Coeternalism

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 2 2004, 08:25 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Your view of the soul is more Islamic than Christian.

[Guest Aluigi]

i just need to jump in here and say this cause i rarely have an oppurtunity to say it anymore:

I agree with ICTHUS.

[Snarf]

Well, I've been meaning to write a supplemental article on Christology, but haven't got around to it yet. Maybe this weekend. I did write an article on Original Sin, which definitely strikes me as more Christian than anything.

[CatholicforChrist]

I think some people have confused the practical sciences with science in general. We can come to an understanding of truth about our souls, which are immortal, even though they are immaterial insofar as we can know this by theology, which is the highest science. Practical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc) only deal with the physical, not the supernatural, but philosophy and certainly theology can deal with the supernatural order. I just thought that should be clarified. Also, the fact that God is omnipotent and knew when each soul is created does not mean that these souls actually existed eternally; perhaps that is one of the assertions that could clear up the (practical) scientific absolutism behind this theory. When something seems to be true in practical sciences but contradicts philosophy and especially theology (not to say anything of the defined teaching of the Church), there is more than enough of a reason to condemn the supposed discovery of the practical science.

[Snarf]

Condemning empirical science is intellectual suicide, no matter the motive. I sincerely doubt that God is so stupid as to create a reality that contradicts His own will. Id est, if He wanted us to believe in the classic notion of the soul, we would have been created incapable of discovering the underlying physiological processes of the mind. If He didn't want us to believe in evolution, he wouldn't have allowed for the fossilization of so many extinct organisms. If He didn't want us to believe in the Big Bang, he would have probably tweaked the element ratios so that they wouldn't agree so perfectly with the cosmological predictions thereof.

I'm not making science my god, I'm affirming that God is a scientist.

[Guest Aluigi]

the fact that we can analyze the psyche has nothing to do with the nature of the soul. how do you jump from that to the soul must be eternal? it's so illogical!

[Snarf]

Illogical is judging a proposition based on two arbitrarily selected axioms without giving heed to the logical process that bears them. So, nyeah!

It's really very simple. It's scientifically impossible for some spiritual entity, a soul if you will, to steer a human life because all of human action is already accounted for by reductionistic means. Introducing determinism, we see that those reductionistic means were predicated by the earliest moment of the universe, i.e. the big bang. So, for a soul to guide a life, it must have expressed its form before the big bang. Since time itself didn't exist before the bang, the soul must be eternal: it lacks both beginning and ending.

It's really not that difficult, and not at all illogical.

[Guest Aluigi]

that's simply not true. science can explain certain aspects of human behavior and thought process, but science has never found the essence of a man. that is why psychology is always changing, they can't apply the same principles to everyone. to claim that the big bang determined every motion of a living creature is simply false. if we were simply randomly moving based on the way particals were originally dispersed throughout the galaxy we would not have reason, thought processes, spirituality. the consciousness of a man, the reason and animation of the life within him, as well as that which distinguishes him from the animals (gives him a rational mind and a higher level of self-awareness) remains unexplained by the study of the human brain. the movement of molecules today on the minute scale (as in, day to day life of human beings) has no correlation to the force of the big bang. on a larger scale (planets, stars, etc.) yeah, their motion tends to be the result of the big bang as well as gravity. but living creatures move of their own free will, in no way predetermined by the force of the big bang.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 5 2004, 11:35 PM']
If by "vague" you mean "accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community", then sure.

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.
[/quote]
You still haven't stated precisely what this is? I disagree that physics and/or psychology have obliterated the Christian belief in the soul. And as far as the statement about the scientific community goes, I'd like to see read statistics for one thing, I can think of many of the great figures in modern science who were very religious people. Alsy most of the physicists and psychologists whom I have known in my own experience were Christians. There are several physicists in my family, my mom for example, who is a devout Catholic and a third order Carmelite.
And for myself, I started reading about physics and psychology in elementary school and for some reason I've never come to the conclusions that you have reached. What is the factual, scientific train of thought? So far I've just heard assertions which strike me as suspicious.

And I will inform all of the scientists I know who accept free will that they are not respectable.

Having read City of God, the Summa and the Catechism is pretty good, I don't want to downplay it, but I still don't think it is sufficient for one seeking to revise Catholic Theology. Augustine and Aquinas wrote many centuries ago, and the catechism is catechetical in nature and doesn't constitute an education in systematic Catholic Theology. You might be surprised by the writings of 20th century Catholic thinkers. Some authors whom you might find compelling: Norris Clarke, Stanley Jaki, Bernard Lonergan, Paul Quay, Jacques Maritain.. there are too many to name really. Many of them are/were scientists. For example Paul Quay had a PhD in Physics, also had a degree in psychology (I think a doctorate but I'm not positive) and Philosophy and Theology. There is a great deal of secular stuff that is pretty good too. I found many of John Searle's arguments to be compelling. He is a very well known professor at Berkeley who writes about the mind and all of that. I would recommend his books, "Minds, Brains and Computers" and "The Rediscovery of the Mind". Even classic secular philosophy would be interesting I'm sure. The history of the development of scientific methodology, empiricism, rationalism, idealism, existentialism, post-modernism, etc.. The epistemological fuondations of science, and philosophy of science should be thoroughly scrutinized (in my opinion) by anyone wishing to bring science into Theology (as Philosophy is an essential part of the process of bringing scientific insight into the Theological sphere). Werner Heisenberg wrote a lovely book called "Physics and Philosophy" which you might like.
How is it exactly that you think physics has rendered the classical idea of the soul impossible? I suppose I should read your thesis since I don't really know what you said. I intend to read it at some point and expect it will be engaging. Does it have to do with theories which try to develop an explanation of consciousness based on quantum mechanics?

