Is the Soul Immaterial?

[shoe]

''Is the Soul Immaterial?"

I think that if the human soul were a material thing, then matter would be able to originate such things as compassion, generosity, and love. But since compassion, generosity, and love are universal and immutable, and matter is none of those things, then matter cannot possibly originate them. Therefore, the human soul is immaterial.

 

[inocente]

The human intellect is immaterial.

Math has no mass, volume or space. In other words, math is immaterial.

The human intellect created math; an immaterial being made an immaterial being.

I find it ironic that the physical scientists that refuse to recognize anything that is immaterial use an immaterial tool–math.

If all humans beings died, does math exist? Math was created by humans and would cease to exist if we all died.

A computer program is (or can easily be) stated in terms of math, so by your definition software is immaterial. I’d assume no one would have any problems when immaterial is used in that way. I suggest the issue for the physical scientists only arises when immaterial is used instead to mean something that supposedly functions without any physical implementation, like a disembodied CD producing music from thin air, because it appears to be a cop-out involving unanswerable questions (where is it, how can it function, how can it affect the physical world, and so on).

 

[Sair]

''Is the Soul Immaterial?"

I think that if the human soul were a material thing, then matter would be able to originate such things as compassion, generosity, and love. But since compassion, generosity, and love are universal and immutable, and matter is none of those things, then matter cannot possibly originate them. Therefore, the human soul is immaterial.

What are compassion, generosity and love without their physical expression?

Sure, we might speak of them as abstract concepts, but such concepts are meaningless without a material aspect.

 

[sw85]

Scripture aside, what is the best philosophical argument for the immateriality of the human soul?

Charlemagne II,

Look into “hylemorphic dualism.” I won’t bother trying to explain it since I’ll just botch it, but here’s the last part of a three-part series from Edward Feser on the topic (the first two parts are linked from there).

Basically, from what I gather, the soul of man is simply the form of man – i.e., the arrangement of the substance of flesh, bone, blood, tissue, etc., into a living, breathing person. This form includes both material operations (locomotion, nutrition, etc.) that perish upon death, and immaterial operations (knowledge, will) which are preserved after death until Resurrection.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

A computer program is (or can easily be) stated in terms of math, so by your definition software is immaterial.

I can’t speak for Jim, but I don’t think by his definition of the soul you could infer that software is immaterial. Surely software is material. What is immaterial is the knowledge, intuition, and imagination that went into the creation of the software.

Computer software is an interesting and complex case of matter obedient to thought. Whereas a building or a car demonstrates the products of thought at work, software demonstrates thought as a working process.

 

[inocente]

I can’t speak for Jim, but I don’t think by his definition of the soul you could infer that software is immaterial. Surely software is material. What is immaterial is the knowledge, intuition, and imagination that went into the creation of the software.

I’m thinking it would have to be included since it can be expressed in mathematical form and he defines math as immaterial, but we’ll have to see what Jim says, maybe there’s an escape clause.

 

[Jim_Baur]

inocente said: “I’m thinking it would have to be included since it can be expressed in mathematical form and he defines math as immaterial…”

Your statement could be applied to the natural physical laws, couldn’t it?

I do not know enough about software, DVDs, CDs and the like to address the problem.

The physical laws are described by math.

Are the laws immaterial?

I truly think that the laws are a product of reason; reason infused into the physical universe. That reason, like math and our intellect, is immaterial. The reasonableness of the physical world is obvious. The reasonableness could not have happened by chance–that is impossible. A being of reason had to infuse reason into the physical world. I would hold that the being of reason is far, far, far superior than we can comprehend. Also, speaking philosophically and not religiously, there could be many beings that infuse reason into the physical world.

This infusion of reason into the physical world is the primary analogate.

The secondary analogate in the comparison, we can see in an old typewriter or a coffee cup that reason has formed those objects.

There was an active reason, our intellect, that infuse reason into the materials. I call the formed materials passive reason. Plato and Aristotle would have used such terms as ideas and forms.

The physical world is ordered by reason and our reason can vision that.

I am going to spend the rest of the day with my family.

