In this weeks Quantum we look at Poland and Big Tech; Sheridan; Trans influencers; Petra; Specisim, Carl Lentz, South Korean Justice Party, Chinese peace; Biden on abortion; Australian murder case, Larry King, Dutch Riots; Portuguese Schools, Brian Cox and the Soul; Rory Feek
The problem with all postulations regarding any sort of afterlife is that in every instance (that I am aware of ) they all have a very human, ”fleshy” component that is all too reminiscent of our earthly life; be this some wondrous image of heaven or the more gory ideas of Hell, hammered into us since almost from the beginning of Christianity.
Of course, it would seem to be almost impossible to portray these two extremes in any other way other than human terms, but I suspect this has more to do with the urge/will to survive, or if you prefer, to cling to life at almost all costs.
Cox is probably bang to rights with his view on ‘souls’ – another very human term that also has vestiges of our (‘fleshy’) humanness about it, but because there seems to be no way to prove this (yet) then evidence, as in all things, is all we have to go on. And the evidence tells us souls are merely things our imagination conjures up.
You make an interesting comparison Ark. When I was first introduced, as a child, the the idea of the afterlife, it was very much bound up with the concept of heaven, usually presented as a type of Garden of Eden.
However, when, again as a child, I was introduced to the concept of the eternal soul, there was no attempt made to explain it in material terms. For a start, it was eternal, so it was outwith the bounds of the natural world where nothing is eternal. I was expected to accept that my soul was a part of me that belonged to God and was, by its very nature, not any form of matter.
As a child I had no problem with the concepts of material things passing away and the soul being something different and eternal. As an adult, I have yet to encounter anything which would contradict either.
By the way. The Bryan Ferry version of The Times they Are A Changing is far superior, possibly even to the original.
As an adult, I have yet to encounter anything which would contradict either.
We have all the evidence we could ever possibly need to show that material (organic) things pass away, expire (die).
The notion of a soul is the imaginative flight of fantasy that some people require to enable them to comprehend what ”powers the machine” (us).
If there is no evidence for (a soul) then realistically, what is there to contradict?
The problem with all postulations regarding any sort of afterlife is that in every instance (that I am aware of ) they all have a very human, ”fleshy” component that is all too reminiscent of our earthly life; be this some wondrous image of heaven or the more gory ideas of Hell, hammered into us since almost from the beginning of Christianity.
Of course, it would seem to be almost impossible to portray these two extremes in any other way other than human terms, but I suspect this has more to do with the urge/will to survive, or if you prefer, to cling to life at almost all costs.
Cox is probably bang to rights with his view on ‘souls’ – another very human term that also has vestiges of our (‘fleshy’) humanness about it, but because there seems to be no way to prove this (yet) then evidence, as in all things, is all we have to go on. And the evidence tells us souls are merely things our imagination conjures up.
You make an interesting comparison Ark. When I was first introduced, as a child, the the idea of the afterlife, it was very much bound up with the concept of heaven, usually presented as a type of Garden of Eden.
However, when, again as a child, I was introduced to the concept of the eternal soul, there was no attempt made to explain it in material terms. For a start, it was eternal, so it was outwith the bounds of the natural world where nothing is eternal. I was expected to accept that my soul was a part of me that belonged to God and was, by its very nature, not any form of matter.
As a child I had no problem with the concepts of material things passing away and the soul being something different and eternal. As an adult, I have yet to encounter anything which would contradict either.
By the way. The Bryan Ferry version of The Times they Are A Changing is far superior, possibly even to the original.
We have all the evidence we could ever possibly need to show that material (organic) things pass away, expire (die).
The notion of a soul is the imaginative flight of fantasy that some people require to enable them to comprehend what ”powers the machine” (us).
If there is no evidence for (a soul) then realistically, what is there to contradict?