Does the Soul or Spirit Really Exist?

Post Reply New Topic

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/ ... Exist.html

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/ ... lowup.html

this is a nice part :

Oliver Sacks, the neurologist has written many books detailing that damage to the physical brain has all sorts of major effects on the personality. I have seen no evidence of a soul.

this question suffers from the wide field of definitions the word "soul" can mean in that context. theres quite some space between ontological dualism (or even ontological idealism O_O) and epiphenomenalism.

however, since knowledge from empirical data is quoted in the excerpt lpp gave, i would like to note that the whole concept of "knowledge from empirical data" is shaky enough to not lend it too much mass in such an argument, and that solely empirical methods arent really suited for a subject matter which by its definition is self-evident only (at best). empirical methods are geared far too much towards the senses to be of any broader use concerning the soul.
therefore, i wouldnt take neurological statements on the soul too much as fact.

its a shame all potentially interesting discussions over here are clogged by the inability to see scientific ontologism as the zeitgeist phenomenon it is (or the stubborn defiant creationism zeal that is so popular over in the states).

I wouldn't, for a moment, want to deprive you of your soul. I'm just stuck with sordid reality.

The unused majority of unused brain is a myth.

Wanting the soul to exist is just wishful thinking. It's from people who want to believe that the personality won't disappear, and are in denial that once it's gone, it's gone.

The way I understand it is that diferent parts of the brain have their function: Thinking, procesing senses, voluntary movements, dreams. While another part of the brain that we don't "use" is about our physical functions that we cannot control, like the heart beat, digestion, etc.

For me the definition of soul varies depending on the philosophical and religious points of view, which it seems to be an abstract thing and not a solid concrete thing. It could be that it is a word made up for the purpose of having an explanation about life and death and the afterlife mystery.

What a definition of soul would be in a scientific biological point of view, if there is such?
We could say it is the life itself, being alive, being able to talk, to think to do stuff, because we are alive, but then, does that mean animals have a soul too? it must be. Otherwise soul would also mean the capability of reason. How about plants? if they are alive, do they have souls? or they don't have it, just because they are inanimate and don't think, but alive still?

okay....this goes back to my mantra: prove it.


there's no evidence of a soul...and there hasn't been anything drawn up to explain what a soul is or what it effects. some claim personality but that's obviously been proven wrong. so....what is it? prove to me that the idea of a soul isn't any more than personality and is really just the brain.


and to people who claim that such things can't be explained: that's quaint. don't try to define public policies and society on a whole by these failed beliefs, then.

It's interesting to me that Sand mentions Oliver Sacks as an illustration for the lack of soul. I would describe him (Sacks) as a soulful writer. By that I mean that he tackles scientific subject matter with humour, compassion, empathy, humility... (I won't add any more, I promise). I use the term 'soul' not in a religious nor philsophical sense, but as a word to describe intangible qualities relating to the way in which something is expressed. Am I using it incorrectly?