What is a soul or a spirit?

[David_B]

This topic has actually come up in two different threads, with two very different Christians saying similar things. In one, FriendofGod has talked about the soul. In another, Libertarian talked about the spirit. In both cases, I questioned them on how they explain people whose personalities change due to head injuries or the like. FriendofGod admitted that he didn’t know the answer. Libertarian said what I quote below.

Lib said:

We disagree fundamentally.
I don’t think moral choices (as opposed to motor choices) come from the mind. I believe they come from the heart, i.e., the essence, of a person, where his Spirit dwells.

Except that there is no evidence that a “spirit” exists. We know the brain is there, and we know it can be affected by outside sources, as I described. And we know decisions (including moral ones) come from the brain.

If somebody chooses to be true to his wife, he has made a choice – with his brain. If he chooses to be untrue, he has also made a choice – also with his brain (though other organs may come into play as well).

A person is not good because he is smart; and a person is not evil because he is retarded. If a brain fails to work, the Spirit lives on. Goodness and evil do not come from synaptic discharges, but from essential character.

Sorry, Lib, but they do at least in part come from synaptic discharges. Like I said, what about the good person who turns bad after a blow to the head? I’m not talking about a loss of IQ, but a loss of brain cells that help with moral choices. We know, for example, about Phineas Gage, a railroad worker who had an iron rod driven through his brain by an accident. Gage was not killed, but actually walked away under his own power, albeit with a hole in his head. However he suffered extensive damage in his prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is believed to be essential in controlling and influencing conscience and behavior. Before the accident, Gage was described as an even-tempered person. After the accident, Gage became argumentative and abusive.

So, was Gage good or evil? Did his alleged “spirit” change when the iron rod hit him?

The same question comes up when dealing with psychiatric drugs. Some people can be truly evil when not on the drugs, but good when properly dosed. So which is their alleged “spirit”?

[tracer]

David B wrote:

Before the accident, Gage was described as an even-tempered person. After the accident, Gage became argumentative and abusive.

So he changed from a Nice Guy into an Asshole … which, according to this thread, means he would thereafter have better luck picking up women.

But seriously, folks:

There’s a doctrine in some Christian religions that says animals have no souls. What about human beings who are born so feeble-minded that they can only operate on the level of, say, a dog or a cat? I.e. they can scratch where it itches, follow their instincts, and even exhibit rudimentary qualities of memory, but they are simply too moronic to comprehend the idea that sniffing another person’s crotch to say hello is a “sin.” Are they considered to have a soul? If so, are they doomed to Hell because they are incapable of understanding Salvation and Jesus? If not, then what about people who are born with full mental faculties but then become mentally deficient through an accident or disease – does their soul stop existing when they go from having a human mind to having a “mere animal’s” mind, or is their soul considered to leave their body and go to Heaven or Hell at the onset of their feeble-mindedness?

[MrWhipple]

**
There’s a doctrine in some Christian religions that says animals have no souls.
**

If these (unnamed) Christian religions believe that, they are wrong. The Old Testament word translated spirit or soul comes from the Hebrew nephesh, and animals are expressly described as having nephesh. See for example Genesis 1:20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving >> creature that hath life << (nephesh), and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And Genesis 1:30:

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, >> wherein there is life << (nephesh), I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

My own faith (Latter-day Saint) teaches that everything was created spiritually before being created physically (Moses 3:5) and that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (Doctrine and Covenants 131:7). We don’t see “spirit” as being something mystical or completely noncorporeal – it has some tangeability to it, but we are unable to detect it in our (fallen) human form.

You asked.

[Liberal]

David

Except that there is no evidence that a “spirit” exists.

Shame on you.

A scientist would have worded that differently, so as to say, “Except that there is no argument from reason that I am willing to accept, nor have I any empirical evidence of my own, that a ‘spirit’ exists.”

We know the brain is there, and we know it can be affected by outside sources, as I described.

Surely, you’re not arguing that, because you have proof that brains exist, you therefore have proof that Spirit does not exist.

And we know decisions (including moral ones) come from the brain.

Wow. Y’all know an awful lot. But even given that y’all know all that, y’all are slip-sliding andante into something al dente…

If somebody chooses to be true to his wife, he has made a choice – with his brain. If he chooses to be untrue, he has also made a choice – also with his brain (though other organs may come into play as well). Sorry, Lib, but they do at least in part come from synaptic discharges.

But that’s the broad side of a barn, David.

Yes, if he is considering some motor action, like where he will put those other organs, he is making a mental decision.

I am going to list the qualifying clause separately, for nonshouting emphasis.

---

But the moral decision was already made before the mental one.

---

Were there no other women (men, horses, whatever), i.e, no amoral context available to him, what would his brain then do?

Like I said, what about the good person who turns bad after a blow to the head? I’m not talking about a loss of IQ, but a loss of brain cells that help with moral choices.

Brain cells help with moral choices only in an ancillary way, giving you a choice of actions or behavior to act out the moral choice you have already made in your heart (by your Spirit). Let me use an amoral decision for analogy. Once you have decided what you will eat (= the moral decision), you must now open your cupboard and fridge to explore what is available and fix it (= the motor decision).

We know, for example, about Phineas Gage, a railroad worker who had an iron rod driven through his brain by an accident. Gage was not killed, but actually walked away under his own power, albeit with a hole in his head. However he suffered extensive damage in his prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is believed to be essential in controlling and influencing conscience and behavior. Before the accident, Gage was described as an even-tempered person. After the accident, Gage became argumentative and abusive.

Jesus was also argumentative and abusive in appropriate contexts (see Matthew 23). Temperament does not speak to morality. You might have precious little (or else plenty) in your fridge and cupboard, but that does not mean you are not hungry, nor does it mean that you will fix supper.

So, was Gage good or evil?

I don’t know the man.

Did his alleged “spirit” change when the iron rod hit him?

Who is to say?

But if it did, it was not necessarily ergo propter hoc.

The same question comes up when dealing with psychiatric drugs. Some people can be truly evil when not on the drugs, but good when properly dosed. So which is their alleged “spirit”?

The conscious decision to ravage (or restock) your cupboard and fridge is itself morally driven. Their Spirit is the same as it was before they acted.

[David_B]

Jeez, Lib, you’re starting to sound like FriendofGod.

A scientist would have worded that differently, so as to say, “Except that there is no argument from reason that I am willing to accept, nor have I any empirical evidence of my own, that a ‘spirit’ exists.”

The only wording difference that I maybe should have made would have been to say: There is no good scientific evidence for the existence of a “spirit.”

Yet you continue to talk as if it definitely exists. Well, maybe it does – in your mind. But that doesn’t mean it’s real, Lib.

Surely, you’re not arguing that, because you have proof that brains exist, you therefore have proof that Spirit does not exist.

You’re right; I’m not.

Yes, if he is considering some motor action, like where he will put those other organs, he is making a mental decision. … But the moral decision was already made before the mental one.

Oh, give me a break. One decision is part and parcel of the other. Some men would be faithful, if only they hadn’t bumped into that old girlfriend and had a few beers with her. Or whatever. The point is that the brain made the decision. We know the brain thinks, Lib. We don’t even know that the “spirit” exists.

Brain cells help with moral choices only in an ancillary way, giving you a choice of actions or behavior to act out the moral choice you have already made in your heart (by your Spirit).

Prove it.

You want to keep stating things like that as fact, then I’m going to treat you like the fundies who do similar things. So prove it. Back up your claim that a “spirit” exists and that it makes our moral choices for it.

Let me use an amoral decision for analogy. Once you have decided what you will eat (= the moral decision), you must now open your cupboard and fridge to explore what is available and fix it (= the motor decision).

