The word "life" means many things. Do you have a heartbeat? You're alive by one metric. "Get a life" is a saying directed towards people who aren't alive by a separate metric. When a soul is "alive" it follows morality, when it is "dead" it does not. What do you do for a living? How's life? Are you lively? Talking about life and talking about the soul may not be different at all if you don't specify how to use the word "life."

Who said the two are mutually exclusive?

The idea of man being set apart from the animals by an intelligent non-human creator (or at least the existence of such a being) is hardly a traditional Christian concept exclusively. And after all, as a non-believer, is that not really all a soul is? The life of an animal may be a life, but with hardly any introspection at all, becomes quite purposeless, futile even- at least compared to the ambitions men dream of. No need to rob us all of our humanity and drive with this myopic pseudo-intellectual resignation to explore and dream that is atheism.

Besides, the driving factor would be a soul is not like an appendix. You might need it one day. Sure "you don't know for sure" may be a weak argument in most discussions, but against the backdrop of the unexplained mystery that is life and the universe becomes quite valid, let alone powerful.

The word "life" means many things. Do you have a heartbeat? You're alive by one metric. — Derrick Huestis

That's a physical definition of life. I'm not talking about that.

"Get a life" is a saying directed towards people who aren't alive by a separate metric. — Derrick Huestis

That's an insult. Not talking about that.

When a soul is "alive" it follows morality, when it is "dead" it does not. — Derrick Huestis

Is that a Christian teaching?

What do you do for a living? How's life? Are you lively? — Derrick Huestis

Those are just greetings. Not talking about that.

Talking about life and talking about the soul may not be different at all if you don't specify how to use the word "life." — Derrick Huestis

And it is my judgement that they could be different things.

What some old ones called "soul" is nowadays subsumed under "identity", "individuality" -- and highly valued.

No need to rob us all of our humanity and drive with this myopic pseudo-intellectual resignation to explore and dream that is atheism. — Outlander

:lol:

What some old ones called "soul" is nowadays subsumed under "identity", "individuality" -- and highly valued. — baker

Is that a fact?

What fact are you asking about?

How do you know that "soul is subsumed now-days under identity and individuality?" I don't know that.

For example, in Christianity, it's the "soul" that either goes to heaven or hell for all eternity. The "soul" is what is relevant about a person. That "soul" is "who you really are", ie. your identity, your individuality.
Similarly in Hinduism, "soul" refers to a person's "true identity", the "who you really are".

The whole notion of (serial) reincarnation would be impossible without a notion of identity/individuality (aka soul).

Back to the twenty first century, we are seeing more people break away from religion, and from my point of view, there is less religious talk. And instead of talking about souls, many of us are talking about our lives (at school or at work, for example). — Wheatley

The break-away from religion (here I mean denomination, parish, formal worship) has been going on for the last 70 years. The 1960s were watershed years for Christian religious organizations in the US (and elsewhere, earlier). "Spiritual" -- whatever the hell that means -- seems to be the term du jour for millions of people.

My guess is that, 200 years ago, 400, 800 ... people were mostly talking about various aspects of their lives. Take a look at Samuel Pepys diary (17th century). As a man on the make, man about town, busy busy busy, he included religious activity, but most of the time it was secular talk. The peasants were not discussing theology much -- just a guess. The crops, the children, the neighbors, their landlord, the thatching which needed to be replaced, aches, pains, etc.

Interesting fact, it isn't the soul that is resurrected (should there be such a thing) but the physical body. As it says in the Creed: "I believe in the resurrection of the body".

I think your observation is correct, more or less. The term "spirit" and "spiritual" are sufficiently vague that they could just as well be replaced by identity, individuality, or personhood. Still, a residual belief in an afterlife is pretty common, and "something" is thought by many to continue on indefinitely. At least that's how I read the 21st century.

How do you know that "soul is subsumed under identity and individuality?" I don't know that. — Wheatley

There was a Gallop poll 6 years ago that proves it. Just joking.

Baker or some bitter crank are commenting on language use, and the observation is based on the experience of observing how people talk. There are more scientific approaches one can use--Word Frequency studies is one. Here is the Google Ngram for "soul" - the ngram is a count of words appearing in print.



