Neurosciences tell us that we don't have a soul?

[tonychanyt]

Prof Jerry Coyne said:

Neurosciences tell us that we don't have any form of freewill, we don't have a soul.

Some neuroscientists may argue that humans lack a soul. The soul is a metaphysical concept. Scientists cannot scientifically prove that we do not possess a biblical soul. As a scientist, Coyne should have known better than to say that Neuroscience has made such a metaphysical claim.

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from Bibliology & Hermeneutics to Physical & Life Sciences. ​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[SelfSim]

Prof Jerry Coyne said:

Neurosciences tell us that we don't have any form of freewill, we don't have a soul.

Some neuroscientists may argue that humans lack a soul. The soul is a metaphysical concept. Scientists cannot scientifically prove that we do not possess a biblical soul. As a scientist, Coyne should have known better than to say that Neuroscience has made such a metaphysical claim.

Hmm .. I'm of the view that there's still some scope for what is commonly referred to as 'Free Will' amongst science's deterministic and random models of the physical universe.

I have no idea what 'a soul' is though. A 'biblical soul' is an entirely different matter however .. because that tests out as being a pure belief by the scientific thinker.

 

[NBB]

The Holy spirit can show things to christians, The soul has the mind yes spiritual mind, feelings, and your heart, the bible talks about the heart a lot.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It would be better to say that a soul is unnecessary to explain the phenomena.

 

[tonychanyt]

I have no idea what 'a soul' is though. A 'biblical soul' is an entirely different matter

See Technically, what is a soul? and follow up there

 

[Larniavc]

Prof Jerry Coyne said:


Some neuroscientists may argue that humans lack a soul. The soul is a metaphysical concept. Scientists cannot scientifically prove that we do not possess a biblical soul. As a scientist, Coyne should have known better than to say that Neuroscience has made such a metaphysical claim.

There's no evidence to suggest souls are real.

 

[tonychanyt]

There's no evidence to suggest souls are real.

Define soul and evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

Define soul and evidence.

Well given that you haven't provided any objectively testable evidence, whatsoever, for 'what a soul is', other than personally held definitions, a scientific thinker would remain unconvinced that 'a soul' exists in objective reality.
This is my reason for stating that I have no idea of what 'a soul' is. I'd therefore remain in that same, intellectually honest position.

(Evidence is what remains in support of an hypothesis or theory after objective testing .. conducted via the scientific method).

 

[tonychanyt]

a scientific thinker would remain unconvinced that 'a soul' exists in objective reality

It didn't bother your anterior cingulate cortex when you wrote the above?

According to the metaphysical definition of a soul, it is not a scientifically measurable entity. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a scientifically measurable soul. I am not trying to convince anyone that a soul exists scientifically. In fact, my point is this: discussing a soul scientifically is meaningless, but scientists like Coyne do it.

 

[SelfSim]

It didn't bother your anterior cingulate cortex when you wrote the above?

May I ask; what's you point there?

According to the metaphysical definition of a soul, it is not a scientifically measurable entity. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a scientifically measurable soul.

Once again, the notion of the existence of a 'soul' can be easily demosntrated as being an untestable model (or a belief), using the scientific method.

By 'a belief' there, I mean:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Objective tests, followed by the application of logic rules, is a necessary condition).'

I am not trying to convince anyone that a soul exists scientifically.

Ok .. thanks for that clarification. Much appreciated.

In fact, my point is this: discussing a soul scientifically is meaningless, ..

Not necessarily.
As I've hopefully pointed out above, a 'soul' is well defined as being a belief in science .. and that's not meaningless.

.. but scientists like Coyne do it.

I don't feel compelled to defend Coyne's opinions .. (so I'll choose not to do that).

 

[tonychanyt]

a 'soul' is well defined as being a belief in science

Go ahead. Define 'soul' operationally in scientific terms.

 

[SelfSim]

Go ahead. Define 'soul' operationally in scientific terms.

I just gave an operational test definition for what 'a belief' is.

What 'a souls is', is consistent with that definition. (I'm basing that conclusion on an abundance of similar tests/results in the threads of this forum on the topic of 'what a soul is').

 

[tonychanyt]

I just gave an operational test definition for what 'a belief' is.

See Operational definition - Wikipedia

 

[SelfSim]

See Operational definition - Wikipedia

Yes I guess I should've counted the number of times the myriad of debates on 'what a soul is', produced strong evidence of, and consistencies with, the definition under test for 'what a belief is' .. (but hey, I reckon this thread will produce plenty more of them).

 

[Larniavc]

Define soul and evidence.

I go for whatever definition of soul and evidence you select as part of the discussion you started.

 

[tonychanyt]

I go for whatever definition of soul and evidence you select as part of the discussion you started.

See Technically, what is a soul?

 

[tonychanyt]

I should've counted the number of times the myriad of debates on 'what a soul is',

Go ahead and write an operational definition of a soul in your next reply. Make sure it satisfies the requirements of "operational"

 

[SelfSim]

Go ahead and write an operational definition of a soul in your next reply. Make sure it satisfies the requirements of "operational"

I did .. in posts #11 and # 15 .. It appears that you just don't recognise it.
Why is that?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It would be better to say that a soul is unnecessary to explain the phenomena.

Just wait 'til the find out what particle physics has to say.