From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:39:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.014420.9837@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <LEET.92Sep9095010@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>>
>>In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the soul is that part of a person
>>which responds to God.  In the Bible the soul is likened by analogy
>>and metaphor to many organs (the bones, the heart, the liver, the
>>stomach, ...), but is "fixed" in none of them.
>
>This is incredibly simplistic: there is much more than this to
>the record.

Interjecting here...

Perhaps his "simplistic" notion is less simple than you think and your
"not simplistic" notion is more so than you think.

>
>The earliest conception of soul that I can find in the Bible,
>is as a wind that animates the clay of Adam. In the psalms, we
>see how broad the notion of soul was. It is shown as knowing
>love, hate, elation, depression, fear, resentment, fantasy, dreams,
>nightmare, emotions: most of which are no longer considered part
>of the activities of the soul.

You are assuming that because the authors of the bible stressed a
certain property of the soul that that is the only thing they had
in mind.  I find this curious.  For example, because Genesis
mentions that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living being, it does not mean that animation is
the only attribute of this breath of life or soul.  After all,
animals all moved around and yet they were never "breathed into"
as man was.  In addition, you state that emotions are no longer
considered part of the activities of the soul.  A quick check in
the dictionary shows that the word soul currently has numerous
meanings (I wonder how many meaning it had in Biblical times) of
which one is "the emotional part of human nature".  So even in
ordinary modern English, attributing emotions to the word soul
seems to be acceptable.

>
>Aristotle considered the `psyche' was the first principle
>of all the various activities in the various grades of living
>things. It is the form of the body, to him; (Now of course,
>we know better, and don't need to believe in a spirit that pushes
>blood around). I could locate a reference for this, but I suspect
>you won't contest this. This will be important later.
>
>So also, in the new testament, the word `psyche' is used for the life
>in general. While there is an implication of survival after
>death,  I don't see why we can't reconcile those verses with
>a complete resurrection in another realm.
>
>Consider:
>
>        Is it lawful ... to save psyche, or to destroy? (Mark 3:4)
>
>        The son of man is come go give his psyche a ransom
>        for many. (Mark 10:45)
>
>        The good shepherd giveth his psyche a ransom for many.
>        (Mark 10:45)
>
>        He that findeth his psyche shall lose it, and he that
>        loseth his psyche for me shall find it. (Matt. 10:39)
>
>These verses are much more closely translated if psyche -> life,
>and that is how they are translated. In other cases, the modern
>word 'soul' is used. Sometimes, 'heart' is used.

I am not trying to be difficult but if "life" is the more accurate
word there, what is your point?  Why did you bother to substitute
"psyche" for it? 

>
>By the time we get to Hebrews, you start to see a change: "The
>word of God is living and effectual ... reaching into the division
>between psyche and pneumaticos" -- pneumaticos (breath) represents
>the jewish idea of soul seen in the old testament where Adam is
>clay indwelt by wind, and psyche represents the greek idea later
>called _anima_ by Acquina later on. Just as in polytheism you see
>Gods from separate cultures making peace and living within one creed,
>here you see the result of the interbreeding of Jewish and Greek
>doctrine in two different concepts of the soul mentioned in one verse.
>
>Elsewhere it is very easy to find struggles between the two conceptions.
>

There have been numerous additions, refinements and pruning off of ideas
of what the soul is.  For example, it's my understanding that the
Saducees denied the existence of the soul and hence the resurection. 
But this does in no way mean that the original core idea of soul wasn't
there.  By core idea, I mean that immortal spiritual component in humans
that places them in the image of God.  Yes, Genesis stresses that God
infused the soul as a breath into the physical body of Adam.  But could
it not be said that God does the same every time a child is born?  And
yet I don't see how that detracts from the definition.

>In _De Anima_, Tertullian (Ad 208-211) argues that the Platonist/Stoic
>.
>.
>.
>The Augustinian - Franciscan school fought with the Thomist school;
>Augustine further subdivided the soul into pieces with the "Mens"
>containing the purely spiritual portion - it's higher part and chief.
>Augustine also considered the soul to contain our intellectual
>faculties:
>.
>.
>.
>This conflict lead to the Council of Vienne 1311-1312 and the Council
>of Lateran in 1513 [Source: Denzinger Bannwart, Enchiridion Symbolorum
>p481, 738]. The Thomists won: it was decreed that the soul was the
>platonic form of the body, and that to say otherwise was heretical.
>
>Face it: the category 'soul' has changed, despite the tendency of

Of course it has changed as it people have struggled to understand it
better. And different people will come up with different ideas, this is
all natural. But I don't believe that you have shown the the core idea
of Soul wasn't there all along.

>Note also, that as science has explored the activities of life, the
>role of the soul has emptied further and further. You suppose now
>that what remains in the soul is out of reach of the tools of the
>scientist. Wrongo, bucko; if the soul has an effect on the body,
>then that is a thread of causality and testability that the scientist
>can tug on; if not, then you cherish an empty bag.

Not really...although both body and soul both affect each other it
doesn't necessarily follow that the soul can be scientifically verified.
The reason for that is simply because the soul is a spiritual entity,
not a physical one which is measurable by science.  As a crude example,
let us say that there is an invisible, undetectable electric meter
measuring the electricity in my computer.  When I turn my computer on,
this invisible meter's needle deflects to the right.  When I turn it
off, it goes to the left.  My computer is affecting the behaviour of the
needle.  But can you verify it in any way? Turn the computer off and on
all you want, but you will never be able to physically  verify that the
meter is behaving in this way.  The only point to this very crude
analogy is that although the body affects the soul and visa versa,
unless you have some way of directly observing the spiritual, you will
not be satisfied in the scientific sense of even its existence not to
mention its nature and role.

BTW, I remember a science fiction story a while back where someone
"proved" the existence of a soul by noticing that that the body lost a
certain amount of weight after death.  In fact, the hero of the story
"captured" the soul in some kind of container.  But even these fictional
proofs all assume that the soul has physical characteristics which can
be measured such as weight/mass or containment.

>>--
>>Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com 
>
>Regards,
>
>	Max G. Webb
>
>


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic