The Soul and the Brain

[MindOverMatter]

The definition of “physical” includes as physical anything which interacts which anything which is physical.

All things are “natures” of some kind. God is a Nature. But when a scientist speaks of physics, he or she is talking primarily about “space” “time” and “energy”. In other words those things which are measurable, observerble and can be principally dis-proven by experiment. Scientists are in the business of studying empirical natures. God transcends all empirical natures, and therefore does not fit in the category of empirical natures; although his nature can be inferred by the existence and behavior of empirical natures.

The soul is the same deal.

 

[MindOverMatter]

And you know this… how?

If the soul is united with the body, but not located within the brain, where is it?

This statement, simply assumes that a thing has to be in a particular location in order to “be”. To begin with, physical things exist in space; but if something has no physical body, then it cannot be found in space. It must transcend space.

 

[greylorn]

Why would anybody want to do that? If there is no God and afterlife, then we are all going to cease to exist, in which case what does it matter what we do in this life? It all just becomes irrelevant an irrational. Morality is irrelevant if there is no such thing as moral truth.

The finest man I ever knew, who adhered to a code of personal ethics and absolute fairness in all of his affairs no matter how poorly he was treated by others, who never compromised for expediency, and who always told the truth, was a Ph.d EE/Astronomer and an avowed atheist.

He and I had many arguments about God, creation, etc, and I learned much from him. He believed that his death would be final. He acted as he did from personal choice, not under threat of damnation if he did otherwise.

I learned more from him about the value of personal standards than from a dozen years of Catholic schooling, serving mass, bible reading, confessions and communions, etc. etc. Thank you for the opportunity to remember a good man, long dead, and to contrast his standards with those of relativists.

 

[greylorn]

Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain; it means nothing. Any meaning you tie to it is just a fantasy. Any value you tie to it, is subjective. In fact you are just a series of chemical reactions; of no more objective value then a frog. Nothing more.

Methinks you speak for yourself, and instead of posting here, might be more profitably engaged by kissing frogs, and imagining that you are, well… you’ll figure it out, or not.

 

[greylorn]

I need Objective, Meaning, Value, Purpose and Moral Truth. I don’t want my value dictated to me by some strange creature on the basis of how much pleasure i give them, or because they feel compelled by their genes to look for a social buzz. If thats life then i am not interested.
I especially haven’t got much patience for those who want to reduce my existence to such an irrational state of being, just so they can feel content with there own self serving existence. Disbelief might give you buzz, but that in no way means that you are more rational then me for resigning to such a reality.

So we know what you don’t want. What is it that you do want?
(At the mental level, please.)

 

[greylorn]

All things are “natures” of some kind. God is a Nature. But when a scientist speaks of physics, he or she is talking primarily about “space” “time” and “energy”. In other words those things which are measurable, observerble and can be principally dis-proven by experiment. Scientists are in the business of studying empirical natures. God transcends all empirical natures, and therefore does not fit in the category of empirical natures; although his nature can be inferred by the existence and behavior of empirical natures.

The soul is the same deal.

When I was young and trying to play piano, upon hitting a series of difficult notes which I could not competently interpret, I played louder.

I am anxious to receive more of your keen insights, but wonder about your credentials. Did you receive a C or a C+ in high school physics?

 

[greylorn]

That’s why I think of the spirit as being outside of time, and the soul as being bound by time and all of the laws of physics.

Kindly define what you mean by spirit and soul.

I invite you to be rigorous about this, maybe even doing some research into common opinions and beliefs, and at the very least, comparing and contrasting your beliefs and opinions to those of an ordinary dictionary.

I do not mean this request disrespectfully.

Professional football teams often find themselves unable to win games despite an abundance of talent. A good coach often demands that his team return to fundamentals. The best coach of all time declared that the team which blocks and tackles the best will win.

You certainly have something of value to share, but in order to do so effectively (enough to keep me engaged, anyway) a definition of terms is in order. Let’s be specific: Come up with a functional definition of soul, another of spirit. Compare and contrast.

In plain English— what’s the soul, what’s the spirit, and what are the differences?
’

 

[MindOverMatter]

The finest man I ever knew, who adhered to a code of personal ethics and absolute fairness in all of his affairs no matter how poorly he was treated by others, who never compromised for expediency, and who always told the truth, was a Ph.d EE/Astronomer and an avowed atheist.

Nothing i say in the following paragraphs are attacking you personally. It is just my thoughts.

God bless your professor freind, and I hope that Gods mercy rests on him in heaven.

Its a shame really, because in the reality of naturalism, any good he did is ultimately pointless, and his existence was only relevant to the people who liked him and valued him for what he could give them. Ultimately he ceased to exist. So it really doesn’t matter what he did, or what you are going to do, or what you think about him, because it is all going to come to nothing anyway. How we treat each other, how we think about each other is really just a pointless and tragic blip in time and space. Any value we give are selves and each other, is just a fantasy, a buzz; an irrational attempt to make life worth living with out God, while dealing with the potential horrors, illness’s and burdens of life. And then we have the cheek to diss Christians for believing in fantasy. Well…at least we don’t know its a fantasy. I think its more irrational to delude yourself in to believing in something that one knows not to be true.

And in knowing the insanity of life, Ah naturalist has the cheek to bring children into this world to face those potential and inevitable horrors of life, death, sickness, and the death of loved ones whom cease to exist, and pretend that life is a good thing and rudely tell people to deal with it. That is sick. We want to remove God and still say that life is good because we want to feel good about ourselves and pretend to be more sophisticated then those who can’t deal with life. But we all deal with it, not because we are better then those who can’t, but because we had no choice but to be born into this madness that some are content with; and no matter how horrible and pointless life gets, some people are just too afraid to end it. If naturalism is true, then brave and smart are the ones that committed suicide; like my old work friend. I wish i was as brave as he was.

There is nothing smart, brave or rational about staying alive in this insane world. But if there is a God, if it is even possible, then i think i will stick around, because perfection and heaven is all i need and want, and all i will be content with. But if people choose to disbelieve; thats fine; please by all mean continue to entertain yourself, but please don’t ridicule those who have found their purpose, value, dignity and life in Jesus Christ; because it only exposes the selfishness and spite in men. There is no good in naturalism and i would never teach anyone anything that didn’t have the potential to fulfill them as persons.

While you may have liked this professor, he ultimately burdened himself for nothing. And if he did burden himself, it was either for his own glory, or it was because he believed that there was truly such a thing as right and wrong and he felt compelled to act upon it however irrational that belief may have been. And God bless his soul.

I’m glad that some Atheists are good, its a shame that they don’t respect their religious and metaphysical heritage. It is true that atheists can be good, and nobody has ever disputed that as far as i can tell. But that is really irrelevant to the irrationality of resigning one self to the belief that people have no objective value, moral truth, or purpose; especially if there is no proof that God does not exist. I believe in reason, but even blind faith is more rational then naturalism. I truly belief that you have to take life for granted, or be mentally disturbed to not see the horror of naturalism. In my opinion it contradicts our nature human nature. Emotional creatures that are self aware are not supposed to live in a world where God does not exist. Thats why people believe in God, and those that do not believe, have merely found some other material God that they think is more valuable and meaningful because they are not willing to give it up their personal authority to God, even in the face of death. Its absolute madness. And, i mean no disrespect, but i truly doubt that you really have been listening or have any real understanding of Catholic Teaching, because everybody that understands it have told me how it has transformed their lives.

I hope your professor didn’t cease to exist. Rather I hope the greater good that he continues on in heaven and that his good works didn’t come to nothing. That is the greatest thing that you and i could ever hope for him.

peace.

 

[MindOverMatter]

whoops

 

[MindOverMatter]

When I was young and trying to play piano, upon hitting a series of difficult notes which I could not competently interpret, I played louder.

I am anxious to receive more of your keen insights, but wonder about your credentials. Did you receive a C or a C+ in high school physics?

I didn’t go to school. I was always skipping classes, because i was being bullied by other students. Plus, i didn’t get a much better time at home. As a result i suffer from great anxiety and depression among other disorders. So thats my credentials down the drain.

Unfortunately for me and you, I have one G,c,s,e worth mentioning and thats a b+ in English, although that might not show very well in my writing. But that doesn’t mean that i do not teach myself. I have always been interested in science, especially cosmology, but haven’t always had the motivation or the positive foundations to develop myself in those areas. However, I have hundreds of popular electronic Science books and lots of philosophy books of all kinds that i have collected over the years. And when I’m not here, i am on a mission trying to complete all of them and obtain more.

