Forum Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: March 10th, 2014, 7:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

- March 2014
What if the Soul existed
   March 13th, 2014, 12:58 am

Search Blogs

Advanced search (keyword or author)

I know that many areas of study such as psychology, neuroscience, ethics, philosophy, etc. are divided among the areas of science and social science. Science and the scientific method tries to eliminate human error/biases and it is based on a descriptive approach of trying to understand the 'irrational' world where value doesn't objectively exist. (through the lens of a subjective mind trying to be objective)

Social sciences, such as the study of law, economics, philosophy, ethics, etc. make claims that these human based fields aren't relativistic and are in nature objective.

(example william lane craig (a philosopher) claims that objective moral duties exist, a notion against Michael Ruse, (an evolutionary naturalist, one who believes humans are materialistic byproducts) who stated - "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an 'objective something', ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory.").

If the human soul is proven to exist [not god], then would this debate among ethics be settled? such as the main difference between Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill about the groundings of ethics [human pleasure, motive and well being vs some sort of teleology (of human nature) and virtue that exists outside of us and should be followed regardless of consequences (sounds kinda arbitrary to me)]. As we see, js mill's view hold more weight because it is more measurable, but if the soul should exist, would then the groundings of aristotle or kant beliefs based on human nature be justified as apposed being considered arbitrary (or anything for that matter which grounds itself based on human/subjective mind; like economics, justice system, mathematics, etc.)?

Also, wouldn't this solve how we can appreciate art and not robots or AIs? Human rights? how our state of happiness can influence our physical health? how math and logic, which are the building blocks/road maps of our physical universe could somehow connect with our logical and mathematical mind, and actually prove that there is some higher truth that exists that every human can somehow sense or is capable of understanding through a highly developed consciousness? (william lane craig's argument - " My claim that mathematical truths are confirmed by the evidence for our best scientific theories plays a crucial role in the most widely discussed argument for the existence of abstract mathematical entities, like sets for example")

If the soul exists, would the nature of subjectivity, existence of value/worth, sentience, spiritualism, free well, nature of theology metaphysics, etc. would the nature of these things change to a more empirically or scientifically true (or carry similar weight objectively)? Would they no longer be human invented, or no longer be arbitrary/ illusory? would the way we think of human biases, subjectivity change? Would claims about human beliefs be considered more seriously? etc. Would issues concerning dualism, AI, mind uploading, abortion, etc. be wrong in some way? would this resolve any issues in the world, existence of theism/deism? Would anything change or would it impact the way we look at the world? (example the debate within ethics, whether morality is based on relativism or objectivism) etc...

I really don't know what characteristics the soul would have, like either being something transcendent, a form of consciousness that's from a higher dimension plane, that somehow is independent of the human body's condition (the brain would only act as a medium for it to interact with our 3rd dimension, our world, and body) a super natural entity (perhaps like ghosts or spirits, or the ability that enables others to have a sixth sense or telekinesis or even predictive power of the future) some form of energy (probably predictable by mathematics, or through logic (like the discovery of boson particles) or like anti-matter would be close to impossible to prove through empirical proof). etc. I really don't know the main characteristics or qualities the soul would have based on the proponents of dualism, 'that believe that the soul exists' would have to take. ... 7023a.html ... of_mind%29 ... -a-neurosu

Notice I'm not arguing for or against the soul existence, I'm just asking hypothetically 'IF' it existed and it became objectively true, (this question is within the realms of fiction I believe, but who knows?)

The essence of this question is that I'm doing a research paper in ethics, having to do with if the soul existed, how would that change subjectivity, human values, and the weight that our subjective minds hold (in the sense that products like a justice system, economics, arts, philosophy, theology, ethics, etc. could hold empirical, or objective weight or if they could in a sense be part of reality and not illusary). If not would the existence of the soul not really change our perception of reality or what we consider subjective or metaphysics?

Here are more articles that I've been reading: ... cal-truths ... dy-dualism ... ciousness/ ... sciousness

and the book, physics meets philosophy at the planck scale contemporary theories in quantum gravity - Craig Callender, Nick Huggett

This isn't a question of "Am I real and does everything that I see really exist?" and it isn't about evidences for the soul existing. It's as straight forward as it sounds with a lot of examples included, If the soul existed, how would our perception of reality change, and subjectivity and the products of subjectivity (economics, justice system, philosophy, ethics, arts) and is human reasoning entirely subjective or are beliefs based on human reasoning alone enough to be justified, or are they objectively speaking (in the sense of reality) illusory? And how would all of the examples/questions that I listed be affected?

0 Comments Viewed 228 times

Who is online

Registered users currently online: Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]