The Existence of the Soul

[Kepha15]

Something occured to me not too long ago, and it was regarding the existence of the soul. There have been many studies done in the past by scientists trying to find “where” the soul lives, or how it is physically manifested, but all have been pretty unsuccessful. But when you think about it, there’s a pretty simple solution that should tell us all everything we need to know about the existence of the soul, and that’s our own consciousness.

Now, before anyone jumps the gun, I’m not talking about consciousness in general, or what causes it (because I know there are medical explanations for consciousness), but more referring to the unique consciousness, or the “window” into the world that each and every one of us has that is completely different and separate from everyone elses…our individuality, if you will.

If you consider your own consciousness, and why “you” are “you” in the first place…it all becomes clear that for each individual to actually have a unique perspective of their own, it has to come from something that supercedes the natural world.

Thoughts?

 

[JimG]

I agree that it is our spiritual soul that makes us aware of being “subjects” and not just objects, of being persons rather than things.

The main faculties of the soul are intellect and will, by which we can know in a non-material way, and love and choose.

Because the human soul is spirit, it does not occupy space, so it would be pointless to try to “locate” it within the body. In fact it is intimately united to the entire body in such a manner that we are one entity, not a duality. But because the soul is spirit, it can also survive bodily death.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Interesting thoughts.

It’s hard for us to think of something that is “immaterial” in nature. We want some sort of physical explanation for everything. Even if the explanation is almost immaterial, such as what you alluded to, medical explanations for consciousness, it makes us feel better.

I don’t know if we would have to have a soul to be unique. I could be wrong, but things like dogs, dolphins and birds can have their own uniqueness to them. However it can generally be attributed to different things such as instinct and mostly environmental things. We aren’t quite that way, so that is a unique thing about us.

St. Thomas Aquinas suggests that the soul has substance, but is not corporeal. That is, it is a “part” of our human nature, like our hand is part of our body. But it does not have a material nature.

Here’s. a link to some of his wrinting on it

 

[batteddy]

But when you think about it, there’s a pretty simple solution that should tell us all everything we need to know about the existence of the soul, and that’s our own consciousness.

but more referring to the unique consciousness, or the “window” into the world that each and every one of us has that is completely different and separate from everyone elses…our individuality, if you will.

If you consider your own consciousness, and why “you” are “you” in the first place…it all becomes clear that for each individual to actually have a unique perspective of their own, it has to come from something that supercedes the natural world.

Always been obvious to me and to most rational people…

And yet I don’t think some of these science-types have even considered it. They think that what we mean by “self-consciousness” is thought and emotion and stuff. But we know that those things are reducible to brain functions. As you said, however, our own unique consciousness is not explainable by anything material. The fact that we can really “see” what we see, and “hear” what we hear instead of merely “processing information from light waves” is what I’m talking about. But some people apparently take that for granted so much that they overlook it in their considerations.

 

[FightingFat]

I would recommend you read some stuff about Plato and Aristotle. You will find some interesting form and structure to help you with these ideas!

 

[mosher]

Something occured to me not too long ago, and it was regarding the existence of the soul. There have been many studies done in the past by scientists trying to find “where” the soul lives, or how it is physically manifested, but all have been pretty unsuccessful. But when you think about it, there’s a pretty simple solution that should tell us all everything we need to know about the existence of the soul, and that’s our own consciousness.

Now, before anyone jumps the gun, I’m not talking about consciousness in general, or what causes it (because I know there are medical explanations for consciousness), but more referring to the unique consciousness, or the “window” into the world that each and every one of us has that is completely different and separate from everyone elses…our individuality, if you will.

If you consider your own consciousness, and why “you” are “you” in the first place…it all becomes clear that for each individual to actually have a unique perspective of their own, it has to come from something that supercedes the natural world.

Thoughts?

This explanation is not sufficient to get to a rational soul. An animal has its own consciousness. We have to take it a step further to help being a better understanding to those who are skeptical of the existence of the soul.

On a side note remember that the soul is not contained in the body but rather it is more precise to say that the body is contained in the soul.

