Disproving The Soul

[Brakeman]

I love science. It's my profession. But I would still disagree strongly with the idea that we need to measure something in order to explore it. When it comes to questions like "what is it to be human?" I find the arts have as much to say as science. And that's because the arts can speak from the subjective, from within humanity itself, within 'soulship', if you like. .. I think you find it very hard to see something that the poet, the musician, the novelist, knows full well exists. Sometimes art gives voice to things that science finds very hard to even to begin to grapple with. Soul is one such thing, I have found.

I am finding it very hard to believe your claimed science credentials with answers like these.

There is no "gulf" between "the Arts" and science. The "arts" are merely thought pathways of our very chemical brain. That is all they are in total.

Just as there is no true separation of the physical computer's processor and a software program, there is no true separation from the human brain's thoughts and ideas (or Arts as you call it) and the proteins, lipids, and other components that comprise our human brain.

One can study any facet of human existence with science. We may not yet be able to do a satisfactory job of it today, but no true scientist doubts that we will be able to in the reasonable future.

There is no soul because there is no energy for there to be a soul. The idea of a soul as an "Identity" is superfluous and furthermore useless, as an identity is only useful to other sentient beings that need a segregant, of which none in the form of a creator god, exists.