Does Science disprove the existence of the soul?

[IWantGod]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We don’t have all of the answers in understanding how the brain works (including sentience). At this time it appears that there is no need for a soul to explain thought (i.e. until we learn more it seems unneccessary for brain function). The concept of the soul is both unprovable and unfalsifiable.

 

[Bradski]

You can’t use science to prove (or disprove) something.

 

[PluniaZ]

That’s ridiculous. Animals do not have the same kind of intelligence as humans. Look at what the human intellect has made:

Spaceships
Semiconductors
Jet airplanes
Microprocessors
Automobiles
Cell phones
Satellites
Medicine
Books
Science
History
Math
Television
Video Games
Computers
Movies
Cheese steaks
Mozart
Universities
Libraries
Football stadiums
Skyscrapers
Cruise ships
Nuclear weapons
Sling shots

Now look at what animals have done with their intelligence:

youtube.com/results?search_query=animal+intelligence

 

[meltzerboy]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

Sentience refers to consciousness, not the soul. Science is in no way equipped to prove or disprove the existence of the soul. Such an enterprise is not part of the domain of science.

 

[McCartney]

That’s ridiculous. Animals do not have the same kind of intelligence as humans. Look at what the human intellect has made:

Spaceships
Semiconductors
Jet airplanes
Microprocessors
Automobiles
Cell phones
Satellites
Medicine
Books
Science
History
Math
Television
Video Games
Computers
Movies
Cheese steaks
Mozart
Universities
Libraries
Football stadiums
Skyscrapers
Cruise ships
Nuclear weapons
Sling shots

Now look at what animals have done with their intelligence:

youtube.com/results?search_query=animal+intelligence

human intellect did not make Mozart. Music yes but not Mozart.

 

[TK421]

Intelligence & breadth of consciousness isn’t dependent on an immortal soul because the immortal soul is pure spirit, which means it exists separate from the observable material universe and is not composed of matter or energy.

Human intellect is vastly inferior to the angels, but human beings nonetheless possess rational souls.

Human dignity also isn’t dependent on mental faculties. A fetus is equal in dignity to an adult in her prime. Dignity being dependent on mental faculties is utilitarian, where a person’s worth doesn’t extend beyond their ability to bring pleasure and comfort in some form through their abilities.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

Where are your references to back this up?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So let’s say you are doubtful that the human brain and body is sufficient enough to generate sentience (or love, compassion, verve, rationality, or any of concepts various people say come from a soul).

1. If we take away religious texts and just go with an investigation as to how humans can do what they do, how would one analyze the situation and determine how many souls a person has? 2? 10? One for every possible function a human could have?
2. If there is some element (which for now we will call a soul) that you believe is needed to give humans some or all of the things I mentioned above, are there any characteristics to a soul that we can definitively say are true or are not true? For example if I say that when a person touches something a part of their soul temporarily enters that object until it is released, can we state that is true or not true? If I say that all human souls gain sustenance from the moon, can we state that is true or not true?

I ask these questions because if we can’t say what a soul is or isn’t then we can’t say a soul definitely exists. Science hasn’t and won’t disprove the soul. More importantly so far science hasn’t had a need to even acknowledge the concept of a soul.

 

[IWantGod]

Sentience refers to consciousness, not the soul. Science is in no way equipped to prove or disprove the existence of the soul. Such an enterprise is not part of the domain of science.

Sentience refers to rational self awareness. Are not the rational faculties of man a part of what a soul is? If not what is the soul exactly?

 

[meltzerboy]

Sentience refers to rational self awareness. Are not the rational faculties of man a part of what a soul is? If not what is the soul exactly?

Sentience need not be rational in the human sense. Animals have sentience; they have consciousness and awareness since they perceive according to their senses. Yet they do not have rationality or self-awareness on the same level as humans.

 

[IWantGod]

Yet they do not have rationality or self-awareness on the same level as humans.

By level you seem to agree that the difference is one of degree rather than kind.

 

[meltzerboy]

By level you seem to agree that the difference is one of degree rather than kind.

We do not yet know exactly what the difference is, particularly when studying animal cognition of higher species.

 

[IWantGod]

We do not yet know exactly what the difference is, particularly when studying animal cognition of higher species.

Take a look at this.

youtube.com/watch?v=JkNV0rSndJ0

 

[IWantGod]

youtube.com/watch?v=s_87e9RZE2o

And take a look at this.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

Biology grad here. One of the first things I learned freshman year is that “proving” the existence of God, the soul, or any other spiritual entity is not within our scientific capabilities.

I’m no Creationist, but I’m not going to pretend that I know how humans first became ensouled. I know that I have one, and that God gave it to me: that’s good enough for now.

 

[Bonnie]

You can’t use science to prove (or disprove) something.

We need a thumb up or upvote here like on other sites that doesn’t require a post.

 

[GEddie]

Science doesn’t address the soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[phil19034]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

I’m not sure why you are concerned about this statement. The Church as taught (at least as far back as St. Augustine) that all living creatures and even plants have souls. But only humans have immortal, rational souls.

So our souls are different than the souls of animals, just like the souls of animals is different from the souls of plants.

jimmyakin.com/2004/12/types_of_souls.html
catholic.com/qa/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings
newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

God bless

 

[STT]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

All evidences are in favor of materialism. There is no soul in us. There is even center in our brains for creation of sense of self. There are two problems here though, the problem of consciousness and the problem of free will. That might means that we don’t know matter well yet.