Coeternalism

[Guest Aluigi]

1, i suggest this be moved to the debate table

2, snarf, can you explain to me why science demans a soul that is not created at some point in time? REVELATION says God creates souls at a point in time and then they go on forever. Souls are not bound by physical rules. We are embodied souls, and one day our bodies will be ressurected and glorified (something i guess science might be against as well if it werent for the fact that nothing's impossible with God) and we will live eternally in heaven (assuming that's where we are for eternity) Body and Soul perfectly united and glorified in the Beatific Vision... and science can say nothing for or against that. what does science say of Our Lord's Ressurection from the dead? is it not impossible according to science?

now, i'm not saying science and religion are inherently opposed. i am saying that science cannot explain away all the wonderful mysteries of Almighty God.

[Snarf]

The reason why science says souls are eternal comes by seeing Laplacian determinism (huge asterix with that talking about quantum aspects thereof) plus the refutation of the "ghost in the machine". With those two ideas, we see that every aspect of the passage of human history was the natural progression from the Big Bang. Therefore, whatever spiritual bodies designed the passage of human lives, they must have done so by arranging the nature of the Big Bang itself. Science says that time itself did not exist prior to the universe, WHICH IS IN ASTOUNDING ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT AUGUSTINE SAID. So, since the souls did not happen within the universe's time, they are eternal.

Some of you may see the similarities this bears to parallelism, and I talk about that in my thesis.

[Guest Aluigi]

how does the big bang proove souls existed before the big bang? God CREATES souls. we're not ghost filled machines, we're embodied souls.

souls are not and have never been subject to physical constraints. the human soul is intimately connected with its body, it becomes seperated in death but will be reunited at the end of time.

time began at the creation of the universe by God. God made time at that moment (if you can call that a moment, yeah i guess it'd be the first moment that ever happened) God makes souls within the framework of time which He created. you have provided no scientific evidence claiming souls cannot have a starting point.

Edited October 3, 2004 by Aluigi

[Snarf]

My scientific evidence is the body of psychological literature that demonstrates that the mind works under strictly reductionistic means. And I never said that souls exist before the big bang, since there was no "before" the big bang. The BB was a moment in time (the beginning), whereas souls are parallel to time in a static abiding existence.

"souls are not and have never been subject to physical constraints."

That's nice, but we know very well that thoughts and actions ARE subject to physical variables, so without revision morality and spirituality get tossed out the window. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

"God makes souls within the framework of time which He created. you have provided no scientific evidence claiming souls cannot have a starting point."

Firstly, one task of my theory was to elaborate on the metaphysics of how exactly God manages to "do" things while in the absence of time. It's a rather sticky issue that has never been resolved by conventional theologians. And it was never my goal to show scientific evidence for my theory, but rather to extrapolate theology indepenedently while sticking to the rules handed to us by science.

So, I will repeat myself that simply stating the orthodoxical position on these matters is not helpful or productive. Use LOGICAL ARGUMENT, my friends.

[Guest Aluigi]

i'm trying to use logical argument. sheesh, i didn't even mention orthodoxy or Church teaching there. i'm trying to grasp the reasons you assert science demands that souls don't have a starting point..

God works within time, simple fact of the matter. God is omnipotent, He can do as He pleases. God exists outside of time, He created Time and views it all at once for He exists in eternity with no begining or end. He created a framework of time in which He created all things. He thus created the universe and the earth inside this time which He created. God is not distant from time, God is involved in time for He so wills it.

God is eternal, but He CREATED time and works within it, He even CAME INTO it at one point and lived as a man in it.

[img]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/837215/diagramatttempt.JPG[/img]

Okay, so the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are all co-eternal, they have no begining and no end. The Holy Spirit is the infinite love between the Father and the Son, the Father is God so the Father is Love and needs someone to love in all eternity, so the Son has existed for all eternity, He is God and needs someone to love so the Father has existed for all eternity, and the infinite love between them that can connect them at every single point forwards and backwards through this eternal imaginary timeline is thus eternal as well. time is created by Him (God) and has a begining and an end. Everything God has created, He has created within that line. He created certain things within that line to go on forever, thus they will break free of the constraints of time if they die in Christ and thus enter eternal life. yes, they enter into eternity, in the amazing mystery of God's power He admits from time those who were bound by time into an eternity which knows no time. Our souls were created within that timeline, that one with a begining and an end, but they break free through the power of the Incarnation and are admitted into eternal life by the tremendous mercy of God. Our souls do not now exist in eternity. this is a mystery of the faith, that though eternity knows no time, God makes it subject to time's constraints to relate it to the temporal creatures which He has created

[Guest Aluigi]

btw, you do realize that we're discussing mysteries of the Catholic Faith here which can be infinitely known but never fully comprehended by our finite minds, right?

