Snarf Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 (edited) I really hate to look like a spammer, but I would really like feedback on a philosophy I've been working on. Basically I took it upon myself to rectify the popular notion of free will with the scientific principles of determinism and reductionism while adhering as closely as possible to Catholic doctrine. In short, I believe that all souls are eternal (lacking both beginning and end), while the normal teaching is that they are created immortal within time. While this is a pretty minor amendment to doctrine, it has remarkable logical conclusions that I personally find most consistent with observed reality. So, to learn more about this, please go to [color=red]spam[/color] I would greatly appreciate feedback and rebuttals, so I can make the philosophy as orthodox as possible. Edited October 2, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest T-Bone Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 [quote]while adhering as closely as possible to Catholic doctrine.[/quote] The Catholic view of the soul, found in the Catachism, adheres as closely as possible to Catholic doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R.D Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Yea what T-Bone said I was goig to say that dude i just thought about that lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 (edited) If you want to make it as close to catholic doctrine as possible, drop it and stick to Catholic Doctrine Edited October 2, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 our souls are created at a certain point, but will have no end, either in heaven or hell for all eternity. sorry dude, but God spelled it out pretty clear through His Holy Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Interesting philosophy but try to learn the churches view, perhaps you'll find that it makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewmeister2 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 [quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 1 2004, 10:55 PM'] In short, I believe that all souls are eternal (lacking both beginning and end), while the normal teaching is that they are created immortal within time. [/quote] Well, Souls are created within time, and do have a beginning, but they have no end. Only God has no beginning and no end. But human souls do have a beginning, at the moment of conception. God bless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 The idea of the preexistence of souls was condemned about 1,500 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 2 2004, 04:49 AM'] If you want to make it as close to catholic doctrine as possible, drop it and stick to Catholic Doctrine [/quote] I wholeheartedly agree with you on this Cmom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immaculata Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 2 2004, 07:49 AM'] If you want to make it as close to catholic doctrine as possible, drop it and stick to Catholic Doctrine [/quote] in other words.. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :crash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarf Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 I was already aware of the technical discrepancies between my idea and the Church, and had you looked at the website you would have observed that I quote the Catechism more than once in its formulation. That souls are eternal was an idea first posed by the Platonists, so Augustine contended with this thought at length, this I know. The point that I raise is that the orthodox position is perfectly cogent, but only without the a priori of modern science. Science tells us inarguably, concretely, and objectively that the free will proclaimed by Boethius, Augustine, and Aquinas simply can not possibly exist. Even as a student of science, I have a profound and unflenching love of the Church, so it became my obligation and sacred duty to resolve such incongruity. So, I would like scrutiny to show where the theory is faulting. That does not mean simply yell out "IT'S NOT WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS SO IT'S WRONG!!!" The Church has had good reason for the affirmations is has made through history, but that does not preclude the possibility that a revision is necessary for its continued perseverence. So, to spell it out, retort with logic, not just the obvious remark that my idea is new and unpopular. This probably conjurs up feelings that I am guilty of presumptuousness and lack of faith in the power of Mother Church. This is not the case, as so far as my human limitations allow. My faith in the truth of the Church is anchored by an understanding of its logical skeleton, which I maintain is remarkable and flawless. I simply affirm that society has outgrown this logic, and so it must be revamped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 It is more than technical discrepancy. Souls are not floating around waiting for a body. God creates them as He needs them. "Science tells us inarguably, concretely, and objectively " This is not something science does: science designs propositions and tests them, and formulates hypothosese as to how something works. It is never inarguable and definitely not always objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 (edited) You might want to read this:http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=20829&st=40 especially Apotheoun's replies. Edited October 3, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarf Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 I never suggested that souls "float around waiting for a body." Such an image is overly simplistic of time, as eternity and thus the soul is parallel to all of time, it's a static state of simplistic existence. To quote Aquinas' affirmations of De Consolatione Philosophiae, "Eternity is the simultaneously whole and complete possession of endless life." So, if souls are eternal, then they don't "wait" for bodies. "It is never inarguable and definitely not always objective" Well, the weight of experiments in psychology and quantum mechanics are astoundingly harmonious with the hypotheses of their respective theories. So, I see them as "inarguable" in that virtually all arguments against them have been exhausted. And the scientific method is by definition objective, though I wouldn't exstend that to all scientists and that was not my intent. What I see most often to this end are fundamentalists not believing in evolution who see any discussion of biology as a cold attack on God by rabid atheists. I read the posts you recommended, and nothing really applied to what I have to say. Had you taken such courtesies with my input, you would have already realized that. I understand why you would remove a URL posted by a hit-and-run spammer, but my continued presence here indicates that I had no such intents, and that I was genuinely interested in your input. With you removing the link, that prevents anyone from reading what I have to say and thus from making insightful rebuttals. So, what that amounts to is censorship and cowardice. I should expect better from such a message board. So, if anyone is interested in the persuit of knowledge, send me an IM on AIM if the mods don't restore the link to coeternalism.com. If not, that's just admitting defeat, and we all lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I don't understand how science can weigh in on the nature of souls... souls are immaterial and science cannot reach beyond the physical senses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now