skeptic
Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006
|
I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel. It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person. The idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind. But I agree there's no objective way we can talk about it. In the same way, I think this leaves science out of it because that is the language that science speaks in. The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts. As I see it, even if we were to assume that the souls directs behaviors and we isolate the chemical processes associated with said behaviors does this rule out the existence of the soul. No, maybe it eliminates the necessity of the soul but that's not entirely the same thing. Since we can not completely describe the universe there's limitations to science even in those areas we can objectively pursue. Who knows how much more is objective and beyond our understanding and subjective and applicable to different methods of understanding, i.e. irrational methods?
|