 

[ready]

I think MindOverMatter’s quote that he includes at the bottom of his entries speaks volumes of his gifted intelligence. It takes someone with deep perception and strong intelligence to see and promote rigorously this notion that if God not not exist…then reality is completely insane. It is so true that without God…reality is utter, utter madness!

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is so true that without God…reality is utter, utter madness!

God bless.

 

[ilovekittens]

Libets’ experiment ignores the possibility of a “soul” or other outside entity controlling the brain. Your analysis of his experiment does likewise. You are tiptoeing along both sides of an ideological fence, determined to keep that fence intact. I cannot imagine why.

Experiments in science are never done at random. Each is designed to prove or disprove a particular point of view. If the focus on a particular point of view is askew of reality, the experiment might be impressive and might even shift the current scientific trend. Yet it remains meaningless.

For example, there is a famous physics experiment (Michelson-Morley) which attempted to measure the change in the speed of light as it passes through the aether. No change was measured. Shortly thereafter, Einstein, who had never heard of the the M-M experiment, devised a theory which rendered the experiment irrelevant. Physicists subsequently decided not to bother with the aether and declared it non-existent, nevermind that it shows up in all mathematical descriptions of electromagnetic phenomena, and that the M-M experiment has been proven unable to have detected the aether.

There are a number of neurological experiments indicative of the existence of something outside the brain, controlling the brain. There are experiments suggesting mechanisms by which this might take place. I’ve encountered these with a tiny bit of research and reading.

However, since, thanks to individuals who prefer fence-straddling above belief questioning, there is absolutely no support in the religious community for experiments which would scientifically demonstrate the existence of the soul, because its members have already declared that the soul, being spiritual and outside the physical universe, cannot be scientifically demonstrated.

Enjoy your kittens.

Tell me about these “neurological experiments” that indicate the existence of the supernatural, please. I am very interested.

Libet’s experiment really has nothing to do with the soul. It simply has to do with our experience of consciousness; simple actions, at least, seem to be planned and decided by our brains before the notion of performing such actions enters our conscious awareness. That is all.

I think you are misunderstanding my previous post, too. My point is that the existence of the soul is something that we can only take on the basis of faith, because it is supernatural, God-given, heaven-derived, whatever. The workings of the brain, though, are physical, physiological, material and do not require supernatural ghosts in the machine to operate.

 

[ilovekittens]

Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain; it means nothing. Any meaning you tie to it is just a fantasy. Any value you tie to it, is subjective. In fact you are just a series of chemical reactions; of no more objective value then a frog. Nothing more.

Subjective value is still valuable. Subjective truth is still a kind of truth. The intense love I feel for my children could be explained in a detached, objective way through neurochemistry, appeals to evolution, sociology, etc - and those are all real and valid - but the fact is I still feel “love” toward them, joy in their presence, and providing for them gives me a commitment and meaning in my life, even if it is entirely subjective.

 

[greylorn]

This statement, simply assumes that a thing has to be in a particular location in order to “be”. To begin with, physical things exist in space; but if something has no physical body, then it cannot be found in space. It must transcend space.

That statement is, well, absurd. Electromagnetic waves, magnetic fields, electric fields, etc. have no body and no material form. Yet they exist rather nicely.

Sometimes the notion of “where” must be understood in the context of “what,” and is a matter of perspective. For example, consider the simple TV antenna. From your perspective the rabbit ears atop a TV set are just a couple of extended metal wands. From the perspective of the e/m wave they are designed to receive, however, the wands are huge and fuzzy and roughly 6 inches around at the field center.

The bottom line is that if soul interacts with brain, as it must if it is to be of any consequence in a human life, there is a physical basis for the interaction. Why not try to find this experimentally and prove the existence of the soul, instead of acting like a mental boat anchor to theological/physical understanding?

 

[greylorn]

Tell me about these “neurological experiments” that indicate the existence of the supernatural, please. I am very interested.

Libet’s experiment really has nothing to do with the soul. It simply has to do with our experience of consciousness; simple actions, at least, seem to be planned and decided by our brains before the notion of performing such actions enters our conscious awareness. That is all.

I think you are misunderstanding my previous post, too. My point is that the existence of the soul is something that we can only take on the basis of faith, because it is supernatural, God-given, heaven-derived, whatever. The workings of the brain, though, are physical, physiological, material and do not require supernatural ghosts in the machine to operate.