Deciding what to eat is not a moral decision. It is a decision based on chemicals in your body. If your body is low on sugar, you may get an urge to eat sugar. Then you look around to see what is sugary. Your brain makes these decisions, Lib, not your mystical spirit.

I’m also not terribly happy with the way you avoided responding to the Gage incident (and completely ignored the idea of psychiatric drugs). That incident shows how the brain affects behavior and “goodness.” Other studies have shown similarly, though the Gage incident is the best-known.

In summary, Lib, please stop acting like a fundie. We have enough of those around here already, and it really doesn’t suit you.

[Liberal]

David

Jeez, Lib, you’re starting to sound like FriendofGod.

Oh. Good argument.

The only wording difference that I maybe should have made would have been to say: There is no good scientific evidence for the existence of a “spirit.”

And you expected there to be?

What is the scientific evidence that the Great Smokey mountains are beautiful?

Oh, give me a break. One decision is part and parcel of the other. Some men would be faithful, if only they hadn’t bumped into that old girlfriend and had a few beers with her. Or whatever.

Hello? You call that faithful? At the first opportunity, he breaches his covenant with his wife?

Many men, given that same opportunity, would have remained faithful. If you saw me drop a hundred dollar bill by accident at your feet, would you take it when I left? Of course not!

The point is that the brain made the decision.

The brain made the decision of what actions to take once the moral decision of the heart had been made.

We know the brain thinks, Lib. We don’t even know that the “spirit” exists.

Well, the brain does lots of things, including thinking. But the brain is amoral. And yes, I know that y’all don’t know that Spirit exists (but y’all think y’all know that y’all do, don’t y’all?).

Prove [that brain cells help with moral choices only in an ancillary way, giving you a choice of actions or behavior to act out the moral choice you have already made in your heart (by your Spirit).]

Well, A is A, in my opinion. One is not usually asked to prove his axioms. That is why I did not (and would not) ask you to prove your assertion that the brain makes moral decisions.

You want to keep stating things like that as fact, then I’m going to treat you like the fundies who do similar things.

You will do whatever your heart tells your brain to do.

So prove it. Back up your claim that a “spirit” exists and that it makes our moral choices for [us].

David, it is us. Remember that I defined it for you?

Deciding what to eat is not a moral decision…

Uh, yeah. That’s why I said (and you quoted), “Let me use an amoral decision for analogy.”

I’m also not terribly happy with the way you avoided responding to the Gage incident (and completely ignored the idea of psychiatric drugs). That incident shows how the brain affects behavior and “goodness.” Other studies have shown similarly, though the Gage incident is the best-known.

I responded about the Gage incident. It is not unlike such temperament changes I have seen (and experienced) in my own life. I told you that temperament does not speak to morality. Now, I’ve answered it twice.

Regarding the drugs, I merely continued the amoral analogy. It is a cold heart that decides to ingest a mind altering drug when you don’t care that its effect might hurt others. There is no moral difference between bashing a man because you hate gays and bashing a man because you hate yourself.

In summary, Lib, please stop acting like a fundie. We have enough of those around here already, and it really doesn’t suit you.

In all honesty, David, you’re the one who sounds like a fundie right now. They get miffed real easy and sink into ad hominems and other irrelevant rhetoric at the drop of a hat. (<-- Note metaphor. There is no reference to any actual hat.)

But I love you anyway.

[pldennison]

What is the scientific evidence that the Great Smokey mountains are beautiful?

I’m sure there are many people who thing that the Great Smokey Mountains are, in fact, not beautiful. I doubt, however, that you can find many people that doubt that they exist. If you are trying to state by analogy that the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, I agree. Mostly. (Personally, I’m as certain that they don’t exist as you are that they do.)

[Liberal]

If you are trying to state by analogy that the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, I agree.

Well, I have said (am saying, keep saying, will always say) that it is a matter of experience. Proof of the Spirit is empirical, though evidence may be drawn from reason — equal evidence either way.

