Goober

Okay, so god seems to be a bit reluctant to reveal himself, especially on these forums, so direct evidence of god's existence is hard to come by. But here's another way of approaching the question.

It is a central tenet of almost every religion, Christianity included, that every single person has a soul. So here's my challenge - prove that souls exist, and you'll have proved that religion is justified. Science could not explain the existence of the soul. On the other hand, if no one can provide evidence for the existence of the soul then only rational conclusion is that they don't exist and you'll have to admit that religion is false and god does not exist.

It's the perfect thing to test, because after all we should all have one, while dead people and animals will not, so it should be much easier to find than recalcitrant gods hiding in unknown places. (Do animals have souls? Not from the Christian viewpoint, anyway)

I think so far it’s pretty obvious that souls don't exist. After all what are they made of? Not atoms, we can see them. Invisible or undetectable substances would be ruled out by occam’s razor, because we can already explain human consciousness in terms of the brain alone. What does that leave? And how do souls interact with matter? And if only humans have souls and souls are what makes you conscious then does that mean that there are no conscious animals? Would evidence of animals being conscious disprove the existence of souls then?

A little debate anyone?

diana

Hi, Goober. Welcome to IIDB.

While I think even reasonable support for the existence of souls would be a feather in the cap of religion, I wouldn't go so far as to say it would justify religion. Were we to find a way to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) souls do exist and (2) they live forever, it still would not follow that they had to have been created by any diety or that there needs be any rules to living. If God is forever and didn't come from anywhere (so the theology goes), then souls that are forever needn't come from anywhere, either.

Here you run into the old "if you can't prove it doesn't exist, it isn't rational to conclude that it doesn't" conundrum. (I note that people who make this argument would look at you as though you're a two-headed alien who just alit in their tomato patch if you point out that they have no problem applying your argument--and not theirs--to creatures they accept as mythical. But anyway.)

Since I'm comfortable using this reasoning to ascertain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that leprauchans aren't frolicking in my back yard (that is, that no one can provide evidence for their existence, so the only rational conclusion is that they don't exist), I'm comfortable making the statement that God, as well as a "soul," doesn't exist on the same grounds.

But this doesn't make religions false, either. It makes those that posit life after death unsupported. But can't there be religions that presume to reward and punish you in this lifetime? No souls required.

d

Jet Grind

Greetings Goober,

I would have to disagree here. Now, I in no way believe that any such thing as a soul exists. I'm with the majority of atheists in that I believe snetience and conciousness are brain based without the need of anything "supernatural" acting upon it. However, even if we could prove that souls existed, it's still not proof of the existence of God. Many atheistic religions (e.g. Buddhism) believe that we have souls but do not believe in any kind of God. This is also true vice-versa, I know many deistic thinkers who are naturalistic and do not believe that there is a soul. So I think that the "soul" and "God" questions should be kept separate.


I agree completely.

T. E. Lords

Not to get of topic but I don't believe all Buddist sects are Atheistic. While Zen buddism practiced mainly in japan recognizes no official god-head I don't believe that they exclude the possiblity of some higher power. Tabetin buddists however believe in some if not all of the Hindu gods. I may be mistaken in this so feel free to inform me if I am.

T. E. Lords

Also, I just brought up souls in the science and skeptisms forum. Someone told me a while back about an experiment that measured a signifigant weight difference after death. Apparently this was attributed to the "soul." oohhhh ahhh mystical. Well anyway sounded like nonsense to me but I asked about it there anyway just to cover my bases. They pretty much verified that it was total BS.

j-ogenes

I agree with Diana's comments that a soul wouldn't have to justify religion or prove the existence of a god. Clearly, it wouldn't identify God as specifically as a lot of Christian religions do--lives in Heaven, made man in his image, etc.--though I don't think the original poster was implying it would.

Jet Grind

Thanks for the update, but I don't think it affects my argument.

johngalt

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that the soul exists. I think that some people use the word soul as a metaphor for the brain.

Spenser

I don't know what you are talking about, I got soul! You should see me on the dance floor...

Infidelettante

Interesting subject Goober. The nature of soul is one of the questions that led me to pantheism.

The Western understanding of the soul has always been that the soul is a discrete entity which exists within but apart from the body. The body dies and the soul goes on.

But, the soul is the nexus of the individual. The body dies but the individual goes on. The personhood we exhibit is that of the soul not the body. The soul is encased in matter and retains the moral successes and failures of the life led in matter. The individual is open to judgment by the deity for its' actions and choices while in the body.

The discrete, separated nature of the soul allows for its' separation from the deity as a result of its' actions. The nature of the soul as discrete entity allows for some souls to be set apart while others are not. Some will be allowed to remain in the presence of the deity [salvation] while others are banished [damned].

It is the nature of the deity and the souls mimicry of the deity which allows this. The deity exists as a discrete entity and the soul, created by the deity for its' purpose, mirrors the deity. The deity is separate from its' creation and so the form is set which allows the separation of the soul from the deity.

The individual/soul, unable to mirror the moral nature of the deity is forced to rely on the "good will/love" of the deity if it is to achieve salvation. Some religions resort to reincarnation to free themselves from this trap. At some point in its' existence the soul will have achieved a standing, it is hoped, which allows the deity to accept its' presence.

I find this unacceptable as it is an unjustified punishment of the individual based on its' response to a nature it can neither change nor mitigate. I saw two paths to explore. A) Deny outright the existence of the deity and the soul. B) Discover another way of understanding the natures of the deity and the soul and their relationship. I chose B).

I won't cover all the ground I crossed to find my solution. I'll just tell where it stands today with the caveat that it changes often still. There is a connectedness which informs all things. At their center all things exhibit a sameness which can be experienced. That sameness or connectedness is the Divine.

The material realm is the expression of the Divine. the Divine inhabits and animates matter. Matter is the body of the Divine without which it is void of creative purpose. There can be no separation between the Divine and Mater. The Divine is not a being but is better thought of as a condition. The condition of oneness, wholeness, and completeness.

This Divine condition is the creative nature that encompasses all things and which we, when we seek it, exhibit as the creative and vital energy that has brought humanity to its' present state.

There can be no damnation without separation. Oneness does not allow punishment. The soul and the deity are one.

JT