While I appreciate your interest, you might not be ready to delve into the intricacies of Charles Gray’s lone experiment demonstrating that brain waves transmit information within the brain and are not simply artifacts. Alwyn C. Scott’s early experiments require some background in electromagnetic theory. You might research the Sperry-Gazzoniga (sp?) split-brain experiments and let me know how you interpret them.

There is a block in your thinking which needs to be cleared out before you understand some of these issues. Don’t take that personally— I’ve had to remove hundreds of mine and am certain that more remain. For example, consider your 2nd paragraph. You declare that Libet’s experiment had nothing to do with soul, but something to do with human consciousness, which * is a property of the soul*. Do you see a little confusion here?

Note also your superfluous introduction of “supernatural” into the conversation. I did not use the word. I did not claim that there are experiments proving the existence of the supernatural, and will never do so, because I regard the entire universe, its Creator included, as entirely natural.

The word supernatural is used only by individuals who want to excuse their inability to understand something. Nothing is supernatural. When you finally accept that, understanding of God and soul in the context of the real universe will shortly follow. Until then, you will be stuck with traditional beliefs which cannot be interpreted in the context of reality except by religions which make up whatever they want.

I understand your posts just fine. I believe that your statement that the existence of the soul can only be taken on faith, which correctly reflects the beliefs of the Church, is a mindstop.

IMO such statements are exactly what are required to keep religion in the dark ages. I invite you to open your excellent mind to the possibility that the Creator of the universe and the human soul are as real, and as essential to the composition of reality, as electrons.

 

[greylorn]

I didn’t go to school. I was always skipping classes, because i was being bullied by other students. Plus, i didn’t get a much better time at home. As a result i suffer from great anxiety and depression among other disorders. So thats my credentials down the drain.

Unfortunately for me and you, I have one G,c,s,e worth mentioning and thats a b+ in English, although that might not show very well in my writing. But that doesn’t mean that i do not teach myself. I have always been interested in science, especially cosmology, but haven’t always had the motivation or the positive foundations to develop myself in those areas. However, I have hundreds of popular electronic Science books and lots of philosophy books of all kinds that i have collected over the years. And when I’m not here, i am on a mission trying to complete all of them and obtain more.

I appreciate your forthright acknowledgement of your background. I was bullied too, so I earned enough money to buy a set of barbells, and began fighting back. The collection of books will not get you the knowledge they contain. One of the most troublesome idiots I ever had to deal with was the professor who taught my first computer course, who ended up working with me 5 years later. Everyone thought he was a genius, mostly thanks to the extensive physics-math library he trucked into his office. Upon checking out several excellent books I found them previously uncracked.

Better that you have only one book, its concepts transferred from pages into your mind, than the Library of Alexandria safely tucked away.

In the 60’s, maybe early 70’s, TIme-Life published a series of basic science books. There is one on “Matter,” another on “Energy,” etc. Used bookstores or Amazon might have them. They are excellent starting points for someone without a calculus background who wants to enhance his understanding of how things work. Their few inaccuracies are not important for your purposes.

Until you’ve picked up a tad more understanding, you might want to lay off making statements on subjects you’re still in the process of learning. I do that kind of thing a lot and it is always embarrassing. If you would allow me to offer a suggestion, it would be to stop whining about your lack of credentials and instead use your good mind to get some. The depression will then go away. If you won’t do that, change your handle to “MatterOverMind.” Good luck!

Incidentally, we’re off topic here. Let’s get back to work. Our job is to contribute to the CAF.

 

[greylorn]

Nothing i say in the following paragraphs are attacking you personally. It is just my thoughts.

God bless your professor freind, and I hope that Gods mercy rests on him in heaven.

Its a shame really, because in the reality of naturalism, any good he did is ultimately pointless, and his existence was only relevant to the people who liked him and valued him for what he could give them. Ultimately he ceased to exist. So it really doesn’t matter what he did, or what you are going to do, or what you think about him, because it is all going to come to nothing anyway. How we treat each other, how we think about each other is really just a pointless and tragic blip in time and space. Any value we give are selves and each other, is just a fantasy, a buzz; an irrational attempt to make life worth living with out God, while dealing with the potential horrors, illness’s and burdens of life. And then we have the cheek to diss Christians for believing in fantasy. Well…at least we don’t know its a fantasy. I think its more irrational to delude yourself in to believing in something that one knows not to be true.

And in knowing the insanity of life, Ah naturalist has the cheek to bring children into this world to face those potential and inevitable horrors of life, death, sickness, and the death of loved ones whom cease to exist, and pretend that life is a good thing and rudely tell people to deal with it. That is sick. We want to remove God and still say that life is good because we want to feel good about ourselves and pretend to be more sophisticated then those who can’t deal with life. But we all deal with it, not because we are better then those who can’t, but because we had no choice but to be born into this madness that some are content with; and no matter how horrible and pointless life gets, some people are just too afraid to end it. If naturalism is true, then brave and smart are the ones that committed suicide; like my old work friend. I wish i was as brave as he was.

There is nothing smart, brave or rational about staying alive in this insane world. But if there is a God, if it is even possible, then i think i will stick around, because perfection and heaven is all i need and want, and all i will be content with. But if people choose to disbelieve; thats fine; please by all mean continue to entertain yourself, but please don’t ridicule those who have found their purpose, value, dignity and life in Jesus Christ; because it only exposes the selfishness and spite in men. There is no good in naturalism and i would never teach anyone anything that didn’t have the potential to fulfill them as persons.

While you may have liked this professor, he ultimately burdened himself for nothing. And if he did burden himself, it was either for his own glory, or it was because he believed that there was truly such a thing as right and wrong and he felt compelled to act upon it however irrational that belief may have been. And God bless his soul.

I’m glad that some Atheists are good, its a shame that they don’t respect their religious and metaphysical heritage. It is true that atheists can be good, and nobody has ever disputed that as far as i can tell. But that is really irrelevant to the irrationality of resigning one self to the belief that people have no objective value, moral truth, or purpose; especially if there is no proof that God does not exist. I believe in reason, but even blind faith is more rational then naturalism. I truly belief that you have to take life for granted, or be mentally disturbed to not see the horror of naturalism. In my opinion it contradicts our nature human nature. Emotional creatures that are self aware are not supposed to live in a world where God does not exist. Thats why people believe in God, and those that do not believe, have merely found some other material God that they think is more valuable and meaningful because they are not willing to give it up their personal authority to God, even in the face of death. Its absolute madness. And, i mean no disrespect, but i truly doubt that you really have been listening or have any real understanding of Catholic Teaching, because everybody that understands it have told me how it has transformed their lives.

I hope your professor didn’t cease to exist. Rather I hope the greater good that he continues on in heaven and that his good works didn’t come to nothing. That is the greatest thing that you and i could ever hope for him.

peace.

If you study enough of my posts you will see that I clearly believe in a created universe, and also that the Creator and His purposes can be more effectively understood by direct examination of his works than by reference to things men have written.

 

[ilovekittens]

While I appreciate your interest, you might not be ready to delve into the intricacies of Charles Gray’s lone experiment demonstrating that brain waves transmit information within the brain and are not simply artifacts. Alwyn C. Scott’s early experiments require some background in electromagnetic theory. You might research the Sperry-Gazzoniga (sp?) split-brain experiments and let me know how you interpret them.

I am aware of Michael Gazzaniga’s work on split brain patients. What point are you trying to make by citing him or the others? I googled Charles Gray, and he has done experiments showing that neurons in cats can fire synchronously, even if they are separate in space, and perhaps this sort of synchrony is the neural basis of conscious experience. Fine. I couldn’t find any experiments done by Alwyn Scott.

There is a block in your thinking which needs to be cleared out before you understand some of these issues. Don’t take that personally— I’ve had to remove hundreds of mine and am certain that more remain. For example, consider your 2nd paragraph. You declare that Libet’s experiment had nothing to do with soul, but something to do with human consciousness, which * is a property of the soul*. Do you see a little confusion here?

I don’t think consciousness is necessarily a property of the soul, so I see no confusion. Consciousness is a phenomenon generated by the brain. I don’t really know what a soul is, but as Catholics we believe that a 2 day old embryo, with no brain or conscious awareness, has a soul, as do people in comas, and that the soul persists when the body and brain are dead. On days when I am feeling agnostic, I am not even sure that souls exist.

Note also your superfluous introduction of “supernatural” into the conversation. I did not use the word. I did not claim that there are experiments proving the existence of the supernatural, and will never do so, because I regard the entire universe, its Creator included, as entirely natural.

The word supernatural is used only by individuals who want to excuse their inability to understand something. Nothing is supernatural. When you finally accept that, understanding of God and soul in the context of the real universe will shortly follow. Until then, you will be stuck with traditional beliefs which cannot be interpreted in the context of reality except by religions which make up whatever they want.

I understand your posts just fine. I believe that your statement that the existence of the soul can only be taken on faith, which correctly reflects the beliefs of the Church, is a mindstop.

IMO such statements are exactly what are required to keep religion in the dark ages. I invite you to open your excellent mind to the possibility that the Creator of the universe and the human soul are as real, and as essential to the composition of reality, as electrons./

This is rather new age-y. I think God is beyond nature, supernatural, if He exists. I think the same of the soul. The workings of the world and the universe are indeed amazing, but I do not see objective evidence of a loving, personal God suggested by the results of any physics experiment, nor I do see evidence that I, myself, matter to the universe in any way. However, based on the subjective experience of “faith,” which is something very different than the detached, objective world of science and logic, I can accept the notion of a loving, benevolent deity who cares about my existence.

 

[greylorn]

I am aware of Michael Gazzaniga’s work on split brain patients. What point are you trying to make by citing him or the others? I googled Charles Gray, and he has done experiments showing that neurons in cats can fire synchronously, even if they are separate in space, and perhaps this sort of synchrony is the neural basis of conscious experience. Fine. I couldn’t find any experiments done by Alwyn Scott.

I suspect that Charlie’s experiment showing that wave behavior in the brain was more than an artifact, is not on the internet. I like it because it provides a potential mechanism for soul-brain interaction. Scott’s work was done long before the internet.

Re: Gazzaniga’s studies… note that they indicate that consciousness is localized to a single brain hemisphere. Exactly what might be expected if a single entity such as soul was interfaced to a dual hemisphere brain. Descartes hypothesized that soul was connected via the pineal gland because he realized that its connection would be at a single point, and the pineal gland was the only component he could find within the brain which was not bifurcated.

These are indicative of possibilities, that if a soul could be clearly defined as a physical and therefore real enitity, its point of connection within the brain could be identified.

I don’t think consciousness is necessarily a property of the soul, so I see no confusion. Consciousness is a phenomenon generated by the brain. I don’t really know what a soul is, but as Catholics we believe that a 2 day old embryo, with no brain or conscious awareness, has a soul, as do people in comas, and that the soul persists when the body and brain are dead. On days when I am feeling agnostic, I am not even sure that souls exist.

I cannot understand why anyone with a mind as competent as yours appears to be would believe in the existence of something she cannot understand or define. Care to explain that?

What is the point of believing in something unidentifiable?

Anyone anticipating a conscious afterlife might be thinking about assigning consciousness to an entity which exists now and carries whatever knowledge and consciousness it acquires into the next phase of existence. Would you especially care if the Church promised that in return for living a righteous life, your gall bladder will go to heaven?

Given your limited understanding of the requisite nature and properties of the soul, I’d expect you to enjoy many agnostic moments.

This is rather new age-y. I think God is beyond nature, supernatural, if He exists. I think the same of the soul. The workings of the world and the universe are indeed amazing, but I do not see objective evidence of a loving, personal God suggested by the results of any physics experiment, nor I do see evidence that I, myself, matter to the universe in any way. However, based on the subjective experience of “faith,” which is something very different than the detached, objective world of science and logic, I can accept the notion of a loving, benevolent deity who cares about my existence.

I hope you were not referring to my thoughts as “new age-y.” Yours are not. The idea of God and soul as supernatural is just classic religious thinking— not thinking at all, really, just a strange belief derived millennia ago my men ignorant of physics.

I am certain that if the God concept and soul concept were but recently invented and religions did not exist, the concepts would be nicely integrated into scientific understanding in a few minutes. Beliefs which declare these concepts to be “supernatural” also define them to be beyond the purview of logic or science. That leaves them to be understood and interpreted by people who do not understand logic or science, usually because they cannot.

Personally, I prefer that my working beliefs are ideas derived by the best human minds who have chosen to work on the subject, and which have been verified by large numbers of experimenters with good minds. I distrust ideas which have no basis in logic and are supported by unsupported assertions and lots of agreement.

So, why the insistence on your part that God and soul are supernatural? [edited]