This seems more dogmatic to me. You really haven’t debunked my position only established that you don’t believe it to be so no matter what the field of psychology does which is the study of the soul
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Again, find a psychology textbook that even mentions a 'soul'. You had to go back to a definition from over 350 years ago to even make a link. That is *far* before any serious study of psychology. Find *anything* within the last 150 years that uses this definition.
Hmmm… when I took Psychology in Uni, it mentioned it. Did you want me to upload a book or something? Of course, that was in the early 70’s. I don’t think I saved that book.
False equivalence. We know that the conscience exists both directly in ourselves if we have one, and indirectly through the actions of others behaving morally by choice. Conscience is an epiphenomenon of matter and affects matter through motivating behavior. That makes it part of physical reality.
The word soul refers to nothing real as far as we know except when people use the word to mean a person's personality, or the sum of his regular patterns of behavior, which includes the manifestations of one's conscience. But when referring to a spirit that enters and then leaves bodies and survives death, we're guessing that such a thing exists and happens.
That was in response to, "That's an unevidenced religious belief and plays no role in psychology or any other science," which was written as a response to, "[psychology] IS the study of the soul! The soul controls the material mind which controls the behavior."
Calling that an opinion doesn't diminish the fact that it is correct. If it weren't, you could falsify it with an illustration of where the soul plays a part in a scientific explanation or observation, but you can't. Newton referred to his god in Principia when he reached the perimeter of his knowledge and had to turn to magical thinking to explain a stable solar system, but that was never considered science and is not a part of Newton's actual science, which is all empirical.
Questioning claims can never be a hindrance. Accepting false beliefs uncritically, however, can be a major error.
Occam's Razor like all razors prioritizes hypotheses, the simplest that can account for all observable phenomena being preferred over those with excess complexity that adds no explanatory or predictive power. The concept of the soul adds nothing to neurology or psychology, so it appears in neither science.
That's all he need do. Your position is an insufficiently evidenced claim. He needn't debunk what was never "bunked."
Time for another razor, Hitchens' Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," meaning that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one making it, without which the claim is unfounded, and others need not provide an argument or evidence themselves in order to dismiss it.
That was in response to, "We know the physical exists, so the burden of proof is on those claiming there is more. The fact that no such evidence has ever been presented is good enough to discard the possibility as unnecessary."
Actually, that's what an educated opinion looks like. It is ignorance that allows one to hold unfalsifiable beliefs uncritically. We're born able to do that as soon as we are old enough to hold abstract beliefs such as in Santa Claus. It is only with maturation that critical thinking begins to appear, which is why the church wants access to minds before this occurs and is frustrated by being kept out of public school curricula. Believing by faith is not a virtue and nothing to be proud of. Learning why and how to never do that is elevating oneself above the more juvenile state we begin at and pays dividends.
I see that a lot - claims that the skeptic and empiricist cannot comprehend the believer's beliefs. Your beliefs are easy to comprehend. And easy to disbelieve. I understand you perfectly, but don't believe that you are correct.
That sounds like a terrible life. No thanks. How about setting the cross down, following your conscience, living an empowered life, and making a difference instead?
Would you be doing all of that if you knew for a fact that when you die, your consciousness is extinguished forever and that there is no afterlife or reward waiting for you in exchange for living such a life? Probably not.
And doesn't that refute Pascal's Wager - that there is no cost in holding false beliefs about Pascal's god?
In terms of the current knowledge of psychology 1970s is ancient history. This is true for most sciences.
The existence and nature of the soul is a subjective religious claim, and psychology could not possible consider or study the soul in 1970 0r now,
Last edited:
Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.
So let’s look at some info:
"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."
Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
At this point, it's ok. No problem as they say.
Is that a valid means to differentiate and weigh different conclusions? It assumes that two different people have the same knowledge, experience, bias and ability to judge, yet come to different conclusions about the same thing.
What is each conclusion really being based on?
Would you seek help with a medical issue from a hospital that called me in to evaluate your test results or would you rather have physicians review the results of those tests? We would both look at the same evidence. As the third party in this, you would have to be assumed to be of equivalent ability as me and the medical staff so that you could evaluate the tests and the two conclusions effectively and without basing your own conclusion on personal bias alone.
It would be up to you to evaluate which opinion you go with, but as an entomologist, I think that big thingy in your chest is causing all the problems and it may have to be removed. Whatever it is.
I am collecting my thoughts on this as a separate issue for possible later discussion and debate.
I have a difficult time reconciling the obvious that is also unverifiable. Those are two different and distinct conditions that cannot exist in the same time and space as I understand it.
It would still leave me asking how it is obvious to you, which as it happens, I have been.Maybe I should have said “obvious to me”?
I believe too, but we have moved beyond what we each believe into the realm of a need to demonstrate.
You may know or perhaps be surprised at how controversial that idea is even among Christians.Yes, puppies have souls along with other created creatures. (Whether parameciums have souls or not, I have no idea
And, while a shared belief, it is obvious only on that bias and not for reasons that can be demonstrated to others.
And then too, the wrinkle of what "in His image" means is added to the mix.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
When I was in church as a musician, I was not a believer. Just to clarify, I was a professional, paid musician. It was a big, rich church with a professional choir and organist. (paid.) Nothing the minister or congregants or participants did or said moved me to "believe" in Christ OR God. I had no belief. I was wandering. The music was beautiful and I looked at Jesus on the cross on the wall and felt sorry for him and wondered, what did he do to deserve that other than be a nice guy? Later I learned more and I realized there IS a God who cares and it made sense to me (finally). For this I am VERY grateful. Instead of the jargon, "oh, it's a myth," or "Oh, Jesus believed in myths," or "Jesus told us to love others and God," (whoever God might be), etc. And that by people who say they are Christian.
Happens all the time. That is why we have “different theories” among scientists
It would depend on what one is talking about.
And yet, people go to two different doctors because one wants a second opinion, and you get a different opinion. I think my example is more appropriate than your analogy.
Again… see above reference.
Happy to dialogue, discuss, debate in the spirit of love and respect for each otherBut, again, the soul as well as the conscience is not really “verifiable” by any means. The only think we can verify is that we have a brain that works but really not why it works. IMV
Yes we have. I don’t know how else to say it except for the example I gave. Babies are born each with a different personality and the don’t come as blank pages. What alternative view do you have?
Again… non-verifiable by any means
I’m not sure how that changes what I have said. If the soul is defined as “mind, will and emotions”, then, by the nature of the definition, puppies have soul.
As I said, I can only view in according to my foundation of scripture:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Very clear that man has a spirit separate from a soul. It can be found throughout scripture.
Yes, there are always differing viewpoints and understandings.
LOL… YES! It is never-ending! We have literal volumes and volumes of book on the many subjects in the Bible and we haven’t exhausted all that is written therein.
It seems that there are two developing or developed views of the soul here, No, sorry, I am wrong. There are three.Fair enough. Again, two people looking at the same thing and coming to different conclusions?
To me it is obvious in that the soul that contains the conscience is displayed in babies. It will never be “verifiable” scientifically because we will never be able to “view” the soul and conscience. .
Maybe I should have said “obvious to me”?
Here, I can only refer to it in reference to my position as a believer in Jesus Christ and the scripture therein.
Yes, puppies have souls along with other created creatures. (Whether parameciums have souls or not, I have no idea
What differentiates animals from human beings is that man has a spirit made in His image and in His likeness.
I'm limiting it to the context of this thread, because it is much more complex than that if you start to wonder afield.
Here is what I summarize of those views from the discussion so far.
1. Mind, body and soul as distinct aspects of the individual. Two physical aspects and one immaterial aspect.
2. Mind and soul synonymized within the body. The immaterial and material fused in some way as one thing that is all our thinking, personality and the us that is us.
3. No soul. Only mind and body.
To touch briefly on my allusions to the greater field of views, there is controversy on the existence, origin, number, duration, type, domain and on and on among different cultures, religions, times and so forth. Too complex for discussion here beyond the mere mention of all of that.
Conceptual definitions based on what is believed about the soul exist, but there is no known objective evidence to confirm these definitions or that the soul indeed does exist as those that believe that existence claim. In other words, the definitions are based on things believed and not the observation of the soul in hand.
My own view is based on belief and faith and not on any objective evidence I can present. It falls into the first category. I admit this knowing that I could be wrong about it and that my view is based on that bias and not on any objective evidence.
