Jazzns' History of Belief

You seem to think that all subjective conclusions (ie, opinions) are equally rationally valid.Why?

Really good question so I'll just give you my understanding from my Christian perspective. I don't believe in an eternal non-physical existence. I believe that at the end of time as we know it we will have a recreated physicality. (Resurrected body) As to what happens in the meantime, I can't tell you except to say that it might be similar to the question of what happened before the Big Bang. All will become clear but not in this lifetime. That actually is the scriptural message. The idea of a disembodied existence is Platonism that crept into some Christian belief.

Not entirely. The concept of a "spirit," and not just the Holy Spirit but as a human component, is prevalent throughout the Bible.But less important in the discussion is the scriptural basis of a belief, but rather the prevalence of the belief itself.As an apologist you're welcome to say that your interpretation of the Bible doesn't specifically mention a "soul" as a prevailing individual consciousness independent of the body, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe in exactly that.

I have been pretty busy with school but I have enjoyed watching this debate about altruism when I can get to it.You may very well have talked about this elsewhere GDR but I have to ask, what is your best guess as to what is going to happen to me when I die given my change in faith?Am I going to hell?
Am I going to heaven?
Do I simply cease to exist?I am not asking for certainty, simply what you have so often focuses on which is your subjective opinion.And if it is not too much to ask, what support do you have for your opinion on that matter?

I've only got a couple of minutes so this will be brief. Yes the concept of spirit is there but that does not mean that we are intended to live a disembodied existence. The message of the Bible is that we are to have resurrected bodies of which the resurrected Jesus is the prototype so to speak, in our re-created world.There are no doubt many Christians who believe in the idea of a disembodied future but it isn't the view of the majority of Christian scholars. Arguably the most influential Biblical scholar in the world today is N T Wright
Here is one quote of his.

quote:

---

"As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God's promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality ... then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence."

---

Here is the link to the interview that came from. Conversation with "Tom" Wright on Resurrection, Heaven & Hope on Earth

Indeed. Atheists are a rational bunch. And uncertainty is a key component of rationality. I wholly subscribe to the following view (as I suspect do most atheists): Bertrand Russel writes "To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".You interpret it as deism because of the language he uses. But I would ask what exactly is his self proclaimed agnosticism actually directed towards? Something that meets any conventional conceptual meaning of "god"...? I would be very interested to know what it is he explicitly is claiming to be agnostic towards. Can you show me where he explicitly says that with reference to some supernatural-conscious-intelligent being rather than something like the Platonic existence of non-zero-sum logic? I am prepared to accept that Wright is more agnostic to such a possibility than I. But I have seen nothing other than conflationary terminology on which to base such a conclusion. Can you provide a link to where he says this explicitly? How can an intelligent being exist "Platonically"....? Objectively derived concepts - Perfect circles, arithmetic, Pythagoras theorem, arguably some form of ethics - Can exist Platonically. But how can a conscious intelligent being exist Platonically? It makes no sense. Which is exactly what I have (admittedly rather facetiously) called the "Big Mac Effect" arises. We evolved in closely genetically related communities. An environment where altruism makes absolute genetic sense. In exactly the same way that our desire for high fat food makes sense because of food scarcity in our evolutionary past. The fact that we are still "designed" to be altruistic in a globalised community consisting of billions of people is no different to the fact that we are still "designed" to seek out highly calorific food types in a time when such things are prolific (and indeed detrimental to our wellbeing). If you think Wright's treatment of altruism is any different to his explanation of love you are sorely and desperately mistaken. Given that Wright is an evolutionary psychologist it would be amazing if he were subscribing to your non-genetic (but rather mysterious) origin of altruism wouldn't it? Wright isn't really arguing that there are two streams to Darwinian evolution. He is arguing that the non-zero-sum logic that gives rise to the genetic propagation of things like love, altruism and compassion are amplified by things like technology to include an ever increasing number of equally self-interested entities. Here is the love quote cited previously with the logical extension of his argument included. But you have to accept the genetic self-interest component before any of the rest of his non-zero-sum argument makes any sense at all. Is the link between the evolutionary origins of non-zero-sum logic moral components (love, altruism, empathy etc.) and their expansion through cultural/technological progress to include more and more genetically-self-interested entities now clearer to you? Simple beginnings from which complexity evolved. That is the entire "crane" concept. Not at all. See above. Utterly untrue. ALL of the objective evidence indicates that such things are the product of evolved complexity and NOT things that just come from nowhere. It isn't at all subjective to conclude that intelligence is an emergent property of evolved material complexity rather than something that "just is".The evidence for one far far outweighs the evidence of the other.

I essentially agree.But we seem to have a strong propensity for believing in some some rectally derived propositions over other equally rectally derived propositions.And I would argue that the nature of the rectally derived propositions that humans are prone to believe in are borne from certain human psychological traits.But - Yes - They are all equally rectally derived.