[quote]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.[/quote]
I was not trying to suggest abandoning reason, but it is important to realize and respect faith and reason's distinct but complimentary domains. Because I am convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, I can accept definitive teachings which I may not be able to prove through logic or science. How is the soul different?
Also consider how people in the middle ages lost their faith or adopted strange doctrines because of the prevailing scientific theories or system (Aristotelian science, etc.) People thought that Aristotle had explained the world without God. Similarly with Newtonian physics and all that, many people came up with strange doctrines and thought that everything was figured out more or less. Given history, and the epistemological structure of scientific enquiry, I think it is dubious to rest your faith upon the foundation of science. It is noble to want to reconcile them and come to a deeper truth (Augustine and Aquinas had this tendency), but if your methodology is not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, I do not think your conclusions can rightly be called Catholic Theology.

There are so many theories and proposed solutions to different problems, and different reductionisms. I can't even count the number of reductive systems that have been developed which claim to provide the ultimate answer in explaining man. After an objective overview of the history of thought, to my mind the most logical conclusion would be philosophical skepticism. (ok, I'm being a tad cynical)

I'm rambling on a bit too much.. Would you mind PMing me a link or something so I can read what you actually have to say? Thanks.

God bless.

[DojoGrant]

If the souls are eternal, without beginning, then the souls were not created by God. This seems to be the logical necessity of the proposition.

It is therefore, subsequently, heresy.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Oct 7 2004, 11:15 AM'] If the souls are eternal, without beginning, then the souls were not created by God. This seems to be the logical necessity of the proposition.

It is therefore, subsequently, heresy. [/quote]
Which was the point of my asking you if we were creatures.

[Guest Aluigi]

BF, i think DG's on your side

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was looking through some of my books earlier and I thought I'd mention that Karl Popper, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and others had some very insightful things to say regarding the relationship between science (especially physics) and philosophy & religion. I wish I was at home where I could access my books and post some quotes, but I'm not. The point is that these noble and brilliant men realized and respected the limits and approprate domain of science.

God bless.

[BurkeFan]

[quote] BF, i think DG's on your side wink.gif[/quote]
I know. It was meant to kind of make that clear, even though his exact statement isn't necessarily correct, but that's a point that I will get to in a minute.

Okay, now to discuss this:

[quote]
"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.[/quote]

Well, first, make it blatantly clear that you do not mean co-eternal. It means equally eternal. And, that's kind of a weird way of saying what Augustine said, since it wasn't what he said but a reformulation of the thoughts of others. Ironically, it was in a section titled Against The Arguments On Which The Platonists Ground Their Assertion That The Human Soul is Co-Eternal With God (Book 10, Ch 31 of City of God). If Augustine supports you, sure, quote him. But don't lie.
Now, onto the point that I was going to address and to address my original objection, which I still hold. One could say that the soul is eternal logically, taking into account what was said by Thomas in ST I-I 46 2. This position, that souls were created at the very beginning instant of time, however, is in contradiction (at least one formulation of the pre-existence of the soul, that is) with the teaching of the Church as laid out in the Canons of Provincial Council of Constantinople, 543 (confirmed by Pope Vigilius) and completely in contradiction with the teaching of the First Vatican Council (1869-70). So, yes, holding the eternity / pre-existence of the soul does make one a heretic. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) also makes the distinction that God created man (spirit and body) after the creation of the universe.
By saying that souls are co-eternal, it implies that the souls of men already existed at the instant of the creation of universe and time, and were not created at that time. This, then, introduces complexity into God. But, even then, if we are equal in the same way, we could only be so if we were uncreated, because, as Augustine said in the Confessions, "there could be no time without a created being" and that "no times are co-eternal with Thee, nor any creature, even if there be any creature beyond all times."

You've said you hold to some materialist / reductionist doctrines. Why are you even worried about the soul then? You've basically denied it completely, so, why bother?

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Oct 7 2004, 08:40 PM'] I was looking through some of my books earlier and I thought I'd mention that Karl Popper, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and others had some very insightful things to say regarding the relationship between science (especially physics) and philosophy & religion. I wish I was at home where I could access my books and post some quotes, but I'm not. The point is that these noble and brilliant men realized and respected the limits and approprate domain of science.

God bless. [/quote]
William Wallace, a Dominican Priest, also wrote The Modeling of Nature, a Philosphy of Science and a Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis.