Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: Souls Message-ID: <27500099@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 13:24:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500099 Posted: Thu Aug 15 13:24:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 21:36:22 EDT References: <542@utastro.UUCP> Lines: 54 Nf-ID: #R:utastro:-54200:ISM780B:27500099:000:2654 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Aug 15 13:24:00 1985 [padraig] If you do not accept the existence of souls, why do you bother with the new testament, christianity, and things like god? I was under the impression that the whole thrust of christianity was salvation. What's to be saved if there is no soul? [wingate] How about the person? [balter] Saved from what? Salvation in Christian theology has a specific meaning: saved from eternal damnation, which is presumably an unpleasant state (so it gets down to Christians being afraid of long-term pain). If there is no soul, there is no point to salvation. (How did we get back to religious themes?) [padraig] You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. [wingate] Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How about NOTHING survives???? How about we die completely? Why is there this need for continuity? That's precisely the point! It's YOUR assumption that life after death implies survival of death. On what metaphysical basis do you intend to prove this? [balter] Metaphysical basis? What about simple semantic coherence? What in the world does it mean to have "life after death" without "survival of death"? Life of *what*? If not life of that which died, then you are being incredibly silly; of course after my death there will be some other life, not necessarily mine. But if we are to identify something following a death with that which died, then certainly the something that died survived in order to be identified; if you deny that then you are using some bizarre and unacceptable notion of "survive". You define a soul as the immortal portion, and then say a soul isn't necessary, and say continuity isn't necessary, but this is just semantic confusion. If I die completely, there is no continuity, but I am later reconstructed (resurrected somehow), then I have *survived*; continuity is irrelevant. But this whole discussion is silly from the point of view of net.philosophy; there is no philosophical basis for presuming life after death. Some New Age types talk about dying and then becoming part of the ALL. But just what does this *mean*? If my *ego* does not survive my death, then just what is it after my death that we are identifying with *me*? Those who claim remembrance of past lives at least have some means of identifying the continuity; others are just playing word games. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)