There's been some research which suggested that strong "spirituality", which in my opinion would be associated with belief in "the soul", is associated with good health. (http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050414/cacioppo.shtml) Perhaps this effect is traceable to indirect effects of belief (such as sociability, resistance to depression, etc.) but I think that, at least, the research tends to establish that there is little or no harm in spiritual belief, maybe it is even good for you. I think the article suggests that if you could prove the soul exists scientifically (by something like a change in weigh at death) then it must not exist because the soul is supposed to be weightless. I think the common use of the word soul, described in the article, refers to an intangible positive quality, metaphorical to the idea of a human soul, which serves as an intangible positive influence. It is intriguing to me that "alma mater", which is usually translated "nourishing mother", was an affectionate name the Romans used for a female deity, but the word alma in modern Spanish means "soul". (So perhaps there is a connection between your alma mater and your school spirit.)

Bernard Schuster
Arrive2.net

"When a minister tells parents at their son's funeral that they will see their son again, and his soul is in a better place, I cannot dismiss it or heap scorn on it. If we professors hear this language as a description of reality, then we're bound to be irritated by the issue of truant evidence and the lack of warrant. But if we hear it as emotive hope, then our objections fall away. "

What if the minister really means, by this language, the dead son has a literal soul and the parents will literally see him again? This in fact seems the most likely interpretation. So that's ok if you "hear" that statement to actually mean something that the minister didn't intend?

Really?

<Comment removed by moderator>

This article seems rather dated. Science has disproven the existence of the soul? Philosophers just follow what the scientists say? Thankfully, for those of us who have made it to the 21st century, philosophy is more diverse than this article assumes -- Aristotle and Augustine are back in some philosophy classrooms, and yes, not just as emotive expressions but as decent attempts to describe reality.

The arrogance here is unbelievable. Students have to take their core beliefs and have them reduced to folk language so that this prof and his ilk don't "heap scorn" upon them? How sad.

Perhaps the soul idea persists because our ways of talking about life and mind tend to be from the outside, atomistic, dry--in other words, soulless. Used to taking things apart, we grow blind to the interrelations, symbols, images, and meanings that cluster around life's vitality and pulse. No wonder our students resort to crackpot explanations for how life works: empiricism narrowly practiced has left them no alternatives. To expect otherwise is like locking up the gourmet restaurants and then wondering why people eat at McDonalds.

I have to say I feel at once saddened and, to an extent, hopeful, as I read this piece. Imagine being locked in a box the size of this one, and struggling to break out of it. The struggle is the hopeful part. As far as the cognitive box goes.....Yikes...

All of the "science" and "philosophy" rhetoric is painful to observe...Like watching someone buried alive by academics just realizing they may be able to get out...Keep struggling...It will be worth it, though it may not happen in this particular lifetime...

Soul is meaningless word in scientific age.I know that one is illusion.But when you think spirituality how can you avoid the word soul?.What may progress science will do it never give meaning to us.How can man live without motive or intention?My observation is science increasing our hopelessness,making us vegetable, couch potato.If science is impotent to give meaning to life man naturally turn to spirituality.

"The soul has been a dead end in philosophy ever since the positivists unmasked its empty referential center."

Teaching a proper skeptical attitude to students is indeed valuable. Such skepticism should, however, include a healthy disbelief in any 19th century idea trotted out as "modern" during the second decade of the 21st century. I sincerely doubt if you will be able to find a single successful, practicing scientist trying to induce a theory out of a bucketful of atomic facts, as Wittgenstein and his followers parodied the method.

I should be more charitable. You are trying to feel yourway into a place where statements can be built out of something other than atomic facts and still have meaning. In doing so, however, you are treading down an old road, blazed by Carnap, Kraft, and Popper over 80 years ago.

"All meaningful statements can be reduced to atomic facts" cannot be reduced to atomic facts. If so, why prattle on about the need for sentences to express atomic facts? Some sentences do, others don't, and (in terms of meaningfulness) that's an end of it. What does this do to your cruel reductionism of your students' naive beliefs?

Good article. I'm a retired engineer who writes a blog for our grandchildren.I like to peek in every so often to see what budding journalists are writing about.My thoughts on the soul; We live in 2 realms. The realm of things provable ... and the realm of things not provable.We usually put science and religion into these 2 categories.I believe Scientific thinking and Spiritual thinking are converging. However, they can never merge. It seems that things provable and things not provable are very important to the human brain. The key is to not to try to turn science into religon and not to try to turn religion into science. Science has brought us to the actual physical interface between what is provable and what is not in the cosmos. The event horizon of a black hole is such an interface. Death is a another physical interface. We can imagine how the soul,(our thoughts),can continue out into space forever after death. This is one of those seemingly impossible dreams that makes life worth while.

Interesting article, thank you. It seems the author raises a question of social construction of “soul” vs. understanding of the actual phenomenon which, as he seems to suggest, we can not study (yet) due to limitation of available scientific tools. It is difficult to see, though, how a study of a social construction could lead to a desired understanding: the soul talk itself is a product of specific social circumstances which generated ideas/conceptions of what soul “is” (and which, therefore, may have nothing to do with the actual properties of soul, if, indeed, it is an “intangible” entity possibly existing in realities still undiscovered). Being a non-native English speaking student, I could add that a study of a soul talk in other language may be helpful in constricting an intellectual history of this concept rather than in providing called for “paradigm shift” in understanding. It would be fun to see the author adopting methods coming from other cultural contexts and for a moment the worldview which led to him to question non-existence soul at the first place.

Mr. Asma, following the existing paradigm of academic philosophy, rightly ridicules metaphisical speculation on the nature of the soul. But the progress has often means re-examining long held assumptions, mostly forgotten and buried under the weight of scholastic tradition. To allow ones self to believe that verification of the soul, if it exists, will never be possible is the fast track to considerable humiliation. Thus arguments against the soul may have been correct for all of history, but that current view is now being challenged on the religious front by a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ that will have considerable ramifications for both philosophy, theology and religion.

Using a synthesis of scriptural material drawn from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the world's great poetry, just as in the beginning, a new teaching describes a single moral LAW, a single moral principle, and offers the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a individual intervention into the natural world; 'raising' up the man,  correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Ths infusion of insight into the 'soul' intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge,  this personal  experience of  transcendent power and moral purpose is our 'Resurrection', and justification for faith. Here, on a perfectly objective foundation of moral principle and virtue, true morality and 'Life' begins.

This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable and 'extraordinary' evidence  based truth embodied in action. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must now measure for itself, the reality of a new claim to revealed truth, a moral tenet not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof of both God and soul, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief! 

Revolutionary stuff for those who can lay aside their prejudices and presumptions and test this new teaching out for themselves. Trails are already under way. Check it out at http://www.energon.org.uk

I'd like to dispute this statement:

"Like other expressive forms, soul talk in ordinary folk language won't have much theoretical interest, because it is rarely, if ever, trying to explain a phenomenon."

There is great theoretical interest in ordinary folk language: theory of language, theory of intention, theory of social psychology. And ordinary folk language most certainly addresses phenomena, though they are more likely phenomena of the social, mental, or linguistic realms, rather than the physical realm.

This is not a small point: The goal of philosophical analysis is not purely with statements of physicality, but with all statements whose broader and deeper understanding will give us clarity of insight. Understanding how we interact on a personal level with those around us, or understanding how our minds fashion language to express our thoughts--these are goals of philosophical study, even as is understanding how we match (or fail to match) physical reality with linguistic constructs.

Astonished disappointment is my response to Mr. Asma and all the authors, theories & notions to which he refers and at least partly describes. He, they and all the respondents who entered comments, here, are whirling in orbits around the subject, as it were, in a 'solar system' of which none penetrates to the center. They have not located it, but clues have always been available, increasingly so in the 20th century. I believe I reasoned my way several years ago to the solution of what mystifies so many. I have just finished a small book on this matter. Pertinent sections, essays, can be seen [don't shudder] on my Facebook page under the Info tab and also through Belinda Subraman's page under Discussions tab, which opens a forum called "Mind-Aid: Rational Discussion on Crucial Issues." See the longer posts of Robert M. Shelby under the topics: "Religion" and "Spirituality & Religion".

