The Soul as control

[Az]

Most of the time when we debate theists we focus on the god issue. We never really discuss the soul very much. Which is interesting because the concept of the soul may provide religion with more control over people than the concept of god.

Consider what the soul is. It is the religions definition of their identity. Seperate from the body it is that which is eternal. The body mortal and fallible.

Our instincts carry a very strong sense of selfpreservation. Typically this gets applied to making sure our body avoids nasty nasty things. But by creating this concept of self being seperate from the body the religion enables it to completely usurp a persons insticts of self preservation. Now instead of struggling to preserve themself (body) they have been rerouted to preserving this imaginary thing defined by the religion.

The religion now owns the mind of a person. Since the soul is eternal what happens to it that determines it's final outcome becomes more important that what happens to a person's body. A person with religious zeal will now suffer greatly should the religion proclaim that they should do so for the sake of the soul.

Using this notion the religion can now usurp other instincts to control the person. Because we are social creatures we have a natural tendency to be concerned for our fellow humans. We empathise with them. When we see them in danger or injured we feel a desire to help them.

But now the concept of soul intervenes. The soul takes precidents over the body. If they percieve a person's soul in danger of eternal damnation and are made to believe that doing things to the body may save it... well there you have torturing in the name of love. The inquisition was an attempt to save the Jews. Those that backslid were tortured until they confessed which was believed to be the way to save the soul. Witches were burned to death in the belief that the soul have been posessed by spirits and only by destruction of the body could the soul be freed.

[Book Lover]

1. My, my; you saved up all these posts I see :-)

Nothing from you for months ... then all this stuff in just one day.

We missed you too :hug:

[patrice]

2. I agree that there is that assumption that I/we need just apply enough force

and wrong will be corrected to right not only in Inquisitions and Invasions but also in Politics and Parenting and otherwise.

[patrice]

3. Body and Soul are different aspects of the same fact.

A spectrum of change is the norm.

[hunter]

4. I don't understand.

Religious people defy authority all of the time.

Martin Luther King Jr. didn't say to the authorities, "Oh, sorry, I'll back down, and be quiet from now on."

[Az]

5. Religion is far from perfect

And the human species is far from complacent. Lots of room for variance. And as to Dr King... from some of the things I know of him from inside Unitarian Universalist circles I suspect he was more of a utilitarian regarding religion.

[bryant69]

9. Because it's hard for you to believe that someone

who didn't share your views on religion could be as good as MLK?

Or what evidence do you have for this point of view?

Bryant

[kwassa]

6. I don't think religion creates this concept.

AZ:
"But by creating this concept of self being separate from the body the religion enables it to completely usurp a persons instincts of self preservation."

I think the concept of soul is quite natural to humans. It is hard to fathom that the idea of one's consciousness, the source of soul, as no longer existing after one dies. Our consciousness IS in some ways separate from our bodies; it remains intact, short of death, regardless of the condition of our bodies. What happens to it after our deaths? This is a question religions try to answer.

Many other beliefs systems, such as nationalism, are able to get people to sacrifice their concept of self preservation, too. this is a standard part of military training.

And many will sacrifice themselves for others in their families to live. It isn't merely religion that will do this.

[bloom]

7. "It isn't merely religion that will do this."

Yeah - but religion does use that very effectively.


Just like the old Christian Church under Augustine got people on board with Original Sin - as a reason to give the Church power over peoples lives.

I know people who think it is the most important thing in the world - whether one believes Jesus will save them - with the idea that they go to heaven when they die.

It gives the Church a lot of power. Esp. over older people. That's been my experience.

[hunter]

13. Religion seems to be much less effective than nationalism or racism.

Nationalism and Racism and Authoritarianism most often adopt religion as cover, and not the other way around.

I think the same is true in families. Some families have a very authoritarian structure and the "head of the family" will adopt religion to justify that. Father's rule is law, and Father is part of a hierarchy reaching all the way up to God.

Other families, such as my family, and my wife's family, encourage a personal relationship with God that effectively short-circuits the authoritarian hierarchy. There is an expectation that one can seek Truth by following one's own heart -- hopefully upon the good advice of people with experience and wisdom. Prayer is a kind of self-reflection. There is no fear. Disagreeing with your father, or a Preist, or a Bishop, or even Pope Pope Benedict XVI, does not automatically qualify you for a ticket on the train to damnation.

Respect is not the same thing as fear and subservience. I can respect my own parents even as I disagree with them.

[Evoman]

8. Not really true...you can carve up somebodies brain so that the persons

body is alright, but their conciousness is gone. Basically, give me a knife and drill, and I can cut out your soul.

Conciousness is a function of the brain. Damaged brain, damaged soul.

There is no YOU separate from your body.

[kwassa]

10. Obviously, people stop thinking when you kill them.

But does the person's soul live after them? some say it does, if in only the memories of those that knew them, or in things that they left behind. Others believe the soul to be immortal, or that the same soul reincarnates in another life.

I can read a passage from the Bible, and know something about the soul of the individual that wrote that passage, a thousand or more years later. This is certainly separate from the human body, isn't it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Your 'knowledge' of that person depends on your experience of living people

and different people can take away completely different ideas of the 'soul' of an author. I think your knowledge, and mine, exists only in our own minds, and is thus not separate from a human body.

