Arguments against Soul

[FlatAssembler]

Why do you think that souls would be able to perceive anything without a working body?

Primarily because @tackattack believes that some NDEs are not hallucinations. Also, if souls can't perceive anything, how are heaven and hell supposed to work?

[LastPoet]

I for one think its weird that while belaqua is keen on attacking atheists for not conforming to his philosophical views (or better, others she read), seeing the abundance of theists here, he remains stridently silent about some of their drivel.

At least I know Tack is trying honestly to support his belief. Rough ground to have any traction, but honestly discussing.

[Belacqua]

Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu.

I find it somewhat odd that you'd use one of the core doctrines of empiricism to argue for the existence of an immaterial soul.

Boru

The quote comes from Thomas Aquinas. It's called the Peripatetic axiom.

---

Also, if souls can't perceive anything, how are heaven and hell supposed to work?

If this is not a rhetorical question, it's easy enough to find the answer in Thomist theology. It's standard Aristotelian hylomorphism, in which, as usual, the soul is the form of the body and doesn't exist without a body.

---

I for one think its weird that while belaqua is keen on attacking atheists

I have attacked no one.

Also, for the record, I'm a he. Belacqua is a boy's name.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't come from aquinas, lol. It comes from classical greek thought. Like the vast majority of things aquinas ever said - since that was his life's work. You really need to stop crediting ignorant christians for the work of the pagans.

[FlatAssembler]

It's standard Aristotelian hylomorphism, in which, as usual, the soul is the form of the body and doesn't exist without a body.

The term "hylomorphism" was coined in the late 19th century. Aristotle defined a soul as some kind of force which makes things alive, that is, "vis vitalis", obviously incompatible with modern science.

[Belacqua]

It's standard Aristotelian hylomorphism, in which, as usual, the soul is the form of the body and doesn't exist without a body.

The term "hylomorphism" was coined in the late 19th century. Aristotle defined a soul as some kind of force which makes things alive, that is, "vis vitalis", obviously incompatible with modern science.

The English word was coined in the late 19th century. The concept came from Aristotle.

No, Aristotle did not define the soul as vis vitalis. That's something else. If you want to hold this claim I'll ask you for some kind of link to a source.

The soul is the form of the body. In this context form is more than just shape -- it is also the structure and the active functioning. When the structure is disrupted or the functioning becomes impossible, then the soul is no longer combined with the matter. The form has changed, and the body dies. The soul -- the form -- is not some magical wisp which enters the matter. All matter has form.

I honestly don't see how you can argue against hylomorphism. Do you want to say that matter can exist without form? That seems impossible to me. And if you argue that form can exist without matter, then you're on the side of those who say that soul can be disembodied -- something both Aristotle and Aquinas reject. 

The only unbelievable claim Christians in this tradition make is that the same form (the soul) transfers itself at death into a different body -- a different blob of matter. But Aquinas doesn't claim that soul can be disembodied. And he's clear that perception comes through material sense organs, and that if we were different kinds of animals we would perceive the world very differently.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tack disagrees. You have a christian to correct on issues of christian superstition. Enjoy.

[Belacqua]

Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu.

I find it somewhat odd that you'd use one of the core doctrines of empiricism to argue for the existence of an immaterial soul.

Boru

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the existence of an immaterial soul. The quote is meant to show that for Aquinas, knowledge comes in through the senses, and that the contents of the intellect depend on the body's sense organs. 

People here hate it when I point this out, but it's true anyway: it was the Thomist reintroduction of Aristotle into Europe that paved the way for empirical science. 

The core tenets that 1) God has made the world operate according to regular laws, and 2) these laws are knowable through the senses, were the philosophical underpinnings for the beginning of empirical research.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's nice, and Tack disagrees. You're not correcting any atheists here in this thread, which has nothing to do with some hilarious bullshit about how, hur dur, the christers paved the way for science.

[FlatAssembler]

I honestly don't see how you can argue against hylomorphism.

I honestly don't see how it's relevant here.

Do you want to say that matter can exist without form?

Obviously, the air you and I breathe right now is a matter but it doesn't have a form.

And if you argue that form can exist without matter, then you're on the side of those who say that soul can be disembodied -- something both Aristotle and Aquinas reject.

Triangles exist, they don't have matter, but they have a form. I don't see how that implies souls exist.

it was the Thomist reintroduction of Aristotle into Europe that paved the way for empirical science.

Scholastics, the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, is in many ways exactly the opposite of science. Somebody following a scientific method would ask himself how Aristotle came up with his ideas, realize that Aristotle hasn't followed the scientific method, and reject most of his philosophy a priori. Because that's what it is, a bunch of blind guessing that's very unlikely to be right. Thomas Aquinas, instead of trying to understand nature (by doing experiments), tried to understand Aristotle.