Irrelevant.If I walked up to 100 random Christians, GDR, and asked them if they believed in an immortal soul, that the essence of an individuals personality, memories, and consciousness persisted after the death of the body independently in either Heaven or Hell, how many do you think would answer in the affirmative?I couldn't care less what the Biblical scholars and apologists you link to might say.We're talking about a belief that is, in fact, prevalent in the majority of Christian believers. Every one of the denominations I've participated in (Christian Reformed, Congregational, Presbyterian, and a few others) hold the existence of the human soul as a core belief. In every instance, you could have walked up to any member of any of the congregations I have been part of, and every single one of them would have answered my earlier question in the affirmative.The Evangelical movement, immensely popular here in the States, focuses on the fate of the soul, independently of the physical resurrection, to a very strong degree.There's simply no way to argue this, GDR. The concept of a soul is widely believed amongst most Christians. The opinions of a few Christian scholars and even leaders is irrelevant if most of the actual practitioners believe.

I’m glad that you made it clear that you’re asking for opinion and not certainty. Everything about this will be my belief. It ain’t God speaking. To start with I’d like to have a go at answering a different but related question. That question would be: are you closer or further from God because of your change of faith.I’d like to quote two passages from the Bible. I’ve quoted these passages before but it is pertinent to the question. The first is from Micah 6 in the OT.

quote:

---

6 "With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" 8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

---

The second is from Matthew 22. I know you know these verses but I need them to make my point.

quote:

---

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sad'ducees, they came together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

---

I don’t normally suggest cherry picking verses to make a point but in my opinion these do encapsulate in both the OT and the NT message of what God wants of us. I also suggest reading the sheep and goats passage at the tail end of Matthew 25.In the quoted NT passage you will notice that we are told to love God. At first glance this is a rather nebulous concept but I don’t think it need be. I think we can look at it in an anthropomorphic manner. The idea of loving God means to me that I love His ideals, what He stands for, and how that plays out. I can say He has given me life for which of course I’d be grateful, but just like a human father I don’t have to love or like Him.So in order to have an opinion on the question of whether or not you are closer to God or not, I’d have to know which God you rejected. If you rejected the God that is sometimes depicted in the OT, the one who sanctions genocide at the hands of His people, or who sanctions the stoning to death by the community for difficult children, prostitutes or I believe even those who break the Sabbath laws as it suits him then IMHO you are now closer to God than you were previously.If however you reject the God as seen in the context of the entire scripture, the one who tells us to love our enemies, the one who tells us to love our neighbours, the one who tells us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners etc then I would suggest that maybe you have moved away from Him.As an aside, I just hate to see the Bible being misused so that it becomes an impediment to Christianity rather than a something hugely positive. We should remember that it was written by ancient Jews and we can’t just read it with a 21st century mindset. It is told primarily as narratives as part of a metanarrative.In other words I guess it is a question of which god you have decided not to believe in.If it is simply a matter that intellectually you no longer believe, which I believe you would say is the case, then you may not have moved closer or further away as I have nothing to base it on. However, as a Christian you must have had an image of God in your heart. It’s worth considering just what it is you’re rejecting.Now to the question you asked. Although some would argue otherwise, I think my views on this are orthodox along the lines of Augustine to C S Lewis. Here is another quote by C S Lewis that I’ve quoted before. It’s from the book The Great Divorce which is a quick and easy read and deals with the whole question of hell in metaphorical fashion.

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

---

So finally I get around to answering the question you asked. You framed your question with the phrase what is your best guess as to what is going to happen to me when I die given my change in faith?I don’t see your change of faith necessarily having any particular impact on the question. The question is about embracing the concepts of truth, justice, love, forgiveness, kindness, mercy etc and rejecting their opposites. Of course nobody does it perfectly or even close but it is about a desire to be part of world that is characterized by those qualities. Hell is the choice we make when we choose the love of self over the love of others, and life is all about me. My point is that God cares about our hearts and not our theology.Once again that can be confirmed by the sheep and goats allegory in Matthew 25. Those He called righteous were those that acted lovingly without any thought of reward and if you read Matthew 7:21-23 and you will see that it isn’t just about giving intellectual assent to doctrine.So I see it as being up to you, and only you can know where your heart is. I can’t even give an opinion but I definitely do not believe that your decision means that you are automatically condemned to hell or that you will cease to exist.The question then is why even bother with Christianity. It is my belief that through aligning ourselves with Him through faith that He does impact our lives and thoughts through His Holy Spirit. I think that believers are called into community, what Jesus called the Kingdom of God, in order to bring His truth, mercy, forgiveness, judgement etc to the world. That isn’t to say that the church does a great job of it but I believe that is our call.

I agree with that from both a scientific and a theistic POV. The question you asked was phrased by "what do you think". I gave my opinion but I don't have a specific reference. He does use somewhat ambiguous terms.However here is a quote from the interview I gave you the link to earlier.

quote:

---

In order to confidently assert the purpose of something, you have to know what the thing or process was that designed it. And so, too, with any human artifact. You can look at a car and be pretty confident that it's designed to move along the road, but the reason you are 100 percent sure is because you know who designed it and why.

​

Now when we look at the process of evolution, we're in the dark about the designer. That's the question we are grappling with here. If you accept directionality in evolution, you can say things like, "Well, like an animal, evolution seems to develop in a certain direction." Just as an animal matures in a certain direction, evolution seems to develop in a certain direction. And in fact, the combinations of genetic and cultural evolution have led the entire planet to seem increasingly like an integrated organism. Every decade it seems more like that. Every year the Internet seems more like it's drawing people into a giant planetary brain.

​

So you can point to these patterns that are suggestive of a larger purpose, but you just can't say for sure. My only point is that a scientific worldview gives you more evidence of some larger purpose at work than most scientists concede. And you can argue about what the purpose is, and you can argue about what the nature of the designer would be. It could be that some intelligence set evolution in motion and then went to another universe or something. But I think there is more evidence of purpose than most people concede.

---

I am only referring to mu understanding of Plato's views on the separation of the material and the spiritual, with the belief that the spiritual could exists separately from the physical and that the spiritual would ultimately leave the physical.From wiki

quote:

---

The word metaphysics derives from the fact that Aristotle's musings about divine reality came after ("meta") his lecture notes on his treatise on nature ("physics"). The term is in fact applied to Aristotle's own teacher, and Plato's "metaphysics" is understood as Socrates' division of reality into the warring and irreconcilable domains of the material and the spiritual. The theory has been of incalculable influence in the history of Western philosophy and religion.

---

I think that you have understood Wright correctly. I guess I would say I don't have a problem accepting that as part of the process but as a theist I don't see it as being the whole picture. But he does keep referring to social evolution just the same. I just don't understand him the way you do. Cultural/technological progress leads to ongoing changes in culture. If my parents are altruistic it is likely that I will be too, and maybe even more so, which gets passed on to my kids and so on. I don't see him as suggesting that would bring about genetic changes. If it was all genetically driven then you would think that it would always go in the same direction but altruistic parents still can produce selfish offspring. I get that, but all I was saying that it took a first cause to provide the simple beginning and a direction. Of course you do. We agree that there is such a thing as intelligence that is a feature of our existence. We also agree that it appears that the origin of all that we know came from a singularity billions of years ago. You contend that the intelligence that we now experience evolved from that without any intelligent intent. In other words intelligence exists out of nowhere. There are theories about how consciousness evolved but where is the objective evidence. You have simply drawn subjective conclusions based on the objective evidence. Once again, I'd like to point out though that I don't find that idea contrary to my theism, if that is your point. I would see it as an answer to how God did it and not if He did it. On that we just disagree.

I am not saying that the soul, which I think you have done a good job of depicting, doesn't exist. I am only saying that the idea of it existing eternally in a disembodied form isn't scriptural.The best known of the creeds is the Apostle's Creed and what does it say towards the end of it? "I believe in - the resurrection of the body".
Here is a quote from Martin Luther.

quote:

---

Our Lord has written the promise of resurrection, not in books alone, but in every leaf in springtime.

---

Luther believed that after death the soul would exists unconsciously to awaken in a resurrected body. Personally I'm not married to that specific idea, I think I'll wait and see. This about John Calvin from this site

quote:

---

Despite his strong, almost Platonic emphasis on the "immortality of the soul", Calvin realised that the final state of the elect will not be disembodied bliss. He points us beyond death to the final resurrection hope that will be ushered in when Christ returns,

---

Augustine and Lewis both preached on the resurrection of the body. It is orthodox Christianity.I could go on but I think you get my point.

I don't claim that at all. I'm just saying that it is a subjective conclusion as to whether or not consciousness and intelligence evolved from non-intelligent origins or intelligent ones. I'm not talking about process, I'm talking about first cause.Frankly I agree that the two positions aren't equally rational, but I have a hunch we disagree on which position that applies to.

Yeah, we all have souls. We are a spirit, we live in a body, and we possess a soul.My spirit is alive to God. Before I got saved it was dead to God. I was ruled by my body and soul.Now, that im born again, I control it, my soul( emotions, will, intellect) and my body. When I get to Heaven, I will have even more control as all will be in agreement and not fighting against eachother. My spirit man is at war with my flesh(body) and my soul(emotions, will, intellect) needs to be renewed daily with the word of God.

Hi Jazzns. I was going to chime in on your questions to GDR but changed my mind since I havn't contributed here all that much, nor (more importantly) read all of your OP's. So, nevermind.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Thats okay Chuck. If you get the gist of my first few posts then I think your opinion is valid.GDR's position is a little nuanced so I was curious about his response but I am curious about yours too.I am not looking for any validation. I am quite comfortable with my choices but I think it is still enlightening to get other's viewpoints. Hopefully I'll get around to responding to GDR tomorrow.