Re:
"Personally, I agree with your position
that without an eternal soul, Christianity is meaningless."
Isn't this rather like the "house of cards" premise that has been
argued against when dealing with the evolution vs God argument?
Granted, this is central part of the belief system for most
Christians....but not all (though you may take issue with this broader
application of the label, Christian - though the apparent origin of the
term evinces a sufficiently large contextual umbrella).
"Meaningless" would suggest that there is nothing of value, no
possibility of God's expression of intent, ...etc. ... and no
meaningful obligation to the present, should this belief prove false. I
think we should seriously ask test questions like this. In fact, one
thoughtful soul on this list flat out asked me "what is left?" should
there be no resurrection (to mention another belief indispensable to
most - but not all - Christians).
To be honest, one of the issues that grew in me in my denominational
setting for so many years was precisely the heavy-duty focus on
evangelism (the hope of souls in heaven) at the expense of a well
manifested balance between hope for the future and stewardship of the
present. [Though this denomination is well-known for missionary
endeavor, still I found myself troubled that the widespread sense
within the church body that missionary outreach is motivated by
evangelism, and not simply because the needs existed.]
With that bias, I wrestled/wrestle with many "what if" questions,
including the "What if there is no soul?" question, and including
exploration of some of the specific arguments Bernie spoke of. It's
good to do so, because for most, it is hard to otherwise differentiate
strong tradition from some form of absolute truth in refining our own
belief systems. And we are not alone in such ponderings because there
is historical and even traditional precedent. And, there remains a
diversity of opinion among Christians even on beliefs as central as
this, the existence of a soul. Pascal's wager applied more widely
provides some interesting illumination.
BTW, Jack, I do recognize that you did say that you personally
agreed
with the position, not taking the position to be absolute. But I
personally do not find any more that the essential Christianity
collapses, becomes meaningless, even if one of its central tenets
proves ... uh ... misunderstood.
I personally list toward the agnostic on this matter of "soul" - with
many unresolved questions. The inability to resolve these questions
satisfactorily has had the practical consequence of the "now" and its
needs/stewardship becoming more compelling, an understanding which I
have found most satisfyingly in harmony with the core teachings and
example of Jesus. I am constantly awed at every turn by the
near-spectacular and unassuming Christ-likeness embodied in many of
those brothers and sisters who labor tirelessly in work that was
slightly disparagingly categorized in my former church life as "social
ministries".
JimA [Friend of ASA]
Jack wrote:
"I think the main point of the argument was that
neuroscience experts and many modern theologians now see the soul as
emergence, as in a form of monism. "
Obviously there has to be more to your concern than just this article,
but what makes you think that the author of this article is correct?
Personally, I agree with your position that without an eternal soul,
Christianity is meaningless. Monism, defined as a Christian philosophy
where there is no mind/body dualism that nevertheless allows eternal
salvation, leads to two possible outcomes, annihilationism, or
universalism. Either all unbelievers cease to exist after death and God
"recreates" and resurrects believers, or everyone is recreated and
saved. (I have a theodicy problem with God creating a body/mind just
for the purpose of eternal torture.) So, monism is not consistent with
Christianity.
But there is nothing in modern science or philosophy, in my opinion
that convinces me that the traditional concept of an eternal soul is
incorrect. You have to keep in mind that we see, hear, understand, and
reason within our brain, so our seeing hearing and understanding are
limited to those functions that our brain can sustain. Which is not to
say that there are not experiences beyond our understanding, i.e.
beyond our brains ability to process it.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 22 23:14:40 2009