[Snarf]

"Our souls do not now exist in eternity."

That falls flat when you consider the converse: does eternity have within it our souls? -no, not yet- so if there's a before and after state in it then it's not really eternity. The Catechism generally avoids this by usually calling souls immortal instead of eternal despite the Gospel's preferential use of the latter term.

I guess what it comes down to is this: Coeternalism is necessary to mend the rift between religion and science. What I would like to see is an alternative explanation for how this could be done. This is not a Thomist/Calvinist debate, as I would like to operate under the framework of science and ontology rather than pure spiritual construct.

Edit: Many times I've delved into these matters and come out thinking that it doesn't really matter and we'll all find out about it all when we die. I realized, however, that you can't just cop out like that because there is a battle raging between science and religion, and given the present state of things the religion I love so dearly simply cannot triumph without renovation. I personally think that my theory is simple enough for anyone to understand so long as they put forth the effort, but if the mysteries of eternity are too intimidating then you would simply profit from remaining silent. Don't accuse me of hubris, you pretty much forced me into saying that.

Edited October 3, 2004 by Snarf

[Guest Aluigi]

science has no insight into the nature of immaterial souls. the soul is not merely the intellect. the soul is not merely the emotions of a man. the soul is the essence of a man, that which we cannot fully know. Science cannot touch the immaterial, and thus I fail to see your scientific argument! You base it off psychology? Our minds are part of our body. it is naturally intimately united to our soul, and in the end after the ressurection of the body it will be perfectly united.

Anyway, are you making the claim that our intellect is our soul? That is not the case. The soul is what animates us, what our essence is. It is embodied such that the angels (who are spirits without flesh) are in awe.

So, yeah, if we want to proceed "scientifically" you have to define for me what you think the soul is. Because it is not just the intellect nor the emotions of a person. In face, the intellect and emotions tend to be more part of the flesh than of the soul, though they affect the change in the state of our soul.

[Guest Aluigi]

by the way, yes, the nature of eternity demands that that is somehow false, that because it is eternity time cannot apply, but we look at eternity from our window within time, and God works intimately within time and manipulates the nature of eternity for the sake of the ordered governance of His creation.

[BurkeFan]

Do you deny that we are creatures?

[Enda]

I think that all these psycological observences like through MRIs and other things are really just pysical manifestions of the soul's intellect and will. We know the soul gives life to the body, so if God created the brain He would have to have it give life to brain through it's intellect and will.

[Snarf]

"the soul is not merely the intellect. the soul is not merely the emotions of a man."

Correct, and I would extend that to say that intellect and emotion could exist in full absence of the soul. That's what reductionism is all about.

"the soul is the essence of a man"

Science tells us you can't attribute cognitive or emotional processes to the soul. So, I think it had come to a time when religion must completely overhaul its definition of the soul. That was one task I took up in writing my thesis, so I won't delve into that here.

I don't deny that we are creatures, I hold staunchly to a materialist view of human lives. I do believe in souls, just not in the orthodox manner.

"I think that all these psycological observences like through MRIs and other things are really just pysical manifestions of the soul's intellect and will."

That goes back to the ghost in the machine argument. An immaterial soul can not possibly interact with a material mind. If you think that it does, how do you propose so?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I haven't read your website thing and I've only skimmed this thread (because I am short on time) but a couple things came to mind whilst skimming.
First of all you seem to give a great deal to some vague idea of a scientific reductionism which makes the free-will impossible. You mentioned psychology specifically. A couple years ago I remember being interested in reconciling the classical understanding of free-will with Freudian psychic-causality. I imagine Freud is not "scientific" enough for you. What is your bag anyway? My suspicion is perhaps cognitive science, behaviourism or cognitive-behavioral psychology. Am I correct? Perhaps biosocial/"evolutionary" psychology? I happen to know a little bit about these things. The main impression I had was that I think it is wise to really know the Catholic take on things before deciding that it should be totally revised or whatever. I must say, I am pretty familiar with modern psychology and philosophy of mind and I do not share your conclusions.
Something else that occured to me is that if you are trying to operate on an empirical/materialist framework how on earth do you even bring the soul into it? It seems to me that if you think science has done away with the idea of free-will and that intellect and emotions are entirely reducible to material causality there is really no room for the soul and no logical basis for asserting the existence of it. What do you mean by soul anyway? I suspect that you may use rationalist argumentation so my first impulse would be to identify the first principles from which you base your conclusions. In any case I suggest slowing down a little bit because my impression is that you are jumping to some very hasty conclusions.
And the pre-existence of the soul thing is condemned as "Origenism", this was before Augustine. I'm not sure how much you care about being in line with the Church, but the view you've expressed strikes me as highly problematic in this regard. Also some of what you describe seems to just be pointing toward the fact of God's foreknowledge. All souls exist from all eternity in the mind of God, if you want to talk about it in this way, but this is a not actual existence. Also the use of the word eternity in the Bible does not necessarily suggest the philosophical notion that you assume. It is always in reference to the future. I imagine if you looked into the Greek it would be eisegetical to import the idea of eternity as transcending time when what is meant is a future duration of time which has no end (I admit I'm speculating, but with confidence). And I would grant that you can have an unending chain of finite being in the future, but this is not the case with the past as can be shown logically and philosophically. Also you seem to be implying that there are only two possibilities to the so called mind/body problem, materialism or dualism (you made reference to the Cartesian ghost in the machine thing). In fact the Catholic approach is hylomorphism, neither dualism nor materialism.
Also if you approach Catholic faith from a rationalistic mentality you necessarily loose the Catholic faith. Sure faith and reason do not contradict, but faith still transcends reason and cannot be reduced to "scientific" propositions. I would also suggest a critical examination of your basic methodology if you in fact share the Catholic faith and intend to remain in the faith.

I hope I have time to discuss this stuff with you in more detail later.

Shalom.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 3 2004, 06:57 PM'] I don't deny that we are creatures [/quote]
You would have to to say that we are co-eternal with God (which is the standard meaning of co-eternal).

[Snarf]

"First of all you seem to give a great deal to some vague idea of a scientific reductionism which makes the free-will impossible."

If by "vague" you mean "accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community", then sure.

"I imagine Freud is not "scientific" enough for you."

I've never had the occasion to read much more than his historical discourses, so I don't really feel much of anything for him. I do, however, presume most of the criticism levelled against him recently to just be counterfactualism, which doesn't settle well in my mind.

"What is your bag anyway?"

I'm most versed in physics, so I prefer to tackle the issue with that slant. I have read a few books that incorporate psychology, enough at least to gather than any well-respected scientist has abandoned the classic notion of free will. In my thesis I mention the relation between quantum mechanics and the uptake of neurotransmitters in microtubles, but next year I'll be taking a class on the mind to better understand the implications thereof.

"The main impression I had was that I think it is wise to really know the Catholic take on things before deciding that it should be totally revised or whatever."

Well, all with which I had to work to get a firm grasp on the orthodox Catholic stance were City of God, Aquinas' Summa, and the Catechism. If you could point me to a database of the ecumenical councils, I'd be happy as a clam. But since you admit to having not read my thesis, I can only assume you greatly underestimate my familiarity with the teachings of the Church.

"And the pre-existence of the soul thing is condemned as "Origenism", this was before Augustine."

Origenism's ontology of the soul came to vaguely similar conclusions but by an inferior path. So by not endorsing Origen's work, I don't think the Church's condemnation thereof necessarily precludes my theory. It would be nice if I could get a hold of the precise wording of those rulings.

"All souls exist from all eternity in the mind of God, if you want to talk about it in this way, but this is a not actual existence."

My notion of the soul is very metaphysical, but in short I hold that its existence in the mind of God is more or less sufficient. I personally feel that my conception of the soul is much more cogent than the one prevailing among modern Christians, though it's difficult even for me as its creator (as far as I know) to grasp. I read Owen Flanagan's The Problem of the Soul, and it did a wonderful job of smiting the popular idea of the soul.

"Also the use of the word eternity in the Bible does not necessarily suggest the philosophical notion that you assume. It is always in reference to the future."

I agree that such was what the evangelists had in mind when they employed the word "eternity", but I also believe that the word maintains its philosophical definition in biblical context by means of metaphysical consequence.

"Also if you approach Catholic faith from a rationalistic mentality you necessarily loose the Catholic faith."

My life has been marked by periods of essential atheism, agnosticism, and fervent Catholicism. Consequentially, for me to abandon my faculties of reason is to deny a certain part of my life, so while I recognize the mistakes I've made I can not refuse to learn from them.

"You would have to to say that we are co-eternal with God "

Not true, as Augustine demonstrated with the example of a foot eternally lodged in the sand. Even without one pre-existing the other, the footprint in the sand is the creation of the foot itself.