• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Towards A Theory Of Souls: An Intellectual Challenge

Gr8wight said:
In real science, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the theoretical cannot be supported by the experimental, it is abandoned.
Click to expand...

Jeff Corkern said:
True. And the point is?
Click to expand...

Your theoretical cannot be supported by anyone's experimental.

There is no way to experimentally support the existence of a soul. Therefore your theorizing leads exactly nowhere. You either believe or you don't, and neither of us will find out this side of death's door. This discussion is entirely pointless.
 
Last edited:
JC --- there seem to be several bits missing in your thesis.

First, you have not defined the word "rational".

Second, you have not explained why we should expect people to behave in a way that is "rational" according to your definition.

Finally, I have a very simple way to test your proposition concerning the soul. If people's thinking and feeling is being done by an invisible intangible entity ("the soul") then it follows that injuries to the brain should not impair these faculties. This is false, refuting the soul hypothesis.
 
Whilst it's true that theres no known devisable test for verifiying the existence of the soul, I would never want to categorise any kind of theorising as pointless. Who's to say that there won't be a way of checking the existence of eternal, non-corporeal personalities in the future, as problematic, unlikely and difficult to imagine as that is?

With regard to Jeff's interesting original question, I think it's possible that someone could look at the behaviour of people with antisocial personality disorders versus the average person and derive a theory that the sociopaths were soulless and the normal guy's ensouled. Of course, it's much easier to test for some physical abnormality in our brain tissue, and that would probably invalidate any soul-based hypothesis, but I can see no reason not to propose the theory.

Sociopaths can be charming, helpful. non-violent members of society, but have a complete and utter lack of empathy for others. They are prone to "selfish, callous and remorseless use of others". Have you ever had a boss take credit for your efforts at work? It's a potential sociopathic tendency. Many sociopaths are likely to know they have this serious lack of empathy, and masquerade as caring people. They are without conscience.

Sociopaths can be diagnosed, though. The standard clinical test for sociopathy is Robert Hare's PCL-R.

Could it be that ensouled bodies are subconsciously aware of their divine origin, and having BEEN many other people in past lives are likely to encourage empathy for others in their fleshy hosts? Whereas souless sociopaths, no more than remorseless machines, do everything for their own selfish ends?

I could even propose, anecdotally, that some self-aware sociopaths with a religious background may even *believe* they have no soul. Er, got no proof, though.

(It's worth reminding readers at this point that I'm suggesting a thought process that others might arrive at; not one that I share. I believe that antisocial personality disorders are mundane malfunctions of the brain, and nothing else. I don't believe in souls.)

One final thought, though... if the body is subconsciously aware of the soul's existence, and the soul is a divine entity, then ensouled beings are sunbconsciously aware of the divine and presumably more likely to go to church. It follows, therefore, that soulless human automatons will have no awareness of a higher plain, and are much more likely to be skeptics!

We're all psychopaths!
 
Dr Adequate said:
JC --- there seem to be several bits missing in your thesis.

First, you have not defined the word "rational".

Second, you have not explained why we should expect people to behave in a way that is "rational" according to your definition.

Finally, I have a very simple way to test your proposition concerning the soul. If people's thinking and feeling is being done by an invisible intangible entity ("the soul") then it follows that injuries to the brain should not impair these faculties. This is false, refuting the soul hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Good point. To carry this further...

Even the existence of a soul would not provide any means of consequences after death. We have very good evidence that thinking and feeling are done by the brain (with influences from the body), and that the brain function, memory, and structure forms personality. Thus, the immortal soul contains neither your personality or your memories, and is incapable of thought. And threfore, experimental evidence disproves your definition, and your theory is falsified.

Next?
 
Jeff Corkern said:
Okay.
...
Let us say a man who believes he has no soul has a family.
...
Without an immortal soul, there is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to be concerned with the happiness of others. The only desires he should be concerned with are his, and his alone. There is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to "contribute in a positive way" to society. It is irrational for him to do so.
...
Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see. The fact that his wife and children wind up destitute and starving on the streets has had no physical effect on him, if he dies first AND HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.
Click to expand...

Jeff - if this is your viewpoint on life then you need to meet some normal people. They might surprise you.

Altruism exists - get over it.

If you want to claim that you believe that that the only "rational behavior in a life without a soul" is "pure selfishness" then just come out with it. (It is a lot less verbose than your waffling posts.)

I don't live my life that way - if you want to use it to justify your behavior or personal moral code, that's entirely up to you.

