Agnostic.com

3 0

The Concept of Souls.

The trouble here is that ‘the soul’ has so many diverse definitions that it can mean just about anything you want it to mean. Probably no two people would describe the concept in the exact same way. However, I think we can agree that an egg cell has no soul – however you define it. A sperm cell has no soul – however you define it. Therefore, at conception, you have no soul. No cell has a soul, therefore no tissue (a group of common cells) has a soul, therefore no body organ has a soul (an organ being composed of various tissues), therefore you, as a collection of various organs and organ systems must have no soul!

So when did you get a soul (assuming there is such a thing and that it has some degree of tangibility)? Did you get your soul at birth? Perhaps it was on your first birthday? Perhaps you received you soul when you became of age, say 21. Perhaps it’s just as likely that you don’t receive a soul at all – there is no such separate and apart physical thing you get from any higher authority. Perhaps your soul just develops or evolves naturally as part and parcel of your growing maturity over the years, in which case it can’t be totally separate and apart from the body. In other words, if you develop a soul akin to your developing a sense of morality or spirituality, then it can not ‘leave’ the body after death. Translated, your soul (however you define it) isn’t your ticket to an afterlife. It resides somewhere in that brain-thingy of yours, locked somewhere within that maze of biochemistry that collectively makes up your grey matter. As an aside, if you were to clone yourself, would your clone have a soul?

So, do you have a soul? Nope! The burden of proof is on those who advocate that humans possess an indestructible, immaterial ‘soul’ that exists separate and apart from the body and which survives the body’s demise. If such proof (or even evidence) were set in stone the is-there-or-isn’t-there debate would have ended long ago. No one can demonstrate where the soul comes from, how it becomes a part of you, or where it goes to after you’re gone. No one can explain how an immaterial concept can contain hardcore data – your essence in other words. Does a person with a multiple personality disorder and sense of selves have more than one soul? I think not. There’s also the double standard of humans anointing themselves with a soul but not animals. This is another example of humans patting themselves on the back without justification.

johnprytz 7 Dec 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Applying an amateur scientific mindset to your consideration of a soul is a waste of time. On top of that you ignored the fact that most of Christianity claims that the act of conception itself is of significant importance and when "life" begins therefore probably also a "soul" is created/added/reincarnated, whatever.

Regardless, reason does not combat belief. You're trying to score a touchdown on a baseball diamond and the spectators are laughing at you.

1

Ohferpetessake....all those words about NOTHING.......

0

Devil's advocate: If a soul consists of combinations of lesser things, then it could be the combination of an egg and a sperm that provides the atomic definition of "soul". So I don't think you can use the argument that if an egg and sperm have no soul, that an egg fertilized by a sperm does not. After all, "soul", however one defines it, is generally seen as an ephemeral and mysterious je ne sais quoi so maybe it is emergent from some combination of soulless things. Or, as many believers will claim, god simply bestows a soul on a human child or proto-child at a certain point (such as the point of conception, or the point of viability, or the point of birth, or the point of independent self awareness or "age of accountability" ).

I think the basic problem with "soul" (and "spirit" ) is the vague and unsubstantiatable definitions they are given. We can't really debate the topic when we can't agree on a reasonably objective definition of the subject of the debate. "Souls" are generally some infinite regress or some allegedly self-evident truth. Many believers equate "soul" and "spirit", others make distinctions between them, etc.

So the whole topic is a non-starter and waste of time unless we settle on a definition. And since there are so many definitions, we'll only inherently ever be arguing the same thing with a generally small number of other people and there can be no broad and useful consensus about it.

@johnprytz I don't see it as a key concept or a coherent and useful one. There are no souls. There are just people -- and other animals -- who go through a process of conception, gestation, and being born. It's a fascinating thing, all this living and dying, but "souls" aren't helpful in understanding it.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:252344
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.