Reading Philosophy

Null said it best, I think. Since we cannot distingush, much less prove the existance of a mind and soul, this debate becomes a opinion fest in which saying rocks have souls is just as correct as saying there is no such thing as a soul.

Cyborg is quite the scientist. And science has its place and purpose, but I should remind you, Cyborg, that a man with an unprovable idea is a dreamer. That same man with that same idea that has been proven is a good scientist. In other words, it is popular opinion to deny the existence of anything which cannot be proven. However, ideas are proven fact all the time, which makes "popular opinion" a fallible one.

And I would like to add:

If they are deluding themselves then I'd rather be deluding myself as well because if I didn't and this is the only life I had, there is no soul, there is no god, there hell or even heaven, then I would come to your village kill your kids, steal your money and burn your village down to the ground and maybe, choose to keep you alive so I can choose to do it again. I need not have to live to aspire to be a better person, neither do I have to fear heaven or hell.

It is human nature to try to make sense out of things. It is, afterall, what has allowed humans to survive through evolution. So our belief in a higher being could simply be our mechanism of making sense out of existence. It also brings justice to morality, or else we would all ask ourselves "what is so important about doing the right thing?" And everyone on this planet who has ever believed in doing the right thing has an answer to this question. The absence of an answer is too disturbing for people to comprehend.

However, that isn't to say there isn't a higher being, just that believing in a higher being has a purpose of its own meant to fulfill very human needs.

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Apr 26, 2006.

In other words, it is popular opinion to deny the existence of anything which cannot be proven.

It's not popular opinion. Far from it in fact - the popular opinion seems to be to believe in a multitude of things that are not provable.

However, ideas are proven fact all the time, which makes "popular opinion" a fallible one.

Ideas that are not open to scientific inquiry are unlikely to be proven fact - since the whole point about science is that it provides a structure to enable just that.

The progress civilization made on answering questions on the nature of reality by merely talking to each other about their introspective beliefs? Zero.

Unless you'd care to cite an idea proven fact by another method?

However, that isn't to say there isn't a higher being, just that believing in a higher being has a purpose of its own meant to fulfill very human needs.

Well yes but my entire point is that if we're to expect to actually make any serious progress when we ask questions such as these it is no good to simply engage in idle speculation and pick the ideas we prefer the most. If we actually want answers we have to follow the evidence where it goes. If that happens to lead to something we might not like then that's really too bad; burying our heads in the sand will not change reality.

Well yes but my entire point is that if we're to expect to actually make any serious progress when we ask questions such as these it is no good to simply engage in idle speculation and pick the ideas we prefer the most. If we actually want answers we have to follow the evidence where it goes. If that happens to lead to something we might not like then that's really too bad; burying our heads in the sand will not change reality.

Nobody was suggesting we would take which idea we like best and accept it as fact, Cyborg. My point was only that during the days in which people believed the world was flat, the one who believed it was round was the only one to test that theory. Everyone else took it for granted that it was the case.

Bottlenecking opinion into only that which is fact is fine and good for practical purposes, but you don't introduce new ideas by outright denial of things which are not yet fact.

By your logic, a soul cannot exist because we have no evidence to support its existence. However, isn't it also an equally viable theory that souls exist and we simply do not have the evidence to prove it? The fact is there is no evidence for or against either argument, so either is perfectly viable. If you prefer to state they do not exist, that is your opinion, but at that point, you would be "picking the idea you prefer the most."

Until that point, shooting down people's arguments because no evidence exists exists is just as invalid as believing one side of the coin and insisting it is true.

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

My point was only that during the days in which people believed the world was flat, the one who believed it was round was the only one to test that theory. Everyone else took it for granted that it was the case.

Well that's not so. Generally people who assumed the world was flat did so because they perceived it as being so - it's a naive view. Sea-faring civilizations like the Greeks must have realised at some point that the fact that you can see ships climbing over the horizon means the Earth isn't flat. And then geometry did the rest to seal that deal.

Bottlenecking opinion into only that which is fact is fine and good for practical purposes, but you don't introduce new ideas by outright denial of things which are not yet fact.

Denying an idea kind of requires it has been introduced - or rather created. Besides I wasn't engaging in denying ideas, simply stating why commonly hold ones of a mystic and ancient notion just don't stand up in the light of modern science. Denying an idea is a silly thing to engage in. Pointing out the flaws in an idea is another matter altogether.

By your logic, a soul cannot exist because we have no evidence to support its existence.

No, by my logic I retain the right to assume souls don't exist until shown otherwise.

However, isn't it also an equally viable theory that souls exist and we simply do not have the evidence to prove it?

No. That's a hypothesis. And it's the sort of hypothetical structure that leads to all sorts of fallacy.

The fact is there is no evidence for or against either argument, so either is perfectly viable.

There is no evidence against a lot of things. Like our world leaders being shapeshifting lizard aliens that are part of a globalist giant conspiracy.

The point here being that if you make a claim it's not my responsibility to give it any consideration unless you're going to at least attempt to back it up with evidence. Otherwise it's merely groupthink and personal preference as to whether or not I'm a crazy alien lizard man or the second coming.

If you prefer to state they do not exist, that is your opinion, but at that point, you would be "picking the idea you prefer the most."

Well I've certainly stated a cogent reason for their non-existence - namely they are superflous to requirements for explaining human behaviour, this being backed up by the fact we now know far more about the operation of the brain now. As the OP stated we know the heart is a pump, not the centre of emotion. We should not trust our subjective introspection on this matter because the conclusions can clearly be shown to be wrong!

That's not picking an idea I most prefer - it's pointing out the flaws in proposing a immaterial soul. I've already stated that the idea of using soul as an abstraction for behaviour doesn't count here - that isn't proposing the existence of something extra to explain things, just a label for existing mechanisms. I don't have a problem with that.

Until that point, shooting down people's arguments because no evidence exists exists is just as invalid as believing one side of the coin and insisting it is true.

No, it's totaly valid. An argument without evidence, no matter how perfectly constructed, is worthless.

The most perfectly constructed argument for alien lizard men doesn't make them real!

Well that's not so. Generally people who assumed the world was flat did so because they perceived it as being so - it's a naive view. Sea-faring civilizations like the Greeks must have realised at some point that the fact that you can see ships climbing over the horizon means the Earth isn't flat. And then geometry did the rest to seal that deal.

Sea-farers were the ones who believed in giant squid, mermaids, and sirens out in the vast oceans. They weren't the type to be scientific about it. Not to mention, believe it or not, you can't see the curvature of the earth from the middle of the ocean.

It was Columbus who finally suggested that the world was round, and I don't think it was easily accepted as fact.

Denying an idea kind of requires it has been introduced - or rather created.

Stating that souls exist is not an idea?

Denying an idea is a silly thing to engage in. Pointing out the flaws in an idea is another matter altogether.

Where I come from, pointing out flaws is denying an idea. Ideas are conjectures from premises which lead to a conclusion. You cannot deny the conclusion if you accept the premises. Therefore, if you want to disprove an idea, you disprove the premises which make up an idea.

There is no evidence against a lot of things. Like our world leaders being shapeshifting lizard aliens that are part of a globalist giant conspiracy.

Actually, I'd think we'd be able to test that. However, presuming we couldn't, it would be a viable theory as well. That's the main difference between you and I. According to me, a theory is viable if it is not disproven. To you, a theory is viable if it is not disproven and it is accepted by modern scientists.

Now while I'm not going to run around claiming that our world leaders are shapeshifting lizard aliens part of a globalist giant conspiracy, for all intents and purposes, it *could* be correct.

No, it's totaly valid. An argument without evidence, no matter how perfectly constructed, is worthless.

What evidence is there which supports your claim that there are no souls? If there isn't any evidence, is your claim not worthless as well? By that logic, any theory which is for or against the existence of god, angels, aliens, parallel dimensions, etc. is entirely worthless. I get the impression you feel that believing that such things do not exist is not a worthless theory. I could be wrong, but then why are you debating for a 'worthless' argument?

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

Sea-farers were the ones who believed in giant squid, mermaids, and sirens out in the vast oceans. They weren't the type to be scientific about it.

Sure. But nobody ever said that because you might some right observations you can't make a whole load of wrong ones.

Not to mention, believe it or not, you can't see the curvature of the earth from the middle of the ocean.

Well, yes you can - that is the point. If you watch a far off ship coming towards you the first thing you see is the mast. The ship would appear to rise out of the sea. The conclusion? The Earth ain't flat.

It was Columbus who finally suggested that the world was round, and I don't think it was easily accepted as fact.

That I'm afriad is pure mythology. The idea that somehow Columbus was pioneering a great new theory of a spherical Earth and had to fight tooth and nail against the ignorant masses who laughed at him and persuade the aristocracy of Spain to fund his adventure to find a Western route to India is just wrong. The Greeks not only proposed a spherical Earth long before that they even utilised geometry and some handy obelisks to get a fairly accurate calculation for the circumference of the Earth.

Stating that souls exist is not an idea?

No, I'm pointing out that it's illogical to say being skeptical prevents the creation of new ideas if the ideas have to be presented before skepticism can ensue.

I cannot be skeptical of non-ideas.

Where I come from, pointing out flaws is denying an idea.

No, denying an idea would be refusing to acknowledge its existence. That would be silly.

Ideas are conjectures from premises which lead to a conclusion. You cannot deny the conclusion if you accept the premises.

Well firstly I can deny a conclusion based on conjecture since that term firmly implies an incomplete reasoning process. Conjecture is inference from incomplete evidence, as such any conclusion may very well not be sound.

Therefore, if you want to disprove an idea, you disprove the premises which make up an idea.

And if the premises are just made up without any evidence I can safely dismiss the idea without any problem.

Creating a self-contained argument is all very well but if you want to imply that the argument applies to the real world you can't just say the argument is sound and graft it on. That is engaging in ontology.

Actually, I'd think we'd be able to test that.

You propose how and I'll tell you why you can't ad infinitum.

You see when you can just make stuff up you can also make up more stuff for why the previous stuff can't be tested. This is an essential ability for anyone who wants to proclaim the ridiculous because actual inquiry may be substantially damaging.

However, presuming we couldn't, it would be a viable theory as well.

No. To be a viable theory requires more than just a hypothesis. That is the whole point. You want to make theory synomonous with guess and I'm trying to place a little more rigor into this.

According to me, a theory is viable if it is not disproven. To you, a theory is viable if it is not disproven and it is accepted by modern scientists.

Wrong. According to me a theory has to be a hypothesis that has some evidence for its truth and the ability to predict the existence of other evidence that does not contradict it. That is also what a theory is according to science.

According to you a theory is a wild guess and every wild guess is as valid as the last. That method of inquiry has, as I've pointed out, been less than sucessful at producing any results.

Now while I'm not going to run around claiming that our world leaders are shapeshifting lizard aliens part of a globalist giant conspiracy, for all intents and purposes, it *could* be correct.

Yes, so again I'm left to point out that the unprovable ideas you do choose to use to affect your behaviour are merely the ones you personally find tenable.

What evidence is there which supports your claim that there are no souls?

There is no evidence for souls. They are not necessary entities.

If there isn't any evidence, is your claim not worthless as well?

How would you propose I go about gathering evidence to show something doesn't exist?

The reason why the claimer has the burden of evidence is that generally it is not possible to have evidence for the non-existence of things, since they tend not to leave non-evidence around for people to find.

By that logic, any theory which is for or against the existence of god, angels, aliens, parallel dimensions, etc. is entirely worthless.

I've not met one yet that isn't. The only difference between the arguments is that some accept that they are only hypotheses and others pretend to be proofs - generally in the case of the supernatural.

For example there are no serious scientific alien theories. There are hypotheses on the existence of extra-terresteral life and attempts to gather evidence but anyone claiming to have met them or otherwise should be met with extreme skepticism.

I get the impression you feel that believing that such things do not exist is not a worthless theory.

Actually I take the rather sensible standpoint of assuming non-existence until shown otherwise. And then I like to point out the folly of placing imaginary constructs as placeholder explanations for natural phenomena.

I could be wrong, but then why are you debating for a 'worthless' argument?

Not entirely sure what your point is.