h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've tried this before on other threads and never seen anybody try to make a decent answer:

Seems that many people are quite firm in their faith in the existence of a soul and/or a god of some sort. It also seems that many of these people will readily acknowledge that this soul/god is both in touch with their physical bodies and is able to exert some sort of sensible influence on the purely physical (the body in the case of the soul; the world at large [including the course of evolution of species] in the case of god). Furthermore, it seems that many of these people will adamantly deny that there is any way for science to ever touch, see, hear, sense, or measure this faith-dependent soul/god.

So, my question is, in a nutshell, how can this work? If the soul can bump a brain or body around, shouldn't we be able to tell what part of the brain or body's behavior is the bump of ordinary physical processes and which part is the physically acausal bump from the soul? Similarly, with all of the excrutiatingly precise monitoring of various physical processes, shouldn't we be able, at least once in a while, to see the physically acausal nudge of the hand of god? And, if our merely physical scientific instruments, for all their cunning design, cannot detect the influence of the ghost either in or out of the machine, how is it that the crude clay of the human body or the physical world is able to react to those ghosts? What is the mechanism of information and energy transfer? How does the physical get the message from the spiritual?

If the answer should be that we simply haven't devised the instruments yet, then it seems that the soul and god are nothing other than undiscovered physical principals, not faith-dependent at all. If the answer should be that knowledge of the soul or god are, in fact, faith-dependent and always must be, then we are in the realm of magic and I'll just run off to dance with the fairies and play at riddles with the Trolls.

Any thoughts (apart from the one about my fate being to burn in Hell)?


As a footnote: One person says that everything in the Bible should be taken literally (never mind the Lamb of God thing); another says parts are metaphorical. So, leaving out the "everything is the literal Word" absurdity, how do we know what is to be taken literally and what is a metaphor? Some have said it is obvious, use common sense. But some people find it obvious that God literally worked six days and rested on the seventh; I find it obvious that that is metaphor. So, is the Truth simply up to each of us? If so, what's the Good of that? Should I again go off to riddle with the Trolls?

Maybe you've never gotten a decent answer because there isn't one. You will never reach a concensus on this. It isn't like everyone sitting around and agreeing that water is wet.

We all believe what we want to believe or what we've been conditioned to believe. You mentioned the 6 day creation of the earth. I once heard a radio preacher say that the dinosaur bones were planted for us to find by god so he could test the faithful and weed out the unbelievers. When people go to those extremes to justify their beliefs, you aren't ever going to be able to show them any kind of scientific evidence that would change their minds.

My truth is someone else's fiction. Everything is a matter of interpretation. Lights flicker in a funeral home. The bereaved wants to believe that it's the spirit of the deceased making contact. The realist goes and checks the fuse box.


<>

That is probably the case. If I was absolutely forced to bet on one explanation, that would be it.

'That is probably the case.'

darn. I was hoping to go play at riddles with the Trolls.

But, more seriously, are you saying in a somewhat more polite way, that it's mostly just a lie?

I would so much like to reply right now, but need sleep, as falling to nod as I type. Hang on till tomorrrow, then have a view from someone who studies the Gnostic texts; the light they shed may be interesting.

Sorry cant now.

I guess one thing I'm really looking for is someone who believes in the soul/god who will offer an explanation of how they think the thing functions, how it interacts with the physical. I just can't see how there can be an explanation other than either "we can't yet study it scientifically" (god is nothing particularly special, just something we haven't figured out yet [so why bother with worship?]) or "god is ineffable and ultimately unknowable (magic [so, why bother with a discussion? all bets are off, there are no rules, go and play at riddles with the Trolls]). One way, what's the big deal? The other way, how can there be any true community of Faith?

No one agreed that water is wet. water is the only thing that is wet other things are wet depending on how much water is in 'em.



Its not about agreeing its about everyone reaching the same conclusions from doing the same tests. So in terms of the soul there is no evidence or test data to go on. it is all merely conjecture unless you beleive one of the competeing stories about how the soul works from scripture of one brand or another. Although a lot of the stories are quite similar in style there is enough space between most of them that accepting one means ruling out others if you are going to be logical about it but what logical reason is there for believeing ANY of those stories anyway when no one has ever detected in anyway a "human soul" as distinct from general animal behaviour.

one love

Ya see, Blicky, you and I are coming from the same intellectual space (on this particular point, anyway). We're preaching to the converted, so to speak, when we speak to each other. Or else, we're two anthropologists having a discussion about monkey behavior. I guess what I'm looking for (and hoping not to cause offence with the metaphor) is a chance to talk to a monkey about monkey behavior.

and, isn't gasoline, for example, wet?

No its viscous as far as I remember fluid and wet are only interchangeable when you talk about water. its such a long time since chemistry class.

not to cause the thread to drift too quickly, but: http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/wet+(not+dry)

But, seriously, enough of that. I really would like to here some thoughts from some more people on the subject of the thread before it goes of another direction.

so tomorrow I remember to come here to give *one* kind of answer. Cool thing is you get to put it into proof-test yourself, and see if it delivers. Then the rest of the Big Questions start to fall into place, in a real-life sorta way, and you can relax about abstracts to a certain degree, and come to your own conclusions based on what makes sense and what actually comes to pass.

It doesn't have to be that difficult, unless you need it to be that way.

I don't find it to be "that difficult". And I don't find it to be about abstracts. And, in fact, everything does pretty much fall into place for me.

