Evolution & the soul An invitation to comment

[Mr. QWERTY]

she didn't ask for their profession to incorporate it. She asked each individual who believes in evolution what thier take is on a soul.

Sigh. Yes, she asked "evolutionists" their take on the soul, but then went on to ask a variety of questions that simply make no sense, and are not relevant.

I peeked at your profile, and under occupation you have mutual funds.

So, as someone involved in mutual funds, what is your opinion of the soul?

Do mutual fund brokers have souls?
When did mutual fund brokers obtain souls?

Do secretaries at mutual fund firms have souls?
How about accountants?
Day traders?
Do large cap funds have souls?
Medium cap?
Small cap?

Does the S&P 500 have a soul?

Does one share of stock have a soul?
Bonds?
Cash equivalents?

Do you see where I am going here? She asked people with a particular point of view on the world their view on the soul. But then, she goes on to ask questions based upon that viewpoint that make no sense, and are not relevant.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sigh. Yes, she asked "evolutionists" their take on the soul, but then went on to ask a variety of questions that simply make no sense, and are not relevant.

alright, guess we are looking at the question differently. I think it could be put like this... do you hold to evolution? yes or no. If so, do you believe in a sould? yes or no. If yes, when does the soul come in to play? That, at least looks like the thrust of the question.

I peeked at your profile, and under occupation you have mutual funds.

So, as someone involved in mutual funds, what is your opinion of the soul?

Do mutual fund brokers have souls?
When did mutual fund brokers obtain souls?

Do secretaries at mutual fund firms have souls?
How about accountants?
Day traders?
Do large cap funds have souls?
Medium cap?
Small cap?

Does the S&P 500 have a soul?

Does one share of stock have a soul?
Bonds?
Cash equivalents?

Do you see where I am going here? She asked people with a particular point of view on the world their view on the soul. But then, she goes on to ask questions based upon that viewpoint that make no sense, and are not relevant.

now if you will permit me some humor, to lighten the mood...


Do mutual fund brokers have souls? I wonder myself.
When did mutual fund brokers obtain souls? Right after they get their CPA.

Do secretaries at mutual fund firms have souls? Yes. More than the advisors.
How about accountants? yes, but they have no life.
Day traders? Definitely not.
Do large cap funds have souls?
Medium cap?
Small cap? Only the ones managed by people from Motown.

Does the S&P 500 have a soul?

Does one share of stock have a soul? no, you have to have 51% ownership to retain the soul.
Bonds?
Cash equivalents? Depends on what the soul is worth in cash.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

now if you will permit me some humor, to lighten the mood...

 

[Phred]

There is no verifiable evidence to support the existence of a "soul." Without evidence there can be no conjecture upon an evolutionary mechanism or what sorts of creatures might have them.

I personally do not believe such a thing exists. However, should I wake up one day after I'm dead I suppose I'll have been proven wrong.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

alright, guess we are looking at the question differently. I think it could be put like this... do you hold to evolution? yes or no. If so, do you believe in a sould? yes or no. If yes, when does the soul come in to play? That, at least looks like the thrust of the question.

What does the first question have to do with the other questions? Why not ask "Do you hold to water based paints or oil based paints"? Evolution does not deal with a soul any more than your choice in paints.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What does the first question have to do with the other questions? Why not ask "Do you hold to water based paints or oil based paints"? Evolution does not deal with a soul any more than your choice in paints.

That much is true. Evoultion is soulless. Don't jump all over it, it's a joke.

It suprises me the reticience to answer a question. The OP wanted to know those who believe in evolution, if they believe in a soul. It isn't that much of a stretch. Or is it that you have some resentment over being singled out?

 

[AirPo]

That much is true. Evoultion is soulless. Don't jump all over it, it's a joke.

It suprises me the reticience to answer a question. The OP wanted to know those who believe in evolution, if they believe in a soul. It isn't that much of a stretch. Or is it that you have some resentment over being singled out?

I think the OP could have been worded better. It seems to imply that the soul is a given and that evolution must be able to explain it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think the OP could have been worded better. It seems to imply that the soul is a given and that evolution must be able to explain it.

I agree with that. That's why I tried to pose it differently.... and there still seems as if it's a question that few want to answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

It suprises me the reticience to answer a question. The OP wanted to know those who believe in evolution, if they believe in a soul. It isn't that much of a stretch. Or is it that you have some resentment over being singled out?

There is resentment. The Wedge document penned by the Discovery Institute states that they want to overthrow materialism in science. Well, guess what? Materialism is not part of science. It is a mischaracterization that is only compounded by questions such as those found in the OP. Whether or not a soul exists is outside of the realm of science, yet organizations such as the Discovery Institute want to blur the line in order to rationalize their witch hunt. Two outspoken supporters of science are Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins. They both agree that evolution is fully supported by the evidence yet both have very different views on the existence of the soul. This is the same throughout science, as well as throughout this forum.

Why not just ask if you believe in the existence of the soul?

 

[Uphill Battle]

There is resentment. The Wedge document penned by the Discovery Institute states that they want to overthrow materialism in science. Well, guess what? Materialism is not part of science. It is a mischaracterization that is only compounded by questions such as those found in the OP. Whether or not a soul exists is outside of the realm of science, yet organizations such as the Discovery Institute want to blur the line in order to rationalize their witch hunt. Two outspoken supporters of science are Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins. They both agree that evolution is fully supported by the evidence yet both have very different views on the existence of the soul. This is the same throughout science, as well as throughout this forum.

Why not just ask if you believe in the existence of the soul?

Because the OPer wanted to know if those who believe in evolution believe in a soul. I'm certain that she already knows how Christians feel about souls, and even TE's (although they would have to explain when they believe the soul came in to being.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the OPer wanted to know if those who believe in evolution believe in a soul. I'm certain that she already knows how Christians feel about souls, and even TE's (although they would have to explain when they believe the soul came in to being.)

So the point of the thread is to contrast what evolutionists believe compared to Christians?

 

[AirPo]

There is resentment. The Wedge document penned by the Discovery Institute states that they want to overthrow materialism in science. Well, guess what? Materialism is not part of science. It is a mischaracterization that is only compounded by questions such as those found in the OP. Whether or not a soul exists is outside of the realm of science, yet organizations such as the Discovery Institute want to blur the line in order to rationalize their witch hunt. Two outspoken supporters of science are Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins. They both agree that evolution is fully supported by the evidence yet both have very different views on the existence of the soul. This is the same throughout science, as well as throughout this forum.

Why not just ask if you believe in the existence of the soul?

She did.

 

[AirPo]

So the point of the thread is to contrast what evolutionists believe compared to Christians?

No I think she just wanted to know how someone who believes in evolution and in the soul reconciles the two.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No I think she just wanted to know how someone who believes in evolution and in the soul reconciles the two.

there ya go. And said within a sentance.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I think she just wanted to know how someone who believes in evolution and in the soul reconciles the two.

Then shouldn't it be addressed to theistic evolutionists?

 

[Uphill Battle]

So the point of the thread is to contrast what evolutionists believe compared to Christians?

I think so. But her OP doesn't include TE's... I tried to expand on that. And I guess you would have to go further and include any theists of any kind. I'm starting to think that this isn't worth my trouble.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then shouldn't it be addressed to theistic evolutionists?

because the first questions is DO you believe in a soul. TE's already do.

 

[AirPo]

Then shouldn't it be addressed to theistic evolutionists?

Yeah. If you don't believe in the soul the rest of her questions are pointless.

 

[Loudmouth]

LM:So the point of the thread is to contrast what evolutionists believe compared to Christians?

UB: I think so. But her OP doesn't include TE's... I tried to expand on that. And I guess you would have to go further and include any theists of any kind. I'm starting to think that this isn't worth my trouble.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be crotchity about it. Lately I have begun to chaff at questions meant to cast an acceptance of evolution as an acceptance of atheism. Some people like to see science and materialism as the same thing. I am sick of seeing this. The OP seemed to be going down the same road, trying to show how evolution makes you into an atheist. If I am wrong may I burn in a non-existent hell.

To be fair, here are my answers (and a little more). My acceptance of the theory of evolution happened early in life while I was still a christian. I was always interested in science and studied on my own quite a bit. One of the school librarians used to pull books aside that she new I would be interested in. This was when I was still in fifth grade or so. During that time I thought the soul was granted by God while evolution was a tool he used to create our bodies. A good analogy is a pot made by the hands of men used to catch rain, which is a gift from God. Later in life I left christianity and my philosophy in life has changed. I no longer believe in the existence of the soul, but this has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution. The theory of evolution does not have to explain where the soul comes from any more than it has to describe where leprechauns come from. An acceptance of evolution and a belief in a soul are derived through different approaches, one through science and the other through philosophy.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Merlin,

thank you for the post.

Hello,

I'm not looking for argument, just the thought of evolutionists.
This topic is addressed to evolutionists.

Is there a soul?

no.

At what point does the evolving lifeform have a soul?

never.

What is the evolutionary mechanism of a soul?

without a soul, there is no mechanism to have a soul.

Do chimps have a soul?
Do all mammals have a soul?
Do worms have a soul?
Do bacteria have a soul?
Do algae have a soul?

no.

Does a protein have a soul?

no. even with soul-belief, souls are properties of sentient beings, which protein is not.

How about a carbon atom?

same same, non-sentient.

At what point does 'soul' occur and what is the biological, evolutionary mechanism?

it doesn't.

Thank you for your time!

-Myhrrhleine (AKA Merlin)

metta,

~v