I will post two further ideas, you might be interested. They are from other posts.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion.

I am open to those who would like to critic it, thanks!

Here is the opinion.

When one studies a stapler, cup, or an old typewriter, it is obvious that they were made by a person with reason. Reason was infused into the materials.

One could call that passive reason, that is, the reason infused into the material being.
One could call the reason in the person that made the stapler active reason.

When one studies the material world about them, one can discern its passive reason with one’s ability to reason.

That passive reason was infused into the physical world; one’s reason can be certain of it.

There was at least one agent that introduced reason into the physical world.

One could call that (or those) being(s) active creative being(s).

One might find it interesting that the reason in math has no physical qualities or existence. This immaterial entity, math, is the tool of the physical sciences; it has no mass, volume or any other physical characteristics. It, math, measures and counts the physical world.

In other words, the physical sciences are understood by a product of the human intellect which is beyond the material realm. This math is created by our reason and is immaterial. Our intellect is able to discern passive reason of the physical world by its active reason. And it is also able to recognize the physical world was made reasonable by a being of superior reason and power.

One could find it interesting that our intellect created the immaterial being of math. The physical scientists use math for understanding and describing the physical world. The human intellect that created, developed and employs math can also see that their intellect is immaterial, an immaterial being created an immaterial being. In other words, our intellect is an immaterial being and it created an immaterial being called math.

I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion and hear the opinion of others concerning it.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I believe that our ability to reason creates math.

I believe that our ability to reason can see and create many other beings.

This is a real jump: the spiritual laws exist. They have more ontic (this is a real word) reality than the physical laws.

As a believing Christian, I believe that the moral or spiritual laws really exist.

I believe we can observe them in the manner that we created math and then use it to observe and describe the physical laws.

I believe they are analogous to the physical laws, but the primary analogate (this is a word, too) is the spiritual law.

I believe that God exists.

I believe that He created any other being.

I believe that He created with love and reason.

Therefore I believe that the spiritual laws can be observed just as the physical laws.

Actually, whether God exists or not, the moral or physical laws do exist.

I, for myself, define the spiritual laws similarly to the physical laws.

Laws are the statements of the consistencies that God’s love and our love and reason display in the properties and functions our thoughts, choices, and passions (passions emote feelings) and external actions.

Love and hate are inversely proportioned.
Happiness and misery are inversely proportioned.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

Sobriety really exists. It has more reality than gravity.
Chastity is beautiful and it too has more reality than gravity and math.
Prudence and justice really exist and have more reality than the gravity and irrational numbers.
Wisdom really exists.

Just as math has no mass, weight, volume or size, but exists; so do the spiritual laws have existence.

If humans are unable to discern them because they have no mass, they should consider disregarding math too. It is our ability to reason that created and recognizes math; the ability to reason has no mass. It is true that spiritual laws are discerned with our ability to reason. I believe that God created the spiritual laws as observed by Moses. Speaking metaphorically, the Ten Words came from the heart of God. God is love; don’t hate. God is truth; don’t deceive. God is life; don’t murder.

Oh, I have observed them in my conscience. Many others have observed them, too.

 

[shoe]

What are compassion, generosity and love without their physical expression?

Sure, we might speak of them as abstract concepts, but such concepts are meaningless without a material aspect.

The question really is how do concepts exist in a universe made up of matter? Concepts are not entities of themselves. I think that the very existence of concepts such as compassion, generosity, and love, is a refutation of the concept that says things must have a material aspect in the physical world to have meaning.

 

[Sair]

The question really is how do concepts exist in a universe made up of matter? Concepts are not entities of themselves. I think that the very existence of concepts such as compassion, generosity, and love, is a refutation of the concept that says things must have a material aspect in the physical world to have meaning.

You don’t appear to have answered the ‘real’ question! What do you imagine a concept is, other than an abstract idea based upon a set of demonstrably physical phenomena - actions and emotions? Our brains are wired to recognise patterns, and we see patterns of behaviour to which we give names such as compassion, generosity and love.

