@snurp But I *want* to claim the pineal gland. Just kidding.

Yes, these are the issues that come when discussing the soul (a philosophical construct) in terms of biology. One common answer to this objection is that the immaterial substances and material substances do not interact according to the current understanding of physics.

As far as brain damage goes, I would say that the same Windows XP install disk runs great on my computer with a Pentium IV, but has huge issues with my Pentium I computer. The software itself is fine, but the hardware changes the expression of that software.

Still, dualism has an air of hokeyness about it. Part of me enjoys that kind of mystical no man’s land where the material and immaterial interact. Another part of me says that the interaction should be more obvious.

Most of me, though, says that I should go outside and play with my children.

I just read something interesting on Kingdom Grace’s blog.. Grace said:

“I wonder if perhaps eternal life is only available to those who choose to live in relationship with God.”

It got me to pondering if all existence is temporal unless the eternal is introduced via spiritual birth.

@ Pink – I expected nothing less than at least a little esoterica from you. Parsing the words is okay and after all is what I’m doing. Hopefully I’m not missing the forest for the trees. I would definetly say that soul and spirit are linked in a way that is mysterious, but I don’t want to throw up my hands just yet and portray all as mystical (even though it is).

@ Sid – No I haven’t relabeled personality as soul. Like you say, personality is temporal/changing. My intent was that personality is part of it. And I think the word “personality” goes far beyond what we think of when we usually think of that word. My personality is more than just what food/music/stuff I like, how I treat my wives/kids/dogs, whether I’m NFTP/INFJ/ABCD. It’s everything that makes me a unique individual, working in concert. Some of that is biological sure, but I assert that some of it is spiritual as well. Biology has yet to explain every aspect of who/what we are away to action of hormones and the like.

I would say that personalities are expressed in sleeping. Dreams are more (imo) than just a mishmash of days events, firing neurons, and repressed emotion. And just because we haven’t seen personality expressed after death doesn’t mean it isn’t.

@ KB – Good stuff brother!

@ Snurp – I think that the soul exists in this plane of existence. We can’t see it, measure it, dissect it and thus I can’t really explain how it exists. That’s where faith enters for me. And yes faith means that we will inevitably start talking about “well why can’t I believe in pink elephants/fsm/unicorns and isn’t that just as valid”. Different argument.

In part faith is believing in something we don’t have proof for. You’re right though, I don’t think it stops there. Faith is part of a larger picture. I think it needs a framework in which to hang. For instance, having faith in a soul’s existence when the rest of your world view doesn’t view us as eternal beings wouldn’t make any sense. Though I can’t adequately prove that the soul exists or tell you where it exists I can tell you that for me Christianity and its teachings make sense and are logical to me.

What it teaches about the creation (not talking about the moment of creation, but everything that exists), about human nature, about the kind of god God is, all makes sense to me given my view of the world. If there is a true religion that humans are still a part of then Christianity is it. Given that, I have faith in the things I don’t understand/can’t prove, the “mysteries” of the faith. Does that make sense?

Hello Snurp, those are some interesting thoughts. I want to reply to something you wrote earlier on though. You listed counter-arguments to the idea that physical substances effect/damage one’s soul. Then you listed a few rebuttals. I’d like to add one more to this one:

“Brain damage and chemical effects only affect the physical body through which the soul “communicates,” not the soul itself. The personality that is affected is the soul as expressed through the body”

This can be empirically tested. Drink a bottle of vodka while someone observes. They will quite likely note that your personality has changed. If your soul is unchanged, your subjective experience should remain unaltered as well since your soul *is* you. When your soul filter returns to normal, you can report whether or not your subjective experience was altered as well.

I have performed similar experiments on myself many times and I can report that it is my personality that has been altered and not just a filter through which it expresses itself. To use your analogy, it’s not the microphone malfunctioning, I’m actually slurring my speech.

I would say it’s erroneous to talk about those topics as subject to proof: not only in the sense of proving them, but also as existing or not existing, being right or wrong, or any sense of objective reality.

How is this not pure relativism? What basis does one have to value things in faith X as opposed to faith Y. It still means there is no criteria for rejecting pink elephantism nor for accepting souls.

Hello Scott,

I’m going to push back on your definition of soul some more.

My intent was that personality is part of it. And I think the word “personality” goes far beyond what we think of when we usually think of that word… It’s everything that makes me a unique individual, working in concert.

So the soul is the collection of everything that makes one unique + a personality. Again, many animals meet this criteria. This also seems like applying an arbitrary label to an assortment of things. The things that make me unique include my personality, biology, and parts of the environment. Certainly by biology and those parts of the environment are temporary. You’ve even agreed that personality is temporary. So are you saying that a soul has parts and only some of the soul is immortal? If so, which part is immortal and what does it contributed to one’s uniqueness?

@ Snurp – I will definitely need to check Tillich out.

@ Sid – Maybe the soul is made up of parts, or perhaps the way our soul manifests itself through our biology makes it look that way. I don’t know. (Saying that is very freeing, say it with me.) As was said above there are issues with talking about the soul expressing itself in this manner. I don’t think though, that just because we can adequately, logically explain or define a thing that that invalidates it.

I guess what I’m trying to do is define something theologically rather than … logically (make of that what you will) and that’s why I’m running into problems.