All I'm asking, to put it very bluntly, crudely, and less clearly than I'd like is: for those who believe in it, is it magic or is it science we haven't discovered yet? I can't imagine a third alternative that still believes in it (at least, not one that actually stands up to a moment of conscious life).

anhaga, the problem I see with your initial post is the confusing of religion and spirituality. So, while some of the questions you are asking eg can we ever measure the soul? might be answerable (or at least debateable), they get solidly undermined by bringing in ideas like creationism, and whats in the bible.


Experiences of spirit are in no way dependant on religion. I'd go far as to say that most people have spiritual experiences, it's just that alot of people don't interpret them via a religious framework.

Religions are humans' way of attempting to understand their spiritual experiences. They are cultural constructs made up of the collective beliefs of the people who belong there. That's why they end up so diverse and often weird. And underneath pretty much all religious belief you find concepts that are similar (because they are based on transcultural experience). But religious belief is not the same as spiritual experience.

My suggestion is if you want an answer to your question of how to we measure god (which is a spiritual question), then avoid the religions for awhile, because you will just get distracted by the beliefs (eg creationism) rather than looking at the experiences.



>>I guess one thing I'm really looking for is someone who believes in the soul/god who will offer an explanation of how they think the thing functions, how it interacts with the physical. I just can't see how there can be an explanation other than either "we can't yet study it scientifically" (god is nothing particularly special, just something we haven't figured out yet [so why bother with worship?]) or "god is ineffable and ultimately unknowable (magic [so, why bother with a discussion? all bets are off, there are no rules, go and play at riddles with the Trolls]). One way, what's the big deal? The other way, how can there be any true community of Faith? <<

Have you read any Taoism? The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao. Whether this is an absolute truth, or simply one of us not having the right instruments I don't know yet. Perhaps the quantum physicists will answer this - I'm especially thinking about the concept that we can't view subatomic reality without changing it.

You might be interested to read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. Capra is a theorectical physicist who has a foot in both camps so to speak. The Tao of Physics is a comparison of Western beliefs (quantum physics) and Eastern beliefs (mainly Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism), and how they are often describing the same thing (just from different angles).


I'm curious too as to why you see something that is magic/unknowable as being somehow useless. I don't really have any difficulty reconciling mysticism and science. I suppose part of the direct spiritual experience is that one usually cannot adequately explain it in words (although one can attempt to). But that's just part of why it is so cool.

It's like people saying oh love is just a bunch of endorphins being released into the body. Well, so what if science can measure certain hormonal changes when a human experiences love? That is only 'nothing particularly special'* if one has no experience of beauty and wonder.

There will always be things that science cannot measure and explain adequately (not just spirituality). Why is this such a problem?

I also don't accept that if we do learn how to measure god, that this will somehow mean that spirit isn't worthy of our respect. How come you feel that spirituality and science is so incompatible?


*on the other hand, many people believe that that the spiritual is mundane eg Buddhists, pagans etc.

>>All I'm asking, to put it very bluntly, crudely, and less clearly than I'd like is: for those who believe in it, is it magic or is it science we haven't discovered yet? I can't imagine a third alternative that still believes in it (at least, not one that actually stands up to a moment of conscious life).
<<

Well, I'd have to say there is a third way. It's both magic, and something that science can describe (to varying degrees of accuracy). I guess is depends on how absolute you think science is (I don't think it is absolute at all).

Everything can be mundane just depends how much you do it or see it happening.

Love as an experience may just be endorphines and the act may be approximately the same things a home help, club rep and prostitute might do but for free. Having said this

I dont think that anyone can deny the spiritual within each of us or that Otis Redding had soul. Yet what some people attribute to soul are things that no one has observed to the extent where they can record and understand the process such that it can be explained to someone else and tehy can then repeat those observations or even ones like them. Yet who can say they arent moved by the sound of Aretha Franklin singing "I say a little prayer".

one love

Okay. Let's try this again. Stripped down to essentials.

By what mechanism does the soul communicate with the body?

anhaga

There once was an american doctor, Duncan MacDougall, who in 1907 (or thereabouts) tried to establish the weight of a soul. The answer he obtained was between half and three-quarters of an ounce, 14 to 21 grammes.

The idea was to weigh someone accurately at the time of their death and establish any change in weight, on the grounds that if there were such a thing as a soul, it would have a physical mass.

The experimental data was limited (six subjects of which two were discarded, although not because they failed to lose weight), the methodology open to question, the results unverified.

yes, Madent, I was aware of that study ().

Forgot to mention, Kea, I've read Capra as well. And I've spent years studying religions and spirituality. (And, with great good fortune I have more than a passing familiarity with physics, both quantum and otherwise.) And, I don't think I ever said that magic was useless: I merely suggested that there is no possibility of a rational discussion of something for which there are no rules.

I'm sorry that I've clouded my question with a surfeit of clarification.

Again:

by what mechanism does the soul communicate with the body?

Ok, putting myself out there for all of you to ridicule.....deep breath....here goes.

I believe and I don't believe. Things happen that have no logical explanation. I want to believe that there is a mystical explanation. But I don't want to be a gullible fool. So I talk myself out of believing. Something inside of me tells me to accept it and believe. My brain tells me it's baloney. So, if the need to believe and to interpret certain experiences as mystical or spiritual or whatever word you choose to use is programmed in our genes - the God Gene - (which is the title of a new book) then the soul is communicating with us on a molecular level. Science. Not magic.

This doesn't mean that the soul doesn't exist. Why do we need a religious explanation in order for it to be valid? I agree that religion and spirituality are two different things. I have witnessed things that shouldn't have happened. There are things we still can't explain. Why do we need to believe that the explanations will be magical?