I don’t believe that when we act in such ways towards our fellows, we are emulating some Platonic ideal of ‘compassion’, ‘generosity’ or ‘love’ - something that pre-exists its physical expression. It seems you reject this idea also, when you acknowledge that concepts are not entities, as such, in themselves - they are, in fact, ways we have evolved to speak and communicate about certain states of affairs in the physical world.

Then you seem to contradict yourself by claiming that the very existence of concepts refutes the notion that they must have a physical aspect to have meaning. Which brings us back to addressing the ‘real’ question - what does ‘compassion’, for example, mean without the physical state of affairs we recognise as compassionate action? Absent the behaviours to which they refer, ‘love’, ‘generosity’ and ‘compassion’ are empty words - something with which, I suspect, Christ himself would have agreed.

 

[inocente]

I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion.

I am open to those who would like to critic it, thanks!

That’s excellent Jim. I had to leave a thread on this same subject recently due to the lack of discussion and number of condescending insults flying around, and in some ways it might be more interesting to discuss why this subject provokes such strong feelings in the first place.

Everything below is imho.

Part of the problem is it’s all bound up with our beliefs and strong intuitions, and it’s very hard to sort out. There are a very wide variety of positions taken by various philosophers over the years, but I’d venture they fall into these groupings:

• metaphysical idealism - there is only one substance and it is spirit/consciousness, the physical world arising from the mental world. There is one type of law, the spiritual.

• substance dualism – the soul is composed of a non-physical substance. There are two distinct and entirely separate types of law - physical law and spiritual law.

• property dualism - the soul and body are the same substance, but the body has properties the soul doesn’t (weight, temperature, etc.) and the soul properties the body doesn’t (creativity, envy, etc.). There is one type of law (divine law?) with aspects we group into the physical and spiritual.

• physicalism – there is only one substance and it is physical, therefore the soul arises out of the physical world. There is one type of law, the physical.

It seems most people are intuitively either substance dualists or physicalists. We’re likely to be idealist/substance dualist if we believe in ghosts, since it’s hard to see how ghosts could exist otherwise. Another question would be whether we think the mind can be explained: idealists/substance dualists can only do it by introspection, and ultimately probably say it’s inexplicable since their non-physical substance isn’t open to objective inspection.

Substance dualism is the only position involving two separate bodies of law, and this is a big problem if we believe truth cannot contradict truth since there’s nothing to prevent the two from conflicting. As I understand it Thomas Aquinas overcomes this by taking a property dualist position, or as the CCC puts it:

CCC 365: The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

I think the reason why the insults start flying between property dualists and physicalists is because logically they are very close, you have to do quite a lot of work to separate the reasoning (cf. the Feser article posted by sw85 in post #85), and yet they reflect very different positions about how we like to see ourselves and Creation.

I take it you’re a property dualist (?). I’m physicalist, born and bred. Pleased to meet you. :curtsey:

 

[grannymh]

How would you answer the objection raised by materialists that certain functions of the mind seem to be controlled by certain parts of the material brain, and that therefore these functions are merely products of material activity, rather than existing in a metaphysical realm of their own?

From one of the many scientific inquiries into the human anatomy, the objection raised by materialists is that there are certain areas of the material brain that control functions of the body. This is a different approach from what is mentioned in post 10. Thus, when dealing with the material aspects of a nature which combines both the material *and *spiritual worlds, one should be careful of what kind of approach and which kind of knowledge of human nature are being used.

As to “which kind of knowledge of human nature is being used”, it has been my observation that some, not all, materialists follow some kind of a hand-me-down form of Cartesian extreme dualism. This is often confused with Catholic teaching regarding the rational/corporeal nature of the human person.

 

[inocente]

As to “which kind of knowledge of human nature is being used”, it has been my observation that some, not all, materialists follow some kind of a hand-me-down form of Cartesian extreme dualism. This is often confused with Catholic teaching regarding the rational/corporeal nature of the human person.

I know you weren’t the first to do it, but if we’re going to play nice it might be an idea to avoid loaded words such as materialist. Anyway, strictly speaking a materialist only believes in matter, i.e. substances with mass, which excludes things like photons, math and … philosophy . The word physicalist is preferable, it’s the term used in philosophy of mind.

Imho the issue you raise affects those with a traditional Catholic view just as much if not more than physicalists, and may mean they’re unconsciously a substance dualist at heart (what you call “a hand-me-down form of Cartesian extreme dualism”, which just might be another loaded phrase to avoid ).

The problem is this: we all seem to have an innate capacity to believe in supernatural agents, for instance we may get fractious with tools when they “misbehave”, even though in calmer moments we know they don’t really contain any spirit gremlins. If we tend to do this, or for instance think near-death experiences are real and not just hallucinations, we might well be a substance dualist at heart whatever we try to profess to our self.

 

[GEddie]

I know you weren’t the first to do it, but if we’re going to play nice it might be an idea to avoid loaded words such as materialist. Anyway, strictly speaking a materialist only believes in matter, i.e. substances with mass, which excludes things like photons, math and … philosophy . The word physicalist is preferable, it’s the term used in philosophy of mind.

Imho the issue you raise affects those with a traditional Catholic view just as much if not more than physicalists, and may mean they’re unconsciously a substance dualist at heart (what you call “a hand-me-down form of Cartesian extreme dualism”, which just might be another loaded phrase to avoid ).

The problem is this: we all seem to have an innate capacity to believe in supernatural agents, for instance we may get fractious with tools when they “misbehave”, even though in calmer moments we know they don’t really contain any spirit gremlins. If we tend to do this, or for instance think near-death experiences are real and not just hallucinations, we might well be a substance dualist at heart whatever we try to profess to our self.

Not really. Belief in NDE is no different from belief in afterlife generally. IMNAAHO

 

[Jim_Baur]

inocente

Thanks!

I will be reflecting on these issues.

Again, thanks!

 

[grannymh]

I know you weren’t the first to do it, but if we’re going to play nice it might be an idea to avoid loaded words such as materialist. Anyway, strictly speaking a materialist only believes in matter, i.e. substances with mass, which excludes things like photons, math and … philosophy . The word physicalist is preferable, it’s the term used in philosophy of mind.

Imho the issue you raise affects those with a traditional Catholic view just as much if not more than physicalists, and may mean they’re unconsciously a substance dualist at heart (what you call “a hand-me-down form of Cartesian extreme dualism”, which just might be another loaded phrase to avoid ).

The problem is this: we all seem to have an innate capacity to believe in supernatural agents, for instance we may get fractious with tools when they “misbehave”, even though in calmer moments we know they don’t really contain any spirit gremlins. If we tend to do this, or for instance think near-death experiences are real and not just hallucinations, we might well be a substance dualist at heart whatever we try to profess to our self.

My post 33 was a response to the OP’s post 10 which referred to an objection “raised by materialists…” Therefore, I responded from the view of scientists who operate in the material realm. It was not my intention to interrupt the discussion, but only to reply to post 10 as a one-time participation.

My apology for using loaded words and loaded phases. It’s habit since my area of interest leans toward contemporary science. This does not imply that those loaded words and phrases are used as such. It does imply that when one analyzes some, not all, actual research papers, one takes into account all kinds of factors from *both *the material world and the spiritual world.

 

[inocente]

Not really. Belief in NDE is no different from belief in afterlife generally. IMNAAHO

I think they’re very different. Here’s my reasoning, where do I go wrong?

CCC 365: The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The soul is the “form” of the body, spirit and matter are two natures united. It’s a bit (only a tiny bit) like software, which is the “form” of a DVD, hard disc or bit stream crossing the Internet but which can’t exist in thin air since then there’s nothing for it to be the form of.

So if the soul is the form of a body, in an NDE the soul must occupy a new temporary, invisible body in order to float around for several minutes. This body can only be made of an immaterial substance, and thus we’re now into substance dualism and outside of CCC 365.

I’m not a Catholic and am often wrong but see also this Ask an Apologist answer, which says that on death the soul is immediately transported to heaven/purgatory/hell where it waits for its resurrected body.

