The three big monotheisms are demonstrably false (?)

Unreasonable Faith Forum » Introduction » Announcements

The three big monotheisms are demonstrably false (?)

(26 posts) (10 voices)

Started 2 years ago by FO
Latest reply from FO

Tags:

No tags yet.

FO
Member

Because they postulate the existence of an immortal soul.

What does this soul contain?
Memory?
Personality?
Moral integrity?

It would appear that none of these are immortal or constant, and there are several cases (more or less documented) where the physical world greatly affects them.

A good collection of cases is here:
http://www.humantruth.info/emotions.html
All are documented, and decently solid.
Yet, I would like to see if more solid evidence is available.

Of particular interest is the damage to frontal lobes.
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/bfrontal.shtml
but even the wikipedia article is unsourced and lacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe
This article instead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity#Neurobiology_of_creativity

This seems a very strong argument, and yet a very overlooked one.
Am I missing something?
Is it flawed or easily dismissed?
Why there isn't more research?

Posted 2 years ago #
FO
Member

This is on the other side of the river:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
The guy publishes on the "Journal of Near-Death Studies", which does smell biased.

However some guys here did their homework and found some reputable sources for the pro-soul argument: http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-58287.html

Posted 2 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

I suppose if one were a crafty theist, one might argue that if God encompasses everything, that each person is really just a simulation being run by (or on) God; one instance of that simulation is you as you live your life. Once that instance concludes, nothing prevents a God from data-mining that instance and reconstructing it to include whatever was important from that instance, and run another instance (updated with the relevant data from your life) in a different environment, e.g. the afterlife.

Posted 2 years ago #
Custador
Moderator

Regarding near-death experiences: Assuming less than one successful resuscitation per ER per day, there must be five thousand a people a day (at least) who could reasonably be said to have had a "near death" experience; that human brains respond similarly to the chemicals (natural and artificial) that flood the body in that situation should not be a shock. That a tiny minority happen to have (or claim to have) hallucinations that are compatible with a description of events occurring elsewhere should not be surprising; there are nearly seven billion people in the world! A lot of people are likely to have dreams or hallucinations that are similar to actual event for some other people, it's just a numbers game. Furthermore, the common "floating outside the body looking down on myself" theme is well tested; resuscitation rooms all over the world have high shelves with unusual, eye-catching objects on them that are only visible from ceiling height (this is true, by the way). No out-of-body experiencer, out of the tens of thousands questioned so far, has EVER been able to describe or recall seeing these objects.

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

I don't think that the inability to physically realize the soul's components shows that the soul isn't real. Personality, memory, etc. could all still be intact "in the soul" but we could have trouble physically realizing them because of problems in the brain.

Posted 2 years ago #
FO
Member

@Elemenope: semantics.
Even if we are programs, there is nothing immortal or eternal about it.
It's not a proof against the existence of a god, but against the existence of the soul, which is quite a prerequisite for all the three big monotheisms.

@Custy: yes, I am personally convinced.
I was inquiring on the strength of the argument.
How can I prove to someone that many res rooms have that layout and that none of the NDEs reveals the objects on the shelves?
In short: where are the reliable sources and the literature?

Posted 2 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

@Elemenope: semantics.
Even if we are programs, there is nothing immortal or eternal about it.
It's not a proof against the existence of a god, but against the existence of the soul, which is quite a prerequisite for all the three big monotheisms.

My point is the theist has an out; they merely need to define the "soul" as that bit of programming sufficient to describe you in an instance. The soul is the program, your life (or afterlife) is simply the program running in a particular architecture (physical reality, and whatever sort of reality they posit the afterlife being like).

Posted 2 years ago #
Revyloution
Member

FO, if you find a believer that is open to evidence and logic, they will be an atheist by the end of the week. Ive had arguments with believers of every stripe for over 20 years, and I always hit the same brick wall. They have faith, and that faith supersedes evidence.

In all these years of arguing, I have had some minor successes. I've convinced believers that evolution was a real process. I've convinced some that the Big Bang theory is based on evidence, and most likely true. I've shown people how man made CO2 is driving climate change. I've even convinced parents to vaccinate their children, and that it won't cause autism. Yet in over twenty years of arguing, I have never been able to talk someone out of believing in their god.

So I continue to work on those issues. People can still believe in monotheism and have a fairly rational life. If you want to convince the faithful, convince them of the small issues. Let their faith die a thousand cuts. Teach them that homosexuality is a natural condition. Show them that person hood is a emergent phenomena, not something that happens magically at conception. Work on the issues you know you can win. Once all that is left is some nebulous belief, then you can let it atrophy to death.

Posted 2 years ago #
Revyloution
Member

double post. Still having trouble with Avast antivirus and UF.

Posted 2 years ago #
FO
Member

@Revy: No, I don't particularly care about making them atheists.
It's a good way to lose friends and where I live people believe just for inertia.

But I wanted to check my own beliefs and have a strong argument ready should the discussion arise.

I have experienced how willing gullibility trumps evidence, and I think that's a high priority for humanity to get rid of, more because of democracy than religion.

Posted 2 years ago #
DesignO
Member

@FO In my faith understanding I don't postulate an immortal soul. I don't even know what a soul is. Perhaps its the inner man with all those human and God directed sensibilities and something of what we call the sub conscious now.

But I do believe in the physical resurrection of the dead. Don't ask me how it happens I haven't a clue.

All of my beliefs are supported by the experience of knowing God in this life. My belief in the resurrection borrows something from the absurdity of a life lived in God coming to an abrupt and final end.
Sort of like you're having a phone call to a friend and accidentally getting cut off. If he/she is has the ability she will ring back and re-connect.

I also accept the traditional christian assertion that Jesus did die and was brought back to life again. Demonstrating to his friends that death wasn't the end.

@Rev I'm convinced that evolution is a real process. That the Big Band is a good theory based on evidence. That climate change has a human component. And the link between Autism and routine vaccinations is fraudulent. That homosexuality can have genetic causes. That no pre-existent soul is magically joined to the gametes at conception. That the universe is probably 13.7 billion years old. That's the scientific method has and continues to bring amazing and reliable knowledge of material phenomena.

Posted 2 years ago #
DesignO
Member

@elemenope you don't even need the idea of a parallel simulation just a competent creator with a very good memory.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

"All of my beliefs are supported by the experience of knowing God in this life."

Nice to base your belief system on something less real than a drug induced hallucination. When the evidence is that nebulous, it is impossible to defeat with logic. That's a nice comfortable place to be.

Posted 2 years ago #
FO
Member

@DesignO: don't worry, I know that there are a lot of sensible and intelligent believers.

So, basically you have no problems with the physical nature of our psyche?
That's an interesting take.

I'd wager that's still a very un-biblical take, however.
If I understand correctly, you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ but not in the existence of a soul proper.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jabster
Member

@Ty

He'd be better of just saying ... because I say so.

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

Sort of like you're having a phone call to a friend and accidentally getting cut off. If he/she is has the ability she will ring back and re-connect.

I'm not sure how to read this any other way than: I don't think death is fair [I am uncomfortable with it], therefore God. I suspect this is the basis for most forms of religious belief, but the moment you realize it... I don't see how it is tenable any longer.

I'd wager that's still a very un-biblical take, however.
If I understand correctly, you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ but not in the existence of a soul proper.

The soul is an extra-biblical notion. My Reformed Catholic professor pulled the same stunt on me when I was talking to him. But then you have to justify the PHYSICAL resurrection of the body, and explain to me how someone's body who has long since dissipated (and the collection of atoms are probably thousands upon thousands of miles away from each other) can be resurrected. Consequently, you get into the messy business of physical composition and identity. (Then you have people like Peter Van Inwagen.)

Posted 2 years ago #
DesignO
Member

@Eudaimonist agreed, there are logical problems with resurrection. If you are collecting the same atoms and re-constructing the same person exactly then you also have the problem of material shared between individuals. And there's the problem of at what point in that persons life do you reconstruct. If they are physically impaired what then? Even worse. What if the person had dementia. Who are they and would they recognise themselves? What memories do you restore?

The biblical expectation is some kind of transformation into a something better; physical but with Christ-like properties.

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

The biblical expectation is some kind of transformation into a something better; physical but with Christ-like properties.

But doesn't "Christ-like" properties infer non-physical phenomena?

Posted 2 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

But doesn't "Christ-like" properties infer non-physical phenomena?

Not at all. It just means everyone will have the consistency of a communion wafer.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jeremiah
Member

The biblical expectation is some kind of transformation into a something better; physical but with Christ-like properties.

A big problem I have with theology is exactly statements like these. It is English, follows grammar, but is so vague it doesn't actually possess any descriptive power at all. I don't even know what a "Christ-like" property is supposed to be. Long hair? I just don't know.

Statements like this just read to me like "Normal arguments like souls/resurrection of the physical body just don't logically work but I have to survive death somehow so something happens so that I am not dead. Somehow."

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

Not at all. It just means everyone will have the consistency of a communion wafer.

If you REALLY, REALLY, think about it... transubstantiation begins to make sense.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

This particular view is quite close to the JW version of resurrection, which includes a perfect physical body, but no eternal soul. The "God's perfect memory" bits is also very similar to the JW beliefs.

"A big problem I have with theology is exactly statements like these. It is English, follows grammar, but is so vague it doesn't actually possess any descriptive power at all. I don't even know what a "Christ-like" property is supposed to be. Long hair? I just don't know. "

I had no idea I was so Christ-like.

Posted 2 years ago #
drax
Member

Hehe, I have had Christ-like properties off and on for years. I grow my hair out, and then donate it to charity, which takes 2-3 years to accomplish. When I'm a long haired hippy I get called Jesus at work. There's another guy who gets called Moses.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jabster
Member

I could only think of Neil ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMPT6oJPFg&feature=related

Posted 2 years ago #
DesignO
Member

@drax. excellent. dude.

Posted 2 years ago #
FO
Member

"Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer!"
-- Depeche Mode, Personal Jesus

Makes sense now... ^_^

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

The three big monotheisms are demonstrably false (?)

Reply