Galen's Soul (SYTO's thread [Fine, "Philosophy Thread"])

Chemistry has a huge amount of stuff to do with atoms and molecules, in fact, that's pretty much all it is. I'm pretty sure that the fact that everything in our universe is made out of some kind of particle implies that, since everything is of a physical nature, therefore coming indisputably within your definition of "physics and maybe a little smidge of cosmology", the particles themselves must therefore be of a physical nature.

Theology is, in a pretty basic definition, studying God and religion. You could, at a stretch, call a 'religious person' a theologian because they seek to understand their deity/deities and the religion associated with said deity.
I assume that by 'hyper-religious people', you mean 'people who blindly follow their religion', and that's fair. I wouldn't personally call them theologians, however, because by your implication they couldn't give a toss for alternative viewpoints, whereas that's key to a reasoned argument.

Also, cosmology = the science of the origin/development of the universe, and can be grouped within physics. Technically, all of the sciences can be grouped within physics.

 

I hadn't realised @SAcptm was a philosophy buff. Or are you just throwing him in the deep end because you can? (Either way, I approve).

@J-man2003
Hella is 100% in pointing out that science and religion should go hand-in-hand. Basically, you have three main branches of reasoning & philosophy:

1. Pure philosophy --- Philosophy --- uses reason to try and understand the world around us. Often tends to focus on the intangible (i.e. things that can't necessarily be seen/felt/heard/smelt/tasted), although it also looks at how these intangible truths get practically worked out in everyday life;
2. Natural philosophy --- Science --- uses reason to try and understand the world around us. Has a much stricter focus that limits it to the natural/physical/tangible aspects of the world (i.e. things that can be seen/felt/heard/smelt/tasted);
3. Religious philosophy --- Theology --- uses reason and revelation to try and understand the world around us. It's basically the same as #1 (pure philosophy) except that theology doesn't just rely on "reasoned truth" (i.e. truth we can prove, through logic, to be true) but it also allows for a second category of truth, namely "revealed truth" (i.e. truth we can't prove, through logic, to be true) which must be taken on faith.

Ofc, because of this allowance (and even reliance) on "faith" many people scoff at theology (and religion as a whole) and think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

Which is sad.

See: while faith, by definition, involves truth that cannot be logically proven; it doesn't follow that the faith process is completely devoid of reason. Rather, faith has a large element of reason (or at least, should have a large element of reason, if you're doing it right) because faith is based on trust. Ofc, it's entirely possible to trust something/someone without any good reason for doing so; but, arguably, that's also one of the most naive/stupid things you can do. Trust, done right, involves having good, solid, reasons for giving said trust; likewise faith, done right, involves having good, solid, reasons for holding said faith.

Really, revealed truth (which relies on faith) is like receiving a postcard from a friend. This postcard tells you about a third friend's party your friend attended. Some of the facts (like where the party was) you can reason out with logic (e.g. working out where this third friend lives); however, other facts (like whether your friend enjoyed the fruit punch) might be impossible to prove or reason out-- the only thing you can do is decided to trust your friend (or not) depending on whether you've good reason to think them a trustworthy person.

So, to wind back to the original point you were making: science and theology are completely compatible, because they both rely heavily on reason. The only real differences are those of approach (science discovers "reasoned truth" through observation, theology uses reason to determine whether the source of a "revealed truth" is actually worth believing) and application (science works with the natural/physical, theology works with the relationship between the natural/physical and the othernatural/meta-physical).
----

Also, in a lighthearted manner, I would like to object to the inference that a religious person cannot also be a person of science. I'm happily ensconced in both camps, and it grieves me every time someone suggests that I don't really belong-- and should pack up my teaset and leave.

 

We've already established the state of your immortal soul, Galen, now we're moving on to less important things.

 

If we're to share a body any time soon, then you need to learn that when I retreat you'll be the last resort. You've gotta man up and be the other person wearing the trousers in this co-habitation.

 

Well, given that Galen's soul (or lack thereof) is an eternal question that should be pondered deeply (and thus examined from as many different angles as possible), I think @Hella and myself are quite right in turning this into the philosophy general thread.

Who's up for this actually being a philosophy thread? (Given that the Child & Eagle was sadly deleted. )

 

As long as the title never changes, anything goes.

 

Presuming you're equating the soul to the person's personality, all the mental characteristics that define 'them'.
Yes, they'd be dead, in that they're unable to interact with or influence our physical world, similar to the implications of telling someone that they're 'dead to you'.

However, if a disembodied soul is unable to interact with the material world, why should a soul with a body be able to do so? What is so special about it being in a body that fundamentally changes the apparent nature of a soul?
Are you implying that the brain contains some component that exists in both a physical and non-physical state?