What do you mean there is no life without a soul. Life is a biochemical process and physical structure. Bacteria are alive and can be fully explain without need for a soul. The mind of animals does seem different from the purely physical, but in that case it is the mind that makes the difference, not mere life.
I said for humans that there is no life without a soul. Any other thing possessing life does so without a soul. Of course, those are just my beliefs on the issues, and apart from my beliefs, there is no need for a soul to be introduced.
Even fertilization is a process. There is no one instant that can be pointed to as the moment when a soul should enter. That is why I think it makes much more sense to think that the soul emerges with a certain brain/ mental capacities. It is our minds that make us different from most animals, not our bodies. The human body is an ape body, and there is no reason to think we are different and have a soul just because we are biologically human. If anything is the image of God, it is the mind, not the body.
Because there is no one instance that can be pointed to for a soul to enter, I believe it makes sense for it to arrive with life. It is the only singular instance that is notably different from all subsequent ones.
The human body is an ape body? Hmmm. Not so much, I think. There are certainly similarities, but I cannot go so far as to same that they are the same. I believe we are different without needing a reason, but if I were to look for reasons, I can find at least one. If we allow that apes and humans are the same, there is seemingly nothing other than speciesism to justify the notion of human rights. I do not think that would be a beneficial societal position to take. There are probably other reasons to think that apes and humans are significantly different, but that one came to mind easiest.
Then why give up on a reasoned and empirical approach? Religions have a bad habit of making stuff up. It is our reason that must free us from superstition. I'm not against you being a Christian, but I am in favour of a reasonable faith.
I do not think there is a reasonable faith. I gave up on finding a reasonable approach to life because I followed reason as far as it would take me. At the end, I found that I was unsure of most everything, and when I accepted that all my empirical data was wholly subjective, it lost its value. To move beyond the reaches of reason, I had to go with belief. There is no reason that a person has to, but in order to find something concrete, I did.
But I see no need to suppose we have an essence beyond the physical. I can see why it might be helpful for the mind body problem. I think that the mind could be more than merely the atoms that science currently describes.
I'm not trying to totally argue against the idea of the soul right now, but more against the idea that it is placed in the human at conception. An emergent soul seems to make much more sense.
I cannot argue against an emergent soul, because I cannot explain a soul that is created at conception. To me, it seems that the idea of an emergent soul is not much more than a state of awareness. As a being ages and develops mental faculties, it gains awareness of itself and its surroundings, but I believe there is more to a soul than that. I cannot explain a soul without awareness, but I do not know that a fetus or even an embryo is without awareness. I cannot remember that far back! Seriously, I do not know, but I believe the soul is there from conception on.
Well the mind and body of the fetus is almost totally different from ours. The only similar thing is its DNA, but then a skin cell also has the same DNA.
I agree that we are physically and mentally very different, but if my belief about the soul is correct, we are the same in our essence. If you do not believe in the soul as the essence of what makes us "us," I do not expect you to be able to agree.
That is pretty much my position.
While I don't think the soul is implanted at conception (if there is a soul),would it matter if it was? All the fetus gains is some vague 'essence' which few people seem to even be able to begin explaining. Saying it is wrong to kill a fetus because of its essence, seems little different from saying, "It is just mysterious, but true because I say so."
If the soul is the thing that makes a human valuable, I believe it makes all the difference in the world. You call it a "vague essence," but I believe it the essence of the person; in other words, it is the person. Your saying is probably correct, because there is no proof that there is a soul at all, emergent or otherwise.
The reason we think it is wrong to harm people is because it harms people, killing included. It violates their will. To say it is because of an 'essence' completely divorces our thoughts from the real reasons that real people think it is wrong to kill and harm others. The 'essence' alone isn't enough. It is the violation of another that causes our moral outrage.
When I was without belief, I concluded that the likely reason we feel it is wrong to harm people is because we are people. I think has more to do with self-preservation than with another person's will. If it is a person's will we fear to violate, all we have to do is divorce the person from his will, and we are free to do with him as we wish. Because this situation would put us at the mercy of others who could do the same to us, we feel it is in our best interest to not do it ourselves. A will can be removed, and it can be removed simply enough. An essence cannot be removed. Just my belief on it.
I think I used a similar argument years ago against abortion. I consider it quite so strong now, though it is interesting. We consider it wrong to violate the will (or supposed will) of another. When the person went to sleep we assume that they willed not to be killed in their sleep. Because of that we think it is wrong to kill them in their sleep, since it would be an attack on them. We respected them while awake, and that respect continues which they sleep.
If the will idea is correct and even if the person willed not to be killed while asleep, the will to not be killed disappeared while the person was actually sleeping. He may have had the will to not be killed, but he lost it. I cannot claim to have ever willed anything while sleeping, and I cannot make that assumption about another. I do not think we respected them while they were awake. I think we respected the fact that they were a creature with a will, but I think they ceased to be that type of creature when they slept.
Well that is scary, and things like this make me wonder if religion is necessarily dangerous and the threat to humans.
I do not believe that Christianity is a threat to humans, as individuals. According to my belief, we cannot kill anyone, but we could allow the race to suffer to save one. Would we tolerate cruelty to all? Yes, I believe we would, and in that sense, Christianity is a threat. To me it is a worthwhile tradeoff.
Well it isn't as if Christians have had the same moral opinions throughout history. I would say that it isn't morality changes, but our understanding of morality. Also the circumstances which the moral principles apply to change.
Christians do not even share the same moral opinions now, so I am not holding Christian morality to be above reproach. I did not have a moral system without belief to fuel it, because I could not find any reason to support one. What was good were those things that benefited me, and the bad were those things that did not. I suspected that others had no reason to advance those things that benefited me unless they also benefited them, and in that case, it was not my benefit that they sought. This is subjective, and if all morality is subjective, it does not exist.
I feel I understand it much better now than before. Before, some of the moral actions I did was just because that was what I was told was right, by the Bible or authority figures. Now I have better principles to base action on.
I have no problem with admitting that I get my guidance from the Bible, prayer, and a few authority figures, and these are the principles I depend on. Without them, I was subject to no principle other than serving myself. I did not do anything that I thought was morally wrong, at least not on purpose, but no one would say that I was morally right. People are different and will find different paths. Of that, we can agree.
The funny thing (or perhaps not that funny) is that Christians have done many immoral or evil things, in the past and now. It isn't even necessarily a rare thing. I wonder how many people were ok with kill homosexuals in the past, and how many Christians in Uganda are today. It was Christian evangelists who helped lead that country to potentially murdering gay people.
Then there are the many wrongs of the Catholic church, the wars and terrorism between denominations. The oppression, torture, and murder... all in the name of the greater good of saving souls of course.
You will never catch me denying that religions can be extremely dangerous for the same reason that they can be extremely beneficial: Religious people do not need to worry about justifying their actions to man. This can cause a man to kill others, or it can cause him help others. The choice resides with the man.
I see no reason to think that atheists neglect morality any more than Christians.
I believe it has to depend on one's understanding morality. I believe morality does not exist without God, and while many Christians may neglect morality on a regular basis, all atheists do all the time. If you believe that morality exists without God, I can understand your position very well, and if I believed as you do, I would no doubt agree.
(That was probably a silly pointless rant, ignore it if you wish).
Never. I am sure that there are probably pointless rants out there, but yours was not one of them. I enjoy discussing things with you. We do not have to agree as long as we can remain respectful in our disagreements, and I like that.