Dear Peter,

<<You talk about belief as if it is something we screw up our nerve and do rather than be convinced of the truth.>>

So how else, other than by the grace of God, do you propose one can become convinced of the truth?

One can of course learn of facts, but facts are just that, they have nothing to do with truth: knowledge of facts is necessary for feeding our bodies and otherwise keeping them alive, gaining comforts and pleasures through them (including emotional and intellectual pleasures such as satisfying one's curiosity) as well as trying to avoid their pain, that's all, they have no other use.

Believing that facts are true is just a bad habit, a modern ailment, most likely a habit we learned at an early age from our parents. Bad habits can be corrected: using the combination of will-power and prayer, we can hope that by the grace of God we shall overcome this habit and realise beyond any doubt that there is no truth but God.

.

Squeers :

« The difference between 'soul' and the others is 'immortality' is it not? »

George :

« I am not a Bible specialist (perhaps Peter could clarify us on this) but afterlife sometimes means that your beloved deceased ones live in Heaven and pray for you, and sometimes, they are asleep awaiting resurrection, both interpretations based on a naive (“Kantian”) understanding of time as well as space, categories that do not make sense outside the phenomenal. Some people need these interpretations of their belief. I prefer not to seek interpretations that cannot enhance my world view and/or faith. »

Sells :

« George,
As you observed "soul" belongs to religion and not to nature. It is a social construction that has a history. Early Israel had no concept of the soul or its survival after death. The idea of resurrection was late and formed during a time of persecution for obvious reasons. Platonic idealism gave the soul a big boost with the idea of an essence that returns to the One. Christianity chose what it wanted from Platonism and formed it into Neo-Platonism rejecting on the way the idea of reincarnation.

While the continuation of consciousness after death is obviously absurd, the idea that the soul is safeguarded in death is a legitimate theological concept that needs to be teased out. It may simply mean that death is not the last word for us, that even in death the reality of God is not extinguished. »

.

Thank you, gentlemen. For me, that is the scoop of a lifetime! Until this moment, I have been wallowing in an ocean of ignorance. Like Squeers, I had been lead to believe that the “soul” was immortal. Now I learn that George, an eminent mathematician and devout Catholic, invalidates the idea on scientific grounds and Sells, an Anglican deacon, points to its Neo-Platonic origins and hypothesises on its meaning.

So much for the big sales pitch of the Abrahamic religions of the promise of life after death! Better not tell anybody the truth. They might be disappointed.

.

>>George ... invalidates the idea on scientific grounds<<

I am certainly not aware of ever having “invalidated” any RELIGIOUS idea on SCIENTIFIC grounds.

Yuyutsu,
I agree to some extent. One has to begin with belief. "I believe in order to know." I agree that one is not convicted by evidence, by facts. How does one test the proposition that "Lamb of God you take away the sin of the world" Factually an absurdity but nonetheless something I cling to with hope. To believe as Augustine believed would invalidate our present understanding of biblical texts. He was very much a literalist and far too influenced by Platonism. It would simply be unwise to attempt to replicate some of how he believed. However, he was correct about so much!

The Passion of Christ:

Michael Jackson's "Earth Song":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU

Check out the images.

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You protested :

« I am certainly not aware of ever having “invalidated” any RELIGIOUS idea on SCIENTIFIC grounds. »
.

It seems I have misinterpreted your reason for qualifying as “naïve” Kant’s understanding of time and space on which, you indicate, the concept of “afterlife” is based:

« … afterlife sometimes means that your beloved deceased ones live in Heaven and pray for you, and sometimes, they are asleep awaiting resurrection, both interpretations based on a naive (“Kantian”)  understanding of time as well as space, categories that do not make sense outside the phenomenal … I prefer not to seek interpretations that cannot enhance my world view and/or faith. »

Perhaps you would be kind enough to elaborate a little further as, unfortunately, I (apparently, mistakenly) attributed what you called Kant’s “naivety” to what I presumed to be his ignorance of the (chronologically posterior) scientific insights of physicists such as Albert Einstein whose theory of relativity was published a century after Kant’s death and Sean Carroll who was only born ten years after the death of Einstein.

I see, for example, that Carroll considers that the idea of a soul is in opposition to quantum field theory (QFT). He wrote in the “Scientific American” of 23 May, 2011 :
 
« Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.»

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

I must confess that I am completely out of my depth here and should be grateful for any explanations and clarifications you may be able to provide.

.