The fact is perhaps amazingly simple, though the argument leading you to it may seem rather complex, "outside the box". Like finding a cobra under your kitchen chair, you will marvel that you never saw it around the house, before. It won't bite.

Excuse my misdirection, re. Facebook. You'll find those essays under my Notes tab, not Info.

<Comment removed by moderator>

May I please urge the author to read (at least) the final chapter in C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and then to please read every single word of Dr. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man"? The first is vernacular. The second is scholarly.

Dr. Clive Staples Lewis was an eloquent and convincing atheist until another master of language, J.R.R. Tolkein, intervened and had a certain influence on the Soul of C.S. Lewis. After the process of his conversion from Death to Life began, Dr. Lewis employed skills of discernment, eloquence, mastery of analogy and the written word in his stand for the Christ.

Mr. Stephen T. Asma's sly attempt here to un-couple the Soul, and talk of the Soul, from their real meaning is another example of the "post-modern-post-christian" fever of ignorance and intellectual deconstruction that now burns unabated throughout the academies of western civilization.

It is sad and embarrassing when intelligent people work so feverishly to deny the existence of their own Soul. Using their great intelligence to convince innocent, trusting youngsters that lies are truth is, however, something more than embarrassing. It is the worst kind of immorality. The word for such immorality is e-v-i-l.

In his stand for Jesus of Nazareth, Dr. C.S. Lewis writes a surprising defense for Darwin's theory of evolution in the final chapter of "Mere Christianity". On the other hand "The Abolition of Man" is strictly secular, strictly scientific, and horrible in its conclusion. Mr. Asma is sure to have an intuitive grasp of, and appreciation for, Dr. Lewis' theme should he choose to read "The Abolition of Man."

When Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's Souls." he was not invoking an airy poetic concept. He was stating a fact. We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Oy, vey. Such pompously sophmoric posturing by a theoretician of verbiage, a semantical null, as if it all meant something, would be embarassing in an undergrad.

Who are you, Mr. Asma, to dismiss "quantum treacle" for instance? Do you even understand the concepts of quantum theory or the anti-intuitive reality of it? I doubt it, because if you did, you would be a physicist, not a philosopher. If you could, you might have a little more humility and not be so wedded to 19th century conceptualizations of the universe encoded into philosophical straitjackets. The foundations of your certainty are as faith-based as any Baptist; they are just dressed up in the preening finery of depressing reductionism founded on outmoded concepts of physics.

This is a perfect expression of the arrogance and ignorance of a typical Anglo-American philosophy professor. Since when is all philosophical thought required to follow upon the heels of the physical sciences and their empirical language, reducing everything else to "emotive hope"?

As jhochsch has pointed out, any "self-respecting professor of philosophy" should know that Plato's Republic, Aristotle's De Anima, Augustine, Descartes, Hegel, etc., are all fundamental philsophical writers that can be read seriously, not as emotional expression, but as rigorous attempts to describe reality from a philosophical standpoint. Clearly you haven't tried very hard to determine what *they* mean when they write about the soul.

The soul has been dead since the 19th century? Damn, and here I've been going to Church all this time!

I've taken philosophy as an undergraduate and quickly learned the lesson that trying to espouse a view different than the professor (or TA marking my assignment) will simply result in a lower grade. So I happily regurgitated the same clap-trap that Prof. Asma is peddling here, took my B+, and moved on. I hope your students see past your condescending attitude which presupposes that only advanced-degree-holders-in-philosophy can hold the ultimate authority on the existence of the soul.

As a scientist, and a believer, I agree with boomernews. Science and religion are but two lenses through which we perceive our world and ourselves. One will not, and is not, meant to replace the other. But both offer valuable views on our experiences in this universe.