Peak "soul was in the 1800s, probably as a result of the first and second Great Awakenings (Christian renewal and outreach). Then it dropped to a modern low in the latter part of the 20th century; now it is considerably more common. But the Ngram doesn't tell us what people mean/meant when they used the word "soul". For that, one has to read and talk.

I think your observation is correct, more or less. The term "spirit" and "spiritual" are sufficiently vague that they could just as well be replaced by identity, individuality, or personhood. — Bitter Crank

All of which (IMO) promote and pressure conformity to certain (particularly monotheistic) religious values and traditions.

"The human body is the best picture of the human soul." ~Witty

Like the eye that is necessarily absent from its own visual field, the brain, lacking internal sensory organs, is functionally brain-blind, and therefore cannot immediately perceive any source – mechanisms – of its own thoughts even as it is thinking so that the cognitive illusion of an "I-self" floating free and "essentially" disembodied persists and variations of a "soul"-of-the-gaps (or more sophisticated gap-of-the-gaps aka "nonduality") are psychologically (& culturally) confabulated to (transcendentally) tether down our "thoughts". — 180 Proof

Some implications of this ghostly fetish:

Christian: "For Heaven's sake, save your soul from Hell!" (Suffer as Christ suffered.)

Buddhist: "Reduce suffering here and now." (What soul?) — 180 Proof

NB: They say "self-reference is good for the ... self-referential," don't they? :smirk:

No matter what people believe, or do not believe, people tend to conform, and promote conformity to whatever is the dominant scheme of belief.

Back to the twenty first century, we are seeing more people break away from religion, and from my point of view, there is less religious talk. And instead of talking about souls, many of us are talking about our lives (at school or at work, for example). Which is more in line with twentieth century existential thought rather than traditional concepts of souls. — Wheatley

An atheist can be as or even more concerned about the future of humanity as a theist. Focusing on the here and now can also be the interest of the theist.

No matter what people believe, or do not believe, people tend to conform, and promote conformity to whatever is the dominant scheme of belief. — Bitter Crank

That's interesting. I bet there are christians now plotting to keep Christianity as the dominant belief.

An atheist can be as or even more concerned about the future of humanity as a theist. Focusing on the here and now can also be the interest of the theist. — Hanover

An atheist can also be more effective at helping humanity by adopting secular ethics and values rather than bronze age myths.

I bet there are christians now plotting to keep Christianity as the dominant belief. — Wheatley

Absolutely. And many others are also plotting to promote their various views. Good on some, a plague on others.

bronze age myths — Wheatley

Bronze and Iron Age myths. Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam arose during the Roman era, even if they were built on older mythologies. This is an old issue, but mythologies serve many functions, some o them quite useful. We 21st centurions also have mythologies. Some of our myths are invisible to us because we think they are true.

This is an old issue, but mythologies serve many functions, some o them quite useful. — Bitter Crank

While others serve no purpose and are even pernicious.

And many others are also plotting to promote their various views. Good on some, a plague on others. — Bitter Crank

An we are not even supposed to scrutinize nor criticize religion. Yet religion has been given a free pass here in America (and other places around the world).

We 21st centurions also have mythologies. Some of our myths are invisible to us because we think they are true. — Bitter Crank

Yes – cursed (blinkered) literal-mindedness, and therefore "our myths" are more often than not taken out of context (i.e. language games of one form-of-life misused (generalized) for / in another form-of-life) such as e.g. Iron Age myths misapplied to and/or (retro)interpreted in terms of the Information Age.

A[nd] we are not even supposed to scrutinize nor criticize religion. — Wheatley

According to Spinoza: "I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion." Gadflies, iconoclasts, contrarians, dialecticians, skeptics-fallibilists, freethinkers, no?

As I see it, a life in the sense used by the OP - fulfillment - is what people would opt for only if there's no such thing as a soul. Were it that there are souls, life would be important yes - people, ceteris paribus, want to live a good life, morally and otherwise - but it (life) would become just another life, one of countless many lived and will be lived.

