The Soul - is there proof?

[Ana the Ist]

Programmed to think

If you don't have anything to add...it would be better to not post.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you really have no reason to impute motive here..

I didn't intend to impute any particular motive, simply pointing out that it's easy to speculate on about a model that would support, say, resurrection, but one can equally speculate about models that would support any exotic possibility the current model doesn't allow. Speculation is easy.

You seem to assume that I am suggesting we bolt on clunky, awkward, needlessly complex new bits to the current model in order to accommodate a belief I have arrived at on other grounds. This is not what I am talking about at all.

That wasn't what I was talking about at all, either. The current model successfully explains all our physical observations of the everyday world at human scales (and some way above and below). A substitute model, that can also support some exotic phenomenon the current model does not, also has to explain everything the current model does, and at least as well.

Strawman - I never suggested that the model would involve "rules that are broken for a brief period of time"; to characterize my position thus is to make the error of not allowing the possibility of an extension to the present model that we presently have that does not require a "breaking of the rules" to accommodate (in the example) resurrection. And you apparently simply dismiss the possibility that we cannot produce such a model. Not exactly in the spirit of the scientific enterprise.

No, you misunderstand my position - I'm suggesting that miraculous events such as the resurrection would be extremely rare and brief exceptions to the otherwise consistent and generally predictable behaviour of the world we observe (that's why they're given their own phenomenal category of 'miracle'). By the laws of the current model, which are derived from observations of that consistency, an event like that is not only impossible (here I'm assuming that the event is not just a misinterpretation of an unusual but explicable phenomenon under the current model), but would indicate that the current model is fundamentally wrong. So the rules I'm referring to are those of the current model, I'm not talking about a new model that would be able to break or suspend its own rules.

I also suggest that it would be extraordinary for such a well-tested model as the current Core Model to be shown to be fundamentally wrong - since the scientific revolution, such models have generally been superseded by better ones of which they are limit cases, simplifications, or approximations. It would be extraordinary to find an entirely different model that not only explains all the consistency of behaviour with the accuracy of the current model, but also comfortably explains these exceptional anomalies.

I can't dismiss it because I haven't heard anything about it yet; it just seems far-fetched. But you seem confident enough that it's possible - I'm curious to know what ideas & concepts underpin that confidence.

 

[Commander]

Gosh, I've got into some heated arguments over this subject. I believe that our conscience represents the soul, but others say otherwise. I think its all a cop out to keep assuming that there isn't life after death. I say thats ludicrous.

"Dr. Duncan "Om" MacDougall (c. 1866 – October 15, 1920) was an early 20th-century physician in Haverhill, Massachusetts who sought to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body at death. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. His first subject, the results from which MacDougall felt were most accurate, lost "three-fourths of an ounce", which has since been popularized as "21 grams"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Have a blessed day knowing!

 

[ElxDalto]

A big question towards what outlook, the atheistic outlook ?

Yes.

 

[ElxDalto]

Why not? I'm guessing that you probably don't believe in unicorns because you've never had any evidence of them. If you did...you might believe.

Im not going to believe in a fairytale.

What is it about macroevolution that you don't think we know?

Whether it's true.. or fact.. or real.

I fully admit it's possible that I'm wrong...but I have no reason to believe that until there's some evidence.

Well, Im glad you admit the possibility.

This is great...I'm gonna share this post with another poster. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with him about this. I told him that I come across posters on here all the time who believe that their emotions are "evidence" for something other than merely how they feel. They aren't. Your emotions are only evidence of how you feel about something...nothing more.

You underestimate your power.

No such thing as psychic powers. My wife used to believe in it, even though she's an atheist, until I got her a book written by a man who was in the psychic reading "industry" for decades....and he's never met one real clairvoyant. Every single "psychic" he's ever met was a fake just like him. There's a skill to it, sure, but it's nothing supernatural.

I can get the name of the book if you're interested.