It must also be mentioned that it is not necessarily the soul that causes individuality. Rather it is matter that differentiates one thing from another. So, there is a true relationship between that material and the spiritual in a person that causes (of lack of a batter term) individuality.

 

[ltravis]

I haven’t researched or studied it in depth (this subject gets **very **heady), but as I have thought about it I believe that what give humans their distinction is the ability for altruism. We can freely choose actions solely for the benefit of others, actions which have no earthly benefit to ourselves, and may indeed cause personal suffering. The reason of course is authentic love. The source I believe is God acting though our souls.

LT

 

[Kepha15]

Well, I know my explanation was very basic, but the overall point I was trying to get at was the distinction between the subjective and the objective. Animals may or may not have souls (simply from empiracal observation). Other humans than ourselves “may” have souls. We have no way of telling for absolute certain (we can infer based on logic and reason…not to mention faith). We have no way to subjectively “experience” another person’s soul, because we are not that other person. To us, everything is observable through objective means, except for one key thing…our own soul.

If the soul did not exist, and did not supercede nature, we would not be, as JimG said, “subjects” rather than objects. We would not have a perspective, and we would merely “happen”, rather than “experience”.

I hope I said it better this time…I know I still left some holes.

 

[mosher]

Well, I know my explanation was very basic, but the overall point I was trying to get at was the distinction between the subjective and the objective. Animals may or may not have souls (simply from empiracal observation). Other humans than ourselves “may” have souls. We have no way of telling for absolute certain (we can infer based on logic and reason…not to mention faith). We have no way to subjectively “experience” another person’s soul, because we are not that other person. To us, everything is observable through objective means, except for one key thing…our own soul.

If the soul did not exist, and did not supercede nature, we would not be, as JimG said, “subjects” rather than objects. We would not have a perspective, and we would merely “happen”, rather than “experience”.

I hope I said it better this time…I know I still left some holes.

If we go back to the basics I think it will be clearer. First it is necessary to strip the term soul from its theological meaning. Nature tells us that everything has a form and matter. In living things the form is the soul. So, for all living things the term soul and form are interchangeable. We have direct knowledge of this in that we call all chairs a chair and all dogs a dog. They have the form of chair and the form of dog and then it is the matter that differentiates between this chair and that chair or this dog and that dog. Just as with man you can point to a man and say that he is a man because he has the form of man and then it is the matter that says that he is this man as opposed to that man. Now in living this we make a further distinction about form and we use the term soul. The soul is the animating principle in that it is living. It has the power to gain nutrition as with the plants, animals and man. As one moves up the hierarchy of being we see different types of souls. There is the vegetative soul of plants, the reactive soul of animals and the rational soul of man. So, in man you have a rational soul and virtually you find the animal and plant soul. In an animal you find the animal soul and virtually the plant soul and in plants you find the vegetative soul alone.

It is incorrect to say that we can’t experience the soul of another because we observe them actually living. Once they cease to live they cease to have a unity of soul and body. In fact the philosophical definition of death is the separation of the soul and the body - there is no longer that animating principle in that formerly living thing.

 

[ltravis]

I guess we would be remiss without some of the thoughts of Aquinas:

When the form in matter is the origin of immanent actions, it gives origin to life and as such is more particularly called the “soul.” There is a vegetative soul, such as the principle of plants, whose activity is fulfilled in nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Superior to the vegetative is the sensitive soul, which is present in animals; besides the processes of nutrition, growth and reproduction the sensitive soul is capable of sensitive knowledge and appetition. Superior still to the sensitive soul is the rational soul.

The rational soul is created directly by God; it is distinct for each man; it is the true form of the body. The human soul performs the functions of the vegetative and sensitive life, but besides these functions it has activities which do not depend upon the body, i.e., understanding and volition.

The intellect and the will are the faculties of the soul, the means through which it operates. The intellect has for its object the knowledge of the universal, and operates by judging and reasoning. The will is free; that is, it is not determined by any particular good, but it determines itself.

radicalacademy.com/aquinas3.htm

LT

 

[nucatholic]

Nonsense, I consider myself quite the rational fella and I do not ascribe to any concept of the “soul” as classically defined by your beloved Scholastics. Give me an argument for the existence of the soul, do not just quote from sources you feel are authoritative. I could quote from neurophysiologists, medical doctors and psychiatrists all day long but thats not what these forums are for. They are for dialogue about different issues. Aquinas and Augustine and all the Greeks make lots of fuzzy metaphysical claims.

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

This is just one objection to the Catholic idea of life and the soul beginning at conception. You cannot even make it reasonable to believe in a soul unless you develop an entire system of metaphysical claims built on one another but none of which have much (if any) foundation in the empirical world.

 

[ribozyme]

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

This is just one objection to the Catholic idea of life and the soul beginning at conception. You cannot even make it reasonable to believe in a soul unless you develop an entire system of metaphysical claims built on one another but none of which have much (if any) foundation in the empirical world.

Hmm… I have never heard an argument against this against Catholic apologists. Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher of the mind,

Good point, quoting the Scholatics would be futile in some issues. It’s like quoting them for an argument against eternal inflation when eternal inflation was formulated in the 1980 by Andrei Linde and Alan Guth. It eliminates the need for a God to fine-tune the universe and it is a theory that is strongly supported by the evidence.

 

[ltravis]

Nonsense, I consider myself quite the rational fella and I do not ascribe to any concept of the “soul” as classically defined by your beloved Scholastics. Give me an argument for the existence of the soul, do not just quote from sources you feel are authoritative. I could quote from neurophysiologists, medical doctors and psychiatrists all day long but thats not what these forums are for. They are for dialogue about different issues. Aquinas and Augustine and all the Greeks make lots of fuzzy metaphysical claims.

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

This is just one objection to the Catholic idea of life and the soul beginning at conception. You cannot even make it reasonable to believe in a soul unless you develop an entire system of metaphysical claims built on one another but none of which have much (if any) foundation in the empirical world.

Why the hostility, nucatholic? I just thought Aquinas’ ideas were interesting and is a very prevalent belief among Catholic thought. Just trying do do the readers a favor is all.

Sorry, I cannot prove the metaphysical with the physical, though. I don’t think its impossible. The natural won’t prove the supernatural because the the supernatural is outside the laws of the universe.

LT

 

[ltravis]

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

I would say I soul is “added” when an embryo is split, and that one of the souls “goes to heaven” when they merge. Works for me.

LT

 

[ribozyme]

I would say I soul is “added” when an embryo is split, and that one of the souls “goes to heaven” when they merge. Works for me.

LT

Hmm… I have never heard a compelling argument against the soul merging objection from any Catholic.

I mean to say that in my previous post in my thread, but I did not reread my post so it did not make any sense.

 

[ltravis]

Hmm… I have never heard a compelling argument against the soul merging objection from any Catholic.

I mean to say that in my previous post in my thread, but I did not reread my post so it did not make any sense.

May I have the distinction of providing you with your first argument? Every unique human has a unique soul, and souls don’t merge. I don’t have any problem believing that if two embryos (with souls) merge, it as if one of the soul’s has its body die and when it goes to heaven it gets the mature and perfected version of the embyro it inhabited before the merge. I can’t prove that, but my faith is not shaken, nor is my commitment to the unborn. I hope that someday you can choose to reconcile faith and reason to let them reinforce eachother, because when that happens, our view of God and His creation is nothing short of majestic. But whether you wish to do that is up to you. My job is not to convice, but to present. Thanks for the opportunity

LT

 

[john_doran]

Give me an argument for the existence of the soul, do not just quote from sources you feel are authoritative.

1. we are acquainted with abstract objects (sets, propositions, numbers, properties, etc.). material entities cannot be acquainted with immaterial entities. therefore there is some immaterial principle of knowing. we call it the “soul”.
2. we make free choices. a choice is free only if it is not caused - if there are at least two possible worlds that are identical to the point that the choice is made, but each of which contains a different choice. the physical world is deterministic - i.e. operates according to strict covering laws. therefore the principle of choosing cannot be physical. we call the choosing thing the “soul”.

and to short-circuit the standard quantum objection to my claim that the material world is strictly causal, i believe that some hidden variables quantum theory is more reasonable than the copenhagen-esque alternatives, and that our current inability to predict things like energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum is simply a failure of what we know, not what there is to know.

similarly, the alleged randomness of certain quantum processes cannot be the basis for free choices, since choosing is something that we do, not something that happens to us.

nucatholic:

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

souls do not split or merge. what you’re describing is something that is happening to persons: namely, the splitting of the embryo in your example is simply the creation of a new person, both body and soul; when the two embryos merge, one person dies, and the soul becomes separated from the embryonic body.

nucatholic:

This is just one objection to the Catholic idea of life and the soul beginning at conception. You cannot even make it reasonable to believe in a soul unless you develop an entire system of metaphysical claims built on one another but none of which have much (if any) foundation in the empirical world.

this claim is itself a metaphysical (read: philosophical) claim without foundation in the empirical world.

 

[Kepha15]

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

Stop and think for a second about what you are asking. Sure, you are talking about embryos like they are objects because you are dehumanizing them. You can’t remember when you were an embryo, so it’s easy for you to make this comparison. So let’s try something else.

Say, instead of talking about embryos, we are talking about adult human beings. It’s a purely hypothetical scenario, but in principle, it still works. Let’s take the “soul merging” argument, for example.!

Let’s say that you and I have a “merge”, just like two embryos would. The two of us suddenly become one person…so what happens next? Obviously, both of us couldn’t still continue to have thoughts, emotions, feelings, or experiences, because we are no longer two separate entities, we are one. So which of us would it be? Would you fuse into me and only I would be able to still experience life? Or would I fuse into you so only you could continue to experience life? It can’t be both ways…one of us would continue to live and the other would perish.

Similarly, imagine if you “split” into two different people. What would happen then? Which of the two people would you continue to be? You obviously can’t be both of them…but you also can’t be neither of them, since they both came from the original you! It’s basically the same thing that happens with clones…the original continues to live and function as it’s own being, and the clone, while it came from the “original” is a separate and conscious being of its own.

This is a rather easy question to comprehend, and your “soul splitting” and “soul merging” hypothesis do absolutely nothing to discredit the existence of the soul. All it takes is a little common sense to see that.

 

[JimO]

Let me throw this one at you, sometimes an embryo can divide into two creating identical twins and sometimes two embryos can merge into one. Can a soul split into two souls? Can two souls merge into one?

Okay, and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Excuse my bluntness, but I have had discussions with those who don’t believe in God or in an afterlife, etc., etc. enough to see that there is a double standard that dominates almost every conversation. The questions I always get are designed to point out some “absurdity” in my faith and the questioner is never really interested in a true answer. And yet, if I were to do the same, I would be accused of not being “scientific” or “rational”.

You are looking for “an argument” for the existence of a soul, but what you are really asking for is “evidence”; however, by virtue of the fact that you will only accept “scientific” evidence, you would reject any evidence that is metaphysical, spiritual, paranormal, or miraculous in nature.

The problem with your question, and hundreds of others like it, is that you want scientific proof for something spiritual, which you will never get. It’s like a blind man asking for proof that light exists.

There are volumes of documented paranormal occurances that clearly indicate a spiritual realm and since we cannot experience the spiritual with our physical bodies, we must have a spiritual element to our being (a soul). But, all that documentation is dismissed as superstition, hallucination, deliberate deception, etc., etc. There are plenty of rational arguments for the existence of the soul, but I dare say that in your current state of mind none would satisfy you.

So, while some might find the excercise of such a debate interesting, I find that it is, more often than not, two parties deeply invested in their own perspectives talking past one another. The big difference that I have found; however, is that I’ve never met an atheist/agnostic who was trying to convince a theist of the “truth” out of love and concern for that person’s well being. Maybe there are those who do, but I’ve never met one. On the contrary, many are out to make theists look foolish. Many Christians, not all but many, are trying to “convert” atheists out of concern for their souls. That is why I now avoid these types of discussions unless there is a genuine interest to learn about the faith.

 

[R_McGeddon]

If the soul did not exist, and did not supercede nature, we would not be, as JimG said, “subjects” rather than objects. We would not have a perspective, and we would merely “happen”, rather than “experience”.

You don’t know this for certain, the same as I don’t know for certain the opposite.