Arguments against soul=brain

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrian1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, there is this: the human soul is immaterial spirit. The brain is material.

Also, the soul is the animating principle of the whole human body, not just the brain.
 
The brain is not the soul, but the brain is rather important to the soul. Destroy the brain, or cause it to stop functioning (by anoxia, for example), and the soul departs. That cannot be said about any other part of the body.

D
 
Where was Lazarus during his ‘sleep’ if his soul was merely his brain 🤨

I sincerely doubt Jesus was under any impression he was still alive. Brain death, really doesn’t take all that long.
 
Last edited:
One argument for the soul is based on the difference between a corpse and a living body. In the morning a man is alive, but by the evening he may be a corpse. Now what is the difference between the two? It’s not a difference of material. There is no chemical you could add to the corpse that would make it alive again, nothing material could do that. But there is a difference. Therefore, there is a nonmaterial element without which the body is a corpse. Catholics call it the soul.

A second argument for the soul is based on justice. If there is no life after death, there is no justice. Good and evil are not balanced in this life. Good people often suffer, evil people often do well. Also, if there is no future life, there is no true morality. Rob, lie, murder – only be careful! The only way true justice can be served is if we have a soul that lives on after death, where a sentence of judgment awaits. But if there is no soul, then there is ultimately no justice and no morality either.

A third argument for the soul is based on the law of nature. Human beings naturally believe in life after death and in many cases look forward to it. Fr. Rumble’s book “Radio Replies Volume 3” uses this as an argument that the afterlife is real: “Could anyone conceive that God would form that most delicate organ of hearing, the ear, so wonderfully adapted to every kind of vibration, yet endow no objects with the power of causing sound? The whole tendency of the ear would be to hear, yet it would never do so because its complementary object would be wanting. Every natural tendency implies and has an object.” Therefore, something exists which corresponds to our natural expectation of an afterlife.
 
I would recommend Frank Sheed’s treatment of this topic in his book “Theology for Beginners.” Spirit is a substance which has no aspect of materiality to it. It does not take up space or have physical characteristics. God is spirit; the angels are spirit, the human soul is spirit. It is because the soul is spirit that it does not end at death.
 
Best argument I have. Does the soul consist mainly of water, like the brain.?

If not then the answer is no. If yes, There could be a case for your hypothesis
 
A substance with no aspect of materiality, doesn’t take up space or have physical characteristics? By definition that is not a substance.
Substance = the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.
 
That may be the chemical definition of substance; it is not the philosophical definition used in Catholic theology.

If there is nothing that is non-material, then God cannot exist, the human soul cannot exist, and when we die there is nothing more.

But is an idea material? Does an idea have length, width, depth, weight? Is a decision material? Is it measurable in terms of centimeters and milligrams?
 
JimG said:
But is an idea material? Does an idea have length, width, depth, weight? Is a decision material? Is it measurable in terms of centimeters and milligrams?
Click to expand...
None of those examples have agency or free will, or can interact with material things; so it is not a good analogy.
 
Well that theory goes against the teachings of the Church, and thus, they are false. Anything that contradicts the immortal teachings and Tradition of the Church is false and from Satan.
 
The assumption that our being stems from our brain rather than our soul. 🤷‍♂️
 
adrian1 said:
Arguments against the theory that soul=brain.
Click to expand...
Did you mean the view that mind equals brain?

If so, sometimes I feel this is just a label issue. Don’t get me wrong, there are important differences to be found amongst the properties of the brain. There are parts or functions that we can identify as being physical, but then there are properties that are non-physical in that they seem to lack physical characteristics, especially that seem incompatible with the materialistic worldview. So if you want to call ‘subjective experience’ the brain, that’s fine, but then just acknowledge that it is a non-physical property of the brain. This position is called property dualism.
 
AgnosticBoy said:
So if you want to call ‘subjective experience’ the brain, that’s fine, but then just acknowledge that it is a non-physical property of the brain. This position is called property dualism.
Click to expand...
What parts we can identify as physical, and that are non-physical?
 
adrian1 said:
What parts we can identify as physical, and that are non-physical?
Click to expand...
Physical:
Neurons, electrical impulses, various brain chemicals or neurotransmitters, etc.

Non-physical:
Qualia, mental imagery, consciousness (particularly, when involves perception w/out our sense organs, like perceiving a mental image or dreams).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top