Filomena wrote: > >What methods does science employ to prove that a soul (whether it is >distinct from the body or not) is "immortal"? What is the direct >test of immortality? >
Science has shown that all life-giving and life-based phenomena, such as respiration, heartbeat, metabolism, growth, reproduction, awareness, thought, emotions, religious experiences, self-consciousness, volition and morality can be completely accounted for by simple physical and chemical mechanisms. There is no need for a soul, immortal or otherwise. There is no need for a prana, purusha, kundalini, elan vital (vital principle), chi, qi, ki, psyche, pneuma, spiritus, ruach, etc. The universe is made up of one thing and one thing only � matter/energy. > >What do you think of the Samkhya philosophy which says that creation >comes from the union of the 2 principles of Prakriti (matter) and >Purusha (soul, mind)? Here matter and mind/soul are inseparable. > It is hard to know what they meant by it. The problem with such philosophies is that they tend to be murky enough to mean different things to different people. > >Is there a difference between "mind" and "soul"? > These words have been used interchangeably in the philosophical literature. The Greeks didn't see any difference between the two. > >We can observe that death of living cells terminates the "mind." One >doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that. > Newton did not see that. Rene Descartes did not see that. In fact, there is at least one rocket scientist today, Edgar Mitchell, an Apollo astronaut who does not see that. But biologists and brain scientists have shown that they are wrong. > >It seems to me that what you are saying, Santosh, is that mere faith >in a Revelation or scriptures is not sufficient grounds for believing >in the existence of a soul/souls or an unitary Soul. > Yes, I am saying that, and I am also saying that any "Sangam" between religion and science would require religion to face up to the finding that science has conclusively rejected the existence of such spooky entities. > >Both Buddhism and Advaita emphasize direct experience and direct >perception which to me bears a similarity to the scientific method. >I would welcome your opinion and of others on this. > I think from a purely philosophical point of view these ideas are a little bit closer to modern science than other religious ideas. But it is clear that they can neither replace modern science nor contribute to its development in any significant way. The New Age authors such as Fritzof Capra, Gary Zukav, Deepak Chopra, Amit Goswami, etc have merely been able to find post-hoc metaphorical similarities between modern science and such ancient philosophies, making liberal use of the poetic license. Ivo Souza wrote: > >Evolution does not contradict creation of the primal matter by God. > But the first law of thermodynamics does. It states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Cheers, Santosh ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
