nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − + − ==Criticisms of the soul==+ − Many of the functions which have been historically considered to be functions of the soul have now been determined to be produced by the brain. Areas have been found responsible for memory formation, speech and comprehension, personality, and even moral decisions (Citation needed). As the known capabilities of the brain increase, the remaining functions which can be assigned to the soul decrease. − − The soul is conveniently difficult to dispove - massless, invisible, passing through matter without interaction. No soul has ever been directly observed or indirectly detected - souls appear on no xray, CAT, MRI or other medical scan. Thus the existance of the soul cannot be disproven, and extensive searching has failed to prove it. In logic, this renders the theory highly suspect. − − Even among Christians, details of the soul are frequently debated. In particular, the moment at which a soul enters a human is a subject of contriversy due to its significence in relation to abortion. While many believe the soul enters an embryo at the moment of conception, others point out that this presents problems with the 'conservation' of souls in situations such as identical twins and chimeras, which result respectively in two individuals from one embryo and one individual from two or more. Were the soul to enter at conception, this would imply that identical twins have only half a soul, while chimeras have many. Attempts to determine later points at which an individual may aquire a soul have not produced a significent agreement.
See talk, also keep section on experiment to measure the weight of the soul
Most Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human [[will]], [[understanding]], [[morality]] and/or [[personality]].
Most Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human [[will]], [[understanding]], [[morality]] and/or [[personality]].
Scientists generally ignore or dismiss the soul as unsuitable for study. To be precise, the [[methodological naturalism]] of modern science is unable to handle the concept of the soul. Anything which is not material is deliberately excluded from consideration, and as the soul is not a material thing scientists accordingly refuse to study it. This has implications for the study of human [[Psychology]].
Scientists generally ignore or dismiss the soul as unsuitable for study. To be precise, the [[methodological naturalism]] of modern science is unable to handle the concept of the soul. Anything which is not material is deliberately excluded from consideration, and as the soul is not a material thing scientists accordingly refuse to study it. This has implications for the study of human [[Psychology]]. There is also the question of when the soul enters the body, as this is important for the debate on [[abortion]] from a theological position.
It should be noted that there was once a study made at the turn of the 20th century of the loss of weight at the time of death. The scientist doing the measurements concluded that this loss of weight was due to the soul leaving the body. No known attempts to follow up his work have ever been made.
[[category:religion]]
[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:philosophy]]