Talk:Soul

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Yep, a can o' worms.

Actually, I know some Christians who deny that everyone's soul is immortal. In fact, they have quite a few scriptures that they use to support their position, but it basically is based on the idea that an immortal soul was not a Christian concept originally, but rather a view based on Greek Philosophy. In fact, the argument is actually integral to an answer to the question 'Why would you want to become a Christian?', since it says 'because only Christians have eternal life (given to them by God)'.

Sure. Ask the average Christian what will happen after death and they will reply that their soul will rise up to heaven. But Chistian dogma has always taught the resurrection of the body. The whole "soul" notion is technically speaking a manichaean heresy.

Just a commnet. ressurection body according to the Apostlic Creed? Then I added the Orthodox Faithful don't confess, although its content they are agree. They confess the Necean Creed which says "the ressurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come". And the eternal life is a gift in the world to come according to the dogma. As for "rising up to the Heaven" it is a preveledge for saints and blessed.

I've just added the note (in the Other part) about Otherkin/therianthropy; however, I'm very concious of the fact that I worded it extremely badly and as if the phenomena are considered invalid/delusional. Which is most certainlly not what I'm trying to convey- not only because of the "no bias" policy, but because I'm Otherkin myself! Kistaro 22:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is Wiki a Protestants-only club? I find it very INTERESTING, to say the least that Purgatory and "soul sleep" are brushed aside as mere wacky, loony, minority fringe beliefs in Christianity. Dogface 14:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death" ... this needs better wording (and I can't think of a satisfactory way to do so offhand, without making the sentence very bulky) but I think it is quite rare for bodies to "cease to exist" at death. Muke Tever 06:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Immaterial"

What on earth are you talking about snoyes? I see no references suggesting the "immaterial" property of the soul here. I don't know anyone who thinks the soul is immaterial. Quite to the contrary, there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person. there have been a variety of films regarding this topic. Please cite your sources, and do some research before undoing others work. thank you. Sam Spade 08:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person."

Sources? I don't deny that some people believe this, what I do deny is that the common definition does not include the "immaterial" property.

"Please cite your sources"

[1], [2], [3], [4], etc.

"do some research before undoing others work"

Throwing stones in glass houses.

- snoyes 09:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your citations. I appologise for insinuating lack of research on your part. Sam Spade 09:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Scientists have tried to measure the soul." Soul is religious term and religious terms cannot be used in science. So scientists have tried to measure what? Please explain in scientific terms. Tkorrovi 22:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

citations

why did you remove the citations? Please review wikipedia:verifiability. Sam Spade 10:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It makes the page ugly, harder to edit, is distracting while reading, and basic facts such as the fact that "soul" is commonly defined as being immaterial don't need to be referenced to outside sources on the page. They are referenced on this talk page, and that is good enough. I would be embarrassed to see wikipedia relying on "verifiability" by linking to a ghost-busters website. - snoyes 10:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean a tertiary source. Danny 10:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It means whatever sources are available. if you have a better source, provide one. Sam Spade 10:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

The idea of the soul goes much beyond religion, which is what I see this article is primarily focused on: religious viewpoints of soul.

Two additions: The classics idea - Plato's idea and arguement for the existance of souls, and some current arguements from philosophy about the nature of soul, if it exists, etc. --ShaunMacPherson 06:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) _____

Did some editing on the Buddhist handle on the concept to make it a little plainer and remove some of the all too common (in writing about Buddhism) padding words that detract from the meaning and make it all rather enigmatic.

Also replaced the word 'energy' with 'essence' in the initial definition as this was a misuse of the word.

Fleshed out the Atheist section a little with a link to the wishful thinking fallacy. Perhaps the Atheist section should be included in the sections of all the other phillosophies and religions rather than get special treatment in the definition. I did however leave it in the original place

Sorry to all for the multiple editions, these are just minor corrections and improvements on my first take.--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam's removed that wishful thinking link twice now, calling it POV. I disagree; that line is describing what some atheists believe to be the basis for widespread belief in souls, which is IMO a relevant fact to include in this article. It would only be POV if the article stated that belief in a soul was wishful thinking. Bryan 06:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone has now moved the atheist section down to the section on other beliefs. I think that's the wrong place too because the whole point in the atheist stance is lack of belief. Many if not most atheists are sceptics and their reason for lack of a soul belief, just like their reason for lack of god belief is lack of evidence.

Ways out of this include re naming the headning to 'Other views on the soul' or giving the atheist position its own section heading like all the major religions, mindful of the number of atheists in the World perhaps these infidels deserve their own section!--Nick-in-South-Africa 05:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow I miswrote my edit summary. I should have written "put it away" instead of simple "put". KIZU 14:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking

I can accept it as it now stands. I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts, so I don't see a need to go on at great length about it, and I think the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists, somewhat different from the soul itself. Funny that by eastern thought (particularly buddhism) an afterlife/rebirth is seen as an unfortunate circumstance resulting from lack of enlightenment, and parinirvana isn't so very different from the atheist conception of death. So maybe rather than wishful thinking, the concept of the soul is more based in cynicism ;) Of course buddhists don't necessarilly agree that their is a soul per se either, tending to reject the Hindu concept of Atman. Sam Spade 06:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam >I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts< I disagree, it may be obvious to you but this is most certainly not the general case; I posit that to many or even most theists there is nothing obvious about atheists reasoning at all. In many communities the idea of atheism shocks people to the core and they have no way of mentally dealing with it or the atheists reasoning >the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists< Yes and it is the soul that is the supposed entity that lives the afterlife or is the mechanism that transmits the essence of the deceased to another body or to some ethereal state. So the concept of soul and the concept of afterlife are inextricably linked and both are rejected by thinking atheists as wishful thinking motivated by simple fear of annihilation. >Of course Buddhists don't necessarily agree that their is a soul per se either< This is one of the major problems many have with Buddhism, how does the concept of anatta (no self) square with re-incarnation. If there is no abiding self what is it that gets reborn. Some modern atheist followers of Buddhist teaching reject re-incarnation.--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam you reverted my edit and restored >Many atheists reject the concept of a soul as they reject religious concepts generally< The problem I have with 'as they reject religious concepts generally' is Firstly that it's not true. Atheism is nothing more than being without belief in any deity. It's perfectly consistent to be an atheist and be a follower of a non theistic religion such as certain sections of Buddhism which have religious concepts which said atheists do not reject. Even some theistic religions have concepts that many atheists do not reject, so your generalisation is inaccurate. Secondly this article is about soul not atheism, so the atheist position on other religious concepts, especially unnamed ones is not relevant, the proper place for this sort of thing is in the atheist article.

I'll leave your compelling evidence phrasing, even though I think it reads badly as it seems you have an attachment to it even though it means exactly the same as my amendment.--Nick-in-South-Africa 22:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC

The philosophical view

OK, so my long addition in the intro. on Aristotle's view was a bit much. But his view of the soul is very influential, and reasonably straightforward, so why not start with that? Then the various religious views of the soul can be compared and contrasted with it. Also it is a powerful, and to me convincing, non-religious conception of the soul and has an equal right to appear in the introduction as the religious concepts. Wouldn't at least my fellow atheists agree with that? I've added it back as a one liner taking up less space than the religious views, no one outside the Spanish inquisition could disagree with that could they?

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, bring me the comfy chair...!" I was the one who moved the Aristotelian stuff downward. You raise a good point, that there are two distinct user groups making hay with the term "soul," the religionists/spiritualists and the philosophers. Each camp should be discussed. If you and the philosophers would like to go first, that's cool by me, so I moved the Aristotelian stuff back up to the top. However, an encyclopedia article cannot start in anyone's corner, but must start with a generalized and contextualizing introduction, so I reinstated the introductory paragraph, adding a reference to both the philosopher and spiritualist user camps. I left atheism in the religion section because their thoughts about "soul" are not being discussed as being within a particular philosophical school but rather as a reaction to the religious view. --Gary D 19:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Francis Crick

This article should have some mention of Francis Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul.