Arguments against Soul

[LadyForCamus]

I think we have a tendency here (myself included) to assume that if someone isn’t a strong atheist, then they must be a theist in disguise. But that, ofc, is a false dichotomy.

[EgoDeath]

@Belaqua

So, let's try again. You seem to be real slippery in answering any questions, but I'd like to take you to task. Please read all of the questions before you reply. I'll number them to save you any confusion.

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

2. What do you think the soul is exactly, if it does indeed exist?
2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?
2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

All of these are answered, above.

Nope. I want your answers, in your words, to the precise questions I asked. If you cannot provide those answers, just say so.

---

I don’t think he’s trying to be slippery. There’s nothing slippery about his answer. It was pretty detailed and explicit, in fact. I just think we aren’t used to folks like Bel on the forums. I made similar hasty presumptions about him when we first started engaging and I’ve come to realize that I was wrong. His answer here is honest (at least to me), and he’s made himself clear that he’s not asserting any kind supernatural life post body death.

Well, he never even answered me, so I disagree, I think it is quite slippery.

Also, my assumptions are not "hasty," unlike yours. I've been watching Bel's posts for the better part of a year. I know his routine well.

I think we have a tendency here (myself included) to assume that if someone isn’t a strong atheist, then they must be a theist in disguise. But that, ofc, is a false dichotomy.

Wrong.

What makes people assume he's a theist acting as an atheist are the many arguments he makes defending Christianity. Arguments, by the way, that we've heard from self-proclaimed Christians time and time again. Constantly moving the goal posts, constantly failing to state what it is he actually believes, constantly questioning and otherwise acting as a contrarian toward any and every atheist on this board, all while never actually claiming to believe in anything. He comes across like a theist, plain and simple.

Either that, or maybe he goes on to Christian boards and does the exact same shit to them. Maybe they wonder if he's an atheist in disguise. LOL!

I'm not saying he is a theist, as I honestly don't know. Nor do I really care, as his arguments are about as well-built as a sandcastle. But I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised to find out that's the case.

[LadyForCamus]

All of these are answered, above.

Nope. I want your answers, in your words, to the precise questions I asked. If you cannot provide those answers, just say so.

---

I don’t think he’s trying to be slippery. There’s nothing slippery about his answer. It was pretty detailed and explicit, in fact. I just think we aren’t used to folks like Bel on the forums. I made similar hasty presumptions about him when we first started engaging and I’ve come to realize that I was wrong. His answer here is honest (at least to me), and he’s made himself clear that he’s not asserting any kind supernatural life post body death.

Well, he never even answered me, so I disagree, I think it is quite slippery.

Also, my assumptions are not "hasty," unlike yours. I've been watching Bel's posts for the better part of a year. I know his routine well.

And based on my interactions with you over the past week, I think you aren’t a very careful reader.

I think we have a tendency here (myself included) to assume that if someone isn’t a strong atheist, then they must be a theist in disguise. But that, ofc, is a false dichotomy.

What makes people assume he's a theist acting as an atheist are the many arguments he makes defending Christianity. Arguments, by the way, that we've heard from self-proclaimed Christians time and time again. Constantly moving the goal posts, constantly failing to state what it is he actually believes, constantly questioning and otherwise acting as a contrarian toward any and every atheist on this board. He comes across like a theist, plain and simple.

Bel has gone on record multiple times explicitly stating that some of the main tenants of Christianity are not rationally justified and require faith, including in this very thread, in the specific response you’re griping about here, lol. Hence my inference about careless reading.

[EgoDeath]

And based on my interactions with you over the past week, I think you aren’t a very careful reader.

And I think you aren't either. I suppose we all have our opinions.

Bel has gone on record multiple times explicitly stating that some of the main tenants of Christianity are not rationally justified and require faith, including in this very thread, in the specific response you’re griping about here, lol. Hence my inference about careless reading.

Hm, interesting. I'm actually well aware of this and was wondering if you would bring this up. Bel is very good at describing what he doesn't believe. And, sometimes he doesn't even do that very well. So, if you consider that to be making claims about what he believes, then okay... But to me, describing your beliefs by giving us examples of what you don't believe is about the same as telling me what restaurant you want to go to by telling me which ones you don't want to go to.

If I didn't read your post clearly, or am somehow else misunderstanding you, please let me know so we can get this right here and now.

[LadyForCamus]

I've been thinking about the two views of the soul that have been presented here. I'll summarize them this way, and then if I've misstated anyone's opinion I hope they'll correct me.

1) The view that Jehanne and others have is that a soul will be a particular object in the material world. Perhaps a field of energy or some interaction of electrical forces. If a soul is this way, it makes sense to say we could detect it with instruments. Maybe we could even isolate it and put it in a jar.

2) In contrast to the above, I've pointed to the classical view of the soul, as the form of the body. This is the definition used by Greek philosophers and classical theologians. In this system, soul is not a material thing itself but the complete form, history, interaction, operation, and function of a material body. We can study any number of things about the soul, in this sense, but soul itself doesn't exist separate from matter.

I think the classical view is useful. It points to objects, and, more importantly, people, as more than their matter. What I'm writing here I've learned mostly from William Blake, but the same ideas are found in Martin Buber, Simone Weil, and many other people who think about non-quantifiable value.

OK, as an easy example, I'll point to the can of cold coffee that I'm currently drinking from. This is not at all important in the larger scheme of things, but it's easy to talk about.

The can of coffee is, for me, a thing of utilitarian value. I own it for about two hours -- I put 130 yen into the vending machine, get the can, drink the contents, and throw it away. The can means nothing to me but its practical function.

Blake writes about the possibility of opening the doors of perception to the point where we could see the can in its entirety. This would mean that I could see the inside of the can as well as the outside. It would also mean that I would see it over its entire lifespan. Working backward, I could see it coming on a truck into the vending machine, getting the coffee put into it, getting printed with the label, getting formed at the can factory, the raw materials imported from Australia (it's aluminum, so I'm guessing it's bauxite from Australia). Also I could see the person who designed the label, the farmer who grew the coffee beans, the lives of the people who work in the can factory, etc. And I could see what happens to the can after I put it in the bin.

In this way, the can becomes more than a practical thing I use for two hours; it becomes integrated into the whole world. The world in a grain of sand.

We could call the totality of the can its soul, without doing too much violence to the classical definition. Because a person's soul also includes everything that he is and everything that made him. It is not currently present, not detectable by electrical monitors, though it does depend throughout on a purely material world. If we could see a person's soul, we would see the entirety of what he or she is, does, has been, could be.

Blake holds that seeing in such a way -- or imagining that we could see in such a way -- makes us better people. It stops us from treating things and people as abstractions, and makes us see their totality. In Kantian terms, an end and not a means. In Buber's terms, a Thou and not an It.

The view of the soul which assumes it is a wisp of material is in danger of treating people's real being as an object that can be measured and put in a jar.

The classical view of the soul urges us to engage with the totality, extended to infinity, and respect that the person is far more than what can be measured.

I found this quite poignant and very lovely, Bel. Thank you.

[LadyForCamus]

And based on my interactions with you over the past week, I think you aren’t a very careful reader.

And I think you aren't either. I suppose we all have our opinions.

Bel has gone on record multiple times explicitly stating that some of the main tenants of Christianity are not rationally justified and require faith, including in this very thread, in the specific response you’re griping about here, lol. Hence my inference about careless reading.

Hm, interesting. I'm actually well aware of this and was wondering if you would bring this up. Bel is very good at describing what he doesn't believe. And, sometimes he doesn't even do that very well. So, if you consider that to be making claims about what he believes, then okay... But to me, describing your beliefs by giving us examples of what you don't believe is about the same as telling me what restaurant you want to go to by telling me which ones you don't want to go to.

But, can you see that you’ve built into your analogy the assumption that Bel holds positive beliefs about something? I’m not sure why you’d do that. Isn’t atheism simply a lack of belief? It makes perfect sense for him to talk about the beliefs he doesn’t hold, and the claims he is not convinced of, just like the rest of us do. That he has a particular interest in learning about the god of the philosophers doesn’t mean he holds a firm, positive belief in that god. Perhaps he feels tentatively unconvinced, but interested and motivated to do more research on the subject. We can hardly fault him, or assume he’s a closet Christian because of a philosophical and intellectual interest, IMO.

[EgoDeath]

But, can you see that you’ve built into your analogy the assumption that Bel holds positive beliefs about something? I’m not sure why you’d do that. Isn’t atheism simply a lack of belief? It makes perfect sense for him to talk about the beliefs he doesn’t hold, and the claims he is not convinced of, just like the rest of us do. That he has a particular interest in learning about the god of the philosophers doesn’t mean he holds a firm, positive belief in that god. Perhaps he feels tentatively unconvinced, but interested and motivated to do more research on the subject. We can hardly fault him, or assume he’s a closet Christian because of a philosophical and intellectual interest, IMO.

Okay, so you were incorrect about him answering me. He didn't. And yes I saw his post talking about soul: he didn't answer my questions. Next...

My assumptions weren't hasty. You were wrong in implying that. So let's move on to your next attempt.

Now you are conceding that he, in fact, doesn't talk about beliefs that he holds. However, you claim that this is reasonable because... why? Because all of us all talk of atheism as a lack of belief?

Yet, plenty of us on this board have made claims about what we do find to be true in regards to scientific findings, personal matters, so on and so forth. I rarely, if ever, see Bel doing this. His focus is always to ask questions and/or act as the contrarian. Which is fine, so long as he's cool with accepting how spineless many of us find that to be. If he wants to be AF's "devil's advocate," more power to him I guess, so long as he proudly owns the title.

Interestingly enough, the one blatant claim I have seen him make was about Richard Dawkins, who he called a "careless hack" who "doesn't care about writing the truth" in the chatbox yesterday. This claim was based off of a couple of tweets by a self-proclaimed Assyriologist who criticized a couple claims in Dawkins newest book. Lmao. Apparently, we can now write off people's entire careers based off of a few alleged mistakes. Good to know. I'm not some huge Dawkins fan, but I wouldn't write the guy's whole career off over some factual errors, either. After all, Dawkins is an accomplished author, evolutionary biologist and religious commentator. Who the hell is Belaqua? Some douche who argue with people on the internet? Oh, okay.

Keep in mind, he brought this issue up about Dawkins completely unprovoked. No one was even talking about Dawkins. It came off as this strange insult to atheism as a whole. Which is sort of silly because, why would any of us even care about Dawkins being a hack even if he was one? I'm sure he'll explain it all well and good at the next International Meeting of the Atheists. We're still going to carry out our master plan, after all.

Bel tries to come off as this educated, well-read, philosophical person, but he's constantly attempting to show everyone how intellectually superior he is, being a pompous douche to people with absolutely no motivation. He's been called on it plenty of times, and not just by me.

If you find his posts to be "poignant" and interesting, more power to you. I think the dude's an insufferable dick.

Sometimes I wonder who on this board is as argumentative in real life as they are on the forum. I wonder how well that bodes for some.

[LadyForCamus]

But, can you see that you’ve built into your analogy the assumption that Bel holds positive beliefs about something? I’m not sure why you’d do that. Isn’t atheism simply a lack of belief? It makes perfect sense for him to talk about the beliefs he doesn’t hold, and the claims he is not convinced of, just like the rest of us do. That he has a particular interest in learning about the god of the philosophers doesn’t mean he holds a firm, positive belief in that god. Perhaps he feels tentatively unconvinced, but interested and motivated to do more research on the subject. We can hardly fault him, or assume he’s a closet Christian because of a philosophical and intellectual interest, IMO.

Okay, so you were incorrect about him answering me. He didn't. And yes I saw his post talking about soul: he didn't answer my questions. Next...

Im not trying to be a dick, but I really do think you have reading comprehension issues. Bel wrote:

So, to repeat, here is Aristotle's definition. "Soul" is the morph part of hylomorphism. It is the form of the body, as opposed to its matter. In this case "form" means more than "shape." (A newly-dead body has the same shape, but not the form, in this sense, of a living body.) Form here means shape but also the functions, interactions, and operations. The things that the body does, by its nature. 

When the body dies, the matter is still there (at first) but the soul is gone, because it is no longer capable of doing human things. 

I think using the word "soul" in this way is still useful, because it gives a more general word to the totality of a person. It includes habits, mental memory, body memory, dispositions, many other things. If you wanted to avoid the word "soul" because of its modern implications you could substitute some longer phrase, like "all the memories, thoughts, habits, and dispositions of what I am." 

The only thing spooky about soul, in this sense, is the Christian idea that at death the soul is transferred from its first, fleshly body into a different body, made of some different matter. And the Christians who assert this, if they're honest, recognize that this belief about the transfer of the soul is not at all provable, but only faith-based.

In what capacity does this response fail to answer the questions you asked? Which question do you feel has not been answered?

Now you are conceding that he, in fact, doesn't talk about beliefs that he holds. However, you claim that this is reasonable because... why? Because all of us all talk of atheism as a lack of belief?

What beliefs, Ego? He says he’s an atheist, lol. Would you like him to make something up just so you can knock it down? I’m sure you know which fallacy that is. Why are you badgering a self-proclaimed atheist to tell you what he believes about a god or gods? That doesn’t make any sense. If you ask someone if they believe a claim about god and their answer is, “I don’t know yet; I’m still gathering information”, you realize that is a perfectly intellectually honest answer that doesn’t violate the definition of atheism, yes?

Yet, plenty of us on this board have made claims about what we do find to be true in regards to scientific findings, personal matters, so on and so forth. I rarely, if ever, see Bel doing this.

Is there something you’ve asked him about science or his personal affairs that you feel he didn’t answer forthrightly? 

His focus is always to ask questions and/or act as the contrarian. Which is fine, so long as he's cool with accepting how spineless many of us find that to be. If he wants to be AF's "devil's advocate," more power to him I guess, so long as he proudly owns the title.

Well, I, for one, appreciate having my reasoning to atheism challenged. We all should. 

Interestingly enough, the one blatant claim I have seen him make was about Richard Dawkins, who he called a "careless hack" who "doesn't care about writing the truth" in the chatbox yesterday. This claim was based off of a couple of tweets by a self-proclaimed Assyriologist who criticized a couple claims in Dawkins newest book. Lmao. Apparently, we can now write off people's entire careers based off of a few alleged mistakes. Good to know. I'm not some huge Dawkins fan, but I wouldn't write the guy's whole career off over some factual errors, either. After all, Dawkins is an accomplished author, evolutionary biologist and religious commentator. Who the hell is Belaqua? Some douche who argue with people on the internet? Oh, okay.

I don’t agree with Bel that that makes Dawkins a careless hack, but his thoughts on the man aren’t evidence he’s a theist.

Bel tries to come off as this educated, well-read, philosophical person, but he's constantly attempting to show everyone how intellectually superior he is, being a pompous douche to people with absolutely no motivation. He's been called on it plenty of times, and not just by me.

Well, he certainly is a well-read, intelligent, and philosophically-minded person. He’s more well-read on god philosophy than I will ever be. I guess some atheists find that intimidating. *shrugs* Also, not everyone takes philosophy seriously, and that’s fine. It’s not for everyone.

If you find his posts to be "poignant" and interesting, more power to you. I think the dude's an insufferable dick.

You’re certainly welcome to your opinion.

Sometimes I wonder who on this board is as argumentative in real life as they are on the forum. I wonder how well that bodes for some.

Me. But, only with people who I know will tolerate it. 😁

[EgoDeath]

Im not trying to be a dick, but I really do think you have reading comprehension issues. Bel wrote:

In what capacity has he failed to answer any of your questions? Which question do you feel has not been answered in his description quoted above?

I saw the post, Lady, he didn't answer my questions. In fact, he wasn't even talking to me in that post. You were wrong. So let's move on.

What beliefs, Ego? He says he’s an atheist, lol. Would you like him to make something up just so you can knock it down? I’m sure you know which fallacy that is. Why are you badgering a self-proclaimed atheist to tell you what he believes about a god or gods? That doesn’t make any sense. If you ask someone if they believe a claim, and their answer is, “I don’t know yet; I’m still learning”, you realize that can be a perfectly intellectually honest answer that doesn’t violate the definition of atheism, yes?

Interestingly enough, I've seen him argue adamantly against the fact that he's an atheist.

Is there something you’ve asked him about science or his personal affairs that you feel he didn’t answer forthrightly?

Well, he can start by answering my questions about the soul.

Well, I, for one, appreciate having my reasoning to atheism challenged. We all should. 

I do too. We agree.

I don’t agree with Bel that that makes Dawkins a careless hack, but I’m not sure how any of that is relevant to what we’re talking about atm.

It's very relevant, how don't you see that? Are you that dense? I am really surprised here. The only claims Bel does make that we've seen so far are unsubstantiated generalizations made in an attempt to insult people.

Well, he certainly is well-read, intelligent, and philosophically-minded person. He’s more well-read on god philosophy than I will ever be. I guess some atheists find that intimidating. *shrugs* Also, not everyone takes philosophy seriously, and that’s fine. It’s not for everyone.

LMAO. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You’re certainly welcome to your opinion.

As are you.

Me. But, only with people who I know will tolerate it. 😁

Tolerate is a good word to use there. Very telling

[LadyForCamus]

K

Im not trying to be a dick, but I really do think you have reading comprehension issues. Bel wrote:

In what capacity has he failed to answer any of your questions? Which question do you feel has not been answered in his description quoted above?

I saw the post, Lady, he didn't answer my questions. In fact, he wasn't even talking to me in that post. You were wrong. So let's move on.

Thank you in advance @Belaqua for letting me take liberties with your quoted material. If you’d rather I knock it off, just say the word and I will certainly respect that:

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

The concept of soul as used by Aristotle makes sense to me, and requires nothing magic. If people use it in that way, it's a useful term. The modern "spirit energy" version isn't persuasive.

2. What do you think the soul is, if it does indeed exist?

It is the form of the body, as opposed to its matter. In this case "form" means more than "shape." (A newly-dead body has the same shape, but not the form, in this sense, of a living body.) Form here means shape but also the functions, interactions, and operations. The things that the body does, by its nature. When the body dies, the matter is still there (at first) but the soul is gone, because it is no longer capable of doing human things.

The only thing spooky about soul, in this sense, is the Christian idea that at death the soul is transferred from its first, fleshly body into a different body, made of some different matter. And the Christians who assert this, if they're honest, recognize that this belief about the transfer of the soul is not at all provable, but only faith-based.

2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?

It is not currently present, not detectable by electrical monitors, though it does depend throughout on a purely material world. If we could see a person's soul, we would see the entirety of what he or she is, does, has been, could be.

The view of the soul which assumes it is a wisp of material is in danger of treating people's real being as an object that can be measured and put in a jar. The classical view of the soul urges us to engage with the totality, extended to infinity, and respect that the person is far more than what can be measured.

2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

See answer to question 2., where Bel has defined the soul. Not sure why you asked this twice. So, I’m not sure what the problem is here. Is it that you don’t understand what he wrote?

Interestingly enough, I've seen him argue adamantly against the fact that he's an atheist.

Then I’m not going to speak for him on the matter any further. He told me he was, but I’ll let him clear that up for himself.

It's very relevant, how don't you see that? Are you that dense? I am really surprised here. The only claims Bel does make that we've seen so far are unsubstantiated generalizations made in an attempt to insult people.

He’s certainly welcome to his opinion of Dawkins. I know many atheists who don’t like the guy either.