Article says: Through the pages of this book, I will lead you on a journey through science and thought to arrive at the following conclusions: The traditional soul is as much a scientific hypothesis about our design and mode of functioning as it is a metaphysical or theological claim. Consequently, determining whether or not we have a soul is an objective endeavor that falls within the scope of science. In spite of many claims to the contrary, there is in fact no credible evidence supporting the existence of the soul. Modern science gives us every reason to believe that we do not have souls. Nothing gets lost, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically by giving up our soul beliefs. In fact, we even have something to gain. The scientific image of personhood, so feared and vilified in the United States, provides the basis for an empowering and practically beneficial alternative to the soul myth. The first 3 are just straightforwardly false. 1 All science could ever do in principle is hypothesise the souls action in the world. The soul in itself does not reside under the purview of science which by definition deals with the quantitative exclusively. 2 Note the weasel word credible. A standard tactic so that when confronted with evidence they will inevitably assert its not credible. But the evidence will never be credible given their metaphysical pre-suppositions. 3. Modern science could only give a reason to suppose that we are not souls if it could show the physical world is closed. Even that would not be decisive and thats only one reason. If he has in mind the mind-brain correlations thats not science since those correlations need an explanation. An explanation such as the mental and physical are identical is not scientific, but rather philosophical.
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:47:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015