Not interested. You think just because there isn't evidence means its not real?

Exactly....they aren't of any concern....because you've never seen any. You've never come across any evidence of them. I feel exactly the same way about souls and the afterlife...there's no need for me to be concerned about it at all until some evidence is presented.

The only difference between souls and unicorns is you'd have a reason to believe in a soul.

 

[ElxDalto]

"Dr. Duncan "Om" MacDougall (c. 1866 – October 15, 1920) was an early 20th-century physician in Haverhill, Massachusetts who sought to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body at death. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. His first subject, the results from which MacDougall felt were most accurate, lost "three-fourths of an ounce", which has since been popularized as "21 grams"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Have a blessed day knowing!

Well I doubt the soul has any weight per say, but who knows

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Right....because we can think...which is pretty much the opposite of programming.

Your turn.

Ah, I see. Here I thought you had a specialty in a field that allowed you to make that aforementioned declaration about the brain not being programmed.

 

[ElxDalto]

That can be true even without a soul.

But if we all have a soul, what you say is not applicable.

 

[ElxDalto]

That's silly. Of course our best guess is that something doesn't exist if the evidence shows it doesn't exist. Anything else would be madness. Think of applying your exact statement to any thing else.

• Just because the evidence shows there isn't an Easter bunny, doesn't mean squat.
• Just because the evidence shows there isn't a chupacabra, doesn't mean squat.
• Just because the evidence shows there isn't a bigfoot, doesn't mean squat.
• Just because the evidence shows there isn't a god named Xenu, doesn't mean squat.
• etc.

Of course evidence "means squat". If not, then we can't know anything, and you would have to argue that we all just lay down and not move, since we can't think that the real world exists.

But we're not talking about fantasy. We're talking about something tangible. Yes we can't touch the soul, but we can feel the soul.. the Spirit.

Hey, did you notice that you just said we have evidence to show we know macroevolution is true? Nice to see you come around.

We have proven facts of natural selection, then that is inferred that millions of years have gone by and that it must mean we're products from single cell organisms. The biggest screw thats loose from this outlook is that this universe is billions of years old, when God could have easily made it in 6 days... then rested on the 7th.

whoa, watch those goalposts move! Saying that it is arrogant to draw a conclusion from evidence is claiming that we can't have any practical understanding of anything - and we are back to lying down because we don't know for 100% sure that the real world exists. This has been like a list of common creationist carnards.

No, this is simple knowledge. If you have 100% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, you have a reliable conviction. If you only have 90% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, there is a chance that missing 10% could prove that person innocent and the real killer is still out there.

I agree that this is not always the case, but its still true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Im not going to believe in a fairytale.

I don't see any significant difference between this talk of souls and fairytales.

Whether it's true.. or fact.. or real.

How hard have you looked into the matter? There's a rather large amount of evidence if you're willing to learn.

Well, Im glad you admit the possibility.

How about you? Is it possible that you're wrong?

You underestimate your power.

Give me an example of what emotions can be evidence for other than how you feel.

Not interested. You think just because there isn't evidence means its not real?

It's not just a lack of evidence, it's an entirely plausible and natural explanation for it that keeps me from being duped.

The only difference between souls and unicorns is you'd have a reason to believe in a soul.

Well you might have a reason to believe in it...I don't. I'm glad that you understand that having a reason to believe doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, I see. Here I thought you had a specialty in a field that allowed you to make that aforementioned declaration about the brain not being programmed.

Beyond some basic psychology and nueropsychology coursework in college...no. I drew my conclusions off of what little I do know and some common sense.

How about you? Any expertise in the field?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But if we all have a soul, what you say is not applicable.

And if we don't have a soul....it is applicable. What's your point?

 

[ElxDalto]

I don't see any significant difference between this talk of souls and fairytales.

Thats because you don't think it's real. There is a difference.

How hard have you looked into the matter? There's a rather large amount of evidence if you're willing to learn.

