I just replied to ramos in the "Do animals have a soul thread?" and realized that it was totally off topic and might be able to be turned into a new topic so I figured I'd propse it.
quote:
I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.
The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent.
The counter argument could be that we'd have to assume that everything exists if we don't assume that nothing exists without detection. I think this is a little overboard. There are things that people profess to exist that science has not dicovered and I think its important for science to continue to assume theses thing do not exists, but I don't think its good for other people to completely write these people off because science doesn't see it.
Assuming that something exists that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable (without getting into how), would it be completely unknown to science? Would science fail in the discovery of this thing? Should we only believe in things that science can find? Should we take that assumption, without scientific detection things don't exist, and apply it to our entire lives?
I'd say no, because, to me, it seems like my soul does exist. While this might be some sort of detection, it isn't recognized by science, so it is assumed to not exist. I don't think I should go ith science on this one. Especially when my soul is apparent to my self. I just wouldn't be being honest with myself. That is when science becomes a religion.
Whadaya think?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling mistake
Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
™ Version 4.2