# Christian Evolutionists. When did man acquire a soul ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344 "2010-04-16T14:42:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/41 "2010-04-18T06:31:52Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > In Catholic theology yes, they are contradictory. > Axioms are what they are. By definition (in Catholic theology) only humans have immortal souls and immortal souls are only found in humans. That’s the answer. That, again, is evading the question. Suppose your god yanks the soul out of someone; surely Mr Omnipotent could do that. What happens? What does a soul do for someone? And the answer can’t be “they die”, if human ancestors were wandering around soulless. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If you want to shit this thread, go ahead, you’re prone to thread-diarrhoea anyway. But this is a religion thread and I imagine the OP being asked in good faith in the context of religion. Of course, “religion teh sux0r” is your simgle answer to all threads. What is it? Ctrl+Shift+F8? You must have a shortcut or macro for this. Whine, whine. Skeptics started posting by the third post; if the OP wanted only yes-men that failed from the outset. And, regardless of your persecution fantasies I post all the time without mentioning religion. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No childish _boom_. It is bestowed upon conception so the whole feeling it is not up to the question. And how is that less “childish”? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Your even more childish Soul Eradicator can be seen, if we’re going to have some sort of adult discussion, in two ways: You HAVE heard of the concept of a thought experiment? And by the way; a believer is in no position to go around calling other people “childish”. They still believe in imaginary friends; that’s childish. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 1. It is axiomatically (and also scientifically) impossible to build a machine that interacts with souls. Since souls are not matter or energy they escape the realm of weapons. Wrong. If souls existed, they supposedly interact with us; so that means that they interact with energy & matter, since we are made of those. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 1. A knife to the heart, bullet to the head or a good spoonful of plutonium kill and could be said that, indirectly, are soul eradicators. So, I imagine it must feel like …being you. What, you think I’m a zombie? Dead, yet still posting? And since a soul supposedly survives death, those aren’t “soul eradicators” anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Jump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/47e85d/32.png) [@Jump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jump)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/42 "2010-04-18T15:33:16Z")
Maybe “souls” and "religion are all bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/43 "2010-04-18T17:06:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That, again, is evading the question. Suppose your god yanks the soul out of someone; surely Mr Omnipotent could do that. What happens? What does a soul do for someone? And the answer can’t be “they die”, if human ancestors were wandering around soulless. How can a human live without lungs? Huma ancestors lived without lungs!!! Again, in the context of Catholic theology the souls becomes essential for living. Bonobos and peripatus to need eternal souls, humans do. > [@](#): > > Whine, whine. Skeptics started posting by the third post; if the OP wanted only yes-men that failed from the outset. And, regardless of your persecution fantasies I post all the time without mentioning religion. Skeptics…you use that word as if it were relvant. What’s next? We can’t talk about Hamlet’s feelings because _“Dude, that Hamlet guy isn’t real, I’m a Hamlet-skeptic, he has no feelings”_? Sure you can not post about religion, I’ve seen you do it and even agreed with you. But the very hint of it tranforms you in…well…the usual. > [@](#): > > And how is that less “childish”? If you don’t use _boom_ and BFG-9000 it instantaneously lower the level of childishness. > [@](#): > > You HAVE heard of the concept of a thought experiment? Sure. You HAVE heard about honestly wanting to debate? > [@](#): > > And by the way; a believer is in no position to go around calling other people “childish”. They still believe in imaginary friends; that’s childish. DingDingDingDingDing!!! The pony…its trick. Yes, because even a deluded-dimwitt like me can see you got the one thing to say. Your skeptical, science-savvy mind should be able to see that. An atheist can answer this thread without spewing fecal matter, you now, actually contributing. > [@](#): > > Wrong. If souls existed, they supposedly interact with us; so that means that they interact with energy & matter, since we are made of those. No, they don’t have to. Science cannot speak of the interaction between matter/energy and non-matter energy. > [@](#): > > What, you think I’m a zombie? Dead, yet still posting? And since a soul supposedly survives death, those aren’t “soul eradicators” anyway. [/QUOTE] Reading comprehension, dude. Dying of plutonium poisoning must feel like being you, alive; maybe even better knowing the end is certain. It eradicates the soul from the physical world. > [@Jump](#): > > Maybe “souls” and "religion are all bullshit? Sure, they can be bullshit. But, it’s like my AD&D Druid’s stats and equipment. They may not be real in any physycal sense, but we can still talk about them. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/44 "2010-04-18T17:29:53Z")
Isn’t it self-evident that if you believe God and religion are nonsense, that your contribution to a thread asking a theological question is thread-shitting if it amounts to some form of, “But there is no God. So the question is irrelevant.” Then the chorus of “Well saids” and attaboys follow. It’s apparently irresistible. Does it just take a degree of self control that’s not humanly possible to refrain from shitting in a thread whose resolution, it would appear, has no real interest for you? Seriously, WTF? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/45 "2010-04-18T20:07:25Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No, they don’t have to. Science cannot speak of the interaction between matter/energy and non-matter energy. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Theologically speaking, isn’'t having a soul supposed to influence our behavior? That certainly seems to be what some of the other posters in this thread are saying. And if our souls influence our behavior, then isn’t that a concrete example of an interaction between “matter/energy and non-matter/energy”? As we learn more and more about neurology, at some point we should be able to detect the influence the soul exerts on our neurons. Chemistry and physics will predict a particular pattern of neurological behavior that will deviate from what we see in the real world. That deviation will be evidence for the existence of souls. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/46 "2010-04-18T20:08:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > How can a human live without lungs? Huma ancestors lived without lungs!!! > Again, in the context of Catholic theology the souls becomes essential for living. Bonobos and peripatus to need eternal souls, humans do. No, according to Catholic theology by your own description souls are NOT necessary for living since the immediate ancestors of humans with souls had no souls and were alive. You are just trying to evade answering what a soul actually does. Again; if God removed your soul, what would happen? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sure. You HAVE heard about honestly wanting to debate? Have you? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > DingDingDingDingDing!!! > The pony…its trick. > Yes, because even a deluded-dimwitt like me can see you got the one thing to say. Your skeptical, science-savvy mind should be able to see that. > An atheist can answer this thread without spewing fecal matter, you now, actually contributing. You are the one who started spewing insults at me, personally. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No, they don’t have to. Science cannot speak of the interaction between matter/energy and non-matter energy. Yes, it can. It doesn’t because no such thing actually exists; but if it did, science could. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/47 "2010-04-18T20:13:13Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sure, they can be bullshit. But, it’s like my AD&D Druid’s stats and equipment. They may not be real in any physycal sense, but we can still talk about them. As usual I regret very much having **Der Trihs** “on my side” in this thread. But still, to talk about the soul it would help to define it clearly, yes? That’s why I personally am curious how the people responding to this question would define the nature of the soul, how it’s supposed to interact with physical matter, and what exactly the difference is between having a soul and not having one, if there is any. ---
**Author:** ![OrvilleWright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e57/32.png) [@OrvilleWright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OrvilleWright)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/48 "2010-04-18T20:40:49Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > As a former Christian I have found that almost all the answers to profound questions like this became easier once I stopped having to rationalize them with religion. When did humans acquire souls? There is no such thing as a soul. Why does God permit evil? There is no God. Why are we here? There is no need to come up with a reason if there is no creator. Reality exists independent of you atheist musings. On the _profound_ issue of God “permitting” evil, the analgous situation is parenting. Why do parents allow their children to get into trouble, sometimes to harm or even kill themselves? There are many answers, but the clearest, most immediate answer is free will. You are free to do anything as stupid as you wish, regardless of your age. > [@](#): > > I think one of the fundamental mistakes in reasoning that people make is that humans are different in \*kind \*than other animals, rather than just different in _degree_. One of the fundamental mistakes in reasoning that atheists make is to pretend that the universe _created_ itself, out of nothing. Information, energy, intelligence, all from nada. The fatuous pretension of believing this is laughably naive. Intelligence only comes from intelligence. Then where did God come from? The Holy Bible answered this question more than 2000 years ago. God just IS. He said “I am.” Why an eternal universe was so easily believable through the mid twentieth century but an eternal God is inconceivable is a question atheists need to answer. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/49 "2010-04-18T20:45:52Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > As usual I regret very much having **Der Trihs** “on my side” in this thread. But still, to talk about the soul it would help to define it clearly, yes? That’s why I personally am curious how the people responding to this question would define the nature of the soul, how it’s supposed to interact with physical matter, and what exactly the difference is between having a soul and not having one, if there is any. This is a good question even if it is a slight hijack. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says > [@](#): > > 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. > [@](#): > > 1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”[8] To speak about the soul is so spiritual (well, duh) that using the words we use for matter is always an analogy. The soul is what makes us human rather than strictly biological; it is a divine spark inside us, it allows to know good and evil and to experience God. As to how it interacts with the body…it’s a fucking good question. The unity between is such that even the word interaction seems incomplete, they are one thing. How does non-matter interact with matter, in the end, may not be fully answerable in scientific terms; especially because the soul is not knowable by science. I’m sure this is not the best answer, not MY best anyway. It’s like fully explainig why I like bananas better than peaches: at some point it’s simply “_because I do_”. I hope this helps, somehow. I’ll try to find a better answer. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/50 "2010-04-18T21:05:07Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Okay, but it would seem unfair to me to the humans prior to any arbitrary point in time. This would suggest that someone’s (who qualifies for a soul) mother or father missed out on eternity. doesn’t exactly seem divinely fair. > > And if you want to go to 6000 years, what about the American native ancestors who are well documented to have arrived on our continent at least 12000 years ago? First, if pre-Adamites existed without knowledge of a soul, afterlife. or Deity and died & stayed dead, how is that unfair? It’s not like they were dangled something & then had it jerked away. HOWEVER, it could also be they are retroactively raised as all sentient life participates in the Redemption of Christ. In the New Creation we may see beings from all along the evolutionary scale. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some dinosaurs around, just because as we all know and I am sure God agrees, dinosaurs are cool! And I think Jesus will occasionally ride one, just to mess with some people. As for the 12000 year old American native ancestors, I said that ensoulment could have been as long as tens of thousands of years ago. But not knowing what their awareness was RE God, souls & afterlife, they could well have been pre-Adamics. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/51 "2010-04-18T21:05:59Z")
> [@OrvilleWright](#): > > On the _profound_ issue of God “permitting” evil, the analgous situation is parenting. Why do parents allow their children to get into trouble, sometimes to harm or even kill themselves? There are many answers, but the clearest, most immediate answer is free will. You are free to do anything as stupid as you wish, regardless of your age. That doesn’t work, since parents are not omnipotent, not omniscient, nor did they design their children from scratch. The relationship between God and humans isn’t much like parenting at all, except a severely abusive one. > [@OrvilleWright](#): > > One of the fundamental mistakes in reasoning that atheists make is to pretend that the universe _created_ itself, out of nothing. Information, energy, intelligence, all from nada. The fatuous pretension of believing this is laughably naive. > > Intelligence only comes from intelligence. Except that simply isn’t true; we evolved from lesser intelligences, and less intelligent species evolved from species that weren’t intelligent at all. And there’s nothing more “naive” than being a believer. Than someone who thinks that his own evidence free, logic & physics denying fantasy just happens to be true. Never mind that religion has over and over again been proven wrong, or that it’s wildly contradictory; believe because you want to believe. That’s “naive”. Pure self indulgent fantasy. > [@OrvilleWright](#): > > Then where did God come from? The Holy Bible answered this question more than 2000 years ago. God just IS. He said “I am.” In other words, shut up, don’t ask questions and mindlessly believe. Why? Because a book written by deeply ignorant barbarians says so! > [@OrvilleWright](#): > > Why an eternal universe was so easily believable through the mid twentieth century but an eternal God is inconceivable is a question atheists need to answer. Because there’s plenty of evidence for a universe, none for a god. And because the universe isn’t logically incoherent, nor is it a myth made up by primitives. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > To speak about the soul is so spiritual (well, duh) that using the words we use for matter is always an analogy. The soul is what makes us human rather than strictly biological; it is a divine spark inside us, it allows to know good and evil and to experience God. So if your god ripped out your soul you’d become a sociopathic atheist? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > As to how it interacts with the body…it’s a fucking good question. The unity between is such that even the word interaction seems incomplete, they are one thing. How does non-matter interact with matter, in the end, may not be fully answerable in scientific terms; especially because the soul is not knowable by science. And what makes you think that? if the soul actually existed, there’s no reason to think it would be unknowable by science. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/52 "2010-04-18T21:11:07Z")
