Arguments against Soul

[Abaddon_ire]

K

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.

~The problem is that Bel has carefully framed it to be about what OTHER PEOPLE believe. Not once did he/she identify an opinion of his/her own.

And this is a theme in all of Bel's posts. You can ask him directly if you wish. What is it that Bel believes? Go ahead, try and nail that down. You will fail to do so.