These kinds of question shows a misunderstanding of science. Science doesn’t “believe” in anything. It merely seeks to recognize whether objective evidence for a phenomenon exists. Science would only say that no credible evidence for a soul has been established.
We don’t fully understand consciousness, but there is no reason to equate consciousness to the religious concept of a soul. We have no evidence that consciousness has any existence in the absence of brain function.
I fail to see why lifeforms lacking a nervous system require any special explanation.
“Does science believe there is something akin to a soul, as described by most religious traditions?” is akin to asking “Do microscopes believe in microbes?”
Think I already said in this thread, or maybe it was elsewhere, that most people don’t actually change from who they really are, deep inside as a person – they just become less skilled at covering it up.
And this may be getting out there, but – how do we know for certain that computers haven’t become self-aware? Perhaps not each individual CPU possesses awareness, but I swear, sometimes my PC acts like a petulant teenager when I go through my nightly reboot. Massive interconnected networks like the NSA’s supercomputer, or the Internet itself, contain so much mass & energy, with more information by orders of magnitude than the human brain, and yet we’re to assume they’re purely material, possessing zero awareness of any kind? OTOH I can’t think of any reasonable way to test that hypothesis.
The point was science is a tool, like a hammer or a microscope or a cuticle knife.
The fact you are self aware proves absolutely nothing in relation to a “soul” which is typically thought of as a supernatural and often durable extra-body item.
The fact that you are sentient in no way proves or even suggests the existence of some immaterial essence.
There’s a point with that argument though where the “person” in question is so vaguely defined “deep inside” that you can’t really consider that to be a person. I mean, I consider myself to be the sum of all of my personality, including the more superficial stuff. If I went through a harrowing life of pain and sorrow, and ended up seeming a very different person only to still be “truly” myself deep down somewhere, I don’t think it would be reasonable to recognise whatever core identity there as being “me”.
And even then i’d tend to disagree that a person’s most fundamental self doesn’t change (or, at least, often does).
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go look at some slides quickly. My microscope refuses to work tomorrow.
For every folk remedy that turned out, later, to have a valid basis, there are forty that don’t. Again, you run into the same problem: your approach would force us to accept everything, no matter how absurd. Lunacy is associated with the full moon…or with demonic possession. Painting with woad produces defense against spears.
You’re taking away any ability to discern truth from fantasy.
This is not a really useful approach to learning the truth.
Sure, but it’s a commonly permitted bit of sloppy language. It’s like saying that in evolution an organism is “designed” for something. Humans are designed for running.
Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his essays, defended the use of commonplace language, even when it is incorrect, in informal use. We aren’t a scientific conference here, were a bunch of Jaspers sharing opinions. Too much emphasis on absolute propriety of terminology is burdensome. If we all know what we mean, let’s allow some looseness of usage.
It’s not a case of sloppy language, though. It is a presentation of “Science” as a monolithic and powerful group of scientists with stated goals and ideas written in stone, not a process. It’s a way of saying “It doesn’t matter that the facts aren’t with us-What matters is that “Big Science” is opposing us!”
Well, okay, that’s a slight problem. But, still, by and large, science is close to monolithic on some things. Science says that gravitation is universal; science says species diverge from common ancestors; etc. It isn’t the best way of phrasing it, but it is, in essence, true.
I am not sure what you mean by the claim that “gravitation is universal”
This is only true to the classical limit, at microscopic length scales quantum mechanics and general relativity do not match. And even in general relativity gravitational force is considered a fictitious force.
The current consensus really doesn’t match your claims nor are they universal outside of extremely outdated high school science books.
This is another fairly absurd case of extremely narrow interpretations justifying persnickety pedantic claims. “Universal gravitation” is still taught in college-level science classes, with the quantum physics exceptions only dealt with in upper level classes.
Don’t play these childish games. They add nothing to a serious discussion.
Wait…lower level college courses (which are pitifully out of date btw) is indicative of the fields universal beliefs?
That is what you are claiming and that is absurdity. But I will tell you what, if you will show me that current scientists (and not undergrads) are still doing research on Newtonian mechanics and I will consider your claim.
My bad - “believe” was certainly not the right word to use here! I meant to ask if science had evidence, one way or the other, about this frequent claim by nearly all religions I know of.
That is assuming that consciousness is somehow representative of life. It is not. A brain dead person with no EEG can be kept alive for long periods; such cases have shown the ability to regulate metabolism and other activities you would associate with “life”. Primitive lifeforms are fully alive with no/rudimentary nervous system. They are incapable of conscious self-awareness, but nevertheless fully alive. So what makes them alive?
It is such thinking that led philosophical systems to evolve around the “soul”. Science it seems is content to dismiss such claims without providing a scientific explanation. Science has not defined life - hence it cannot define death, or make claims about the “soul” one way or the other. I would be happy to be set straight on this if you have further information.
Please see above.
The criteria we use to define death for a human (brain death) does not even apply to lifeforms that lack any kind of nervous system. IMO, to refute religious claims of a “soul”, science must credibly define life and death that applies to all lifeforms, and not just complex-brained animals.
The problem is in thinking of mind as a thing, as a self. More becomes reasonable if you think of it as a process comparable (although much more complicated) to a wave of water or the flame of a fire.
Western religions, at least, think of the soul as a conscious entity, and often claim that consciousness proves the existence of the soul. They don’t think animals have souls. I know of no one who equates life with consciousness.
Actually science has lots of definitions of life, usually not equivalent. How would you know which definition is correct? Things in the world don’t often neatly map to our definitions, which are just labels for them. Heck, we can hardly define chair, let alone life.
This has been explained upthread but I think you have your fingers in your ears because you don’t want to let the central plank of your argument go.
It would be flat out nonsense to say that simple animals must have souls because they are “alive” yet have no central nervous system or self awareness: neither of these things is a necessary criteria for life.
What you are saying is like saying my car must have a hidden compartment containing a kitchen because it’s a car yet it doesn’t have a microwave oven or a fridge. Having a microwave and fridge simply isn’t a necessary criteria for being a car and so there is no need to leap to wild conclusions that cars must have hidden kitchens since they are cars. In order for them to be cars they just need engines, wheels, seats etc.
Similarly, having a central nervous system and self awareness simply isn’t a necessary criteria for being alive and so there is no need to leap to wild conclusions that alive things must have hidden souls since they are alive. In order for them to be alive they just need to reproduce, eat etc and there are ways for them to do this without having self awareness or a CNS.
You ask rhetorically “what makes them alive?” The answer to your question is not some deep metaphysical woo, it’s very prosaic: they are “alive” because that’s the word we use to describe things that have certain objective features (such as that the thing reproduces).
Well to be fair we are still in the dark on this one.
I would think that good scientists would have a view that we know what we know and watch out because that could change tomorrow.
To say there is no soul, nup, never will be, etc is not scientific thinking.
My opinion is that we don’t know enough to say one way or the other but at the moment based on evidence I can see no rational view that says we have a soul. But I do feel that there is possibly something out there beyond our knowledge and what that is, I have no idea.
