Posted: Nov 01, 2014 4:31 pm
Darwinsbulldog wrote:John Platko wrote:Darwinsbulldog wrote:One thing that can be challenged scientifically is the previous Pope's claim that the soul is put into the evolved pieces of human meat by god. The non-magical soul [the personality or identity of the person] CAN be investigated by science, and can be explained by science. Thus a Pope or religious person does not have to invoke god as a cause for the material soul [ie mortal], and indeed, if he does, he does not accept the science of evolution-specifically-the part where evolutionary forces and current environments can give personality to a social ape such as ourselves. Of course the [claimed] supernatural/religious aspect of the soul is not subject to science unless we include an over-active imagination of the religious mind as a psychological phenomenon.
Active imagination is at the heart of religious psychological phenomenon.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_imaginationJung was insistent that some form of participation in active imagination was essential: 'You yourself must enter into the process with your personal reactions...as if the drama being enacted before your eyes were real'.[11]
Please note John, that I said OVER-ACTIVE imagination.
But who is to decide what is OVER the line of helpful active imagination and goes into unhelpful areas?
I think we can all agree that when you imagine your dog telling you to kill people, and you go ahead and do it, you're over the line. But then there's that area where you're creeping up on the line, sometimes getting splashed by a bit of crazy stuff as you misstep a bit over the line. I mean, it's a very fine line- and it moves with time as people collectively alter their view of reality.
Human imagination is essential for many aspects of life. In arts, in the sciences, and in faiths. However, giving the products of an active imagination status as reality is going to far. And Jung was an idiot. Imagination alone can only posit possible worlds, they don't define worlds.
Imagination can surely create inner worlds in inner reality- which is what Jung was talking about.
Harry Potter does not become real just because J.K. Rowling dreamed him up, although her characters are far more credible than most found in the Bible or Quoran.
But I think my basic point stands. If "holy" folks want to invoke god for human traits like personality, then they are automatically rejecting evolution and methodological naturalism. Which system of thought best describes the mortal soul? Is science both necessary and sufficient for the task?
Science is not sufficient for the task that religion is designed to tackle. Science can tell us a lot about our physical and even mental processes, but it doesn't shed much light on things like: what is love, what does it mean to love, what is good, etc..
There is every reason to think so. Science already explains the "meat" of human beings very well, and is well on the way to explaining the non-magical soul. [As there is no evidence for the magical soul science's inability to explain it is moot!].
Religion fails at the "meat" stage, as indeed theologians like the Pope recognize that evolution does explain human "meat" very well. So at the "meat" level all is well. What they do not recognize is that the meat explains the non-magical soul. They insist the soul is magical, and god injects it. Ergo, they are creationist. They accept some science stuff, but hugely cherry-pick. AT least YECs are more consistent-they reject all of the science of evolution.
It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you mean by all that but from the general sense I get of it I think I agree.