Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

[Compassionist]

Most religions claim that souls exist. Some religions claim that souls are immortal and are reincarnated after the death of the body while other religions claim that souls are immortal and are resurrected after the death of the body. Can anyone please prove that souls exist and are either resurrected or reincarnated? Thank you.

[SlingShot]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #50]

I believe Dr. Greyson's is one of the best interviews I have heard, and I love the way the information was presented. There isn't anything that one could add to it.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Compassionist...thanks for inviting me here to share my thoughts. I'll wait on joining the other thread you invited me to because this may take a good amount of time and that other thread has a lot of posts to peruse before sharing my thoughts. Here are my initial thoughts. I am indebted to JP Moreland for being put on to this issue and how he approaches it, although I don't accept every argument he gave in support of the existence of the soul.

So, some introductory things first. We know that there is a difference between states and the thing that can be in those states. For instance, things can be in a solid, liquid, or gas state. But this doesn’t answer the question of what has those states. Are we talking about water, alcohol, something else? In the same way, there are different states of consciousness, but this doesn’t settle the question of what it is that has these states.

We must also keep in mind the law of identity which says that if A is the same thing as B, then we have one thing, not two. Whatever is true of A would also have to be true of B and conversely. If there is one thing that is different between A and B, then that violates the law of identity and we would have two distinct things.

Also keep in mind that identity here is not the same thing as cause and effect. Just because fire causes smoke, this doesn’t mean they are identical things. They aren’t identical. So, for instance, when a neuroscientist sends a current to a specific region of the brain and the patient experiences a memory of their mother cooking a meal, this doesn’t mean that the brain event (let’s call that B) is the same thing as the memory event (let’s call that M). Just because B causes M, this doesn’t answer the question of whether B and M are the same thing.

Or to put it another way, just because in Alzheimer patients, the mind depends on the brain to work, that doesn’t prove the mind is the same thing as the brain any more than an engine depending on the starter to work proves the engine is the same thing as the starter.

Now, back to states of consciousness. Philosophers often speak of five states of consciousness: sensation (like tasting a lemon or seeing the color red, having a pain, etc.), thought (that snow is white), belief (that the Cubs will make the playoffs), desire (I want to eat ice cream), and an act of will (turning on the lights…even if I’m kept from doing so, say, by a mad scientist that paralyzed my arms while I was sleeping and I didn’t know it yet). Our conscious life is a flow of one state to another.

While doing this there is neurological activity in our brain, i.e., a series of brain states. But are brain states the same as conscious states? Or are they different but correlated? Here are some reasons to think they are different but correlated:

(1) There seem to be things true of conscious states that aren’t true of brain states. If so, they can’t be the same thing. Suppose you are thinking of the NBA playoffs. The Milwaukee Bucks are down three games to one to the Heat and you are thinking about this series in various ways. While you do this there’s an event going on in your brain that scientists can measure. The brain event while you’re thinking about the Bucks possibly being upset has a location. It’s in the left hemisphere of your brain. It has a size, shape, is closer to your left ear than your right, but the thought about the playoffs doesn’t have a size, shape, or the same location. It doesn’t make sense to ask “how big was that thought you just had or how heavy it was”. That’s a difference. Your mental beliefs can be true or false, but brain states aren’t true or false. They aren’t about something, they just exist. That’s a difference. There’s a what’s it like to be in pain, to be angry, to taste strawberry ice cream. There isn’t a what’s it like to be an electron, to be negatively charged, to be a neuron, to be a chunk of matter or a physical property. That’s a difference.

(2) Then there is the knowledge argument. Suppose that in the distant future neuroscientists knew everything there was to know about the brain, the central nervous system, about matter. Suppose one of those neuroscientists is Mary. She knows everything there is to know about the physical theory of hearing. But she was born deaf. Then, suppose that other scientists finally figure out how to give her the ability to hear. Wouldn’t she now gain knowledge of a different realm of facts about hearing? She would finally know what it’s like to hear. If she knew all the physical facts prior to gaining her hearing, then this state of consciousness, of knowing what it’s like to hear, cannot be fully explained by the physical facts. Thus, consciousness is not identical to simply the physical states.

When people are having rapid eye movement, what’s going on? They are dreaming. How do we know that? We had to wake them up and ask them. We had to do that because we only have access to what is going on in their brain, not their consciousness.

So, what has consciousness? Is it the brain, the body, the eye, or what people call the soul or mind? I think it makes more sense to say the soul. Here is are two arguments:

(1) If you were to destroy 70 percent of the computer you are using to read this, you wouldn’t have a whole computer. You would have 30 percent of your computer. If I had my legs and arms amputated, I’d no longer have a whole body; it’d be like 60 percent or whatever. People who have had parts of their brain removed, don’t have a similar part of their “personhood” removed. Take Dandy-Walker syndrome, for instance. People with that have 10 percent of a brain, but are said to be 60 to 70 percent functional. There isn’t two-thirds of a person or a consciousness there. That person is still wholly there. The functioning of the person is limited, but they still have their consciousness that can undergo various states. If I’m either fully present or not, but my body and brain are divisible, then I can’t be my brain or body.