[kwassa]

14. but it is the universality and truth of the author's soul creates resonance

Without that resonance, there would be no reason for us to relate to their experience.

more of an argument for the idea of a common soul, actually.

[trotsky]

12. Does one's personality come from the soul?

How do you explain personality changes when people suffer a head injury?

Which personality will they get in heaven? What if they were a rat bastard before the injury, but a pleasant person after (see Regarding Henry) - will they be mean or nice in heaven?

[bryant69]

16. Everybodies nice in heaven

But The question is whether the brain is the origin of the personality / soul or as a filter / reciever for the soul - obviously the body and the brain plays a role in how we interact with this world.

Occam's razor implies it to the be former (i.e. the origin) as that's the simpler answer, I suppose.

Bryant

[Az]

18. Lets put it this way

We can change who you are by changing your brain. Drugs or surgery. We can change your memories, personality, ethics, identity, bascially we can change every single aspect of your "soul" by changing your brain. This would seem to establish a cause/effect relationship.

[Evoman]

21. I'm not talking about death...I'm talking about brain damage.

See my response down below (#20).

What your talking about now is information, not a "soul". If you never wrote anything down...after you die, yes people will remember you. But what about when those people die. And the people after those people. Within three of four generations, you are nothing but maybe a name in a family tree. Great soul, there.

"I can read a passage from the Bible, and know something about the soul of the individual that wrote that passage, a thousand or more years later. This is certainly separate from the human body, isn't it?"

Can you? What do you know about their soul? What do you know about the writer? Do you think you and I would agree on what their "soul" had to say? You may say they were inspired by god, I would say they are nothing but ignorant sheepherders who made up bullshit to explain their scary world. Besides that, what you are talking about here, information, isn't the same as what we usually mean when we talk about the soul.

The soul, defined as a conscious entity that exists after death, most certainly doesn't exist.

[bryant69]

15. And the proof of that is that if you destroy the brain you die?

Gosh, if only people had thought of that millions of years ago - we could have avoided this whole business of religion.

Bryant

[Az]

19. No, actually the evidence is

that when we alter the brain we seem to also alter the personality. There is a direct cause/effect relationship between the brain. We can even cause the brain to halt and cause identity to cease and restart the brain and see it return. Nothing will ever rise to the level of proof but there is certainly substantial evidence to suggest that the brain in action = the mind.

[Evoman]

20. No. There has been a lot of brain-behaviour evidence.

Take people who have full frontal lobotomies...they are still alive and can even respond to you, but seem "soulless". Take others like Phinneas Gage...who have had drastic injuries to their brain. It changes their personalities completely, many times for the worse. I suppose we could even burn off the pieces of your brain that register emotions like love an happiness...who would you be after that?

A neuroscientist could literally cut out your soul...the part that makes you who you are, and still let you live, and even walk, breathe and pump blood. That tells me that the there likely is no soul...that it is our brains, and its chemical processes, that make us who we are.

And thats not even getting into things like retrograde amnesia...there are people with such damage to their brain, that they can't remember ANYTHING five seconds after you leave. They can remember everything in the past, but cannot make new memories...so they are stuck being who they were the day of their accident for the rest of their life. If one of these amnesiacs was an atheist, for example, they would be doomed to hell...because they could not make the choice to be saved, because they literally can't hold enough new memories to ever convert.

[bryant69]

22. I may have mentioned this elsewhere

But the brain might be acting as a reciver for the soul, not as the soul itself. If you bust your tv you can't watch "Heroes" anymore (or whatever you happen to watch) or it might come in blurry or wavy or what not. That doesn't mean "Heroes" isn't still out there, just that your TV isn't able to transmit it correctly. Brain damage might change the way the sould interects with the body (negatively one would assume).

There was an article that touched on this last week at Salon - the work of B. Alan Wallace. http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/wallace/index.html

Bryant

[Az]

23. Problem with that theory

THe evidence seems to indicate a specific vector from which the mind arises. And it is from the brain not through the brain. We can locate the specific cells that contain specific memories. We can literally wipe out a singular memory by wiping out a cell. We can create a sensation by activating other cells. The TV transmitter idea has been pretty well debunked.

SImply put there is no part of the identity that cannot be altered by altering the brain. Its a simple application of Occams Razor to suggest that looking for further iterations required to give rise to a mind are unnecissary. Come up with some evidence suggesting that the mind is something outside the brain and we can consider it further. Till then there is too much evidence suggesting otherwise and no evidence suggesting that the mind comes from outside the brain.

[bryant69]

24. OK.

I guess if it's been debunked it's been debunked.

Bryant

[kiahzero]

26. I was about to bring up Phineas Gage

One could argue that damage to the brain inhibits one's personality in the same sense that damage to tendons might render someone unable to move their arms. I'm not really sure how I feel about that argument, though.

Edit: damn, I just realized this was necroed. >.<

[Az]

17. Agreed

It is merely a meme that plays into any particular religions attempt to propogate itself.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. That's why I like to roam through buddies' journals every now and then. Kick! -nt