Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

UU · 19-07-2007 12:53am #1

Hi all!

This topic has been bothering me for some time now and I thought I might just get an opinion on it from other atheists, humanists and agnostics (and any others in that category).

So the questions I propose are:
« Do you believe in the existence of a soul? »
« Do believe in what could be called a soul but not an infinite soul »
« Or maybe something along the lines of self-awareness, consciousness, an energy field, etc.? »
« Do most atheists, etc. believe in a soul or not? »
« How do we exist without a soul? » (Many religious people will pose that to refute the argument)

Also, I have included a poll to see the results.

I feel that this question is an extremely important one and is relevant to this community. Firstly, because if one chooses to disbelieve in a deity, and maybe in an afterlife, then the existence of the soul becomes an important question. Secondly, such issues, as abortion, stem-cell research and embryonic screening become very relevant topics in today’s world and for atheists, etc. alike. I’d actually like to see how people here view abortion and stem-cell research as opposed to our fellow Christians, Muslims, etc. Although, I’ll give that controversial topic some more thought and space on another thread soon.

Myself. Do I believe in the existence of the “soul”?

My thoughts. It’s a hard question. It depends what you define a “soul” or a “spirit” as? And by what standards? In the standard religious sense, no. Most religions believe that the soul is you while your outer manifestation is just a part of you. The soul is invisible and infinite. Christianity teaches that only humans have souls and that other animals and plants are either soulless or have a different type of soul. Religions teach that the soul is freed from the restrictions of the body when one dies and it goes off somewhere else or is reincarnated.

I do believe that there is an inner being but it is more like consciousness or a sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort – it’s difficult to put into words! I think all creatures, plants, all living things have this - not just humans. And it is directly linked with brain activity. But when the being ceases to be, it is gone also. So in this sense, I think the “soul” is finite and doesn’t possess any sorta glorious spiritual nature. The problem with religious people, particularly Christians is that many will see only humans as possessing souls and maybe animals too. But what if I were to go as far to ask them, if they would accept that bacteria have souls or micro-organisms. After all, they are living beings, aren’t they?

Well, it is an interesting topic. Sorry if this post is so long, I have the tendency to ramble on.

I look forward to seeing your replies!

Daniel

UU · 19-07-2007 1:00am

Oops sorry, I forgot to include the option on the poll of - Other views. Sorry about that. It is not a black and white issue so people may have different views than what is offered as a possible choice. If you prescribe as - Other views - just write down what your views are. I dont seem to be able to edit the poll!

rockbeer · 19-07-2007 9:48am

Interesting topic. Just a couple of things in your post I wanted to pick up on:

UU wrote:

How do we exist without a soul? » (Many religious people will pose that to refute the argument)

Clearly a spurious argument, if it is indeed posed by religious people, especially christians, who don't have a problem with other animals existing without a soul. Anyway, that's like saying we can't exist without any other invisible, unidentifiable force. If you can't actually identify the soul it's meaningless to claim it's necessary for existence.

UU wrote:

Christianity teaches that only humans have souls and that other animals and plants are either soulless or have a different type of soul.

That's because of their bizarre beliefe that god created us in his image and therefore we're inherently different from all other species. This is a dangerous perspective which opens the door to all manner of disprespectful attitudes and behaviour towards our planetary co-inhabitants. Would there, for example, be factory farming, I wonder, without the innate sense of superoirity that christianity has allowed us to develop about ourselves? Of course, once you accept the scientifically demonstrable truth that we are evolved species who have much more in common with other species than we have differences, that argument collapses. And a good thing too. Not that this stops many christians from attempting to simultaneously hold on to two contradictory positions.

Anyway, as regards the soul, why would I believe in that? What evidence is there?

Dades · 19-07-2007 9:50am

For me a "soul" is a vehicle that allows you to believe that you can live on in an afterlife. Physically we know our bodies are broken down after death to mass that cannot sustain any elements of who we were, but the concept of a soul overcomes this hurdle by conveniently being invisible, undetectable and intangible.

If nobody ever suggested an afterlife existed, the term soul would simply be our personality/character.

And yes, the existence of a soul becomes a little trickier to explain in the light of evolution, rather than the view that existed in biblical times, i.e. that man always co-existed with animals.

PDN · 19-07-2007 9:51am

UU wrote:

Christianity teaches that only humans have souls and that other animals and plants are either soulless or have a different type of soul.

Some Christians teach that, rather than Christianity.

Sangre · 19-07-2007 11:41am

So all dogs do go to heaven then?

DinoBot · 19-07-2007 12:10pm

Sangre wrote:

So all dogs do go to heaven then?

Id say only the good ones

Hivemind187 · 19-07-2007 12:13pm

UU wrote:

Hi all!
So the questions I propose are:
« Do you believe in the existence of a soul? »
« Do believe in what could be called a soul but not an infinite soul »
« Or maybe something along the lines of self-awareness, consciousness, an energy field, etc.? »
« Do most atheists, etc. believe in a soul or not? »
« How do we exist without a soul? » (Many religious people will pose that to refute the argument)

I feel that this question is an extremely important one and is relevant to this community. Firstly, because if one chooses to disbelieve in a deity, and maybe in an afterlife, then the existence of the soul becomes an important question. Secondly, such issues, as abortion, stem-cell research and embryonic screening become very relevant topics in today’s world and for atheists, etc. alike. I’d actually like to see how people here view abortion and stem-cell research as opposed to our fellow Christians, Muslims, etc. Although, I’ll give that controversial topic some more thought and space on another thread soon.

Outside of the poetic perception that people are more than the sum of their parts (which conveniently ignores environmental and genetic influences) I do not believe in a soul. though I have been heard to invoke the poetic from time to time as a metaphor for emotional or intellectual well being or simply for people who need "personalisty adjustment".

As for "how do we exist without a soul" I will answer this, along with the passage "Firstly, because if one chooses to disbelieve in a deity, and maybe in an afterlife, then the existence of the soul becomes an important question."

First, a soul is not a pre requisite for existance. Being alive is not contingent on it (as evidenced by the existance of diverse stratum of living organisms from algae and bacteria to elephants and people).

Secondly, it is not a choice to "disbelieve" in a deity since this is the natural position, we only become aware of a deity when informed (lied to) by authority figures when we are developing. If you do not believe in a deity, and you do not believe in an after life then the existance or non-existance of a soul is not an important question since it has no bearing on anything tangible.

Now, if the soul were a measurable quantity then this argument would require a slightly different approach. That of "Is it possible for the soul to exist without the presence of a deity or the supernatural?". But it isnt and therefore this line of thinking is irrelevant.

(Note: There is some evidence of "soul" but is no longer measureable since the death of James Brown ...

)

Tar.Aldarion · 19-07-2007 12:20pm

It depends on how you define a soul. (Why do most of my posts about these things begin with 'It depends on how you define'? :-) )
If a god does not exist that does not mean a 'soul' does not.
I really do not know how to answer whether we are just electrochemoical reactions or is there an 'essence', but as you can see from my sig, I don't think grass is any different than the man that mows it.
Without any proof to the contrary I think we are a bunch of machines, just moving along with our actions, which are dictated by our brains.
Is there a difference from you, a dog and a rock? Not much, you just react to stimulus easier than a rock.

Fallen Seraph · 19-07-2007 12:51pm

I believe that there exists an aspect of a person which is convenient to term the "soul". But this is just a convenient term for that which separates us from inanimate objects; such as emotions and whatnot. It isn't an aspect of us that cannot be explained in terms of physical reality.

Galvasean · 19-07-2007 1:13pm

I don't believe in a soul at all. I believe when you die you decompose into minerals. Circle of life. Many people find that idea unfullfilling. I disagree, I find the concept quite soothing.
Although i do believe that,
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!"
(kudos to whoever gets who that quote is attributed to).

Hivemind187 · 19-07-2007 1:27pm

Galvasean wrote:

I don't believe in a soul at all. I believe when you die you decompose into minerals. Circle of life. Many people find that idea unfullfilling. I disagree, I find the concept quite soothing.
Although i do believe that,
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!"
(kudos to whoever gets who that quote is attributed to).

Optimus Prime.

UU · 19-07-2007 1:59pm

Thanks everyone for your responses! They were very interesting. It seems that the majority of people take on a very naturalistic position. Thanks Rockbeer and PDN for picking up on my mistakes!

Although, consciousness is another issue I would particulary like to focus on. Even science accepts the existence of consciousness in humans and other beings. Maybe what I accept is more accurately described as consciousness which included one’s thoughts, feelings, memories, desires, hopes, and so on...