If the only reason you would choose to act in a non-selfish way is that you are afraid of the consequences, then you are quite a pathetic individual.
 
kieran,

Altruism describes a behavior but it doesn't explain the motivation. What would you say are reasons to be altruistic?

Altruism exists - get over it.
Click to expand...

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
kieran,

Altruism describes a behavior but it doesn't explain the motivation. What would you say are reasons to be altruistic?

Gene
Click to expand...

{Pulling dictionary off shelf in case memory of definition has faded ... ah yes, here it is ... :book:

(Collins English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1991) altruism n. 1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. 2. the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.

That seems to cover both behavior (practice) and motivation (principle/doctrine). Why would I do something altruistic - for the general principle that you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you? Just because its biblical, and I am not religious, doesn't mean its not a good idea.

  • Do I want everyone to crap on me? - No.
  • Why shouldn't they? - Because I don't crap on them.
 
Jeff Corkern said:
Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Catholicism, which certainly includes the notion of souls in its doctrines, allow you to repent all of your sins and wipe the slate clean - as long as you genuinely repent? In fact, don't most major religions have some notion of divine forgiveness?

The notion of the soul cannot be separated from faith. People gain the belief that they have a soul through their acceptance of a religious worldview. It seems to me that religion provides *exactly* the mechanisms to wash a guilty conscience clean.

Without acceptance of all the supernatural frippery, you will be left with the consequences of your actions playing on your conscience forever - and no way to magically wipe the slate clean. Ample incentive not to do them in the first place...
 
kieran,
So selfishness is a motivation for being altruistic (so people won't dump on you). You were right BronzeDog. That sucker was selfish. When I looked it up in webster's they didn't mention the second definition you posted.
  • the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.
So with that, the motivation for altruism has a basis in philosophy. Given different people have different philosophies I'd say that puts it on the level of opinion as to what's right or wrong and the reasoning (for what's right/wrong).

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
kieran,
So selfishness is a motivation for being altruistic (so people won't dump on you). You were right BronzeDog. That sucker was selfish. When I looked it up in webster's they didn't mention the second definition you posted.
  • the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.
So with that, the motivation for altruism has a basis in philosophy. Given different people have different philosophies I'd say that puts it on the level of opinion as to what's right or wrong and the reasoning (for what's right/wrong).

Gene
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more - different people have different personal philosophies. I pay my taxes and drive carefully, the tosser that lives next door to me does neither. I hope that there are more people like me out there than there are like him, otherwise the government will run out of money (or chanrge me even higher taxes) and it won't be safe on the roads.

I can see a lot going for that concept of selfishness being at the root of altruism ...
 
pmckean,

I think that catholicism teaches that you can be forgiven but it's an on going thing. You have to come to church to continually receive communion. I agree with Martin Luther that grace is a gift with no strings attached. You don't have to buy indulgences or continually eat supper at church.

Whatever a person's reason I think being benevolent is good and the right thing to do. From a logical point of view it keeps society orderly. The more people that believe it's right to be kind the more likely you'll run into someone in case you need a little help. The more likely you can get help the less likely you're apt to do something that would hurt others. I saw your point, kieran.

From a christian perspective I don't think the motivation is the selfish escape from hell. When you believe you've escaped that. A christian attempts to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do also.

Gene
 
BronzeDog,

That was good reading but I don't think it's a doctrine with biblical support...

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation
Click to expand...

Luther taught the doctrine of justification by faith alone and that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith. The work that a christian does is to believe. His arguments are from the new testament and seem clear enough to me.

Gene

edit: The idea of fulfilling God's will is correct and is in the same context as obeying any authority. God for the christian is the final authority.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corkern,

Sorry to get your thread of topic. pmckean mentioned , 'The notion of the soul cannot be separated from faith.' The greeks had the idea of soul but on the most part I think it's something that is considered a religious topic. It's kind of hard to keep it within the narrow constraints you suggested at the beginning. Christianese terms like sanctification, redemption, justification, etc. are in my opinion precise legal terms and aren't well understood by the secular world. I was trying to add some clarity. As Abraham Lincoln said when he was practicing speeches in the cornfield, 'if you have ears to hear....' Well, maybe no one is too interested in the nuances.

Gene
 
Jeff Corkern - I see you've been posting on the "And Nothing Heard My Scream" thread which is intrinsically related to this one, but you haven't posted on this thread for a while. Is there any chance of you coming back to this thread and responding to the points raised since your last post? :con2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom