"Carl Sagan's billions" <mm2terra@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> These are the 10 basic (simplified) truths I came to understand:
Be careful about what you assume to be 'truth'. I'm not here to
challenge your declared atheism - despite the misconceptions of some, I
have no problem with atheism or atheists whatsoever and believe that
everyone needs to work towards their own conclusion on this sort of
thing. If you've concluded that you are an atheist then I sincerely
congratulate you on that achievement.
However, petty as it may seem, I have to query one small point at which
your logic and rationality seems to have failed you:
> 2. The Christian concept and definition of a 'soul' is untenable.
>
> Why? Evolution is a fact but nowhere in the long line of evolution
> was the 'soul' (or something like the soul that makes us immortal)
> suddenly inserted in a certain species at a discrete point in time.
> If I assume that the soul was suddenly inserted in a living
> being, e.g., 1 million years ago, we must then argue that his
> or her father and mother did not have a soul. We cannot.
>
> This means:
>
> All living beings have a soul or no living beings have a soul. As I
> don't believe a worm has a soul, I must conclude that the concept
> of a soul in each human being is a man-made construct.
I should say at this point that I'm not a Christian and that I don't
believe in the human soul.
But let's just look at the reasoning you use here.
Either all living beings have a soul or none have a soul. That's the
premise you begin with - and it's an assumption. It's not an
*unreasonable* assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless. Since
there is no specific definition of a soul on which everyone agrees, this
premise is unsafe: we cannot insist that the situation is so black-or-
white.
Your second premise is that you do not believe that a worm has a soul.
Again, that's fine with me: I don't either. And I don't think it's
unreasonable to take that position. But the fact remains that neither of
us can say whether or not a worm has a soul. Thus, the possibility,
however unlikely, must be said to remain. Certainly there's no
*evidence* to say that a worm has a soul - but then there's no *evidence*
to explain why we experience consciousness at all, or in what way we
actually experience it. Of course, you haven't expressed your statement
wrongly - there's no dishonesty here because you've said quite clearly
that *you do not believe* that a worm has a soul. As a statement of your
belief, that's irrefutable.
But you then go on to conclude, because of the one-or-the-other
restriction you've assumed in your first premise, and your statement of
untestable belief in the second premise, that the soul is a 'man-made
construct'.
So it quite probably is: but that's just my feeling, as it is apparently
yours. The reasoning you use to sup****t your conclusion is invalid.
As far as death goes, I don't believe in a soul or an afterlife. Nor do
I believe in oblivion. Oblivion, I think, would mean that my life was
somehow unique and particularly special, and the universe being what it
is I just can't accept that.
Your critique of religion is detailed and firmly stated, considering the
struggle you supposedly had to undergo in order to reach your current
atheistic position. Unfortunately, while you make some good points, you
also make a lot of assumptions. The simple fact is that some people
believe, and some do not. And if we cannot learn to live with that
difference, along with our many other differences - if atheist and theist
cannot learn to tolerate *each other* and to treat religion as the wholly
personal matter of individual perception that it truly is - then... well,
I'm amazed we've got this far.
|