The long and short of it is that we want souls and only when that's not possible do we talk about a life which I'll treat as a stand-in for anything else that's the next valuable item on our wish list after souls.

the original Greek terms for soul were psyche and pneuma. Psyche is the root of term 'psychology', purportedly 'science of mind'. Pneuma means 'breath' but allegorically means 'spirit' or 'breath of life'. Actually a distinction is made between 'soul' and 'spirit', the former being associated with a particular individual, the latter being the impersonal essence that animates living beings. The English term 'soul' is derived from Germanic or Anglo-saxon terms.

The way I understand 'soul' is simply to denote 'the totality of the being'. All of us comprise talents, inclinations, dispositions and characteristics, not all of which we are conscious of or able to bring to mind. 'The soul' simply means that totality, as far as I'm concerned, which contains a history that is of greater duration than this particular life episode, and a destiny that is in large part fixed by that history.

Descartes' formulation of 'res cogitans' and 'res extensia' had the unfortunate consequence of making the mind or soul seem like a kind of immaterial thing, from whence the 'ghost in the machine' image originates. But soul, mind or spirit are never known in the third person, as objects of awareness, and to treat them as such is to misunderstand them, a misunderstanding which characterises the vast majority of what is said about the matter.

The Church, Religion, Faith, Miracles, all that, claim to have been given a free pass, but it's certainly not accepted everywhere. There are plenty of people, including not a few believers, whose scathing criticisms of their own religion are scorching.

Jews, Christians, and Moslems are all monotheists but they are not monolithic. They come in all sorts of variations, better and/or worse. You seem to think of religion as an irresistible steam roller. True, there are some folk who would like to run the steam roller over their enemies. They tend to be fundamentalists (in whatever faith tradition they are in). Think conservative Baptists or the Taliban.

The majority are not ideological steam rollers.

If you do not agree with my generous assessment, you will be burnt at the stake.

You seem to think of religion as an irresistible steam roller. True, there are some folk who would like to run the steam roller over their enemies. They tend to be fundamentalists (in whatever faith tradition they are in). Think conservative Baptists or the Taliban. — Bitter Crank

I see religion as cover for a lot of human nastiness. Hate groups, ant-gay, anti-Semitic, bloodthirsty people(kill the infidel and the atheist!), often use the bible as a guide to their moral systems etc.. Who needs ethics when you can just follow the bible? There's still animosity between the Christian west and Islam (apparently we still never got over the crusader spirit!) The Iraq war (killing brown Muslims). Not to mention, indoctrinating kids with the bible promotes irrational thinking (I'm thinking about conservative Christians) such as gullible anti intellectualism. There's also the glorification of sin, which indices some Christians into doing horrible acts.

There's also the glorification of sin, which indices some Christians into doing horrible acts. — Wheatley

Come again?

I see religion as cover for a lot of human nastiness — Wheatley

Religion may well be a cover, but before and underneath the cover, the nastiness was there all along. People (all of us) are universally capable of really extensive nastiness.

Who needs ethics when you can just follow the bible? — Wheatley

Without ethics and morals, the Bible is no help.

There's still animosity between the Christian west and Islam — Wheatley

And between Islam and Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, others. Christianity and Islam are alike in being received religions with a strong missionary component. Their nature pretty much guarantees conflict. Most religions are not received (were not founded by an individual).

indoctrinating kids with the bible promotes irrational thinking (I'm thinking about conservative Christians) such as gullible anti intellectualism. — Wheatley

Yes.

:up:

I see religion as cover for a lot of human nastiness. — Wheatley

What differentiates a religion created by somebody else or that simply doesn't feature an intelligent designer from your own? Lack of organized religion is still a religion if it follows dogmas or truths, sure many tenets of your belief are proven, though I doubt you've ever witnessed many, by experimentation, but so were those of others by miracles, the difference between the two is that they are non-repeatable- at least on a whim. You wake up every morning, follow a similar enough routine, and filter all conceivable information through your own unique and (one would assume) stable and consistent mindset and furthermore prefer to socialize and coalesce with people of similar belief. How is this different from a devout man of faith? Sure, you don't believe in something that hasn't been proven and according to some cannot be, at least at this time. Imagine if every scientist was like you, afraid or as I'm sure you'll reply simply uninterested in proposing something new and extreme, even just to yourself in your own mind, that would benefit humanity and explain that which is currently a mystery, something the majority would doubt or even scoff or laugh at. We'd have no theories, no electricity, no architecture. Faith and hope creates all these things, and it is nary your position nor privilege to discourage others in whatever brings the aforementioned alive and into the lives and habits of others.

