Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

You don't have a soul

301 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

sci-nerd
Quote

So how can we decide whether souls exist? Is this even a question about which science has anything to say? To many people, the answer to my second question is a resounding “No.” After all, science deals with phenomena that can be objectively observed and measured. The soul, by contrast, cannot be observed or measured because it is claimed to be immaterial. Therefore, soul beliefs belong to the realms of religion and metaphysics. This conclu­sion, however, is mistaken. The soul is a scientific hypothesis about the design and functioning of human beings (the stuff of biology, psychology, and neuroscience), and dualism makes claims about the detachability of mind and body and the existence of a substance capable of causal interaction with ordinary matter (the stuff of physics). As such, souls are fair game for scientific investigation, subject to the same criteria that apply to the evaluation of any other scientific idea (a line of reasoning developed more generally for other supernatural concepts by the physicist Victor J. Stenger in his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis"). After all, science can tell us what happened a fraction of a second after the big bang took place, some 13.8 billion years ago, when no one was around to make measurements or record anything. Is it so far-fetched that science would also have something to say about what we are made of and how we function?

https://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you_dont_have_a_soul_the_real_science_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/ *

 

* Unfortunately the evidence talked about in the above article is not presented, but reserved for the readers of the book.
  So this OP serves more as a debate starter, than as a discussion pro/contra presented facts/claims.
  However, if you can provide the arguments/evidence from the book, please share them with us!

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Man is not a soul, but a soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Enough anti ginger prejudice already! I thought this had been outlawed 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
34 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Enough anti ginger prejudice already! I thought this had been outlawed 

Is "ginger" slang for spirituality/religion? If so, it's not! It's just science taking on a subject, it had previously wrongfully deemed non-scientific.
In fact there's a whole section of the article devoted to consideration and anti bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
21 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Is "ginger" slang for spirituality/religion? If so, it's not! It's just science taking on a subject, it had previously wrongfully deemed non-scientific.
In fact there's a whole section of the article devoted to consideration and anti bias.

It's a joke. As in "gingers have no souls."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

At this point I don't care either way. There are more important things in life than worrying about "Do I have a soul or not?".

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew

What are we using as the definition of a soul here?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
21 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

What are we using as the definition of a soul here?

From the article:

Quote

...human beings are more than mere collections of physical parts. There must be something else in addition to the atoms and cells that make up our bodies—an essence, a spirit, something precious and beautiful. In short, a soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I agree with the article. Anything that interacts with the physical at all must be measurable.

The more intriguing question I find is, what reason is there to believe we actually have a soul?

It's an old myth. It's retained as a psychological security blanket.

  • Like 8
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bendy Demon

I was going to click and read the article until I discovered it was on Salon which, like the Onion, -in my book-  is little more than a parody/satirical site.

However no one really knows whether or not souls exist and just because religious books parrot the same diatribe doesn't make it true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I agree with the article. Anything that interacts with the physical at all must be measurable.

The more intriguing question I find is, what reason is there to believe we actually have a soul?

It's an old myth. It's retained as a psychological security blanket.

‘The soul’ is a construct nothing more.  Religion has consistently used the concept of the soul as a warning and a comfort in equal measure.

”Be good or your soul will be damned”, “don’t worry the body is mere flesh, your soul is immortal”.

Don't get me wrong, there is a thing we define as consciousness, and personality that is a hard study, but science has been looking into that for decades.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
41 minutes ago, Bendy Demon said:

I discovered it was on Salon which, like the Onion, -in my book-  is little more than a parody/satirical site.

I can't find any source to back that claim up, so it'll have to remain 'in your book'.
The article consists purely of excerpts from Musolino's book, so there aren't even any Salon employees involved to express their opinions. The website serves as a medium only.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bendy Demon
3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I can't find any source to back that claim up, so it'll have to remain 'in your book'.
The article consists purely of excerpts from Musolino's book, so there aren't even any Salon employees involved. The website serves as a medium only.

That's fine, fortunately I don't care either. There are probably plenty of sites out there that are far more reliable than Salon or The Onion.

Just because a site, that is known for satire, posts supposed "excerpts" doesn't mean anything. If I am that interested I'll find more reliable sources to read from. Thank though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill

It will always be impossible to prove spiritual matters with material tools.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Does science really get to the guts of reality ? I would say NO. What people enthralled with science forget, is that what we see as the products of science are really just that which stands as the residue of a million ideas, speculations, and proposals, only a relatively few of which survive practical experience. If it doesn't behave predictably, it isn't within the purview of science.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

What are we using as the definition of a soul here?

One assumes it's the same old saw about demanding that faith be justified empirically.  Those who pursue this have the right to do so but I have to wonder why it matters to them since they already refuse to believe.  The only motive that seems to fit is that they desire to convince others of the superiority of their outlook.  Again, that's fine except that they tend to berate the faithful who attempt to do the same thing.  No one likes an obvious double standard.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 hours ago, simplybill said:

It will always be impossible to prove spiritual matters with material tools.

And so we can thereby dismiss all spiritual matters as pointless 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

And so we can thereby dismiss all spiritual matters as pointless 

That wasn't what he said, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I don't care what anybody says, I'm fixing that hole in my soul...

~

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

The video, linked below, is of a lecture that Dr. Musolino gave at a conference in Los Angeles. He goes into considerably greater detail than in the Solon article, about his reasons for dismissing the idea of the soul. He does not accept any of the evidence for the independence of the soul from the body, seemingly because such evidence is simply not scientifically popular.

He also emphasizes the idea that the soul should be subject to scientific scrutiny, since it could be said to have an influence over the mind, which he assumes is merely an emergent phenomenon of the the physical brain.

He speaks about dualism, which posits a soul separate from the body, as opposed to scientific materialism, but does not mention monism, which could introduce some interesting concepts of its own into the discussion.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6vRNtK_Pws

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

That wasn't what he said, though.

No sh..It's very clearly what I said.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

No sh..It's very clearly what I said.

I'd say it was an unwarranted conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
Just now, Habitat said:

I'd say it was an unwarranted conclusion.

I'm sure that you would. Feel free to waste your time.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I'm sure that you would. Feel free to waste your time.  

You appear to be wasting time on what you say is a waste of time. Go figure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You appear to be wasting time on what you say is a waste of time. Go figure

I am wasting time. I have 8 more hours to kill at work. I am wasting as much time as i can. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.