(There are also fun technical issues. For instance, NDE subjects typically talk of watching the doctors and nurses. Their invisible body must therefore have eyes, but we all know eyes must focus and absorb light and so cannot be invisible, yet the medics never notice two dark spots floating around. )

And what’s an IMNAAHO bro? (In My Not(?) A… A… Humble Opinion?)

 

[grannymh]

CCC 365: The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

So if the soul is the form of a body, in an NDE the soul must occupy a new temporary, invisible body in order to float around for several minutes. This body can only be made of an immaterial substance, and thus we’re now into substance dualism and outside of CCC 365.

What is being implied, if a soul could float from the body, is that there are two natures or substances. CCC 365 says that spirit and matter in humans are not two natures united. Spirit and matter form a single nature that does not separate until final death when the soul leaves the body. Please see quoted link below.

I’m not a Catholic and am often wrong but see also this Ask an Apologist answer, which says that on death the soul is immediately transported to heaven/purgatory/hell where it waits for its resurrected body.

A near death experience could be a spiritual experience like other spiritual experiences which do happen. Or it could come from a person’s consciousness. I don’t know.

Going back to post 32 where substance dualism is defined, the difficulty is in the details. Yes, the spiritual soul and the physical body are distinct but they are not entirely separate. It is the unique unification of spiritual and material which brings about a human being. Soul and body are one nature.

Regarding physical law and spiritual law, I am not too sure what is involved with each law.

We live in a material/physical world so our rational/corporeal nature obeys the laws of gravity as a single unit. Our spiritual soul’s intellect and will have unique abilities or properties, but those are exercised within human nature. Physical emotions, tears, well being, etc., can influence the operation of the spiritual intellect. Sheer spiritual will to live can propel the body to survive.

 

[shoe]

You don’t appear to have answered the ‘real’ question! What do you imagine a concept is, other than an abstract idea based upon a set of demonstrably physical phenomena - actions and emotions? Our brains are wired to recognise patterns, and we see patterns of behaviour to which we give names such as compassion, generosity and love.

I don’t believe that when we act in such ways towards our fellows, we are emulating some Platonic ideal of ‘compassion’, ‘generosity’ or ‘love’ - something that pre-exists its physical expression. It seems you reject this idea also, when you acknowledge that concepts are not entities, as such, in themselves - they are, in fact, ways we have evolved to speak and communicate about certain states of affairs in the physical world.

Then you seem to contradict yourself by claiming that the very existence of concepts refutes the notion that they must have a physical aspect to have meaning. Which brings us back to addressing the ‘real’ question - what does ‘compassion’, for example, mean without the physical state of affairs we recognise as compassionate action? Absent the behaviours to which they refer, ‘love’, ‘generosity’ and ‘compassion’ are empty words - something with which, I suspect, Christ himself would have agreed.

I’ll try to get to the point of the alleged contradiction from another angle, since the contradiction is the point: concepts themselves are by definition not a product of manufactured parts or of material properties.

concept: n (from the TheFreeDictionary):

1. an idea, esp an abstract idea, the concepts of biology
2. (Philosophy) Philosophy a general idea or notion that corresponds to some class of entities and that consists of the characteristic or essential features of the class
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy
   a. the conjunction of all the characteristic features of something
   b. a theoretical construct within some theory
   c. a directly intuited object of thought
   d. the meaning of a predicate

If a person says that the concept of “compassion, for example,” is nothing more than the way that “we have evolved,” then the existence of compassion, as well as love, logic, justice, knowledge etc., remains forever a problem for that person, since that would imply that if the mind did not exist, compassion would not exist as well. But this would mean that compassion was a thing not beyond our experience, but rather it was just a product of each human mind.

Another problem for the person who believes that the concept of compassion, as well as love, logic, justice, knowledge etc., is an evolutionary process of the mind is the fact that no two minds are the same, and they frequently contradict each other. Consequently, compassion, which is not a contradictory object (but one of the characteristic attributes of God), cannot possibly be the result of anything contradictory; that is to say, compassion could not possibly be a physical thing.