Do animals have souls?

Check out this thread: God as the source for man's creative explosion.Thats where I think it happened.

My beliefs differ. I think that only humans have souls. Well, if the human soul is unique and different than the other souls, I would refer to the human soul as just 'soul' and all the others as non-souls (or some new word to discribe them). Adding in all this extra stuff is unneccessary, to me, and makes the situation more confusing. I have no reason to believe that other animals have souls, so I don't.

Well, I guess I don't speak it. You were. It was just more detail than I've ever put into it. I haven't really thought about it that much. Maybe later.

That statement has at least two errors.One is the claim that there is no evidence to support a soul. Slap an 'objective' on there and I'll give it to ya but your inability to observe the evidence does not negate its existance. There are plenty of us out here with subjective evidence for our souls.The second is the claim that the soul does not accuratly decribe the world. You cannot know this and shouldn't make this claim. I'm sure you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nobody has presented objective evidence. Plenty of us claim to have subjective evidence of our own souls. The claim that evidence does not exist should not be made unless you throw the objective in there. The claim that no evidence has been presented stands but that was not your original claim. False. There could be stuff/things that exist that are not scientifically detectable. For all practical purposes, the assumption that they do not exist works great, but it remains an assumption. My subjective experience suggests that my soul does exist and the lack of scientific detection doesn't convince me otherwise. I disagree. I think the impact on the world occurs in the mind, which lies somewhere between the physical and spiritual realms. Thats what I meant. I meant what you meant. It was a bad cut n paste job. But it still remains that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science (and you) assume it does not exist and, with the principle of parsimony, it it the proper thing for science to do, but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).

---

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"

Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place. False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless. That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently. I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it Oh but it seemed like you did. That's the whole reason I jumped in this thread. See my Message 221. It was a reply to what you typed in Message 218. You later clarified that the "it" was refering to 2ice's hypotheisis and not the existance of a soul. I was confused by the ambiguity. That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist? I say yes, you say no. Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it) Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists. You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it. How do you know your not being fooled?

Conversely, if you rely strictly on evidence that can be presented and examined by other people, how do you know that you're not being fooled? I don't, really, but I don't believe that I am (realizing that being fooled well enough means you don't think your being fooled). Its a judgement call, just whip out your bullshit detector. My says that the soul does, in fact, exist.Also, other people I've talked/typed to have similiar feelings on the subject so I don't think it is strictly subjective, it just isn't scientifically observable*. Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.*My opinion on that is that the soul shouldn't be objectively verifiable because then there would be no reason for faith, which I believe is something that god wants to exist.

I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I expressed it poorly.I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist, then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable. But the feelings are "verified" but other people's feelings, albeit a very unscientific method.

But we are all interpreting something. This seems to suggest that something is there. They have not been shown to be purely physical. There is a lack of evidence of a trigger outside the brain, but it takes the principle to assume that without evidence, it does not exist and is only physical. To me, it seems to be different. I don't limit my feelings because of science. Well I don't think it has been shown that they are molded by expectations.You could say the culture causes the feeling, I think the feelings caused the culture.And it definately hasn't been shown to be physical without the need for that assumption(which probably isn't possible).

Yeah, that works but remember that it must be objective evidence. Right, so if the soul existed and it was something that you had to look into yourself to find (obtaining subjective evidence), it would not be something that we could not investigate scientifically. This failure of science should not be a reason to conclude (or assume) that the soul does not exist. Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality. #4 is fine and the one I have been using.

quote:

---

peculiar to a particular individual

---

That’s why your line above makes no sense. If we are experiencing it and testing it then it is no longer subjective. I conclude it from my subjective experience. When I look into myself I see a soul in there (figuratively speaking typing). I test it when I ask friends and they say that they’ve found their soul too. Not being able to scientifically/objectively verify the existence of my soul does not take away from the experiences I have already had. It isn’t a reason, for me, to stop believing in the soul. For the sake of honesty I have to agree with what I think is true. I also believe that the subjectivity is important because if we had objective evidence for the soul (and God) then belief in it/him would be the default and there would be no need for faith (which is something that god must want us to have). Damn, good luck. Its reasons like those that I’m glad I’m done with school. Yes. How about optical illusions. You can have a subjective experience that something is moving when it is not. Other people can see it too and you’re all wrong. I am very well aware that this is possible with my experiences with my soul. This possibility doesn’t outweigh my belief. The probability of getting it right is worthless to whether or not it is right. I check myself too and I still feel like I have a soul so I continue to accept its existence. If your using something that has a limit to what it can detect to determine what is real then you could very well be missing out (being fooled). If you have had no experience with your soul and really don't think you have one, then that's fine. I just don't think you should use the lack of scientific discovery to be the reason that you don't think it exists. Becuase if it is real and does exist, science is not gonna find it and neither are you.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : struck out the extra 'not' in my sentence with the unintentional double negetive

---

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"

If the soul exists and interacts with the physical world through the mind via some section of the brain then your senario would be expected. The demonstation that there is some brain activity involved is not evidence that the mind and the soul are NOT involved. Certainly there is no evidence that they ARE involved and the principle of parsimony removes them, but I believe in the soul already and this is not evidence against it, IMO.

...and it will quickly end if I remain strictly scientific.There is no objective evidence for the soul so it should be assumed to not exist to maintain parsimony. Yeah, same difference to me, I got the impression you meant unversity and I just use the word school for any intructional institution.But Wow! that looks like a really nice place! Is it expensive?Here's where I went: Home | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Nothing really that specific and definately not scientific. More of a musing or searching within myself to see if I still 'feel' my soul, kinda just questioning my own beliefs and talking to others. Plus I've looked in to scientific studies on consciousness and the mind etc. but nothing to exhaustive. The only property that it really has is the seemingness of its existance. I've alreaded stated that I don't think it is scientifically detectable, and purposely not so. The closest thing to it is the physical causes of consciousness and the mind and the science in those areas is underdeveloped and not really finding too much.

I can't describe it scientifically and I'll pribably do a poor job describing it in any way. Its kindof a hard question to answer, like, 'What does 'red' look like?'But anyways, my soul seems to exist and I have a feeling that it is a part of me and affects/is-affected-by me. It manifests constantly and subtly, it you could hear it, it would be like a low hum. If you could see it, it would be like a faint glow. Like I said, its hard to describe. I think my soul and my body interact, through my mind, and with others' souls, through their bodies/brains--->minds--->souls.I'll leave it at that for now, maybe you can prod me with further questions and I can describe it better.

Thats what I was trying to do with:

quote:

---

It manifests constantly and subtly, it you could hear it, it would be like a low hum. If you could see it, it would be like a faint glow.

---

Is that too poetic and vague? Tell me what red looks like so I can get an idea of what you want. No. Can you?I think they did this thing where they poked at peoples brains and induced religious experiences and claimed that the brain was the source of them. I don't think this eliminates the possiblility of the soul being responsible for them as well, especially if the soul is tied to the brain via the mind.

It just has to offer to who? Me? Certainly not. You? Whatever floats your boat.Let me repost some of the things I've typed in the previous messages in this thread.

quote:

---

Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.

​

but it takes the principle to assume that without evidence, it does not exist and is only physical. To me, it seems to be different. I don't limit my feelings because of science.

​

I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist, then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.

​

Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.

---

You get where I'm comming from? 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.