Prove the existence of the soul

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts? :confused:
 
I have a simple answer: Quantum Mechanics! It urns out that Young’s Double-Slit Experiment, is what first demonstrated the interference of photons; thus light had a “wave nature” as well as a particle nature. There is a book: “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith”. Have heard of it?
 
I’m familiar with some of Barr’s work but not that one. Does he discuss whether there is any scientific reason to believe in the existence of the soul as an entity independent of the body?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts? :confused:
Click to expand...
It exists as an idea, because I have an idea that it does. 😃
 
Jozefo
**
It exists as an idea, because I have an idea that it does.**

St. Anselm would be proud of you. 😃
 
A few very good answers here but my question: why do you CARE? You apparently lack faith and have had none (or few) personal experiences with God (and yes, they do occur; and no, you don’t have to be mentally ill to have them). Why not wait and see?
  1. There is no soul and upon physical death “you” go into oblivion
  2. The testimony of millions of people (including this era) profess the soul exists and it will go face to Face with the Creator upon the death of the body it inhabits.
Live accordingly. And God help you.
 
The reason why a soul is hard (if not impossible) to scientifically prove is because a soul is neither matter nor energy - it is a created spirit. Spirits are, by their nature, metaphysical. Souls take up no space. Here’s the thing - if people believes in ghosts, then they, by their nature, must believe in a soul, as the definition of a ghost is a soul separated from its body by death. If people believe in God the Father and/or God the Holy Spirit, Who are pure spirit (though God the Son also is human), or in angels (who are also pure spirits), then they have to acknowledge that a soul is at least possible. However, it is nearly impossible to prove that a soul exists to someone who does not believe that there is anything outside the physical realm (and yes, as a Catholic, I do believe in the existence of an immortal soul).
 
powerofk said:
The reason why a soul is hard (if not impossible) to scientifically prove is because a soul is neither matter nor energy - it is a created spirit. Spirits are, by their nature, metaphysical. Souls take up no space. Here’s the thing - if people believes in ghosts, then they, by their nature, must believe in a soul, as the definition of a ghost is a soul separated from its body by death. If people believe in God the Father and/or God the Holy Spirit, Who are pure spirit (though God the Son also is human), or in angels (who are also pure spirits), then they have to acknowledge that a soul is at least possible. However, it is nearly impossible to prove that a soul exists to someone who does not believe that there is anything outside the physical realm (and yes, as a Catholic, I do believe in the existence of an immortal soul).
Click to expand...
Very good points. To people who don’t believe in souls (or God, for that matter) I like to ask if they believe that the USA exists…
 
I always believed that the proofs of our soul are found in the characteristics of our intellects and our wills. Our bodies at this time are finite; however, our intellects and our wills do not share this characteristic with our bodies since we have an infinite capacity for knowledge and an infinite capacity for happiness. Such characteristics of the infinite betray the belief that we are just finite creatures made of flesh and bone.
 
John

**however, our intellects and our wills do not share this characteristic with our bodies since we have an infinite capacity for knowledge and an infinite capacity for happiness. Such characteristics of the infinite betray the belief that we are just finite creatures made of flesh and bone. **

By this do you mean that atoms (and that is all that we are physically made up of) of their own accord could not have the capacity even for the concept of infinity, since they are decidedly finite? And therefore there must be in us a connection (a soul) that can grasp the infinite?
 
The soul is simply the principle of life, as such it’s existence is normally not the object of the debate but rather the existence of the spiritual soul is. There are three primary falculties which a soul is connected with, growth, sensory perception and emotions, and intellectual function. Growth and sensory perception are physical functions (emotions also can directly effect how we feel), the acts of the intellect however, are not connected directly with the physical body, therefore the acts of the intellect must belong to some type of thing that is not matter, this is called ‘spirit’ by Christians.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
John

**however, our intellects and our wills do not share this characteristic with our bodies since we have an infinite capacity for knowledge and an infinite capacity for happiness. Such characteristics of the infinite betray the belief that we are just finite creatures made of flesh and bone. **

