RE: Arguments against Soul
September 27, 2019 at 11:50 am
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2019 at 11:53 am by Simon Moon.)
(September 26, 2019 at 7:53 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Well, I'm not the one asserting that soul = consciousness. I agree that if soul = consciousness then we don't need two words.
The trouble to me is that people are just assuming, without argument, that when we talk about consciousness or mind we are talking about soul. How has that been established?
Since we lack a coherent definition of soul, it may be that we are just kind of sliding sideways and talking about the mind instead. But that's a bit sloppy, I think.
Yes, there is no need for 2 words if they are referring to the same thing.
I do not know how those saying the soul and consciousness are the same thing, came to that conclusion. Maybe they are only speaking metaphorically.
I completely agree, there is no coherent definition of soul. But aren't you the one (please correct me if I am wrong) that believes there is, or might be, something about our consciousness that continues after death? I don't care if we call it soul or not, what we call it is completely unimportant, it is the concept that is important.
If you do believe there is something about us that continues on after death, that is what I want evidence for. And without evidence, I am unwarranted in believing it.
Quote:Since no one has defined soul yet, I can't answer that.
I am not not the one that is claiming that, anything beyond consciousness exists. It is not up to me to define a soul, something I do not believe exists. If one is using the word soul to mean the same thing as consciousness, then that is no different than those that say god is love. The word soul has baggage that includes a lot more than just consciousness, and muddies the water if all that is being discussed is consciousness.
Quote:Do we think that consciousness is related to soul? Or is soul something else? Have we determined that your soul is gone while you're unconscious? Brain dead? Can souls go to sleep?
You'd have to ask those questions to someone that believe a soul exists. I believe physical brains exist, I believe that consciousness is entirely a function of the process of a physical brain. I do not believe in anything beyond that, no 'ghost in the machine' so to speak.
Quote:None of these things has been answered -- it has merely been assumed that mind = soul. And then because we know that mind comes out of brain, people announce that soul is irrelevant. So we are repeating facts about brain and mind and claiming they tell us about soul, when we don't even know what soul is.
As far as I have ever heard from those that believe in a soul, is that the soul is something beyond the mind and consciousness, or it explains consciousness. The only way I would ever talk about a soul, is in purely a poetic or metaphoric way, as in the sum total of a person's being.
Quote:First tell me what soul is, and then I may be able to answer. Everything you've said there is relevant to mind, but whether soul is related or not has not been argued.
In the classical version of soul that I've been discussing, all of this is explained. Mind is an activity that depends on the presence of matter. Soul is the way we categorize all of the forms, functions, and activities that are related to a specific hunk of matter. The brain injury to the material of the brain meant that the form changed and therefore the function changed. Nothing spooky.
But several people want to stick to the spooky version of soul, without even telling me what that is, so I can't answer their questions.
I do not believe in souls, so I am not one to define it.
So your version is similar to what I mentioned above, as in the sum total of ones being, as produced by the processes of a physical brain. I must have misunderstood your position, because I thought you were one that believed that there is something else about the soul, that can continue on after death.
Yes, those that believe in some 'spooky version of soul' need to define it, and provide evidence.
Again, I tagged you with a position that it looks like you don't hold.
I thing you might be mistaking those that are saying that consciousness is equal to soul, as them making some kind of claim about a soul existing in some way. When it looks like to me, they are speaking in metaphor or poetic language.
I am under the impression, that everyone here, that identifies as an atheist, does not believe in a soul, except if they are using the word no differently than consciousness.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.