You simply don't like other people's religion or beliefs, and you would make laws and even fight, kill, and die to promote this religion not only in your own land but worldwide, would you not? Two peas in a pod. Isn't it beautiful. The problem comes when those with non-traditional religions (no intelligent creator, there's nothing beyond what we see and if it doesn't sit well with you or can't be proven in front of a large enough majority to discredit your belief and as a result life choices and perhaps even worth, it's just crazy) allow hypocrisy to enter the arena and begin disallowing or forbidding the free thought and ideas or experimentation of others in place of their own. It's the same thing. More often that not, argument for argument, pound for pound.

You know what a liar or fraud is don't you. It's the oldest trick in the book. Leave a common marking or signature "item" or reasonable evidence of a person or people you wish to frame at the scene of your own crime, then just sit back and enjoy. Tsk tsk, give humanity more credit.

For the record I have no doubt, at least in the likelihood, that the majority of powerful individuals of influence, whether they claim to be religious or are involved in religion or not are corrupt and should be held accountable and replaced when appropriate.

↪baker Interesting fact, it isn't the soul that is resurrected (should there be such a thing) but the physical body. As it says in the Creed: "I believe in the resurrection of the body". — Bitter Crank

The soul is what gets incarnated, not resurrected.

(And the resurrection of the body is a bit of a tricky topic -- namely, a person's body at which stage will be resurrected? The one they had when they were a baby? Or the one they died in? Or the one they had in their prime? And what if they didn't live to see their prime? -- Oh, but who cares about details!)

↪baker I think your observation is correct, more or less. The term "spirit" and "spiritual" are sufficiently vague that they could just as well be replaced by identity, individuality, or personhood. Still, a residual belief in an afterlife is pretty common, and "something" is thought by many to continue on indefinitely. At least that's how I read the 21st century.

Sure. Also, even people who don't believe in a "soul", but who are big advocates of identity, individuality, place considerable value on what is, in effect, the "afterlife". Many self-help theories try to orient its audiences with questions like "How do you want to be remembered after you die?", "What do you want to be written on your tombstone?"

"The human body is the best picture of the human soul." ~Witty — 180 Proof

He looked round and saw the knife that had stabbed Basil Hallward. He had cleaned it many times, till there was no stain left upon it. It was bright, and glistened. As it had killed the painter, so it would kill the painter’s work, and all that that meant. It would kill the past, and when that was dead, he would be free. It would kill this monstrous soul-life, and without its hideous warnings, he would be at peace. He seized the thing, and stabbed the picture with it.

There was a cry heard, and a crash. The cry was so horrible in its agony that the frightened servants woke and crept out of their rooms. Two gentlemen, who were passing in the square below, stopped and looked up at the great house. They walked on till they met a policeman and brought him back. The man rang the bell several times, but there was no answer. Except for a light in one of the top windows, the house was all dark. After a time, he went away and stood in an adjoining portico and watched.

“Whose house is that, Constable?” asked the elder of the two gentlemen.

“Mr. Dorian Gray’s, sir,” answered the policeman.

They looked at each other, as they walked away, and sneered. One of them was Sir Henry Ashton’s uncle.

Inside, in the servants’ part of the house, the half-clad domestics were talking in low whispers to each other. Old Mrs. Leaf was crying and wringing her hands. Francis was as pale as death.

After about a quarter of an hour, he got the coachman and one of the footmen and crept upstairs. They knocked, but there was no reply. They called out. Everything was still. Finally, after vainly trying to force the door, they got on the roof and dropped down on to the balcony. The windows yielded easily—their bolts were old.

When they entered, they found hanging upon the wall a splendid portrait of their master as they had last seen him, in all the wonder of his exquisite youth and beauty. Lying on the floor was a dead man, in evening dress, with a knife in his heart. He was withered, wrinkled, and loathsome of visage. It was not till they had examined the rings that they recognized who it was.

Oscar Wilde