Read a lot. Researched a lot. Ill go with what I said to Papias.

If you have 100% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, you have a reliable conviction. If you only have 90% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, there is a chance that missing 10% could prove that person innocent and the real killer is still out there.

How about you? Is it possible that you're wrong?

Not with the power of Christ on my side.

Give me an example of what emotions can be evidence for other than how you feel.

You misunderstand me. Emotions are a perfect example of a soul.

It's not just a lack of evidence, it's an entirely plausible and natural explanation for it that keeps me from being duped.

Whats the plausible and natural explanation?

Well you might have a reason to believe in it...I don't. I'm glad that you understand that having a reason to believe doesn't make it any more true.

Why don't you? Have a reason that is.

 

[ElxDalto]

And if we don't have a soul....it is applicable. What's your point?

My point is that God made us. We have the breath of life. We have the ability to choose. We have free will. We are intelligent. We can make bad choices (and usually do.) We can overcome and prosper. We are all perfect in His eyes. We are all beautiful.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thats because you don't think it's real. There is a difference.

Well let's hear it...what's the difference? Neither has any evidence...

Read a lot. Researched a lot. Ill go with what I said to Papias.

And what did you say to him?

If you have 100% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, you have a reliable conviction. If you only have 90% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, there is a chance that missing 10% could prove that person innocent and the real killer is still out there.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Not with the power of Christ on my side.

So much for being open-minded....

You misunderstand me. Emotions are a perfect example of a soul.

How so?

Whats the plausible and natural explanation?

It's a variety of techniques...one is called a "cold read". Look it up.

Why don't you? Have a reason that is.

There's no evidence for it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It wasn't a stylistic problem...it's a content problem. The obvious issue is that Lewis can't read minds.

This was your own, frankly nonsensical, inference. Perhaps you could show me in literary comprehension or criticism how you came to this conclusion?

"If "it" was due to programming, evolution, etc...."

What does the "it" in that sentence refer to? The brain?

No, human Reason, which I was talking about throughout.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Since I am not an expert, I cannot "prove" anything. Nor, I suspect, could anyone.

But consider the following example. Imagine two cavemen, Og and Ug.

As a result of the random genetic mutations that drive evolution, Og gets a brain whose chemistry:

1. Produces the belief that sabre-tooth tigers are dangerous;
2. Produces the belief that fire can be started by rubbing two dry sticks together;
3. Produces the belief that eating apples is a good thing to do.

And poor Ug gets a brain whose chemistry:

1. Produces the belief that sabre-tooth tigers are to be petted;
2. Produces the belief that fire can be started by rubbing two patties of wet mud together;
3. Produces the belief that eating rocks is a good thing to do.

Who is likely to survive to pass on his chemistry?

So, yes, I still maintain that evolutionary factors could drive our brains in the direction of being "machines" whose generated "thoughts" cohere very well with "what is really the case".

I think Chesterton said it very well:

As C. S. Lewis pointed out, there's a difference between making an association and making an inference, which requires reason. If I ring a bell every time I put down food for my dog, the dog can make an association between the two things which will be useful, as with your caveman Og. But that does not lead to deducing an inference that the two things are actually related in truth, which they may or may not be. Based on brain chemistry alone, neither Og nor the dog can ever become philosophers or scientists or artists or religious.

But to add, in Lewis' own words:

"The Naturalist might say, ‘Well, perhaps we cannot exactly see — not yet — how natural selection would turn sub-rational mental behaviour into inferences that reach truth. But we are certain that this in fact has happened. For natural selection is bound to preserve and increase useful behaviour. And we also find that our habits of inference are in fact useful. And if they are useful they must reach truth’. But notice what we are doing. Inference itself is on trial: that is, the Naturalist has given an account of what we thought to be our inferences which suggests that they are not real insights at all. We, and he, want to be reassured. And the reassurance turns out to be one more inference (if useful, then true) — as if this inference were not, once we accept his evolutionary picture, under the same suspicion as all the rest. If the value of our reasoning is in doubt, you cannot try to establish it by reasoning. If, as I said above, a proof that there are no proofs is nonsensical, so is a proof that there are proofs. Reason is our starting point. There can be no question either of attacking or defending it. If by treating it as a mere phenomenon you put yourself outside it, there is then no way, except by begging the question, of getting inside again.

A still humbler position remains. You may, if you like, give up all claim to truth. You may say simply ‘Our way of thinking is useful’ — without adding, even under your breath, ‘and therefore true’. It enables us to set a bone and build a bridge and make a Sputnik. And that is good enough. The old, high pretensions of reason must be given up. It is a behaviour evolved entirely as an aid to practice. That is why, when we use it simply for practice, we get along pretty well; but when we fly off into speculation and try to get general views of ‘reality’ we end in the endless, useless, and probably merely verbal, disputes of the philosopher. We will be humbler in the future. Goodbye to all that. No more theology, no more ontology, no more metaphysics…

But then, equally, no more Naturalism. For of course Naturalism is a prime specimen of that towering speculation, discovered from practice and going far beyond experience, which is now being condemned. Nature is not an object that can be presented either to the senses or the imagination. It can be reached only by the most remote inferences. Or not reached only by the most remote inferences. Or not reached, merely approached. It is the hoped for, the assumed, unification in a single interlocked system of all the things inferred from our scientific experiments. More than that, the Naturalist, not content to assert this, goes on to the sweeping negative assertion. ‘There is nothing except this’ — an assertion surely, as remote from practice, experience, and any conceivable verification as has ever been made since men began to use their reason speculatively. Yet on the present view, the very first step into such a use was an abuse, the perversion of a faculty merely practical, and the source of all chimeras"

 

[Ana the Ist]

This was your own, frankly nonsensical, inference. Perhaps you could show me in literary comprehension or criticism how you came to this conclusion?

Wow...really? He's mind-reading throughout the entire article. Even right at the beginning...when he talks about his "friend" who saw the ghost...he's basically saying that she didn't even consider the possibility of it being a ghost. There's no way he can know that unless he's a mind reader or she specifically said that too him (and if she did, he makes no note of it). I can go on to give you other examples if you need them...he basically mind-reads his way into the past regarding those who witnessed Jesus's supposed miracles. The whole thing is filled with mind-reading assumptions.

No, human Reason, which I was talking about throughout.

And that's something that you think cannot result from merely being able to think?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Wow...really? He's mind-reading throughout the entire article. Even right at the beginning...when he talks about his "friend" who saw the ghost...he's basically saying that she didn't even consider the possibility of it being a ghost. There's no way he can know that unless he's a mind reader or she specifically said that too him (and if she did, he makes no note of it). I can go on to give you other examples if you need them...he basically mind-reads his way into the past regarding those who witnessed Jesus's supposed miracles. The whole thing is filled with mind-reading assumptions.

Then every person who has ever discussed anything that anyone has ever said or written is 'mind-reading' and should thus be discarded. Perhaps you should take a course or two on literary comprehension and criticism?

And that's something that you think cannot result from merely being able to think?

I have explained myself repeatedly in this thread on this point. I see no reason to repeat myself. Please feel free to read my earlier posts.

 

[Radrook]

The doctrine of an immortal soul is simply Satan's way of propagating that first Edenic lie which stated that we really don't die when we sin.


“The Egyptians were the first who maintained the following doctrine, too, that the human soul is immortal, and at the death of the body [the soul] enters into some other living thing, then coming to birth; and after passing through all creatures of land, sea, and air, it enters once more into a human body at birth, a cycle which it completes in three thousand years. There are Greeks who have used this doctrine, some earlier and some later, as if it were their own.”

Herodotus, The Histories13

Herodotus, The Histories, A.D. Godley, ed., Book 2, chapter 123