Certainly I do not believe in an infinite soul which has the capabilities of surviving death. I think that we just “cease to be” when we die and that is the end of us. But I am aware of my own existence and know that I am one in billions of different living things that exist here on Planet Earth and possibly elsewhere on other planets and in other galaxies. Just my views. I feel priviliged to exist because I came to be by mere chance. And I plan on making the best of my short time here.

lookinforpicnic · 19-07-2007 6:38pm

UU wrote:

Hi all!

I do believe that there is an inner being but it is more like consciousness or a sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort – it’s difficult to put into words!

I think (know!:) ) that we are very elaborate machines and thus there is no extra work for some immaterial soul to carry out, just as we can explain the workings of the cell by looking at the mechanics and interactions of proteins, DNA, fat and little biomolecules with out any extra ingredients, I believe that we will explain (the bulk of the explanation is probably already sketched out) everything human including consciousness with the similar interaction of blind neurons (and whatever analysis we need to do to get a grip on the goings on). There is no need to postulate consciousness as something else over and above the complex activity of humans, as you (UU) hint at above - "sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort". That to me smells of dualism and putting consciousness up on a pedastal it doesn't deserve.

MooseJam · 20-07-2007 1:28am

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake", people have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, they feel they are so special that they must have a soul and God must love them etc etc when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street and when they die they are manure, nothing more and nothing less, you can probably tell I don't believe in a soul

Hivemind187 · 20-07-2007 8:48am

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I think (know!:) ) that we are very elaborate machines and thus there is no extra work for some immaterial soul to carry out, just as we can explain the workings of the cell by looking at the mechanics and interactions of proteins, DNA, fat and little biomolecules with out any extra ingredients, I believe that we will explain (the bulk of the explanation is probably already sketched out) everything human including consciousness with the similar interaction of blind neurons (and whatever analysis we need to do to get a grip on the goings on). There is no need to postulate consciousness as something else over and above the complex activity of humans, as you (UU) hint at above - "sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort". That to me smells of dualism and putting consciousness up on a pedastal it doesn't deserve.

Infact, if you give it some though along evolutionary lines, the existance of a "soul" would have been selected against over the past few hundred thousands years.

Consider that the production of any energy field requires the allocation of body fuels to maintain its generation. Without providing any tangible benefit to the organism (running faster, stronger muscles etc etc) the animal who allocates less fuel to the production of a redundant energy field would have more energy for production of sex cells, growth & repair etc which inevitably makes it a more successful organism.

In this sense the "soul", if it did exist would actually be a harmful abberation in a survival of the fittest sense.

lookinforpicnic · 20-07-2007 9:43am

MooseJam wrote:

when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street

Your not a lover of dogs then...

lookinforpicnic · 20-07-2007 9:52am

Hivemind187 wrote:

Infact, if you give it some though along evolutionary lines, the existance of a "soul" would have been selected against over the past few hundred thousands years.

Giving thought to the evolution of a soul is a worthless endeavour, but one could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for. This spark of self awareness or smidgen of consciousness is the last retreat for the spiritual folk and again it is a fine example of lazy wishful thinking.

Tar.Aldarion · 20-07-2007 9:56am

What makes you think we are self aware in a diferent way from a very advanced computer?

lookinforpicnic · 20-07-2007 9:58am

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What makes you think we are self aware in a diferent way from a very advanced computer?

If your addressing me, I don't. BTW the very advanced computer isn't built yet.

Tar.Aldarion · 20-07-2007 10:00am

Ok, I was just wondering if you were onewho 'could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for.'

lookinforpicnic · 20-07-2007 10:17am

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Ok, I was just wondering if you were onewho 'could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for.'

No way:eek: Just came across that argument a fair few times. But yeah ulitmately it comes down to you either believe we are a fancy computer of sorts with no extra soulstuff (or smidgen of consciousness in the sense of consciousness as some kind of tangible substance of a sort generated/correlated with brain activity) or you don't. I of course believe we are with no extra soulstuff or smidgen of consciousness (in the sense as above) needed. We do of course have conscious experiences but the explanation of which can involve no mysterious, intrinsic, dualistic syrup.

Dades · 20-07-2007 10:23am

MooseJam wrote:

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake", people have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, they feel they are so special that they must have a soul and God must love them etc etc when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street and when they die they are manure, nothing more and nothing less, you can probably tell I don't believe in a soul

Worthless in the grand universal scheme of things, perhaps. But I like to think that during my blink-of-an-eye existance I'd be worth something to another bonesack. It's all relative.