(2) The ship of Theseus thought experiment. If you took the parts of a ship and replaced different pieces to it, maybe even the whole thing, I think we now have a new ship. I mean, if we replaced the parts of the ship with frozen green Jell-O, would we really say it’s the same ship? Would we have the entire original ship? No. The problem, then, is that material objects can’t really be the same if they gain and lose parts. They become new objects. Our bodies, our brains are constantly gaining and losing parts. If we were our brains, then we’d not be the same self from one day to the next. But we consciously know we are the same person from one moment to the next.

I also think free will is an argument for the existence of a soul, but I know you don’t think free will is the rational position to take and I have already said so much that I don’t want to go fully into a case for free will. I do think it is the universal human intuition and the simplest answer, so I think it is the most rational position to take unless evidence shows otherwise (and I don’t think any evidence sways the balance), but I’ll leave it at that.

I also think other beliefs point to the truth of the soul, ultimately going back to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the NT to capture His teachings, but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion that would take a long time, so I’ll leave the two above for discussion.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

I believe that when you die , God takes control of your soul and deals with it at his discretion.
Also if a person doesn't believe they have a soul , then they can definitely look forward to a 'dead', end.
I rather look forward towards a living (and loving) new beginning.

However without a soul , I feel that a person is nothing more than an organic robot.

I believe you are wrong. I feel you are horribly wrong.

Ultimately, the existence of a soul or consciousness as a separate entity from the brain remains a matter of philosophical debate, and further scientific evidence is needed to conclusively support one view or the other.

This must tick off the Theists, who always want to control the conversation, but it's the truth. Science, not religion, is going to have the final say in these issues.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

I believe that when you die , God takes control of your soul and deals with it at his discretion.
Also if a person doesn't believe they have a soul , then they can definitely look forward to a 'dead', end.
I rather look forward towards a living (and loving) new beginning.

However without a soul , I feel that a person is nothing more than an organic robot.

I believe you are wrong. I feel you are horribly wrong.

Ultimately, the existence of a soul or consciousness as a separate entity from the brain remains a matter of philosophical debate, and further scientific evidence is needed to conclusively support one view or the other.

This must tick off the Theists, who always want to control the conversation, but it's the truth. Science, not religion, is going to have the final say in these issues.

In order for science to settle the debate, the debate would have to be a scientific one, not a philosophical one. Science can definitely inform philosophy, just as philosophy informs science, but why do you think this is, ultimately, a question for science? If science studies the physical, then how could it give us the truth or falsity of something (like a soul or consciousness) that is not physical?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Ultimately, the existence of a soul or consciousness as a separate entity from the brain remains a matter of philosophical debate, and further scientific evidence is needed to conclusively support one view or the other.

This must tick off the Theists, who always want to control the conversation, but it's the truth. Science, not religion, is going to have the final say in these issues.

Unless it's the Bible Belt, then the majority Christian view will be the 'final say'

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #54]

If science studies the physical, then how could it give us the truth or falsity of something (like a soul or consciousness) that is not physical?

What if science could show that conscioiusness was an emergent property of a working brain that is produced entirely by the complicated interactions of brain components (neurons, memory elements, sensory inputs, chemical and electrical signals, etc.)? If that were accomplished then science would provide an explanation for consciousness that has a physical basis, even though consciousness itself (like a thought, or an emotion) is not a physical thing. So it makes sense for science to study consciousness from this perspective, as there is sufficient evidence to suggest that consciousness may be an emergent property of the brain.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

I believe that when you die , God takes control of your soul and deals with it at his discretion.
Also if a person doesn't believe they have a soul , then they can definitely look forward to a 'dead', end.
I rather look forward towards a living (and loving) new beginning.

However without a soul , I feel that a person is nothing more than an organic robot.

I believe you are wrong. I feel you are horribly wrong.

Ultimately, the existence of a soul or consciousness as a separate entity from the brain remains a matter of philosophical debate, and further scientific evidence is needed to conclusively support one view or the other.

This must tick off the Theists, who always want to control the conversation, but it's the truth. Science, not religion, is going to have the final say in these issues.

In order for science to settle the debate, the debate would have to be a scientific one, not a philosophical one. Science can definitely inform philosophy, just as philosophy informs science, but why do you think this is, ultimately, a question for science? If science studies the physical, then how could it give us the truth or falsity of something (like a soul or consciousness) that is not physical?

Philosophy and science work hand in hand to hone each others methods, but it is science that ultimately tests and proves or disproves hypotheses. Science, through the scientific method, and falsification, will be the vehicle that proves or disproves what we can confidently know about the physical world - anything that seems to fall outside of that is up for debate, not proved to be supernatural, etc. - just up for debate.

The reason some think consciousness is non-physical is because science hasn't been able to show - to date - that it absolutely is physical (or emergent from physical properties). It's not because of philosophy or religion that we have discovered that there isn't a physical soul in our bodies. Philosophy and religion haven't proved anything about the soul or consciousness.

There are limits to science, but science still is the best process to establish firm facts - with which philosophy accepts.

For example, philosophers were convinced there was a substance called "Phlogiston" which was released from any combustible material, then science demonstrated how fire works. Or "Vitalism", philosophy was convinced there was a 'vital force' in living things, and living things couldn't be explained by physical or chemical processes. Cosmology has led many philosophical theories about the nature of our universe to be abandoned.

Without science, almost every crackpot philosophical idea would still be theoretically viable, since there would be no way to show the nature and limits of our physical world.

Note, religion is completely useless in all of this.

[The Tanager]

What if science could show that conscioiusness was an emergent property of a working brain that is produced entirely by the complicated interactions of brain components (neurons, memory elements, sensory inputs, chemical and electrical signals, etc.)? If that were accomplished then science would provide an explanation for consciousness that has a physical basis, even though consciousness itself (like a thought, or an emotion) is not a physical thing. So it makes sense for science to study consciousness from this perspective, as there is sufficient evidence to suggest that consciousness may be an emergent property of the brain.

I just don’t see how science would be able to do that if consciousness isn’t a physical thing. It seems that to make the connection to the non-physical thing, we have to enter philosophy because of the very definition of science.

[The Tanager]

Philosophy and science work hand in hand to hone each others methods, but it is science that ultimately tests and proves or disproves hypotheses. Science, through the scientific method, and falsification, will be the vehicle that proves or disproves what we can confidently know about the physical world - anything that seems to fall outside of that is up for debate, not proved to be supernatural, etc. - just up for debate.

Science tests hypotheses about the physical world, yes. Anything outside of that is up for philosophical debate and to be tested through philosophical means.

The reason some think consciousness is non-physical is because science hasn't been able to show - to date - that it absolutely is physical (or emergent from physical properties). It's not because of philosophy or religion that we have discovered that there isn't a physical soul in our bodies.

People never thought that philosophy or religion could show us the soul was physical. The physical is the realm of the sciences. That’s clear from logic, not science.

And most people don’t believe consciousness is non-physical because of science's current inability to show that it is absolutely physical. They would have different philosophical reasons for their belief. To believe it is non-physical because of science’s current inability to show that the soul is absolutely physical would be relying on a philosophical principle of scientism, i.e., the belief that science is the only way to truth about reality…not just physical reality, but all of reality. Those who think this is a valid principle (who often don’t even realize it is a philosophical position) don't usually argue for non-physical things due to an argument from silence. And those who reject this principle, would obviously have to be using different philosophical reasons for believing consciousness is non-physical.

Philosophy and religion haven't proved anything about the soul or consciousness.

There are limits to science, but science still is the best process to establish firm facts - with which philosophy accepts.

Philosophy (both in secular and religious claims) can’t prove (100% certainty) any of its claims beyond definitions, including philosophy’s claim of the validity of science to give us truth about reality. I don’t see this as a problem. Science can still give us very reasonable beliefs about our reality and is the best process to establish reasonable beliefs concerning the physical world, while philosophy (often using scientific discoveries but not limited to only them) is the best process to establish reasonable beliefs concerning reality as a whole.

For example, philosophers were convinced there was a substance called "Phlogiston" which was released from any combustible material, then science demonstrated how fire works. Or "Vitalism", philosophy was convinced there was a 'vital force' in living things, and living things couldn't be explained by physical or chemical processes. Cosmology has led many philosophical theories about the nature of our universe to be abandoned.

Without science, almost every crackpot philosophical idea would still be theoretically viable, since there would be no way to show the nature and limits of our physical world.

Note, religion is completely useless in all of this.

Phlogiston was supposed by chemists not philosophers, then a French chemist showed the error in that scientific theory through scientific means. Vitalism is a philosophy that fails because of philosophical reasons that have scientific evidence in support of them. And many philosophical theories have been rejected because of science as well as because of philosophy. The usefulness of religion to this probably depends on what one means by “religion,” as they are made up of, at least in part, philosophical claims and even sometimes scientific claims, among other types of claims.

[boatsnguitars]

Philosophy and science work hand in hand to hone each others methods, but it is science that ultimately tests and proves or disproves hypotheses. Science, through the scientific method, and falsification, will be the vehicle that proves or disproves what we can confidently know about the physical world - anything that seems to fall outside of that is up for debate, not proved to be supernatural, etc. - just up for debate.

Science tests hypotheses about the physical world, yes. Anything outside of that is up for philosophical debate and to be tested through philosophical means.

Tested how?