Arguments against Soul

[Belacqua]

If it's supernatural, well, that's a useless and illogical concept

There is a good and useful definition of "supernatural," which I think is where the concept comes from.

In this view, everything has a nature -- a way that it is. 

It is in the nature of a cat to do cat things -- run around, sit on my keyboard, nap in the sun, etc. It is not in the nature of a cat to sing opera. 

If my cat suddenly started singing opera, this would be over and above its nature -- therefore, supernatural. 

Anyway, that's the old fashioned definition. 

So to decide if a soul is supernatural or not, we'd have to know what the nature of that thing is. And again, going back to the ancient people who defined what they mean by the word soul, the soul is the form of that body, is a natural thing, exists only in combination with a body, etc. 

If we say that it is in the nature of God to do certain things, then God is not supernatural either. If the nature of God is to be something wholly other than a very powerful sentient being, then it's natural.

[EgoDeath]

More relevant to my mind is that there inherently CAN BE no evidence for an invisible, supernatural being. Such a thing would be outside the natural world and totally inaccessible anyway. If a god is not supernatural (or becomes part of nature by interacting with it), then it is part of the natural world and can be understood like anything else in nature. If it's supernatural, well, that's a useless and illogical concept, which means you can't even concoct and describe what would serve as convincing evidence for such a god hypothesis. A natural (non-supernatural) god is just a very powerful sentient being whose activities could be examined and assessed ... and that's not happening, either.

Absolutely. In that particular response, I was talking to FA about the concept of a soul, but the idea of something being supernatural is so silly. If supernatural means "outside of nature," then why even talk about it? Why even discuss something that cannot be observed, explained or tested? That's as good as saying:

How do I really know that what you see as blue is the same as what I see as blue?

There's just no answer to some questions, yet. And that's okay. I wish people were more okay with accepting that.

[mordant]

If it's supernatural, well, that's a useless and illogical concept

There is a good and useful definition of "supernatural," which I think is where the concept comes from.

In this view, everything has a nature -- a way that it is. 

It is in the nature of a cat to do cat things -- run around, sit on my keyboard, nap in the sun, etc. It is not in the nature of a cat to sing opera. 

If my cat suddenly started singing opera, this would be over and above its nature -- therefore, supernatural. 

Anyway, that's the old fashioned definition. 

So to decide if a soul is supernatural or not, we'd have to know what the nature of that thing is. And again, going back to the ancient people who defined what they mean by the word soul, the soul is the form of that body, is a natural thing, exists only in combination with a body, etc. 

If we say that it is in the nature of God to do certain things, then God is not supernatural either. If the nature of God is to be something wholly other than a very powerful sentient being, then it's natural.

Super = above. Supernatural is above or outside nature. Nature in the sense of "the natural world", not in the sense of "a thing's nature". Besides, it's a disordered concept even that way, because if a cat sings opera, it's not a cat and we shouldn't be discussing it in those terms. It's an opera singer with a cat's body, and there's a reason we don't expect to ever see such a thing. It would violate our systems of categorization.

I don't know what "old fashioned" concept you're referring to here. The only definition I can find for "supernatural" is more or less "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Whatever it meant to the ancients, it's not what it means to us now, and so it's not the framing of the discussion here.

[EgoDeath]

Super = above. Supernatural is above or outside nature. Nature in the sense of "the natural world", not in the sense of "a thing's nature". Besides, it's a disordered concept even that way, because if a cat sings opera, it's not a cat and we shouldn't be discussing it in those terms. It's an opera singer with a cat's body, and there's a reason we don't expect to ever see such a thing. It would violate our systems of categorization.

I don't know what "old fashioned" concept you're referring to here. The only definition I can find for "supernatural" is more or less "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Whatever it meant to the ancients, it's not what it means to us now, and so it's not the framing of the discussion here.

Don't worry. With enough time, Bel will figure a way to spin his way out of this. He's good at spin. Just keep an eye on it.

[Belacqua]

Super = above. Supernatural is above or outside nature. Nature in the sense of "the natural world", not in the sense of "a thing's nature". Besides, it's a disordered concept even that way, because if a cat sings opera, it's not a cat and we shouldn't be discussing it in those terms. It's an opera singer with a cat's body, and there's a reason we don't expect to ever see such a thing. It would violate our systems of categorization.

OK, you're using the term in a different way. And I agree that in that way it's pretty incoherent and unhelpful. I was just pointing out the way some people used to use it, when its meaning was entirely clear. 

I don't think the example I gave was "disordered" though it is not the kind of thing we think of as supernatural today, maybe. If the thing was a cat before, and it's a cat after, and all scientific tests I perform indicate that it's a cat, the fact that it sang Zerlina's "Batti, batti, o bel Masetto" would be inexplicable by any natural means. So, not in the nature of a cat, not explicable by natural means, whatever. 

I don't know what "old fashioned" concept you're referring to here. The only definition I can find for "supernatural" is more or less "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Whatever it meant to the ancients, it's not what it means to us now, and so it's not the framing of the discussion here.

Yeah, it's sad to say that the old definitions have been so thoroughly forgotten in modern discourse. 

The Thomists and the Schoolmen, through constant vigorous debate, worked out definitions that would still be useful for us if we knew them. Including, in my opinion, the one about "supernatural." Since people continue to use the word in a way that is, as you point out, unworkable, I would have thought that a more useful and precise definition would be desirable. 