You may think we're dumb, but have you ever met a us more intelligent species than us? Flawed, but not completely dumb.

lookinforpicnic · 20-07-2007 10:40am

The Atheist wrote:

Flawed, but not completely dumb.

I wouldn't be so generous, we are by far the most intelligent entity on this planet, even our most sophisticated computers can't even nearly match our ability to navigate and reason, ok they can beat us a chess aided by humans, but there is no computer/robot today that can play chess (i.e. pick up the pieces and move them) the most sophisticated robot can't match the manual dexterity of a four year old, or a worthless animal. Just in our bodies there is more intelligence than in the most sophisticated super computers, so if we are only "not completely dumb" everything else on this planet has to be superdumb.

Fallen Seraph · 20-07-2007 10:45am

Speculating on the "absolute intelligence" of humans as a species is pointless.

1. By what standard does one judge the intelligence of a species; by the mean, or by the intelligence of the geniuses?

2. With what does one compare humans to? There isn't another species on the planet with which a worthwhile comparison can be made.

It's like two blind people debating the relative merits of blue.

Tar.Aldarion · 20-07-2007 10:47am

If something 'dumb' makes something, in our case a computer, how can it be expected to be better than the creator? Of course it will be less advanced and the day that one of our inventions isn't, it would be an evolving AI and would frankly take over.
Anyway, we are not too smart, you may find animals mind numbingly slow, but I could say I feel the same about most humans, and I know how ignorant I myself am. That is the first step to wisedom.

Galvasean · 20-07-2007 10:57am

One day the world will wake up and realize that intelligence =/= self awareness. If that were the case smart people should have more rights than stupid people. Try getting that amendment!

Tar.Aldarion · 20-07-2007 11:11am

It is of course not the case, but yet, look at how many billion of other species of animals are killed each year. If somebody makes the arguement that they are not as intelloigent as us that that they deem other animals not 'self-aware' then can I not do the same as them if their IQ is under 150?
Could something smarter than a human(advanced alien etc) just do the same to all humans? Would we then have a problem with it?

For most humans, an atrocity is only an atrocity when it affect themselves.

Hivemind187 · 20-07-2007 11:15am

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Giving thought to the evolution of a soul is a worthless endeavour, but one could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for. This spark of self awareness or smidgen of consciousness is the last retreat for the spiritual folk and again it is a fine example of lazy wishful thinking.

I'm not so sure. Why cant "self-awareness" and "consciousness" be merely a side effect of higher thinking and the capability to rationalise and objectify?

Thats the trouble with the superstitious lot. Always wanting there to be more of something when they dont even understand the miracle they already have.

Greedy b*stards really!

edit(because I forgot it) : But my point about the soul is if it were to be a measureable energy field as was suggested in earlier posts. If so, it would need to be generated by a chemical reaction within tissues - the rest of my argument flows from here.

Dades · 20-07-2007 11:23am

Fallen Seraph wrote:

2. With what does one compare humans to? There isn't another species on the planet with which a worthwhile comparison can be made.

Define worthwhile? If the result of the comparison is that humans are far smarter than any other creature, then so be it.

I'm not sure where any of this is going btw.

lookinforpicnic · 20-07-2007 11:43am

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Speculating on the "absolute intelligence" of humans as a species is pointless..

We are not, we seem to be just commenting on this (dumb;) ) statement below which we should probably move on from...

MooseJam wrote:

when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street"

I'll say my last bit:
Worth isn't measured by the presence of something special like a soul.
Animals aren't worthless or dumb for that matter (relative to the species/computers on this planet).
Our intelligence is nothing like that of a dog it is far more superior (and yes you can compare).

Just because there is no soul doesn't mean that we are all dumb worthless animals, that is just ridiculous, and fueled by the idea that to have worth we need a little magical soulpearl in each of us.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If something 'dumb' makes something, in our case a computer, how can it be expected to be better than the creator?"

There is lots of ways it can be smarter than the creater, as you mention an evolving AI is one, but any automonous selforganising entity could, and often when a AI/robot is put in a real environment it can often behave smarter than planned, you can get emergent behaviour for example. After all we were created by a very dumb process ourselves.

Hivemind i get your point btw its just that talk of energy fields and the like I generally wouldn't waste time entertaining, my point was that you could get a selection pressure in the opposite direction if you believed as many spiritual people do in soul=selfawareness=more intelligent behaviour, but to be clear I think this absolute bollox and i have said in other posts what i think on consciousness.

Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

Your views on the existence of the soul? 53 votes

Comments