By this do you mean that atoms (and that is all that we are physically made up of) of their own accord could not have the capacity even for the concept of infinity, since they are decidedly finite? And therefore there must be in us a connection (a soul) that can grasp the infinite?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I would say I believe the body was originally made for immortality like the soul, however, the consequence of sin has rendered it susceptible to corruption until the General Judgement when the resurrection will occur and the immortal soul will finally be joined with it’s immortal body for all eternity. IMHO I believe this death of the body helps us fallen creatures see plainly that the qualities of our intellects and our wills are not finite, and thus helps us to acknowledge that there is a part of our humanity which is still immortal in nature; the soul.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Your thoughts? :confused:
Click to expand...
I like where Jacques Maritain is going with this. It seems speculative but also sublimely true. I have done some snipping, so going to the linked site will fill in the gaps.
The Existence of the Soul
…
We must of course realize that we have a soul before we can discuss whether it is immortal. How does St. Thomas Aquinas proceed in this matter?
Click to expand...
He observes first that man has an activity, the activity of the intellect, which is in itself immaterial. The activity of the intellect is immaterial because the proportionate or “connatural” object of the human intellect is not, like the object of the senses, a particular and limited category of things, or rather a particular and limited category of the qualitative properties of things. The proportionate or “connatural” object of the intellect is the nature of the sense perceivable things considered in an all-embracing manner, whatever the sense concerned may be. It is not only – as for sight – color or the colored thing (which absorbs and reflects such or such rays of light) nor – as for hearing – sound or the sound-source; it is the whole universe and texture of sense-perceivable reality which can be known by the intellect, because the intellect does not stop at qualities, but pierces beyond, and proceeds to look at essence (that which a thing is). This very fact is a proof of the spirituality, or complete immateriality of our intellect; for every activity in which latter plays an intrinsic part is limited to a given category of material objects, as is the case for the senses, which perceive only those properties which are able to act upon their physical organs.
Click to expand...
**There is already, in fact, a certain immateriality in sense-knowledge; knowledge, as such, is an immaterial activity, because when I am in the act of knowing, I become, or am, the very thing that I know, a thing other than myself, insofar as it is other than myself. And how can I be, or become, other than myself, if it is not in a supra-subjective or immaterial manner? **Sense-knowledge is a very poor kind of knowledge; insofar as it is knowledge, it is immaterial, but it is an immaterial activity intrinsically conditioned by, and dependent upon, the material functioning of the sense-organs. Sense-knowledge is the immaterial achievement, the immaterial actuation and product of a living bodily organ; and its very object is also something half material, half immaterial, I mean a physical quality intentionally or immaterially present in the medium by which it acts on the sense-organ (something comparable to the manner in which a painter’s idea is immaterially present in his paint brush).
Click to expand...
But with intellectual knowledge we have to do with an activity which is in itself completely immaterial. The human intellect is able to know whatever participates in being and truth; the whole universe can be inscribed in it; this means that, in order to be known, the object known by the intellect has been stripped of any potential condition of materiality. This rose, which I see, has contours; but Being, of which I am thinking, is more spacious than space. The object of the intellect is universal, for instance that universal or de-individualized object which is apprehended in the idea of man, of animal, of atom; the object of the intellect is a universal which remains what it is while being identified with an infinity of individuals. And this is only possible because things, in [order] to become objects of the mind, have been entirely separated from their material existence. To this it must be added that the operation of our intellect does not stop at the knowledge of the nature of sense-perceivable things; it goes further; it knows by analogy the spiritual natures; it extends to the realm of merely possible things; its field has infinite magnitude.
Click to expand...
Thus, the objects known by the human intellect, taken not as things existing in themselves, but precisely as objects determining the intellect and united with it, are purely immaterial.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, just as the condition of the object is immaterial, so is the condition of the act which bears upon it, and is determined or specified by it. The object of the human intellect is, as such, purely immaterial; the act of the human intellect is also purely immaterial.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Finally, since intellectual power is spiritual, or purely immaterial in itself, its first substantial root, the subsisting principle from which this power proceeds and which acts. through its instrumentality, is also spiritual.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Therefore the intellect, or rather the substantial root of the intellect, which must be as immaterial as the intellect, is only a part, albeit an essential part, of man’s substance.
www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range05.htm
Click to expand...
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts? :confused:
Click to expand...
Council of Vienne : " … we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic. "

Fourth Lateran Council: " …whosoever shall …presume…to assert, define, or hold that rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body in itself and essentially must be regarded as a heretic.

Fifth Lateran Councel: “…the soul is not only truly in itself and essentially the form of the human body…but is also multiple according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, multiplied, and to be multiplied…”

Humani Generis: " …for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God…

From all this we must hold that the human soul is spiritual, is created immediately by God and infused into a human body, and that there is one soul for each person created.

There is no Catholic teaching indicating whether or not one soul has more inherent intellectual power than another, a stronger will than another, or has greater memory potential than another. I don’t know whether or not Thomas Aquinas addresses this issue. But it seems reasonable, considering the great differences between men, that these spiritual potentialities are different in each person and therefore each is more or less perfect than another. But that is just my opinion.

Linus2nd
 
Philosophy of mind is an area of increasing interest for me, and I think one of the largest areas where naturalism is simply at a loss.
I am currently reading an article by Robbin Collins arguing for substance dualism (the soul is immaterial and the seat of consciousness): home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Mind-Body%20Problm/Scientific%20Case%20for%20Soul.pdf
There is also some good stuff by Edward Feser who works specifically in philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion (I find the first one to be most interesting and powerful at the moment, but the others are good as well):
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part-i.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part_29.html
 
ccmnxc makes good points. In Aristotelianism/Thomism, a soul is just the substantial form of a living thing, so plants, animals, and humans all have souls. Plants have vegetative souls, animals have appetitive souls, and humans have rational souls (and each type contains the last, ie. animals have vegetative powers in addition to appetitive ones, and humans have vegitative, appetitive, and rational powers).

So it isn’t so much about proving the existence of the soul, which is understood to be what any animated living body has, but proving that the soul has all of its interesting qualities (like immortality). Like ccmnxc, I’d suggest Edward Feser if you’re interested in the topic.

Strictly speaking, I don’t think that one must prove the existence of God to prove that the soul is immortal (Thomas proved the former first).
 
Peter

This is really interesting! I was reading The Range of Reason by Maritain about the same time as you were posting the very passage I had just read. Yes, I think Maritain is quite right. The intellect perceives things (realities) not evident through the senses. How else can this be accounted for other than that the intellect operates on a plane independent of pure matter?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Peter

This is really interesting! I was reading The Range of Reason by Maritain about the same time as you were posting the very passage I had just read. Yes, I think Maritain is quite right. The intellect perceives things (realities) not evident through the senses. How else can this be accounted for other than that the intellect operates on a plane independent of pure matter?
Click to expand...
You might also read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. He has a good chapter on human psychology ( i.e. the way we know proves the existence of the soul ). But the best proof is what I have already given above.

St. Cajetan was of the opinion that there was no compelling proof from reason that the soul existed. He held it on faith alone. Though he relied solely upon the De Anima of Aristotle, he did not persue Thomas Aquinas and his explanation. So that could be a problem with Cajetan’s judgement. At the same time, he was a great Saint and a huge intellect.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top