I believe it was in "The Physics of Star Trek" that the concept of transporting was discussed (but I believe the idea was also discussed by Daniel Dennett--writer of Kinds of Minds and Explaining Consciousness).
Essentially, the idea of the destruction/reconstruction of the human body is irrelevant. After all, we are constantly losing cells and replacing those cells with new material. Hence, over the course of our lives, the material we are made out of isn't permanant anyway.
Their concept was that of the "closest continuer." In other words, the created entity that looks, acts, and thinks like Riker, is for all purposes, still Riker. Whether or not the material is the same doesn't change his Riker-ness.
I guess that theologically, once could say that Riker's "form" changed, but his "substance" didn't. (Hey, this means that transporters can perform transubstantiation. . .cool.)
Therefore, since both Rikers are the closest continuer of the pre-transported Riker, they would both have a soul. Alas, as each Riker made different choices in life, each soul would slowly diverge into unique "Thomas" and "Riker" soul.
Essentially, the idea of the destruction/reconstruction of the human body is irrelevant. After all, we are constantly losing cells and replacing those cells with new material. Hence, over the course of our lives, the material we are made out of isn't permanant anyway.
Their concept was that of the "closest continuer." In other words, the created entity that looks, acts, and thinks like Riker, is for all purposes, still Riker. Whether or not the material is the same doesn't change his Riker-ness.
I guess that theologically, once could say that Riker's "form" changed, but his "substance" didn't. (Hey, this means that transporters can perform transubstantiation. . .cool.)
Therefore, since both Rikers are the closest continuer of the pre-transported Riker, they would both have a soul. Alas, as each Riker made different choices in life, each soul would slowly diverge into unique "Thomas" and "Riker" soul.