Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
This is a sort of thought experiment, or an outline of my thought process, I've had knocking around my head for a while but I've never had the opportunity to discuss it with non-theists and I'm interested in hearing that side of it. I started thinking about this because I was raised in a family that firmly believes in reincarnation but I'm more scientifically-minded and I was trying to think of how/if reincarnation could fit into my understanding of science. This is purely hypothetical and probably full of holes but I'm interested in seeing where the discussion goes.
Assume for the sake of argument that souls exist and are something physically definable. According to most beliefs, souls inhabit peoples' bodies, are indestructible, and have an element of self. For these things to be possible in any scientific manner, a soul would have to be some kind of energy (it couldn't be something physical like an organ, we'd have found it by now). A soul being energy would account for it being immortal since energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed or transferred. For a soul to have an element of self, it has to have some level of sentience; if something is sentient, made of energy, and inhabits living bodies, it seems reasonable to think it does so as part of a symbiotic relationship (e.g. the soul gets to walk around and have experiences and the body gets to have some 'deeper' connection with the universe).
If an immortal, sentient energy-thing is hanging out in bodies for some mutual benefit, it stands to reason that moving from one body to the next as each expires would be more beneficial as it would allow the soul to have more experiences and allow the bodies a stronger connection to the universe depending on the 'age' of the soul (this is reincarnation in a nutshell).
None of this assumes that souls were created by any god, that souls have self and bodies do not (or vice versa), that souls have or impart any form of inherent morality, or that any communication between soul and body is perfect or even consistent (accounting for things like deja vu or hearing god; which could be the soul remembering things the current body hasn't experienced or the soul trying to communicate with the body directly, respectively).
Are these arguments reasonable given the assumption?
Yes, an internally consistent, logical argument can be made for even the most ridiculous proposition. But the assumption here is unreasonable. To have a reasonable assumption, you must first be able to demonstrate it. There is no demonstrable evidence for a soul so it's unreasonable to make the assumption.
It's worth noting that the language, concepts and ways you describe a hypothetical soul is essentially identical to the way one would describe consciousness and the mind. And I don't think that is mere coincidence, as I suspect that you, like most people, imagine a soul as just a consciousness or self that transcends death; a mind, but with permanence. You have some vague intuitions about what mind or consciousness is, and project that vague intuition onto the soul. The problem is two-fold. First, your notion of consciousness is vague, ill-defined, and little more than an accretion of prior folk beliefs about what consciousness is. These notions about what consciousness is are largely founded on nothing, and so the inferences toward the soul have no substance. The second is that the idea of consciousness enduring is entertained primarily because we want it to be true, and not because we have any reason to suspect that it might be enduring. Despite all the religious speculations, ghost stories and whatnot, there is not a single compelling example of a mind existing outside of a body, after death.
Given that you're just basically 'super-sizing' consciousness to create your notion of the soul, it's going to inherit all the faults that your conception of consciousness contains. And it's relatively obvious from your description that your understanding of what consciousness is and how it works is lacking. I see two common errors that are often involved when people think about consciousness. The first is to make an unwarranted ontological assumption about it, leading to the conclusion that it must have certain properties, when the necessity of those properties is a direct consequence of them having made those specific ontological assumptions. The second is to ignore the role of abstraction and interpretation in understanding the phenomena, of having a certain interpretation of the phenomena, experience, or observation, and mistaking your interpretation for the thing itself. It's an analogous mistake to that made by 'biblical Christians' like Drich when arguing points from the bible. The assumption is that the truth is there in the text, and they're just slurping the truth straight off the surface of the text. Interpretation is constructive; reading is rewriting; the text by itself is inert. The situation with consciousness studies is similar. People imagine consciousness to 'be' a certain way, and so that 'way' then becomes, to them, a feature of consciousness. It's not; it's something they've added to it as a part of the process of trying to understand it.
If your thinking about consciousness is infected by an ignorance of either of these two aspects, then your speculations about the soul are likely going to be likewise ill-informed.
This is a sort of thought experiment, or an outline of my thought process, I've had knocking around my head for a while but I've never had the opportunity to discuss it with non-theists and I'm interested in hearing that side of it. I started thinking about this because I was raised in a family that firmly believes in reincarnation but I'm more scientifically-minded and I was trying to think of how/if reincarnation could fit into my understanding of science. This is purely hypothetical and probably full of holes but I'm interested in seeing where the discussion goes.
Assume for the sake of argument that souls exist and are something physically definable. According to most beliefs, souls inhabit peoples' bodies, are indestructible, and have an element of self. For these things to be possible in any scientific manner, a soul would have to be some kind of energy (it couldn't be something physical like an organ, we'd have found it by now). A soul being energy would account for it being immortal since energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed or transferred. For a soul to have an element of self, it has to have some level of sentience; if something is sentient, made of energy, and inhabits living bodies, it seems reasonable to think it does so as part of a symbiotic relationship (e.g. the soul gets to walk around and have experiences and the body gets to have some 'deeper' connection with the universe).
If an immortal, sentient energy-thing is hanging out in bodies for some mutual benefit, it stands to reason that moving from one body to the next as each expires would be more beneficial as it would allow the soul to have more experiences and allow the bodies a stronger connection to the universe depending on the 'age' of the soul (this is reincarnation in a nutshell).
None of this assumes that souls were created by any god, that souls have self and bodies do not (or vice versa), that souls have or impart any form of inherent morality, or that any communication between soul and body is perfect or even consistent (accounting for things like deja vu or hearing god; which could be the soul remembering things the current body hasn't experienced or the soul trying to communicate with the body directly, respectively).
Are these arguments reasonable given the assumption?
Yes, an internally consistent, logical argument can be made for even the most ridiculous proposition. But the assumption here is unreasonable. To have a reasonable assumption, you must first be able to demonstrate it. There is no demonstrable evidence for a soul so it's unreasonable to make the assumption.
A.K.A. Crap in, crap out.
I get that the assumption is unreasonable but that's just what makes it a fun exercise for me. A little "if this could be worked into reality, how would be forced to function, could it even function at all?" kind of thing. So far it's very interesting that nearly every response I've gotten here is some variation of "but your starting point is flawed" because that doesn't happen when I play out this thought experiment with theists, like it doesn't occur to them that the premise itself is flawed even if the logic is sound and so they just turn themselves inside out finding all the ways to justify the broken premise.
(September 16, 2013 at 11:22 am)apophenia Wrote:
It's worth noting that the language, concepts and ways you describe a hypothetical soul is essentially identical to the way one would describe consciousness and the mind. And I don't think that is mere coincidence, as I suspect that you, like most people, imagine a soul as just a consciousness or self that transcends death; a mind, but with permanence. You have some vague intuitions about what mind or consciousness is, and project that vague intuition onto the soul. The problem is two-fold. First, your notion of consciousness is vague, ill-defined, and little more than an accretion of prior folk beliefs about what consciousness is. These notions about what consciousness is are largely founded on nothing, and so the inferences toward the soul have no substance. The second is that the idea of consciousness enduring is entertained primarily because we want it to be true, and not because we have any reason to suspect that it might be enduring. Despite all the religious speculations, ghost stories and whatnot, there is not a single compelling example of a mind existing outside of a body, after death.
Given that you're just basically 'super-sizing' consciousness to create your notion of the soul, it's going to inherit all the faults that your conception of consciousness contains. And it's relatively obvious from your description that your understanding of what consciousness is and how it works is lacking. I see two common errors that are often involved when people think about consciousness. The first is to make an unwarranted ontological assumption about it, leading to the conclusion that it must have certain properties, when the necessity of those properties is a direct consequence of them having made those specific ontological assumptions. The second is to ignore the role of abstraction and interpretation in understanding the phenomena, of having a certain interpretation of the phenomena, experience, or observation, and mistaking your interpretation for the thing itself. It's an analogous mistake to that made by 'biblical Christians' like Drich when arguing points from the bible. The assumption is that the truth is there in the text, and they're just slurping the truth straight off the surface of the text. Interpretation is constructive; reading is rewriting; the text by itself is inert. The situation with consciousness studies is similar. People imagine consciousness to 'be' a certain way, and so that 'way' then becomes, to them, a feature of consciousness. It's not; it's something they've added to it as a part of the process of trying to understand it.
If your thinking about consciousness is infected by an ignorance of either of these two aspects, then your speculations about the soul are likely going to be likewise ill-informed.
Wow, that was incredibly thorough. There were some points there that have never come up any of the times I've discussed this exercise with theists. Thanks. I'm going to have to remember those for later.
"Hey, Huginn... Muninn, whichever one you are, say 'nevermore.'"
"F*** you," said the raven.
This is an interesting topic. One of the main things that turned me off to religion and spirituality in general, is that it requires a person to spend time creating all kinds of what if scenarios. What if we have a soul?
When you're following a religion, you think this is healthy thinking but it really isn't. I spent more time thinking about where my soul might be heading for all eternity after I die, than how I can stay in the present moment doing my best to be a good person. Religion causes people to focus on what they can't see, more than what they can.
One problem with the idea of Hell is that we know that our bodies experience pain through our nervous systems. Since a soul wouldn't have a nervous system, how would anyone feel pain in the fires of Hell? Same goes for memories, how would we even recognize Grandma or Aunt Sara in the afterlife since all our memories of them would be left behind in our brains which are now rotting in the ground?
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
(September 16, 2013 at 9:22 am)MythRat Wrote: Assume for the sake of argument that souls exist and are something physically definable.
I'm not sure why anyone would make such an assumption - other than for argument's sake as you say. It makes no more sense than to suggest that ones character exists and is something physically definable. If ones character exists at all it is not as something physical but rather as a hypothetical tendency in ones actions. To think that the soul is a physical thing is just ignorant. So any argument that begins this way will only be applicable to those whose understanding is poor. That isn't to say there won't be many, many people whose idea of the soul is this poor. There certainly are. But what's in it for us to point out the obvious, other than as an effort to lift the masses? Alas, we all know how well these sorts of efforts tend to work for their intended audience. Confirmation bias is not so easily overcome.
The soul is just the exact same thing as your consciousness. There's a question of whether it survives death but if you can think of a a reason why it shouldn't.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
Thanks. I'm going to have to remember those for later.
