at least not in any way I understand. I wasn't drawing any parallel between the two... I was only answering your original question of... "Is there any precedent for the immaterial interacting with the material?" Of which, the example does answer that question.
The second question is a bit more difficult because I guess I do not understand what you believe a soul to be. Descartes reasonings prove to me the existence of a soul because it fits with my definition of what a soul is. I need go no further because I can accept his reasoning as sound based upon my perceptions and observations. To me this is a reasoned proof of the existence of a soul. However, from your questions it seems apparent that you're looking for a singular existential statement which I believe is fully supported by Descartes reasoning but you are discounting this without providing any counterexamples to disprove the statements made by Descartes. Descartes wasn't proving that you have a soul, he was demonstrating that he had a soul and inferred... probably incorrectly... that all people have souls. To say that "all people have souls" is not falsifiable because clearly, you are convinced you do not have a soul and have inferred... also incorrectly... that a soul cannot exist. If you do not have a soul, the idea that "all people have souls" is clearly incorrect.
To prove that Descartes had a soul requires a definition which he defined but for the sake of brevity, I will use this definition in my proof.
Soul...
1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=soulTo address the first part of the question requires that you at least read a bit of his book and accept that he had "thought, action, and emotion" and also accept that his "thoughts, actions, and emotions" were vital in animating his body to produce the book he wrote. Because those "thoughts, actions, and emotions" are "immaterial", I believe we can say that Descartes at least met the first requirements of having at least this part of the definition of a soul.
To address the second part of the definition, I will say that the "spiritual nature of humans" is aptly described by the first definition of the soul and discuss the aspects of the soul which claims "immortality, separability and susceptibility to happiness or misery in a future state". I will discuss the "separability" first as this is the easiest to address. As it pertains to Descartes is of course not falsifiable because there is no evidence to suggest his his spirit survived intact after his death... however, there are others whose spirits have survived intact and unaffected after "Death" and I offer this case study as an example...
A 66-yr-old man, weighing 80 kg, was emergently brought to the operating room (OR) with a suspected leaking abdominal aortic aneurysm.
....
At 0559, the cardiac rhythm suddenly deteriorated into ventricular tachycardia, which rapidly progressed to ventricular fibrillation. Chest compressions were initiated, and the patient was ventilated with 100% oxygen. This resuscitation continued for the next 17 min during which time the patient received a total of nine countershocks of 360 J each. Additionally, a total of 5 mg of epinephrine, 4 mg of atropine, 2 g of CaCl2, 400 mg of lidocaine, 150 mEq of NaHCO3 and 2 g of MgSO4 were given IV. Chest compressions were initially thought to be effective as the end-tidal CO2 was maintained at 25–32 mm Hg. No arterial line was yet available to observe a waveform or to draw blood gases, and no single-stick arterial blood gas was drawn during the resuscitation. Despite the resuscitation efforts, the underlying rhythm continued to be asystole. This was confirmed by the palpation of a flaccid and pulseless (in the absence of chest compressions) proximal aorta. End-tidal CO2 had diminished to 8–10 mm Hg, and the pupils were widely dilated. Because of the patient’s complete lack of response and the apparent deterioration by end-tidal CO2, the attending surgeon and anesthesiologist mutually agreed to discontinue the resuscitation. The patient was pronounced dead at 0617.
With cessation of the resuscitation, the IV medications and infusions were discontinued. The monitors were turned off, and the ventilator was disconnected although the endotracheal tube was left in situ. The surgeon stayed at the operating table, using the opportunity to teach residents and students. At 0627, 10 min after the pronounced death of the patient, the surgeon announced that he had begun to feel a pulse in the proximal aorta above the level of the aortic cross-clamp. Ventilation with 100% oxygen was recommenced and revealed an end-tidal CO2 of 29 mm Hg. The EKG was reconnected and showed a sinus rhythm of 90 bpm. Systolic blood pressure was 90 mm Hg by automated cuff. A radial arterial line was now inserted successfully, and at 0630, arterial blood gases were: hemoglobin 9.5 mg/dL, K+ 3.5 mEq/L, glucose 323 mg/dL, pHa 7.17, PaCO2 54.4 mm Hg, PaO2 438 mm Hg, and base excess -8.0 mEq/L. An esophageal temperature probe was inserted and measured 33.4°C. It was decided to proceed with the operation although neurologic prognosis was anticipated to be bleak. The patient was hemodynamically stable throughout the remainder of the procedure, requiring no inotropic support. Total fluid administration for the operation was 16 U of packed red blood cells, 8 U of fresh frozen plasma, 20 U of platelets, and 12 L of crystalloid solutions. Despite warming of all IV fluids and blood products and the use of a forced air warming blanket, the patient’s temperature ranged between 33° and 34°C for the remainder of the operation. The leaking aneurysm was resected uneventfully and the patient was transported to the intensive care unit.
Postoperatively, the patient was maintained on mechanical ventilation for several days in the intensive care unit. The postoperative course was complicated by mild renal insufficiency and two bouts of atrial arrhythmias (both of which were self-limiting). Remarkably, the patient improved dramatically and, after tracheal extubation, was found to be completely neurologically intact. He appeared to have no short- or long-term memory deficits. He also had no recall of any events of the day of operation except for being initially brought into the OR.
He was discharged home on postoperative Day 13 in excellent condition with no apparent neurologic deficit. Follow-up at 5 wk revealed that the patient had fully recovered, and had resumed full physical activities and his lifestyle of prior to the surgery.
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/92/3/690Though this patient was clinically dead, his "spirit" remained intact throughout his short "death". His spontaneous return to life is something known as the Lazarus Phenomenon and has been seen a few times in the past. Sometimes the patients won't recover any brain functions at all and will die shortly thereafter but in some rare cases, as in this one, the patient will fully recover. Now clearly, this patient met the criteria for a soul described in Definition 1 and met the conditions for separability, since his soul did not die when his body died. His higher brain functions, memories, emotional conditions all remained intact despite the lack of power and function to his central nervous system and brain.
Because death did not destroy his soul during his short death, it would be wrong to assume that his soul would continue to survive perpetually without having some sort of way to test that theory. Even if we were to dig up someone whose been dead for five thousand years and somehow brought his or her body back to full functional life, this would not survive the test because we cannot test this theory throughout eternity. We cannot just assume that a soul is immortal and that there is some state of happiness or misery that follows after. To prove this is impossible until such time as you experience this yourself and observe this to be true for all eternity. However, because we know a soul can survive death, at least for a short time, there is no way of knowing if it doesn't survive for eternity either. There are cases where a person experiences the Lazarus Phenomenon and does not regain his or her "soul" but it begs the question... where did it go? Clearly a soul exists and is not dependent upon the constant life of the human body but how long does a soul last after the body passes away, I do not know. The exercise was to determine if the soul exists in the present and also exhibit that it is separate and distinct from the life functions of the human body and that I have done. I believe Descartes did a much better job of this than I but clearly you can dismiss him so I have no doubt I will be dismissed just as readily.
As for the third point... I wasn't describing a world view in any regard. I was stating that every view is subject to some level of faith... but faith built upon observations and tradition. When the first person sat down and wrote 1 + 1 = 2, they didn't have any mathematical proof or perform some logical dance to get others to accept so simple a formula as true. They just took one block and stuck it next to another block and said, "1 + 1 = 2" and that was that. It was evident that based upon the definitions of 1 and 2 that 1 + 1 = 2. However, if you try and explain such a simple concept and apply a proof to it, the process becomes muddled and difficult. We accept easily that 1 + 1 =2 without question because we can see it and relate to it in a universal manner, yet defining it becomes much more complicated and never quite provides us with the absolute truth because we can never truly know if there is a situation (no matter how remote and obscured from our reasoning) in which 1 + 1 does not equal 2.
From my observations, a soul is as visible as gravity and inertia and any other unseen force. A soul is where things like Love and Hope, Hate and Evil spring from and can be measured and weighed by those "feelings" that you seem to hold in little regard. However, to me, it is these unseen forces and the impact that they have on reality that proves more than anything that a soul exists and because I can see what you refuse to see, I don't need to spend time trying to disprove 1 + 1 = 2.
As for your assumption about how I see the world, you're pretty far off base. I believe in Evolution and find nothing in the Bible that contradicts that theory and therefor I see no randomness in the process of evolution at all. I believe firmly that evolution is how God created the human animal but I also believe the Bible when it says that God created Man in his own image. I do not believe that human beings are machines no matter how complex our logic circuits or relational reasoning abilities. Without a soul, we are nothing more than preprogrammed robots bumping around in some accidental chaos, no matter how complex our algorithmic thinking may be. My view has nothing to do with providing me comfort and frankly, I'm not all that thrilled with the idea of eternal life so I don't dwell on that concept too often. I just move from day to day trying to take care of those I love and occassionally spend time searching for answers to questions that have very little relevance to everyday life. It's in those infrequent times that my view of who and what God is becomes clearer and more real and this is why I am responding to your questions. I don't believe religion should just be accepted without question and I enjoy having my beliefs tested. I also realize that nothing I say can convince you that you have a soul or that God exists, those things you'll have to figure out on your own... if you care too. It means very little to me whether or not you choose to see things from my perspective but I appreciate the opportunity to explore my own beliefs from yours. I feel it's important that you understand where I am coming from so if you choose to continue this discussion you'll get a better understanding of my motivations and you'll be able to refrain from jumping back into lame ad hominem.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(79 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