I know that God’s Spirit exists because I’ve been there, done that.

The Great Smokey reference was to demonstrate that not everything is within the purvue of science. Science is for the atoms. Asking for scientific evidence of God is like asking for spiritual evidence of entropy. There ain’t none. Evidence, that is.

[Holly]

Lib:

We disagree fundamentally.
I don’t think moral choices (as opposed to motor choices) come from the mind. I believe they come from the heart, i.e., the essence, of a person, where his Spirit dwells.

Have you spent much time around people who’ve sustained severe head injuries, Lib? I have, and the more head injuries (and other pathologies such as meningitis and encephalitis) I see, the more I’m convinced that the mind is but an extension of the body. I can see nothing ethereal or extraphysical about it.

Example: I once had the pleasure of taking care of a particular young man who had been in a terrible car wreck. Before the accident, he was a normal guy, respectful, intelligent, and (from his friends’ and families’ opinions) moral.

The bleeding and bruising in his brain caused a lot of damage; he was comatose for several weeks. His brain waves changed. We could see on the CT scan exactly which areas of his brain had been irrepairably damaged.

When he woke up, he was a completely different person. One interesting (but sad) aspect of head injury patients is their total incomprehension of acceptable behavior. They thrash around in the bed, often injuring themselves. They strike out, intending to hurt, and often injure others. They masturbate publicly.

The young man’s mother asked her son, hoping to test his memory, what he’d had for dinner the night before. He shouted, loud enough to be heard down the hallway, “I ate p****! And it was the best p*** I ever ate!*”

Eventually, he recovered physically enough to leave the hospital; he went to a nursing home. There is no way this poor guy can function in society, probably not ever again. His body is whole, but his mind is fundamentally changed.

So, was his “spirit” changed by the head trauma, or not? If not, what good does a spirit do if it has no control over the body or mind?

[Polycarp]

David, I cannot disagree with your premise that the brain is the physical organ with which one does most “mental” processes. (Caveat that certain actions are governed at least in part by endocrinal and spinal activity.)

Nonetheless, the fact that the brain is the “working” actor and nobody can demonstrate by physical means the existence of a soul or spirit does not prove one thing about them. Without the theory of Hertzian waves, radio and television are inexplicable. And it requires specialized equipment to detect these.

I perceive myself to have a soul, a part of myself that is not necessarily or permanently tied to my body, and which is potentially able to survive the fatal crash of the latter. (The atrocious puns about Jesus “saving” with relation to computers are not too far off the mark, on this metaphor.)

If you delimit your rules of observation to what can be detected with the senses, the whole Hertzian foofaraw and the electomagnetic spectrum beyond heat and light become inexplicable and probably rejectable. (Remember Lord Kelvin’s argument for a short-lived Earth, and how it was disproved?) If you delimit your rules of observation to what we have available currently, the idea of spirit and soul becomes inexplicable and probably rejectable. But that does not mean it must therefore be rejected. Rather, I would hold it in reserve as an unexplained supposition (working from your worldview) which requires proof or disproof as we learn more about the universe.

Supposition for your analysis: the spirit, the soul, God, angels, and all such “supernatural” phenomena do exist, and are composed of tachyons. (In support of this, accelerate a particle to infinite speed and it takes on the characteristics theologians ascribe to God.) Can you disprove this? Is it a legitimate explanation of how prophecy, eternity, etc., might work? On what grounds might one evaluate this hypothesis?

[pldennison]

Well, if we’re just going to suppose that God is made out of particles that we don’t even know for certain exist at all, we can as easily imagine he is made of pixie dust. In any case, if this spirit exists, we should at least be able to infer its existence from its effect on other things, if not observe it directly.

[SuaSponte]

Lib, I’m still not satisfied with your discussion of Gage. Let’s start back with what David B. said of ole Phineas:

After the accident, Gage became argumentative and abusive.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, call me a silly atheist, but I would argue that someone who is abusive, especially to those who do not deserve the abuse, is committing an immoral act, or sinning. So, if we accept that abusive behavior is immoral, then what does that say about the brain/soul divide?

