Consciousness / Soul

[Atticus Finch]

My apologies if this thread has been once before.

In a biblical light, is consciousness the soul, or is it simply a receptor of it?

Has modern science claimed that consciousness dies along with the cessation of the brain's activity? If they do discover this, what will it mean to our faith?

[Kurieuo]

As I understand it, the Hebraic (Old Testament) idea of soul is fairly monistic where the soul often just represents a person (body+spirit; cf. Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 12:7) in their entirety. I do not believe consciousness is ever reduced purely to the soul or vice-versa. This idea of the soul being the mind (or consciousness) likely received more influence from Descartes' idea of the soul than Scripture. It is often the only one I noticed tends to get widespread attention in philosophy, perhaps because it is easier to produce a range of arguments against.

Yet, it depends on understand how you define soul as to whether consciousness is the soul. In the OT soul often just represents a person without any distinction. For Descartes, the soul was the mind. I can accept the Hebraic way soul was used, yet when exploring philosophy of the mind and body and more developed understandings of the soul (such as Descartes') more elaboration is needed to define what exactly this immaterial part of us is if it exists.

I follow a Thomistic form where the soul is the immaterial part of us which possesses faculties with potentiality for physical senses such as touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing, and then spiritual senses including perhaps intuition, morality, emotions, and divine/mystical senses. A book I would recommend is Body & Soul by J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae who in my opinion lay great foundations for understanding the body and soul in a coherent manner.

Now given the understanding of the soul in the manner I just defined, it could be the soul could not experience consciousness without a particular capacity it has "blueprints" for being expressed. So for example, I believe our soul has a faculty for visual experience, however we could not "consciously" experience what it is like to have a red sensation when seeing a red apple unless our soul's capacity for sight is expressed by our having eyes. Thought may be similar, in that we can not think unless the soul's capacity for self-awareness or thought becomes expressed in some manner, for example, our brains.

The soul in the past has often been reduced to the mind, perhaps due to the Cartesian form of substance dualism that has often been propounded in line with Descartes. I believe this was a mistake, and that it is better to see the mind as a faculty of the soul which becomes consciously expressed through our physical body, or perhaps even viewing consciousness as an irreducible "part" to the soul expressed in itself. However, I think it would be wrong, and things become more complicated argument-wise, if the soul and mind are made fully equivilant to each other.

Hope this helps.

Kurieuo

[madscientist]

I'd say soul is consciousness and vice versa. However how then animals can also have feelings (many people beleieve - eg dogs and higher biological creations) and although have no free will, have a soul or a spirit - donk know which one. So even if they dont live after death they still have one of those. Humans have both. Without a soul consciousness isnt possible. But what is soul, in the first place? A spirit that needs no physical world to exist? Something like God, very similar to him, or just the internal feeling we have? Where do we even FEEL happy/sad? Its in our brain but we really cant tell. And Gods so powerful he made these feelings possible.
Or consciousness is more the ability to have free will I'd say while soul is more the feelings. However, this is very interesting I'd say - i realizes osme time ago that free will is possible only with feelings as well as consoiusness. Consc. is feelings and vice versa. And can conscoisess exist without soul? Dont think so.
For example when you are asleep you are unconscious becasue you dont know about time. Soul still exists but you dont have feelings. There was another book about this when the soul gets kinda detached or something like that - it was a german book in original. Hadnt time to read it all but it kinda xplained all this. (SO random this last dunno why i wrote it )

[charlottecowell]

I think that consciousness is an aspect of the soul which may or may not become less essential depending on the proximity of that soul to its source, ie, 'God'. I have wondered if consciouss bliss might be replaced by unconscious peace at some point...

there is some argument to suggest that it is more 'soulful' to behave unconsciously, ie, naturally, with consciousness in this case being equated to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. However, I think it appears to be necessary for the spiritual development of a human to enter into conscious being at some stage, it seems to be a funadmental aspect of the human condition. it's possibly reasonable to assume that the moment we make our peace with God is the moment we lose consciousness, for then we would be as one with creation in a sense which transcends all knowing

[B. W.]

I think that consciousness is an aspect of the soul which may or may not become less essential depending on the proximity of that soul to its source, ie, 'God'. I have wondered if consciouss bliss might be replaced by unconscious peace at some point...

there is some argument to suggest that it is more 'soulful' to behave unconsciously, ie, naturally, with consciousness in this case being equated to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. However, I think it appears to be necessary for the spiritual development of a human to enter into conscious being at some stage, it seems to be a funadmental aspect of the human condition. it's possibly reasonable to assume that the moment we make our peace with God is the moment we lose consciousness, for then we would be as one with creation in a sense which transcends all knowing

I am not sure I am following what you are saying = can you clarify a bit more?
-
-
-

[charlottecowell]

I guess in a roundabout why i was saying that I don't think consciousness is identical with soul.... consciousness to me implies mind, soul is also about passion, feeling....

[B. W.]

I guess in a roundabout why i was saying that I don't think consciousness is identical with soul.... consciousness to me implies mind, soul is also about passion, feeling....

Okay that makes more sense. So when God blew the breath of life then Adam became a living soul housing passions, feelings, etc and etc.

Question: In you opinion - then what makes life - alive? Is it the passion's, feelings, intelect?
-
-
-

[charlottecowell]

Definitely some form of passion, love actually, and maybe also a challenge/mission, something that gives you a reason for being - Marilyn Monroe, not necessarily the best guide on life in all circumstances, granted - said she thought love and work were what every person needed to get by and I think there's some truth in that.....

[Cross.eyed]

Question ! When the soul reaches the final destination with consciouness in tow, would that suggest mind also?

The reason I ask is that it seems mind would travel with soul conscious of the enviroment whether heaven or hell. Or....would there be one that transcends the other?

K's post indicates the soul has faculties. This makes at least some sense to me as I can't seem to fully seperate mind and soul.

[Canuckster1127]

Question ! When the soul reaches the final destination with consciouness in tow, would that suggest mind also?

The reason I ask is that it seems mind would travel with soul conscious of the enviroment whether heaven or hell. Or....would there be one that transcends the other?

K's post indicates the soul has faculties. This makes at least some sense to me as I can't seem to fully seperate mind and soul.

Assuming that man is triune in nature, being a spirit and having a body and a soul, what words would be meaningful to describe existance apart from a body, or in a different body with the physical elements of thinking and emotions, to someone who hasn't yet experienced existence in that context?

[Kurieuo]

Question ! When the soul reaches the final destination with consciouness in tow, would that suggest mind also?

The reason I ask is that it seems mind would travel with soul conscious of the enviroment whether heaven or hell. Or....would there be one that transcends the other?

K's post indicates the soul has faculties. This makes at least some sense to me as I can't seem to fully seperate mind and soul.

Assuming that man is triune in nature, being a spirit and having a body and a soul, what words would be meaningful to describe existance apart from a body, or in a different body with the physical elements of thinking and emotions, to someone who hasn't yet experienced existence in that context?

Actually, I would see our "spirit" as a body just as much as our "physical" body. To be alive, conscious, and experience things, whether physical or spiritual, I see our soul needs a body to compliment it.

Jesus' words that we must be spiritually born is suggestive that our "spirit" (at least in the sense He used) is something added to our core essence.

[Canuckster1127]

Question ! When the soul reaches the final destination with consciouness in tow, would that suggest mind also?

The reason I ask is that it seems mind would travel with soul conscious of the enviroment whether heaven or hell. Or....would there be one that transcends the other?

K's post indicates the soul has faculties. This makes at least some sense to me as I can't seem to fully seperate mind and soul.

Assuming that man is triune in nature, being a spirit and having a body and a soul, what words would be meaningful to describe existance apart from a body, or in a different body with the physical elements of thinking and emotions, to someone who hasn't yet experienced existence in that context?

Actually, I would see our "spirit" as a body just as much as our "physical" body. To be alive, conscious, and experience things, whether physical or spiritual, I see our soul needs a body to compliment it.

Jesus' words that we must be spiritually born is suggestive that our "spirit" (at least in the sense He used) is something added to our core essence.

Good points. I think we get into troubles in differentiating between spirit, soul and body and failing to recognize that there is a collective synergy to the 3 of them than defines our existence that is not easily separated. (That's a good thing too, I think to recognize too, when we look at the Trinity.)

