Mr_Spinkles said:
There are people who have earned their PhD's for their research in one of the areas I mentioned--such as "love"--studied in a scientific context. You ask an interesting question, but with all due respect, attempting to answer it would be a pointless exercise: I would attribute human experiences to causes that can be discerned via methodological naturalism, and the scope of material on scientific research into human experiences like love, hate, etc. is enormous.
At any rate, we both already know that:
1) No, I can't explain everything in the world, and
2) No, that isn't a good reason to believe in souls, leprechauns, or a countless number of other supernatural entities. In my opinion, no explanation is better than a made-up one.
Sounds to me that you are saying that:
1) Because one cannot apply a zealot-like litmus test that is subjectively (so much so that one feels their litmus is completely objective) founded on ones ideology, or provide an answer in the face of a challenge, the exercise in deemed "pointless".
2) PhD's or other highly educated people have studied the issue of "love"or other highly debatable, and as long as they support one's position, they are credible. Never mind if they are outnumbered by millions. Everybody else is wrong, and one does not have to prove it.
3) If one cannot explain the "world" from one's OWN position, using only the tools that one believes in (all others must be substandard), then the world is impossible to explain.
4) One may not know all the answers, but answers that do not meet one's approval are automatically wrong, and are based on fantasy.
If I didn't know any better, I would think that I was talking to a Christian or Islamic extremist. I'm not saying the position is right or wrong, I'm just making an observation. The former is based on FAITH. You don't have to believe in a soul, but you certainly cannot explain its ABSCENCE. True scientific philosophy dictates that nothing can be proved, only
supported. In order for something to be proven and true, like saying that a ball thrown up in the air will always return to the ground because to gravity, you would have to have the ball do that for ETERNITY. Thus, the rational for Chi Squared analysis, or the Cruscal-Wallace statisical variances tests to name a couple. I would even throw it the ever popular Meta-Analysis.
Bottom line? Well in my own experiences ,
and I only use these two groups 'cause its 4am and I tired, Atheists and Christians are like Democrats and Republicans; both have valid and invalid points but refuse to meet in the middle. Neither gives credibility the moderates in order to save face.
Is there a soul? Yeah, probably. Is it like some floating entity like one reads in the bible? Probably not. Does a soul go to "heaven"? Maybe not in the biblical sense. Maybe the soul goes to or becomes part of , an unrealized dimensional shift. But hey, thats based on faith as well. The only ones that know the real truth are dead.