Another thought: an incredibly simplified view of the soul, taught to me (and likely distorted) by da nuns, is that your soul reflects the moral choices you make. IOW, your brain makes the moral choices, and your soul takes on the sins you commit. Thoughts?
Sua

[Polycarp]

Well, Phil, I deliberately chose something from theoretical physics which is not at present falsifiable and which does have some theoretical characteristics paralleling those posited for the theological items to which I drew the hypothetical connection, in order to give David a case for discussion of whether the “realm of observable phenomena” criterion was adequate for the discussion.

My sole references to “pixie dust” are from Peter Pan and in the Army v. McCarthy hearings. Regarding the former, it’s clear that one has to believe real hard for the stuff to work, so you may be on to something there. Regarding the latter, however, your case becomes much weaker, since the U.S. Army, through its counsel, is on record as identifying a pixie as “a close relative of a fairy” – and Eve’s scathing analysis of “the gay lobby” brought up by a homophobe troll some time ago makes it quite clear that there would be no dust in it.

[Dumb_Ox]

Polycarp, your Tachyon Hypothesis seems plausible if you are merely proposing that there might be some entity, as yet undiscovered, that is composed of particles we cannot yet detect. But isn’t it premature to begin to ascribe properties a priori to an entity whose existence hasn’t been established yet? And it seems peculiar that those properties just happen to correspond to a popular religious notion.

Also, a necessary property of “soul,” as I understand the term, is that it can exert some influence on human behavior. Other subatomic particles can exert such influence only when organized into larger, detectable structures, such as electrons and molecules. Why should tachyons be special in this regard?

History seems to show that, as the explanatory power of science increases, some folk ideas disappear, whereas others become useful metaphors. We still refer to the heart as the seat of emotions even though we know that vital spirits aren’t really concocted there. What would be the theological danger in positing that “soul” and “spirit” are useful metaphorical terms that can help us make moral, and even religious, decisions, but that they do not represent actual entities?

[Satan]

*Originally posted by Holly *

**So, was his “spirit” changed by the head trauma, or not? If not, what good does a spirit do if it has no control over the body or mind? **

I am enjoying being on the sidelines here, but I saw Holly’s commentary about head injuries and something popped into my mind.

A person can have a perfectly good arm, but due to injury or a defect at birth unrelated to the arm itself - nerves, spinal cord, brain, etc. - the arm does not work as it is supposed to.

Conversely, an arm can be ripped from the socket or amputated. Everything else around it works fine, and if the arm was still there, it could be used normally. (Heck, in some cases, the brain sends out phantom feelings for missing limbs so intensely real, even long-time amputees swear their limb is back).

Now, one could look at this and see the same possibility for a soul in both cases. Maybe a soul is not damaged or changed, but when brain damage sets in, like the arm which cannot move even though it is in fine shape.

Or maybe the soul CAN be damaged, and in fact this brain damage (How much do we really know about the brain anyway? Right.) is how a damaged soul manifests itself.

Now, I realize that there is no proofs for any of this. But it does show, I think, that simply pointing out personality and even complete reversals in ethics in people is not sufficient evidence - even anecdotal - to disproof of this “spirit.”

Also, Lib: That whole thing about how the brain does the work after the spirit informs it of its opinion? Well put, and summinmg up what could have taken me a novella to describe in one sentence. Not that David B won’t shoot it down or anything, but that is his job…

[Polycarp]

Well, “Dumb Ox,” I knew I should have kept up my subscription to Senior Scholastic. But don’t challenge my hypotheses on a priori grounds, or I’ll tell “Big Al,” your teacher, that you’re secretly a Manichaean.

Two answers worth considering:

1. David’s question related to the nature of real, physical identities for “soul” and “spirit” if any. I advanced a hypothesis that would explain them in physical terms in order to meet his question. And I said nothing about the organization or lack thereof of the particles – your body is composed of protons, electrions, and neutrons, albeit organized into organic chemicals. Now, a metaphorical use of the terms would not meet David’s question: the obvious response from him would be that they are unnecessary, since terms like consciousness and self-awareness are already in place to cover the phenomena they purport to explain.
2. A metaphorical soul or spirit would not provide for actual survival after death, a basic criterion of the religiously posited soul and/or spirit.

[dal_timgar]

the book: OLD SOULS by Tom Shroder (c)1999 says on the cover “scientific evidence for past lives” tom shroder is a reporter who followed a “scientist” on trips to bierut and india to investigate cases of children reporting past lives so recent that living people can be found who knew the deceased. i think the funniest case is of a boy born to a moslem couple who claimed to be a hindu in his last life. he wouldn’t eat their food or wear the right clothes.

i think if there is a God then

        God can NOT be STUPID

i consider eternal suffering in hell to be a really stupid idea. it turns out in the old testament hell is translated from SHEOL which actually means PLACE OF THE DEAD.

                                              Dal Timgar

[furt]

Poly, Lib, PL…please don’t waste your time with that guy. I’m enjoying this.

[David_B]

OK, I think a lot of this can be summed up in a few of Lib’s words to me:

Well, A is A, in my opinion. One is not usually asked to prove his axioms.

In other words, Lib believes in spirits, and thus discusses them as facts in the same manner that FriendofGod (to use a recent example) talks of non-Christians being sent to Hell as a fact. They are both assuming them to be true.

Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I cannot argue with an axiom. A number of us tried to show FriendofGod how illogical his beliefs were, but nothing made it through to him. When I have tried to get answers from Lib in this thread, I have had similar luck.

I am not making this comparison as an insult, but to point out why I’m not going to bother anymore. I respect Lib, in general, but I do not respect the way he is handling this. Poly has done a good job of explaining some things, and I think he summed up what I would say here:

the obvious response from him would be that they are unnecessary, since terms like consciousness and self-awareness are already in place to cover the phenomena they purport to explain.

Exactly. Since we already know something (though far from everything) about the brain, and we know how a person can be affected by head trauma (per Gage and Holly’s description, among others), why do we need to posit a soul? While Satan’s example is interesting, I don’t see the point of hypothesizing that we have a soul that holds our true self, but which is paralyzed or taken out of action when something happens to change us.

Also, there still hasn’t been an answer to my question about psychiatric drugs. I’m not sure what Lib was thinking when he responded, but he seems to have forgotten what I asked and instead gone off about illicit drugs. To repeat: The same question comes up when dealing with psychiatric drugs. Some people can be truly evil when not on the drugs, but good when properly dosed. So which is their alleged “spirit”?

Also, what about people similar to the case Holly mentioned, but perhaps those who have Alzheimer’s? A friend of ours recently had to put her stricken father in a nursing home because he went from being a gentle and kind man to one who would get easily angry and push her around or try to hit her. Is he evil? Did his “spirit” change? Or is it simply that biochemical changes in his brain have changed who he is?

[Dumb_Ox]

Now wait a minute, Polycarp. You can’t expect philosophical consistency from me now. Remember that whole “Everything I’ve written is but straw” incident. As far as I’m concerned, all bets are off.

You’re right, of course. I didn’t realize you were trying to meet all David’s criteria. Very ambitious. After I posted I realized that I had phrased my question badly. What I had in mind was an analogy like soul:mind::sphere:circle, where the brain is the physical manifestation of a spiritually larger soul in the same way that a circle is the two-dimensional manifestation of a three-dimensional sphere. That way, the soul can be a useful metaphor for those who don’t believe, and a transcendent (at least partially) reality for those who do. But I realize that Mr. Occam would not approve of my solution either.

I’ll be bowing out now.