I don't completely agree with the idea that our Spirit is something added. I think it is something latent, that is regenerated from one state to another and if anything is added, it is the presence of God's Holy Spirit which is separate from our own spirit. In terms of the practicalities of the experience it's probably a fine point.

The older I get, it seems, the more I find myself moving toward some forms of Christian Mysticism and away from Western detail analysis. Tozer was like that too I think, so hopefully I'm not in bad company in that regard. I get weary of the detailed debate over minute points and I think at times, the questions we ask carry their own presuppositions and lead to a framework that is outside. One can go too far in that direction though too, I know.

[zoegirl]

Christian Mysticism and away from Western detail analysis.

Canuckster,

Is there a way you could summarize the differences between these two? What defines Christian mysticism versus western detail analyis?

(keep in mind that I am not well-versed in theology or the different forms, so be gentle, please, in the amount of detail )

[Canuckster1127]

Christian Mysticism and away from Western detail analysis.

Canuckster,

Is there a way you could summarize the differences between these two? What defines Christian mysticism versus western detail analyis?

(keep in mind that I am not well-versed in theology or the different forms, so be gentle, please, in the amount of detail )

Christian Mysticism as I am using it, points to the idea and recognition that God is bigger than we are and that attempting to reduce him to a systematic theology that explains every element to our satisfaction is an unrealistic goal. The Bible is God's revelation of all we need to know, but it is not a revelation of all there is to know and further, there are things we either are not equipped to understand properly and/or that God has chosen not to reveal to us.

Systematic theology, again to my understanding in this context, is pretty much the practise of taking all that the Bible has to say on a particular topic and arranging it in order to come up with a doctrinal statement that captures what the Bible has to say on something. I think it is a valuable practise and a worthy one but I at times have some concerns with how it is done.

1. I think you have to realize that if God intended to use this method of construction He could have made His revelation to us in that manner, and yet he didn't.
2. The method itself of doing this carries with it some assumptions that may affect the interpretation of the passages that adds something to them rather than drawing out what is there.
3. Simply proof-texting items carries a high risk that the context of the passages will be lost. For example, I sometimes cringe when I see passages from the Psalms or Ecclesiastes proof texted next to passages like Paul's epistles. Pauls epistles are probably the closest example of a logically laid our and reasoned dealing with topics and using OT literature to proof-text what he is trying to say. Poetry isn't analytic language and attributing a doctrinal statement from a poem, carries a lot of risk of overstating and reading things in.

In short, the hermenuetic we bring to Scripture to some extent validates itself as to how we understand the Scriptures. We end with what we start with.

I'm finding more and more, that in my own devotions I don't want to jump all over the Scriptures coming up with what the Bible has to say on a topic. I spend time in one passage and try to put myself in the frame of mind and reference of the people who read it originally and then I use that as a means to meditate upon God, who He is and how privileged and blessed I am to be in a relationship with Him. I'm less afraid to admit I don't understand something and in fact I expect there to be things I don't understand and instead of wrestling it to death like a dog on a bone, I'm more willing to embrace that ambiguity and celebrate it as something that is to be expected when a finite creature such as I am, seeks to grasp that which is infinite.

You have to find balance in there as obviously God gave us a brain and requires us to study his Word and there is much there to be plumbed and understood. I think by and large however, there are some of us, (dare I even suggest this as a member of a reformed church rooted in Calvanism) who see admitting there is mystery as a weakness in faith. If there's incomplete or seemingly conflicting information, we'll put a seal of approval to "the" proper way to understand it and argue and debate the issue into the ground.

I'm less satisfied with that approach and feeling that there's more room and need to just sit at the feet of Christ in awe and reverance like a little child and release the need to have complete understanding on all things and just worship Him and celebrate and accept there are many elements I won't understand.

These are my thoughts and my use of the terms and they may not match the academic theological models as well as I would like.

[zoegirl]

I see, and I agree with much. as with most things, a balanced view isprobably the best. Although I wonder if we can afford to be as generous in our approach *because* we have done much of the analysis and can stand back and ponder?

I guess the term "mysticism" carries with it some baggage for me and I just want to figure it out.

Thanks!