|
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I missed this post first time around, I guess I've been too preoccupied with wuf's input.
Viruses, huh? Yeah they're weird. In fact, I'm not sure humans really understand what they are at all. I don't.
From the Wiki page you link... "In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies."
What this means is that is no general concensus on what exactly life is. Science can try to define life, but there will always be grey areas while we have an incomplete understanding of science. Different people from different backgrounds will have different interpretations. I would call a virus a lifeform, just a very basic one. Therefore, I would say a virus has a soul. I might be wrong.
You seem to be of the opinion that a soul goes against science. I'm of the opinion science can potentially explain souls. Current science can't, but I would argue that is because we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of science. Just because science can't explain it now, that doesn't mean it's therefore bollocks. It means the question is unanswerable at this time.
A lack of afterlife (and beforelife) doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just doesn't make sense to me. I find it incredible that I would be alive now, but not before 1979 and not after I die. Maybe my memories and individual personality are exclusive to the form I currently take, but the life in me, I believe, existed before I was born and will continue to exist forever. Of course, I do not understand what I'm saying here. I don't have a problem with that, and I also don't have a problem with being wrong.
I really fail to see how anyone can be certain of their position on this matter. It's arrogant of a person to think he knows.
1 What? Religion and Philosophy are all over the place on an issue, therefore an issue is unsettled. What about science? Are you suggesting that science needs the consensus of religion and philosophy? Is this some new empirical checks and balances system modeled after our democratic republic? Link?
Science defines life with the acknowledgement of grey areas built in... that is the whole point to my bringing this up. There are grey areas, and these grey areas are a pretty awkward place for the idea of a soul, esp when it has been asserted that not only do humans have souls, but all lifeforms have souls.
2 And so we can see we are on a slippery slope, why a virus and not a rock? Or how about a chunk of metal... does the chunk of metal not interact with its surroundings? Does it not oxidize in the presence of oxygen? Neither a chunk of metal nor a virus has a brain, intelligence, etc. Like I said before, science defines life with the acknowledgement of grey areas, however the idea of a soul demands a definitive and arbitrary line to be drawn. This is a pretty serious problem with your idea that every living thing has a soul, and I'd like to see you tackle it without redefining what a constitutes a soul (again.)
3 It does. It can, it does. It explains them the same way it explains Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc.
4 Yes, the life in you did exist, as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, magnesium, etc. These things were not "alive", but your mother collected them, as well as some semen from your old man, and here you are. After you die, other living things will take advantage of your no longer in use mass of highly prized elements. These other things will then produce more life thanks to the generous donation you have made to the circle of life. If you want to call this list of elements a soul, fine, but please note that you are at best stretching the definition to the extreme, and imo you are just completely redefining it.
5 I covered this in my previous post.
|