> [@OrvilleWright](#): > > Intelligence only comes from intelligence. An assertion offered without evidence; there is no reason whatever to believe that this is true. Unless, perhaps, you think it must be true because it uses the same word twice in a parallel structure. > [@OrvilleWright](#): > > Then where did God come from? The Holy Bible answered this question more than 2000 years ago. God just IS. He said “I am.” Not really on-topic, but I have to ask: why will you believe this so easily about God, but ridicule the _exact same argument_ when it’s made about the universe itself? :dubious: > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > To speak about the soul is so spiritual (well, duh) that using the words we use for matter is always an analogy. The soul is what makes us human rather than strictly biological; it is a divine spark inside us, it allows to know good and evil and to experience God. But what makes it possible to witness, observe, or verify this difference? In other words, suppose I build a robot with an artificial consciousness that precisely counterfeits the working of a human brain – it has thoughts, memories, opinions, morals, emotions, everything. What is it that makes _me_ a “person” and the robot just a machine? Full disclosure: in my view, there is no meaningful distinction. The robot is just as much a living individual as I am, and it’s only a technical detail that it would be incorrect to call it “human.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/53 "2010-04-18T21:50:07Z")
> [@OrvilleWright](#): > > The fatuous pretension of believing this is laughably naive. It’s really funny how you think being snotty and condescending somehow advances your argument. > [@](#): > > Intelligence only comes from intelligence. This is contradicted by the evidence. > [@](#): > > Why an eternal universe was so easily believable through the mid twentieth century but an eternal God is inconceivable is a question atheists need to answer. Perhaps it is impossible for “something to appear out of nothing”. But all that means is that the Big Bang must have had SOME cause. There’s no reason to identify that cause with the Christian God, particularly when so much of what we DO know about the beginning of the universe contradicts what’s written in the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/54 "2010-04-18T22:01:57Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The soul is what makes us human rather than strictly biological; it is a divine spark inside us, it allows to know good and evil and to experience God. … How does non-matter interact with matter, in the end, may not be fully answerable in scientific terms; especially because the soul is not knowable by science. If the soul has a measurable effect on the material world (as you say it does by allowing us to know good and evil and experience God) then the soul is ABSOLUTELY knowable by science. All we have to do is track down how the behavior of our neurons deviates from what chemistry and physics would predict. That deviation would be concrete evidence for the soul at work. I’ve always been a bit baffled that Christian scientists haven’t looked harder for the evidence of the soul. After all, no other manifestation of the divine is so accessible to empirical investigation. You can’t count on miracles happening on command, and prayer is also subject to divine whim. But the soul, as described by church doctrine, exerts a constant and measurable influence on the behavior of the flesh. It’s like a petri dish for experimenting with theological hypotheticals. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/55 "2010-04-18T22:17:24Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I’ve always been a bit baffled that Christian scientists haven’t looked harder for the evidence of the soul. No doubt it’s because attempts to prove religious concepts using science result in science disproving the religious concept, instead. Or no results at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/56 "2010-04-18T22:24:10Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If the soul has a measurable effect on the material world (as you say it does by allowing us to know good and evil and experience God) then the soul is ABSOLUTELY knowable by science. All we have to do is track down how the behavior of our neurons deviates from what chemistry and physics would predict. That deviation would be concrete evidence for the soul at work. First of all, the experiment you are proposing is well beyond our capabilities at present. Secondly, if we were able to detect some deviation, an actual scientist would look to change our theories of chemistry and physics-- not postulate that he discovered “the soul”. > [@](#): > > I’ve always been a bit baffled that Christian scientists haven’t looked harder for the evidence of the soul. After all, no other manifestation of the divine is so accessible to empirical investigation. You can’t count on miracles happening on command, and prayer is also subject to divine whim. But the soul, as described by church doctrine, exerts a constant and measurable influence on the behavior of the flesh. It’s like a petri dish for experimenting with theological hypotheticals. Science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural. If it comes under the umbrella of science, it is, by definition, natural. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/57 "2010-04-18T22:43:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > First of all, the experiment you are proposing is well beyond our capabilities at present. Secondly, if we were able to detect some deviation, an actual scientist would look to change our theories of chemistry and physics-- not postulate that he discovered “the soul”. If it did everything a soul is supposed to do, I’m sure that they would call it a soul sooner or later. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural. If it comes under the umbrella of science, it is, by definition, natural. The only reason that it doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural is that the supernatural doesn’t exist. If it did, science would concern itself with it. It might refuse to call it “supernatural”, but it would. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/58 "2010-04-18T22:46:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > First of all, the experiment you are proposing is well beyond our capabilities at present. Secondly, if we were able to detect some deviation, an actual scientist would look to change our theories of chemistry and physics-- not postulate that he discovered “the soul”. It’s unclear if it’s beyond our capabilities now or not. Depending on how the soul influences the behavior of the neurons, it might actually be detectable with current technology if we were to actively look for it. I was just commenting on the curious fact that Christians don’t seem to be interested in looking for evidence of the soul, even though according to the doctrine of most denominations the evidence should be there. I mean, plenty of Christians spend a lot of time talking about all the amazing things God does around the world on a daily basis. It seems like they’d take a similar interest in the miracle that occurs in their head every minute of every day. Of course, even if we don’t go actively looking, we’ll probably stumble on it accidentally as we learn more and more about how the brain works. And such an anomaly won’t be able to be accounted for by changing the laws of chemistry or physics, since it would be an anomaly that appeared _only inside living human brains_. If chemistry and physics work differently inside the brain than outside, then you can’t fix things just by changing the rules of chemistry and physics which apply universally. Instead you have to look for another source of influence. > [@](#): > > Science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural. If it comes under the umbrella of science, it is, by definition, natural. Absolutely. I never said anything about “the supernatural”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/59 "2010-04-18T22:48:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If it did everything a soul is supposed to do, I’m sure that they would call it a soul sooner or later. I’m not sure who you mean by “they”. If you mean scientists who are Christians, then maybe they would, and they’d be “kicked out” of the scientific mainstream. There is no scientific consensus on “everything a soul is supposed to do”. > [@](#): > > The only reason that it doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural is that the supernatural doesn’t exist. Doesn’t exist as part of the material world. Although that might be redundant… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344/60 "2010-04-18T23:04:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not sure who you mean by “they”. If you mean scientists who are Christians, then maybe they would, and they’d be “kicked out” of the scientific mainstream. Not if they discovered something that acted like a soul is typically supposed to, and which could be independently verified by other scientists. They might come up with a more “sciency” sounding official word for it, but most would refer to it as a soul in normal conversation. And by “they”, I mean whichever scientists discovered it of whatever religion, if any. Science is by nature hostile to religion because religion is consistently wrong, not because scientists themselves are necessarily personally hostile to religion. If souls were discovered, if the discovery could be verified by other scientists then souls would become part of the scientific mainstream. Yes, a scientist who claims to have discovered evidence of the soul in the real world is going to get " “kicked out” of the scientific mainstream" for the simple reason that no such evidence exists; but that’s simply because like pretty much all religious ideas the soul is imaginary. Not because science would reject the idea if it turned out to be true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-evolutionists-when-did-man-acquire-a-soul/536344.md?page=4)