No objective evidence provided in this reference, just conjecture as to the subjective belief in the existence of the soul.Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.
So let’s look at some info:
"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."
Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.www.psychologytoday.com
Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.
From your source:
While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.
Between individuals with equivalent knowledge, experience and expertise, sure.
But other than personal bias, how would a person come to the best conclusion in your scenario?
By this view, opting to have me perform your necessary brain surgery while wondering why I started my first incision on your knee is OK.
After all, I came to a different conclusion than the atheist physician and you'd be better off having a Christian perform the surgery, because on that basis I have a shared love and belief that will ensure your success? But that wouldn't be basing the decision on the evidence, but upon personal bias.
So there is a difference and some conclusions have more weight than others.
But people do not go to an entomologist or an auto mechanic to be diagnosed even if those two people will look at the same evidence.
I appreciate that. It is just in the initial stages and, given all the demands on me, sadly may not unfold as I hope. Time will tell.Again… see above reference.
I don't know what you mean by conscience here. Are you talking about a sense of morality? Some of that is verifiable.
Clearly we are learning a lot about brains and how they work. Why they work the way they do and the differences in them is a job for psychology.
If I may, it seems that you are in that group that synonymize mind and soul as one thing with both a material and immaterial aspect. Would that be correct?
That is the crux of the issue and the apparent dichotomy.
So based on scripture you believe that spirit and soul are not synonymous. Is this view inserting a fourth element or just a difference in definition?
And teasing through all of that is where we end up here.
Have a wonderful morning. I hope the temperatures around you are more congenial than those surrounding me.
False. My field of study in college was psychology, and two words that are never used are "soul" and "evil". These are religious terms, and irrelevant to studying human behavior. Soul is a broad metaphor that includes some human features, but these features have more specific and accurate words, like consciousness or agency. "Soul" is a fun and poetic word to use when fact and precision isn't necessary.
To explain why you are eager to make your claim here has a simple explanation in psychology. You recognize that the word "soul" has no definitive meaning or application, and you are claiming that it is what psychology examines as a way to give the word legitimacy and descriptive significance. The question is if you are self-aware enough to realize what you are doing, or acting on fear and impulse.
There has been efforts to make science more attractive to the public for over a decade, expecially given the anti-science prejudice as promoted by the far right. Digging through the dust bin of human history the word "soul" has plucked out, and in your article it was brought back to life, but only as a "God of the gaps" reference. All the article really says is that there are still unknowns about how brains function, and the mystery of self-awareness and identity.Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.
So let’s look at some info:
"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."
Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.
My own opinion is that humans are still trying to find some ultimate significance to the human species, and by association so is the self. Religions have a track record of creating a script, but a bad track record of finding any such significance. So now some folks in science are trying, which is also an old tradition. I think it a fool's errand, and illustrates the insecurity and neediness that most humans feel. There is a lot of effort extended to satisfy the ego and fear, and very little to help the individual learn emotional intelliegnce: stability and agency. We humans are very much like feral cats, that if our fear and insecurity is allowed to fester, and then exploited and become dependent on social/religious norms, we are set in our ways. And trying to mature beyond these behavioral patterns is a long shot.
I think that it will remain an unanswerable question which is why there is so much discussion on this issue. One’s person “best conclusion” would not be someone else's
I think this is way out of proportion. We aren’t talking about two completely different things such as knee incision and brain surgery.
The context is when I said you get a second opinion that have different results we are talking about the same knee and surgeons that both have their degrees in knees.
I’m not sure where you are going with this or even why it is presented.
you completely lost me on what you are trying to say.
OK.
The context is when I said you get a second opinion that have different results we are talking about the same knee and surgeons that both have their degrees in knees.
OK.. hope so.
I’m not so sure. The conscience would part of the soul. I think what is verifiable is that the mind needs to be operating and is united with the soul. I think I shouldn’t have mentioned it because it makes the breadth of what we are talking about too wide and then it becomes too deep to keep it on point.
Yes we are.
Yes, the soul will operate through the mind.
As I have said ( I think)
The context was “Does a puppy have a soul and how is it different from humans”. I am just showing that I believe they are different. Not “Inserting” necessarily but simply explaining your point
We will be in the 80’s today with sunshine!
Have a great day
Very well painted.
I will also admit that I don’t know everything. In times past I have said that I can imagine Jesus sitting everyone down in the class of Christianity 101 to explain it correctly because I know I don’t know everything and the more I know the more I realize how little I know.
I would add a fourth somewhat like unto your #1 - because of my bias
Two immaterial aspects and one physical. The body, which includes the brain, the soul (mind, will and emotions), and the spirit). I usually say it this way, man is a spirit being that has a soul and lives in a body.
That would be a modern viewpoint, yes.
I don't think it is unanswerable. A mechanics conclusions would be different from a physicians in the context of medical assessment. Which holds more weight and is really a complete look at the evidence?
I think that it will remain an unanswerable question which is why there is so much discussion on this issue. One’s person “best conclusion” would not be someone else's
It was presented to illustrate the very real point that an expert view is more important in some circumstances than in others. While we are all free to come to our own conclusions, the fact of the matter is that those conclusions are not equivalent and often wanting. That this exists as a fact is not evidence that a poor conclusion is sound reasoning for its acceptance merely because someone can derive it.
I think it is testable and that we are testing right now.
It was intended as an example of how bias can be the reason for accepting a conclusion instead of a careful evaluation of the facts. If a person picks or rejects a medical procedure on the basis of irrelevant conditions, they are not making a sound decision on the facts. People actually do this.
Merely claiming that it is simply a case of two people looking at the same evidence is really an insufficient excuse to reject a conclusion on that basis.
See, even you would opt to go to an expert whose skills, education and experience put his look at the evidence in a superior position to an entomologist looking at the same evidence.
It will depend on how much time I can set aside.
Any claim of a soul would need verification to demonstrate it. This would be the condition of something physical or a manifestation of the physical that, unlike the soul at this point, is merely speculated. We can examine conscience and observe it in action. That is not true of the soul.
If there is a mixed definition synonymizing soul and mind, then there would have to be some way to separate the two in order to say anything about the soul.
Agreed.
Never-the-less, the existence of the soul needs to be established in either view as separate or in conjunction with the mind. That is where we are and where mankind has always been as far as I am aware.
I'm still trying to understand what you mean here. Is the spirit the same as soul or another distinct aspect of the whole organism?
Rub it in. LOL! I hope you enjoy it. It is cold and rainy here. Still a good day in its own context for reasons more than just the weather.
We will be in the 80’s today with sunshine!
Have a great day
Take care.
Interesting. How are 2 and 3 different if mind and soul are treated as synonyms.
Also, when you use the word immaterial, do you mean not made of matter, like energy or force, or not part of physical reality, which would be unlike energy and force. For me, energy is physical but immaterial, whereas matter is both and is a specific form of the immaterial made material, and by this reckoning, the material and immaterial are continually fused, as when a star (material and physical) generates a gravitational field (immaterial and physical) with controls the movement of an orbiting planet (matter).
I ask because some posit nonphysical reality, which they call immaterial, but I would call supernatural to distinguish from the immaterial aspects of physical reality (nature).
With that in mind, I would write it like this:
1. Soul refers to something not physical (supernatural) able to exist outside of nature, not made of matter or energy, and able to survive death.
2. Soul refers to personality (metaphor for something generated by the physical brain and which does not survive destruction of the brain)
What do you think?
I looked at the article, and it didn't live up to the claim in its title: "Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’"Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
He writes, "But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational." What irrational enigmas, and how does the concept of the soul make them rational. He doesn't say.
The only science in the article was a description of the slit-lamp experiment and the role of consciousness in collapsing quantum probability waves into particles, and a reference to 430 atoms clusters demonstrating quantum uncertainty at a more macroscopic level, which is what Schrödinger's cat did as a thought experiment, but this isn't support for any claim about the soul being anything but another word for mind or an aspect of mind.
Also, he contradicts your claim about the soul being a scientific concept or a part of science with, "As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death."
So where's the evidence for a soul he claims exists? Nowhere in that article. He's describing mind.
Incidentally, this is how Deepak Chopra started. Also a graduate of Harvard medical school, who also began pitching hocus-pocus and discovered he could make a better living there, and ended up abandoning scientific medicine. To his credit, Lanza hasn't done that, but he has crossed a line pitching to the lay community in Psychology Today, using clickbait (a misleading title), and referring to a hypothesis like "biocentrism" as a scientific theory.