Active Users:1151 Time:23/11/2024 12:27:37 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" Burr Send a noteboard - 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM
It's an empty placeholder for an explanation. Science at least provides a partial explanation of the unknown by describing the boundaries of what we know. If you say the soul is whatever human qualities haven't yet been discovered by science, then the soul theory is falsified every time a scientific discovery about humanity is made.


I'm just saying a soul is an explanation, if an unprovable one (as things stand). Think of it less as a "scientific theory" and more of a "philosophic idea" :P


But what I'm saying is that it's not even an unprovable explanation, because it's not an explanation at all. Positing a spiritual soul is no more an explanation than positing a nonsense wordthing like uqweroiuejr. "The uqweroiuejr lies on a uqweroiuejr-like plane of existence and explains knowns X, Y, and Z, even if we can't prove it." Whether it's provable or not doesn't even matter, because we haven't yet said anything meaningful other than implying that we can't yet explain X, Y, and Z. As a philosophic idea, the soul is useful only as a placeholder, not as an explanation.

Note: I'm not necessarily trying to persuade you to agree with me. As a practical matter, it may be that some brains more efficiently by assuming the existence of spiritual substances. In fact, maybe on some subconscious level my brain does believe in spiritual substances and makes me the better off for it. I'm just trying to clarify why I don't bother believing in them on a conscious, rational level.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 14/09/2009 at 08:17:51 PM
Reply to message
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe? Lordling - 14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM 821 Views
no, it is mostly hydrogen *NM* random thoughts - 14/09/2009 02:43:47 PM 246 Views
No *NM* Insolitus - 14/09/2009 03:01:32 PM 224 Views
not a chance *NM* clam - 14/09/2009 03:23:02 PM 233 Views
yes (in as much that we could choose to define it that way) LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 03:31:40 PM 614 Views
On a gut level, I think all substance is teleologically tied to one or more kinds of consciousness. Burr - 14/09/2009 04:03:31 PM 555 Views
aaah but who says we can percieve all there is to percieve in relation to our persons? LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 04:14:08 PM 518 Views
But merely positing a soul (as a spiritual substance) doesn't actually explain anything. Burr - 14/09/2009 07:46:35 PM 494 Views
i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 07:50:27 PM 551 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" Burr - 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM 553 Views
Carts and horses. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:10:22 PM 684 Views
No *NM* Monkey - 14/09/2009 05:14:33 PM 227 Views
Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? jh - 14/09/2009 05:27:09 PM 552 Views
Re: Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? Lordling - 14/09/2009 06:20:45 PM 528 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things Matrimony Cauthon - 14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM 565 Views
That sounds very like gnosticism in many ways. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:17:51 PM 572 Views
No. *NM* Entophile - 14/09/2009 07:06:59 PM 222 Views
define "spiritual'. Avendesora - 14/09/2009 07:36:18 PM 498 Views
Rum. Craig - 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM 555 Views
YES! *NM* Elaine - 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM 254 Views
How are we not married? *NM* Craig - 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM 230 Views
Bigamy laws. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 19/09/2009 03:49:59 PM 211 Views
My Achilles heel! *NM* Craig - 19/09/2009 07:30:06 PM 234 Views
Timing *NM* Elaine - 21/09/2009 12:51:37 PM 224 Views
My Achilles ankle! *NM* Craig - 21/09/2009 08:14:42 PM 241 Views
Your Face. *NM* jh - 21/09/2009 08:21:44 PM 223 Views
My Achilles face! Craig - 07/10/2009 09:40:36 PM 451 Views
No *NM* Dragonsworn - 14/09/2009 09:09:16 PM 213 Views
No *NM* Camilla - 14/09/2009 09:31:14 PM 228 Views
Yes, vodka. *NM* Stephen - 14/09/2009 10:02:19 PM 212 Views
Substance? Great Lord of Chaos - 14/09/2009 10:08:04 PM 515 Views
Yeah, boobs. Vodalus - 15/09/2009 01:51:44 AM 500 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably. Joel - 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM 542 Views
Look, don't put words in my mouth. jh - 15/09/2009 04:50:13 PM 571 Views
Sorry. Joel - 15/09/2009 05:14:10 PM 500 Views
Re: Sorry. Burr - 17/09/2009 09:20:58 PM 473 Views
People over-complicate this, it's a sort of animal abuse Isaac - 15/09/2009 09:03:01 PM 530 Views
Nicely put. *NM* everynametaken - 17/09/2009 01:57:44 AM 207 Views
Very nicely put. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/09/2009 06:57:57 PM 210 Views
A sublte nuance most modern materialists miss. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:21:33 PM 751 Views
I think there may be platonic forms defining purpose Sports_Gambler - 16/09/2009 06:27:36 AM 487 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM 621 Views
One little correction Isaac - 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM 629 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists. Joel - 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM 659 Views
Nay. Burr - 20/09/2009 07:04:47 AM 487 Views
Re: Nay. Joel - 07/10/2009 11:55:28 AM 544 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes