Re: Athiests in Fantasy Settings ( Was: some help please (druid))

In message <ericp06-132811.09033008022007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          "Eric P." <ericp06@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> No. A creature's emotional capacity is not the same as a soul. Soul and 
> spirit have already been explained. Every person has these, and no 
living
> creature other than humans does, and they serve certain purposes.

A purely humanocentric definition of 'soul' is unacceptably limited, in my
view. Means /angels/ are just soulless monsters, for one.

And I'm afraid emotional capacity is the only aspect of soul we have
any realistic hope of quantifying, and barring evidence to the contrary it
is also the only aspect of 'soul' whose existence an atheist can be
expected
to accept. As such my definition of soul is unapologetically aimed to
satisfy the 'lowest common denominator' - sceptical atheists.


[snip]
 
> > Furthermore, the definition [of soul] is flexible enough to encompass
creatures with
> > greater emotional capacities than humans, and treats them accordingly.
The
> > definition also works whether the soul is considered a supernatural
object,
> > or if is merely an emergent property of a creature's physical
structure and
> > brain. It even works for creatures that don't have brains - or,
> > theoretically, bodies. Finally, it provides an means to quantify a
> > creature's soul, because we can discern behaviour such as fear even in
> > non-sentients, and I feel it also encourages one to err on the side of
> > caution and credit all things with as much spirit as possible. Where
there
> > is little harm in trying to frighten a creature that is incapable of
fear,
> > it is plainly unethical to gratuitously frighten a creature that /can/
- and
> > until we're sure it can't feel fear, we should work on the assumption
that
> > it can and does.
> 
> There are too many errors here for me to address.

!

Errors?

No, there are no errors - I'm posting /my/ definition of 'soul'. I am
aware
that there are other definitions of 'soul' that disagree with what I have
written, but they generally invoke a supernatural agency. This definition
is
intended to be a general, flexible and pragmatic definition that would
allow
followers of multiple faiths and atheists to have a sensible discussion on
the subject of 'soul' without constant quibbling with one another about
the
supernatural elements. Believers can add on extra requirements to suit
their
own credos, but at least everyone knows where they stand on the basics.
And
believers know in advance that any extra intangibles that they require
will
not be admitted into the basic definition without accompanying evidence,
so
they don't have to waste effort trying to introduce them without that
evidence. And they also know - in advance - that they will be called on it
if they try.

But anyway, I'm drifting off-topic for rgfa now, so I'd better stop here.

-- 
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org