Active Users:1196 Time:23/11/2024 04:43:26 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 822 Views
no, it is mostly hydrogen *NM* random thoughts - 14/09/2009 02:43:47 PM 247 Views
No *NM* Insolitus - 14/09/2009 03:01:32 PM 225 Views
not a chance *NM* clam - 14/09/2009 03:23:02 PM 234 Views
yes (in as much that we could choose to define it that way) LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 03:31:40 PM 617 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 558 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 519 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 552 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" Burr - 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM 555 Views
Carts and horses. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:10:22 PM 685 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 529 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 566 Views
That sounds very like gnosticism in many ways. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:17:51 PM 575 Views
No. *NM* Entophile - 14/09/2009 07:06:59 PM 222 Views
define "spiritual'. Avendesora - 14/09/2009 07:36:18 PM 500 Views
Rum. Craig - 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM 558 Views
YES! *NM* Elaine - 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM 255 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 212 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 225 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 454 Views
No *NM* Dragonsworn - 14/09/2009 09:09:16 PM 214 Views
No *NM* Camilla - 14/09/2009 09:31:14 PM 229 Views
Yes, vodka. *NM* Stephen - 14/09/2009 10:02:19 PM 213 Views
Substance? Great Lord of Chaos - 14/09/2009 10:08:04 PM 518 Views
Yeah, boobs. Vodalus - 15/09/2009 01:51:44 AM 502 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably. Joel - 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM 544 Views
Look, don't put words in my mouth. jh - 15/09/2009 04:50:13 PM 573 Views
Sorry. Joel - 15/09/2009 05:14:10 PM 502 Views
Re: Sorry. Burr - 17/09/2009 09:20:58 PM 476 Views
People over-complicate this, it's a sort of animal abuse Isaac - 15/09/2009 09:03:01 PM 532 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 211 Views
A sublte nuance most modern materialists miss. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:21:33 PM 753 Views
I think there may be platonic forms defining purpose Sports_Gambler - 16/09/2009 06:27:36 AM 490 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM 624 Views
One little correction Isaac - 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM 630 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists. Joel - 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM 660 Views
Nay. Burr - 20/09/2009 07:04:47 AM 490 Views
Re: Nay. Joel - 07/10/2009 11:55:28 AM 545 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes