Poll- Is there such thing as a soul?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by welshdean

Mine is preceeded with an 'R'.

.
LOL!
I see what you did there!

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Ftfy

You fixed nothing but tacking on a pointless escape clause onto a perfectly valid statement.

Quote:

There does not exist a definitive philosophy of mind.

True but we are getting closer day by day to a definitive science of it. We understand the workings of the brain many times better then we did only a few years ago.

There does not nor ever will exist a definite philosophy of anything. Which is why I put my stock in science rather then philosophy.

Quote:

There does not exist a definitive science of consciousness. There does not exist a definitive explanation for the existence of the universe. Not a single person who has dismissed this phenomenon (soul) can claim they understand their own condition…and yet somehow just about everyone has the ability to accurately adjudicate what is often described as the fundamental fact of human reality. Remarkable!

So there's evidence for this thing that you don't know what it is?

Well hell then soul is a nice ham and turkey club on rye toast, with light mayo and a dab of horseradish, pickle on the side and it absolutely exists. There's a deli near my house that makes a wonderful soul. Goes good with chips.

Quote:

What is a soul? Who knows?....but there is evidence to suggest that there is such a thing.

Utter and complete nonsense.

Quote:

Not necessarily the variety of evidence that can be adjudicated within the epistemology of science…but then again…most of us live the entirety of our lives engaged in activities that fall entirely outside the boundaries of such adjudication.

Oh I see... evidence outside the (chuckle) "adjudicated epistemology of science."

You mean... woo.

Quote:

Life, I think it’s called. How did Einstein put it…” Imagination is more important than knowledge.” I wonder why? Maybe something to do with this ‘soul’ thing.

"Metaphorical statement from famously intelligent person taken out of context" therefore woo. Got it.

[skepticalnotcynical]

1. First, I think we should all agree on a specific definition for a soul.

2. Depending on the definition of soul, we should then find evidence to support the claim that souls exist (or even harder-that it doesn't).

3.Probably we don't yet have any evidence that proves the existence of souls.
-And since it's hard to prove a negative.
-Plus, the burden of proof lies with the person claiming that souls exist.
-Coupled with the psychological explanations for the tendency to believe in such a thing.

4. We could safely presume souls don't exist.

5. Still, I don't think we can be 100% sure that it doesn't exist since we aren't omniscient.

6. But with the weight of the argument presented, I'll go with it probably doesn't exist. (Although I'd like and want to believe that it does)

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I believe theres one in S Korea and also a fish, so I answered "yes"

Not being a lateral thinker, I didn't think of that!!
****
In answer to the poll question, 'soul' is a word to describe an aspect of an integrated, whole person, so I answered 'no'.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

1. First, I think we should all agree on a specific definition for a soul.

2. Depending on the definition of soul, we should then find evidence to support the claim that souls exist (or even harder-that it doesn't).

3.Probably we don't yet have any evidence that proves the existence of souls.
-And since it's hard to prove a negative.
-Plus, the burden of proof lies with the person claiming that souls exist.
-Coupled with the psychological explanations for the tendency to believe in such a thing.

4. We could safely presume souls don't exist.

5. Still, I don't think we can be 100% sure that it doesn't exist since we aren't omniscient.

6. But with the weight of the argument presented, I'll go with it probably doesn't exist. (Although I'd like and want to believe that it does)

I don't require 100% certainty. The certainty I have is enough.

This isn't a new idea. People have been looking for evidence of the soul (and spare me the tedious definitions--we all know exactly what's meant by the term, and anyone who says he doesn't is being disingenuous) for centuries. None has ever been found.

The soul does not exist.

[Orphia Nay]

No, I don't think souls exist.

I don't think there's even such a thing as the self.

Our "self" is a bundle* of ever-changing memories, experiences and opinions, not a fixed and constant "pearl".

*Julian Baggini uses this term in his fascinating book, The Ego Trick.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

No, I don't think souls exist.

I don't think there's even such a thing as the self.

Our "self" is a bundle* of ever-changing memories, experiences and opinions, not a fixed and constant "pearl".

*Julian Baggini uses this term in his fascinating book, The Ego Trick.

Looks interesting.

I've noticed that my own concept of self has changed quite radically in the last ten years.

try getting that into a teenagers thick skull: you are making long term decisions for a different version of you.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

1. First, I think we should all agree on a specific definition for a soul.

This exactly, because - believe it or not - different people have differing definitions. And, depending upon how the discussion goes, those definitions become fluid and changeable (usually referred to as goalpost moving, punshhh).

Without a common starting point, this discussion will go nowhere fast.

Having said that, if by "soul" we mean the usual dualistic mind/body distinction from the Judeo-Christian-Platonic tradition, I would say, no we do not have either scientific (or philosophical) evidence for such a thing, beyond wishful thinking.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

The soul is a fiction intended to scare the potential donater to the retirement funds of the tale-spinner.
"Lose your immortal soul"... unless you tithe a few times is a great scare tactic.

Religion, the ultimate con:

1) convince people there's "SOMETHING" out there.

2) persuade others you can communicate with that "something"

3) prophet.

[JoeBentley]

"The Soul" is one of religion's many answers looking for a question.

[Tormac]

My cats assure me that humans have souls, and that they can steal them from us if we don’t buy the expensive brand of cat food. But they also claim that they fought off Zombies last night, and deserve extra cat treats for that too, so I’m not 100% sure I believe them.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

No definiton I've ever heard describes something that actually exists.

Not true. One such definition is consciousness, which definitely exists.

Mine anyhoo.


I often point out to the religious that if my soul is not my consciousness, why do I care what happens to it after I die?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

....

How did Einstein put it…” Imagination is more important than knowledge.” I wonder why? Maybe something to do with this ‘soul’ thing.

Was Einstein debating the existence of the soul when he said that? If Einstein were alive today, he'd punch everyone in the face who misused his quotes.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Not true. One such definition is consciousness, which definitely exists.

Mine anyhoo.


I often point out to the religious that if my soul is not my consciousness, why do I care what happens to it after I die?

I wasn't counting post-hoc renaming of other concepts to preserve the word. Consciousness is not a "thing" that can exist separately from the meat, which is almost always a characteristic of a "soul".

[JoeBentley]

That's the problem with concepts like soul. It gets ingrained into our culture before it's ever properly defined and therefore starts getting confused with other concepts and/or used as a shorthand, synonym, metaphor, etc for other more concrete concepts and then those concrete concepts are used as evidence for the existence of nothing.

Being forced to argue a negative is bad enough without the negative being defined as "Whatever the hell I want it to be."

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by stilicho

If Einstein were alive today, he'd punch everyone in the face who misused his quotes.

Given that he'd be 133 years old, I doubt he'd be much of a physical threat.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Given that he'd be 133 years old, I doubt he'd be much of a physical threat.

Yes, but
Imagination > Knowledge