Stephen T-B

Sorry to say, but you are on a loser here: arguing against the existence of the soul is as hopeless as arguing against the existence of gods.
Both are the subject of belief, and belief is belief because what is believed in cannot be verified. It is irrational, and not, therefore, susceptible to rational argument.

This is how I would argue FOR the soul:
God created the universe and is therefore an entity with an existence outside the universe, and therefore outside its constraints of time and space, and we can no more comprehend this entity than we could comprehend a third dimension were we two-dimensional beings.
Genesis is an analogy: when it states that God created Man in his image, it is not meant to be taken literally; it means that God imparted to Man some element of his nature which is, as we have seen, detached from the universe. And the thing he imparted was the soul.
Since God is incomprehensible - the Bible being Man’s rather futile attempts to come to grips with this amazing entity - the soul is incomprehensible too.

Arguing effectively against these propositions is impossible, isn’t it?
We are in the realms here of: “I see fairies because I believe in them. You don’t see fairies because you don’t believe in them. So prove they don’t exist.”
How can you?
All you can do is to appeal to the reason of the non-committed by pointing out the absurdity of believing in something whose only certain existence is in the imagination.

Oxymoron

I'm not sure this is true of 'belief' per se. It is true of faith. Beliefs exist for utterly rational reasons; articles of faith exist because the holder decides it so.

In general, one is better to be prepared to walk away from arguments about articles of faith. However, often those articles are supported on more rational scaffolds (even if these are based on partial knowledge or ignorance), and these can often be targetted successfully.

Stephen T-B

Oxymoron – my apologies: I ought to have distinguished between belief in gods and that different sort of belief which is an opinion based upon a conjecture, on the lines of “I believe Myra Hindley was a remorseful and changed person.”
The statement: “I believe in God” is something a great deal stronger. It is not a hypothesis, the truth or accuracy of which is up for discussion: it is an unequivocal statement that God exists.
I agree with your point: “In general, one is better to be prepared to walk away from arguments about articles of faith. However, often those articles are supported on more rational scaffolds (even if these are based on partial knowledge or ignorance), and these can often be targeted successfully,” but would add that the effect of that successful targeting is limited. It won’t, I am perfectly sure, undermine the Believer’s faith, but it might give the waverer pause for thought.
(I ought to have responded to your post anyway, but especially wanted to because of where you post from.)

Oxymoron

Stephen T-B: Leeds is quite enough to convince me There Is No God

Keraleeyan

To undercurrent:
"1) If the brain is just an instrument of the soul, why is the mind affected
so harshly by injuring or applying chemicals to the brain?"

This of course, is a good argument for me. My 'opponent' himself has used
this example-but he has made logic to stand on its head-so to say.It goes: "
When you use an anaesthetic,the patient becomes unconscious.This is due to
action of one material object on another.In due course, he becomes conscious
again.This process, is radically different from what happens at the time of
death.The supernatural element leaves the body-and does not return to the
same body again"
I feel like laughing loud when such foolish 'explanations' are being put forth.Here, of course, i should be able to convince the average reader that the picture has been deliberately hung upside down.

"2) Pretend you're a soul. Why would you ever bother playing puppeteer to a body? Especially when you're so far "beyond matter and beyond death". Does the book's author really expect us to believe in this great, luminous being with super powers, who has nothing better to do than slap around some slab of meat all day?"

Dont know how well this could go.They speak with many exit strategies open.The basic idea is that the "soul" is non- destructible, but needs a body to function as the knower-doer...In the present version of the story, the soul does not have much freedom and is bound by what may be called as Karmic law.

Keraleeyan

To PS 418
Thanks for the great response!

"By mentioning the huge body of empirical evidence against it."

Precisely what I would try. That article by Keith Augustine is really good.The best statement in the whole article-I feel-is : "we cannot base our beliefs on what we want to be true; the truth can only be found by weighing the evidence for a given idea" In the war for the minds of the "general reader", may be this could be a fine weapon on my side.

Keraleeyan

To crocodile deathroll

Thanks for those three posts.It would be wrong on my part to act as if I understood all your points-I did not.
"The soul is "sentient time" in as much as when you are in slow wave deep sleep you have no perception of time therefore no soul"
I understand that here you are giving a new definition for "soul". Am I right?

"I do not think I am more superior to mere matter when you consider the mind boggling mechanics of mere matter"
Neither do I. I was just saying that people think- and often like to think that way.

"We are an emergent property of complex matter "
I agree

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Keraleeyan ]</p>

Keraleeyan

To digital druid
Thanks for the well-cooked potion :-))

"I think it would be legitimate for you to trace the verious popular meanings of soul thus driving
home the point that it is a nebulous ever-changing concept"

Thanks.I will certainly try that .In fact, I have already dug up a reference from an ancient religious text -which my 'opponent' rever- which contains delightful nonsense about heart as the seat of soul.As this should be felt as patently false by almost anybody today- with so much being heard about surgeries on heart including transplantation and even artificial hearts- I think it should prove handy.My 'opponent' understandably, is silent about this in his book.

"Good luck! "
THANK YOU. I remember Bertrand Russell saying to the effect that with modern transport ,your 'neighbours' could be those living in another town, but sharing your interests. (I can't find the article right now) That was before internet. Now, they could be staying on the other side of the globe!

Keraleeyan

Thanks.
"Sorry to say, but you are on a loser here: arguing against the existence of the soul is as hopeless as arguing against the existence of gods."

I would not have attempted to counter these arguments had the book not been published by a mainstream publisher-and worst of all, lauded in an introductory note by a much respected literary figure.I thought I should be doing something against this encroachment of public space! I would certainly have neglected the book if it was intended mostly for consumptrion by the faithful.

"All you can do is to appeal to the reason of the non-committed "
I agree.

crocodile deathroll

One one to treat the terminally ill as an alternative to euthanasia is to put them under pharmacological oblivion this take away their sense of time, so although their brains may of gone on living indefinitely, their lives may of well of finished at to point of the administration of pharmacological oblivion. So pharmacological oblivion would of been subjectively no different to being euthanasia right from the very start.