There's something very strange about the fact that all the work done earlier on these concepts, much of which would still be helpful, has been thrown out. Instead, all the hard work they did has been met with slander, as when Christopher Hitchens repeats the falsehood that they debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and expected a numerical answer. In fact that problem was made up later as a way to insult the Thomists and was never used by them as a problem; they would have known it was incoherent if they had ever seen it. 

It means that we tend to debate the newer, dumbed down ideas about God and things -- the versions that Ken Ham likes -- as if that's all there has ever been. People in prior ages weren't stupid, and they recognized and provided answers to nearly all the objections we make today.  Not that you should believe their answers, necessarily. It's just that when a concept like soul appears to be glaringly wrong, the same problems were almost certainly seen and addressed in ancient times. Our ignorance of those answers just means our discussion stays at a low lever.

[EgoDeath]

@Belaqua

You act as if the god of Aquinas is infallible. That couldn't be farther from the truth. These philosophers you hold in such high regard, unfortunately, didn't have this whole thing worked out. Imagine that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Super = above. Supernatural is above or outside nature. Nature in the sense of "the natural world", not in the sense of "a thing's nature". Besides, it's a disordered concept even that way, because if a cat sings opera, it's not a cat and we shouldn't be discussing it in those terms. It's an opera singer with a cat's body, and there's a reason we don't expect to ever see such a thing. It would violate our systems of categorization.

OK, you're using the term in a different way. And I agree that in that way it's pretty incoherent and unhelpful. I was just pointing out the way some people used to use it, when its meaning was entirely clear. 

I don't think the example I gave was "disordered" though it is not the kind of thing we think of as supernatural today, maybe. If the thing was a cat before, and it's a cat after, and all scientific tests I perform indicate that it's a cat, the fact that it sang Zerlina's "Batti, batti, o bel Masetto" would be inexplicable by any natural means. So, not in the nature of a cat, not explicable by natural means, whatever. 

I don't know what "old fashioned" concept you're referring to here. The only definition I can find for "supernatural" is more or less "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Whatever it meant to the ancients, it's not what it means to us now, and so it's not the framing of the discussion here.

Yeah, it's sad to say that the old definitions have been so thoroughly forgotten in modern discourse. 

The Thomists and the Schoolmen, through constant vigorous debate, worked out definitions that would still be useful for us if we knew them. Including, in my opinion, the one about "supernatural." Since people continue to use the word in a way that is, as you point out, unworkable, I would have thought that a more useful and precise definition would be desirable. 

There's something very strange about the fact that all the work done earlier on these concepts, much of which would still be helpful, has been thrown out. Instead, all the hard work they did has been met with slander, as when Christopher Hitchens repeats the falsehood that they debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and expected a numerical answer. In fact that problem was made up later as a way to insult the Thomists and was never used by them as a problem; they would have known it was incoherent if they had ever seen it. 

It means that we tend to debate the newer, dumbed down ideas about God and things -- the versions that Ken Ham likes -- as if that's all there has ever been. People in prior ages weren't stupid, and they recognized and provided answers to nearly all the objections we make today.  Not that you should believe their answers, necessarily. It's just that when a concept like soul appears to be glaringly wrong, the same problems were almost certainly seen and addressed in ancient times. Our ignorance of those answers just means our discussion stays at a low lever.

I'm not entirely sure that Aquinas is the best support of your definition of 'supernatural'.  He rejected the ontological argument on the very basis that we cannot know God's nature.  Since we can't know this, we cannot determine whether God is supernatural.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I'm not entirely sure that Aquinas is the best support of your definition of 'supernatural'.  He rejected the ontological argument on the very basis that we cannot know God's nature.  Since we can't know this, we cannot determine whether God is supernatural.

Boru

Yes, nearly every theologian holds it to be true that because God is so enormously beyond human understanding, it is silly for us to make definitive statements about what God must be. 

As I recall, Aquinas rejected Anselm's version of the ontological argument because the words "than which nothing can be greater" may be understood differently by different people. 

Do you think, though, that this rules out God having a nature? We can't say "it is in the nature of God to be X"?

Or is it that while God (like everything else) has a nature, it is not one fully knowable by humans?

---

@Belaqua

You act as if the god of Aquinas is infallible. That couldn't be farther from the truth. These philosophers you hold in such high regard, unfortunately, didn't have this whole thing worked out. Imagine that.

The God of Aquinas is infallible -- if by that you mean that God, as understood by Aquinas, cannot do badly. 

Or do you mean that Aquinas was not infallible when describing God? I have never believed that Aquinas was infallible; of course he made mistakes.

I mention Aquinas as an example of an important theologian, held in high esteem by the church, whose idea of God and heaven was entirely different from what has been described on this thread. 

I completely agree with you that all the philosophers I hold in high regard didn't have "this whole thing" worked out. No one has worked it all out, which is why they are still interesting and relevant questions.

[EgoDeath]

@Belaqua

How is the god of Aquinas infallible?

If you're fallacious in creating a god, then your god is fallacious.

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua

How is the god of Aquinas infallible?

If you're fallacious in creating a god, then your god is fallacious.

Aquinas argued that God cannot do wrong, cannot do evil.

If you want to present an argument as to why his reasoning is fallacious you are certainly welcome to.