Hi Allen;
Allen Roy wrote: (in very small font! :-) )
> When we talk about the soul and what it is, we have to go back in time
> before science. We may try to find a scientific definition of a soul,
> but I don't believe that that is what we were talking about here.
> Since I believe that most everyone on this net are Christian, then we
> would look to the Bible for what God has inspired his prophets to
> define what a soul is. That is where the 4 points of definition which
> I gave before came from.
I, for one, would like to understand what the biblical authors are
talking about in light of modern understandings; i.e. philosophically,
theologically, and historical as well as scientifically. I don't see
this as non-christian. Your suggestion to limit the discussion of a soul
to "before science" does just that, i.e. it is a - historically and
textually relevant - but antiquated discourse. The ancients had no clue
about the modern scientific world view in which we find ourselves to be
living souls. ;-)
I agree, however, that, as christians, it is important to understand
what the biblical authors had in mind. To this latter end, George M.'s
response in this thread is - as always - very pertinent and
informative.
A naive resort to inspiration is fraught with difficulty, for what is
and isn't inspired in the Biblical text is not always clear as history
bears witness to - especially when one acknowledges the presence of
errors in the text.
>
>
> A soul = living person (by interpretative comparison
> between KJV and NIV of Gen. 2:7) A soul [living person] =
> body + breath of life. This equation is derived from Gen
> 2:7 A soul [living person] /= (not equal) body - breath of
> life /= body [not living person] (this is a dead body)
> This is a logical deduction from Gen 2:7 A soul [living
> person] /= breath of life - body /= breath of life [life
> force] (a soul is not spirit [the life force] A soul may
> have spirit but not be spirit.) This is a logical deduction
> from Gen 2:7
>
> When we start using science we, as Christians, will use science within
> the above definition of the soul. You have to first define what you
> mean by a soul before you can attempt to use science to study the
> soul. The same thing applies to "body," "breath of life" and "living
> person." Science is not the end all in determining truth. We have to
> first make philosophical assumptions and definitions and then we can
> do science.
>
Could you explain how science is to be used within your definition of
the soul? Perhaps, what George M. said is what you had in mind but, as I
want to maintain, we have a great amount of "information" about the
human condition that is relevant to christian dogma and doctrine. While
I fully agree that science is not the end all, I also maintain that the
Bible is not the final word on many and sundry issues- but it does
reveal the first Word. (forgive my play on words :-) oops )
But I do want to defend the scientific approach taken in its most
general form which includes the philosophical and theological sciences;
for, the results of this approach are really all we have to determine
observed reality - in a critical realist sense of course. The only
alternative is magic.
Sincerely
George A.
-- George A. Andrews Jr. Physics/Applied Science College of William & Mary P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 10:40:25 EDT