Philosophy is fun in that annoying kind of way, like when your little cousin discovers that he can ask ‘why’ to everything you say especially answers to ‘why’ questions.
Here’s an argument I’m wrestling with at the moment. It argues against the view that who we are (our personal identity) is carried by our soul:
Souls cannot be observed directly but only indirectly by observing psychology, specifically personality and memories. Since sameness of physical body correlates with sameness of psychology, we conclude the general rule that sameness of body equals sameness of soul. However, suppose other souls can have similar psychology. If the soul inhabiting a body were to be replaced by one of these, there would be no noticeable difference and it would be impossible to know whether a person possesses the same soul from day to day. Far from being essential to our identity, the soul is instead found to be completely irrelevant. It makes no difference to our conception of ourselves or others as people.
That’s the argument in my own words. It looks much neater using symbols, algebra-style, and I’m worried that my expression of it misses something or changes its emphasis. In any case, it is a pretty powerful argument. What would you say to it? I might post my thoughts later.
(Incidentally, I rang Dad to get his ideas on it. He doesn’t think we have souls… apparently that’s what he was taught at Bible College… I wasn’t expecting that.)
In case were interested, here is how I formulated it in symbols:
Situation:
We correlate Body A (call it BA) with Psychology x (Px) because they are coincident in all our experiences. We assume Psychology x to indicate Soul X. Thus, we conclude that Body A is soul X (call it SX).
ie Assume Px = SX
Notice BA with Px repeatedly
Inductively reason BA always with Px
Conclude BA always contains SX
Problem:
Imagine SY and SZ also have Px. How can we be sure that it is always and only SX? If we can’t, isn’t S irrelevant?
ie Assume Px = SX = SY = SZ
…
Cannot conclude BA always contains SX
BA can have Px without SX (eg if it has SY)
Therefore SX has nothing to do with everything we know about people (BA and Px). It makes no difference whether it exists or not. So it cannot be the basis of our identity.
you know your the only blogger i know that comments first his own posts haha
Hmm, yeah I’m not sure about the whole soul thing either – I just checked with Drew and he thinks the same.
Can you think of any Scripture that suggests we have souls? Hmm, I’m not sure … Soul? Spirit? Different? Same?
I also don’t think we have souls. Are you asking though if the soul of a person was replaced would we be able to tell? Well if as you say you equate the psychology of a body with the soul, as in Soul IS psychology, then yes quite obviously. UNLESS it was replaced with a psychology the same as or containing the original psychology.
So for example if a persons brain was scanned by futuristic robots and replaced with a new, robotic brain that had all your memories and could mimic your thought patterns and behaviours…. It’s still a DIFFERENT psychology, but to use it would APPEAR to be the same old one and we wouldn’t know.
I really don’t know the point you’re trying to make though.
Michelle, I did a quick search of the internet before making this post. I found sites arguing both ways. The more convincing of the two I scanned was arguing we have mis-translated the word, or if translated rightly at least associated it with wrong ideas.
This site was pretty good. The hebrew word, nephesh, is first used of animals.
Healy, the argument isn’t mine – I actually tried to refute it. The point of the argument in the post is exactly what you said: if psychology appeared the same, we wouldn’t be able to tell if it swapped – so, even if it exists, it clearly isn’t the fundamental basis of who we are.
I might stick up my answer to the argument later.
VK, haha of course! It gets the ball rolling at least
I haven’t finished reading that link, so I’m just thinking out loud … but what would be the purpose of the soul? Typical understanding is some sort of immaterial essence of a person that continues on after death, yeah? So, still thinking out loud … what’s the point? Especially considering we anticipate a corporeal resurrection (not totally sure if that’s the correct term, but I mean, we’ll have bodies – Jesus didn’t return as a ‘spirit/ghost’)?
But then, you know how the witch of Endor ‘channels’ Samuel? What’s going on there? She doesn’t raise him physically to life again to have a chat … and the resurrection hasn’t happened, so what goes on in the interim? … questions, questions …
Great topic!
Hahaha I’m glad I’ve got you thinking Michelle! You seem to know more about it than me. I agree, it does seem a little pointless… sort of.
Yeah, I’m not sure what to think. I wish I had more time to look into it more thoroughly.
Even if souls aren’t biblical, I’m not sure the argument against them is rock-solid. I think I’ll post my essay tomorrow. That will officially be the longest, driest, densest, narrowest post ever on TCA
‘know’ more? Hardly! Goodness, I ‘know’ very little, I’m just speculating.
Bring on this essay then …
Don’t get your hopes up too high
I was referring to: “You know how the witch of Endor ‘channels’ Samuel?”
Ummmm nope?
Yeah, you know, Saul gets her to contact him. 1 Sam 28:3-25.
I’ll look it up. Thanks