God V Science (again)

close
more_vert
stray S
stray Sep 17, 2008 11:59:49
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
It works, and it unites evolution and religion, but you need to reeeeally want it to.
Sure, but this is an issue for Philosophy (or even evo. psych. perhaps) and not for science. I mean this in terms of debating the issue of the soul with religion as to it's existence. Any description of a soul, in terms of any faith, cannot be dealt with adequately by the scientific method. Therefore, science cannot effectively argue against it without actually seriously compromising its method. You see what I mean ?

Or do you have a physical experiment that can prove the existence, or lack of, of the soul other than a subjective (or at best a sophistic) argument ?

Obviously if you have a faith then you have to attach some kinda purpose to life, or more accurately faith creates it. The concept of a soul is a shorthand way to create a purpose. So is an afterlife, but again, as we're dealing with Christianity here (as no other faiths are pushing their creation myths quite like they are), the christian concept of heaven and when/how you get there is very, very wooly to say the least.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Sep 17, 2008 12:33:53
Replying to stray

"Any description of a soul, in terms of any faith, cannot be dealt with adequately by the scientific method."

No of course. Souls lie beyond the reach of science so science has no business denying their existence.

But science - or rationality - does get a small handle on the question of the existence of souls when it asks a believer the simple question - so when in the evolution of man from "animals" did man first gain a soul? If the answer makes you giggle, because it implies the first possessors of souls had parents who didn't have souls, the rationalist can claim that his guess looks rather more sensible than the guesses of the faithful.