It's an empty placeholder for an explanation. Science at least provides a partial explanation of the unknown by describing the boundaries of what we know. If you say the soul is whatever human qualities haven't yet been discovered by science, then the soul theory is falsified every time a scientific discovery about humanity is made.
I'm just saying a soul is an explanation, if an unprovable one (as things stand). Think of it less as a "scientific theory" and more of a "philosophic idea"
But what I'm saying is that it's not even an unprovable explanation, because it's not an explanation at all. Positing a spiritual soul is no more an explanation than positing a nonsense wordthing like uqweroiuejr. "The uqweroiuejr lies on a uqweroiuejr-like plane of existence and explains knowns X, Y, and Z, even if we can't prove it." Whether it's provable or not doesn't even matter, because we haven't yet said anything meaningful other than implying that we can't yet explain X, Y, and Z. As a philosophic idea, the soul is useful only as a placeholder, not as an explanation.
Note: I'm not necessarily trying to persuade you to agree with me. As a practical matter, it may be that some brains more efficiently by assuming the existence of spiritual substances. In fact, maybe on some subconscious level my brain does believe in spiritual substances and makes me the better off for it. I'm just trying to clarify why I don't bother believing in them on a conscious, rational level.
If we posit the uqweroiuejr and then try to establish it based on attributes we assign, that's a problem, but if we're positing a supernatural RESPONSE to phenomenon that defy ANY physical explanation--present or future--we're in a very different place. Not a testable place, of course; we need to be able to observe, measure and reproduce given events under given conditions to do that. We do, however, have evidence in the form of experiences that are distinct from the purely material, things that science can't explain not because of inadequate knowledge, but because that's not sciences job.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe?
- 14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM
904 Views
On a gut level, I think all substance is teleologically tied to one or more kinds of consciousness.
- 14/09/2009 04:03:31 PM
638 Views
aaah but who says we can percieve all there is to percieve in relation to our persons?
- 14/09/2009 04:14:08 PM
611 Views
But merely positing a soul (as a spiritual substance) doesn't actually explain anything.
- 14/09/2009 07:46:35 PM
579 Views
i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul"
- 14/09/2009 07:50:27 PM
640 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul"
- 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM
642 Views
Carts and horses.
- 18/09/2009 12:10:22 PM
772 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things
- 14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM
662 Views
Rum.
- 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM
651 Views
YES! *NM*
- 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM
285 Views
How are we not married? 
*NM*
- 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM
261 Views
*NM*
- 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM
261 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably.
- 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM
632 Views
*NM*
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause.
- 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM
732 Views
One little correction
- 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM
720 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists.
- 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM
769 Views