hunger', 'passion', 'heat' are all Mars symbolism, sexuality, not related to the Sun's 'vitality', 'power' and 'life'. Mars is the son of God.

I think the really significant symbolism here, though, is that sexuality is natural, "of the flesh", and the Sun 'spirit' is not; it is held aloft.

Agreed on the symbolisms. "Transient", in this context, however, is being used to show that the spirit is non-permanent IN the flesh. The soul is delimited by the term of incarnation, the spirit is not... it is 'passing through'... it is 'transient', to our observation.

What if we were to find that said energy "lives on" as a ghost after death, still with some "self"? That would be an empirical measurement of an afterlife.

I think the point Grave was making was that the concept we label as the "soul" or "spirit" (depending) may have a very mundane cause. It may exist in nature, just as lightning and its causes existed when human beings still ascribed supernatural meaning to it.

Exactly... the 'soul' as we call it, may return to 'nature'... and be a form of 'afterlife', if you will. It is not anything like any of the 'heavenly' afterlife concepts we hear of in (most) religions... sinc it is just a return to the 'natural' state.

The 'spirit', as a concept, would be the 'supernatural' element.

An afterlife of the 'spirit' would, thus, have to be supernatural... but an 'afterlife' of the 'soul' could be entirely mundane.

Agreed on the symbolisms. "Transient", in this context, however, is being used to show that the spirit is non-permanent IN the flesh. The soul is delimited by the term of incarnation, the spirit is not... it is 'passing through'... it is 'transient', to our observation.
*bounce*

I just woke up with a realisation. I was listening to Bob Marley last night, as he helps me bilge pump my ship, and I woke up with a catch phrase in my mind. You see, Mr. Marley has the right of it, and my answer to your Hebrew 'soul': "Every need has an ego to feed."

The 'hunger' and 'desire' of the Hebrew soul is not so different from other definitions of soul: it is metaphorical, not of the flesh but of the psyche. It is the hunger and desire of need, which feeds the ego, which IS a Sun sign symbol.

I wonder if that is the same context Freud's "id" is in?

Your "spirit that is non-permanent" in the flesh then makes the same distinction as the Aristotlian-influenced Aquinas, that spirits are without and 'inhabit' the body, as opposed to the soul, which is within. It is, no doubt, the beginning of our modern-day "ghosts".

(I meant what I said, but I really just wanted to use "Aristotlian-influenced" in a sentence.)

*bounce*

I just woke up with a realisation. I was listening to Bob Marley last night, as he helps me bilge pump my ship, and I woke up with a catch phrase in my mind. You see, Mr. Marley has the right of it, and my answer to your Hebrew 'soul': "Every need has an ego to feed."

The 'hunger' and 'desire' of the Hebrew soul is not so different from other definitions of soul: it is metaphorical, not of the flesh but of the psyche. It is the hunger and desire of need, which feeds the ego, which IS a Sun sign symbol.

I wonder if that is the same context Freud's "id" is in?

Your "spirit that is non-permanent" in the flesh then makes the same distinction as the Aristotlian-influenced Aquinas, that spirits are without and 'inhabit' the body, as opposed to the soul, which is within. It is, no doubt, the beginning of our modern-day "ghosts".

(I meant what I said, but I really just wanted to use "Aristotlian-influenced" in a sentence.)

I think you are on to something, but you have to be wary when dealing with Hebrew concepts. What seems black or white in English can be any number of shades of gray in the Hebrew.

I believe your assessment is correct, that there is definitely a great deal of overlap between what might be considered the psyche, and the Hebrew 'soul'... but I also get a strong feeling that that would only be part of the issue... the 'hunger' of the psyche, perhaps... but also the very real and physical hunger of the flesh.