If any undergraduates are reading these types of articles, or taking philosophy courses, please understand that not all faculty out there share the views held by Prof. Asma.

Philosophy, religion, and science are refer to certain verbal and nonverbal practices of communities of speakers. Each of these nonhomogeneous communities have ways by which their members are enculturated into them. One of the defining features of these communities is the way they talk about the world. Whether what they say about the world somehow is congruent with what the world is really like is not necessarily important, as long as that talk is reinforcing for the maintenance and preservation of the community. Of course, these practices may have consequences for these communities in short or long term. They may also lead to clashes between communities, involving derision, dismissiveness, and even physical conflict. This is most unfortunate and seems to be the bane of the human species. The thinking species seems to also be the species which is forever at war with itself.

I'm a self-respecting and student-respecting philosopher and I am not the least bit hesitant to discuss the soul in class with my students. But whose theory of the soul are we to discuss?

Prof. Asma's entire discussion is premised on the assumption of a Platonist or Cartesian theory of the soul. The substance dualism of Plato and Descartes is indeed hard to square with not only modern science but also personal experience (which Descares himself recognized).

But there is more than one philosophical theory of the soul to be considered. To echo Prof. Hochschild's comment, Aristotle anyone? Aristotle's hylomorphic dualism is receiving deserved discussion among serious philosophers these days and being put to good use as an explanatory theory.

Dear Professor Asma,
I was involved in the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury for many years. I finally left the field a few years ago because I finally realized I was deluding myself that scientists and/or physicians have any interest in re-examining their ideas on what gives anyone the basis to declare just what we mean by the word 'rational' and the word 'irrational'.

You make the same mistake that I think most of us 'higher learners' do. Rationality only is a 'reasonable' term/ a term of accuracy if it is seen strictly from a mathematical point of view alone. When you give it just a basis in language it can become a chameleon.Just reading your article again confirms to me this error.

Philosophy cannot divorce itself from physics nor from neurophysiology. Science itself is only an accurate type of philosophy if its rules and customs of mathematical truths are in fact true and not false. Thus science itself and its subsequent philosophical principles must live or die as a way to get through life if and only if it is based upon mathematical principles that are correct. So the crux of your discussion of the soul and how it is involved with the idea of the brain must finally must rest upon, as Bertram Russell once said, the accuracy of the mathematical principles that the human being has 'accepted' as 'truth'.It is this territory that no one will cross.

I have asked many a psychologist what they truly mean by the term 'cognition'? I gave a lecture about 7 years ago on how this term is really simply a term we use as a tool, not as a 'truth'that can be confirmed to be a real brain process. My gosh you should have heard the squirming. It was as if I stuck a arrow through the heart of their idea of reasoning.

My issue with all of those who only see existence through the prism of philosophy or physics or psychology or neuroscience is this: Does it make mathematical sense?

I have gone back over the basics of the number line itself. Wittgenstein himself rightly called it into question. He did not agree with what we did with it either. What we did was create a mathematical system that confirmed our Cartesian view of existence and that zero is a 'real' number. The problem though is zero is not a number that can work in any wave formula whether it involves light or EEG patterns. But the idea of zero is the basis of modern thought,of modern philosophy, and of modern neuroscience (and thus no need for a soul if you truly have a continuous and materialistic brain as the source of life). Thus zero is made to work out as the answer to our questions about life and soul and God.But you can't stick a zero into a natural system of existence where it simply cannot ever exist!!

The speed of light is a rational number. It cannot ever have a frequency of zero nor a wavelength of zero. If it did then there would be no light. What we see is entirely based upon what is rational and thus what we 'see' comes to us in a rhythmic discontinuous fashion (and as every sensory process must work)and such a process can never ever accept zero into it. Zeno was right when he denied continuous movement for there can neve be continuous light nor a continuous ensory process.

I've proved this to myself. Thus all I really have is my soul if what I perceive comes to me in only a rational and discontinuous process. To think what we sense is from a continuous world is simply impossible. How perception fools us all... but maybe not forever...maybe we can learn to re-examine this....

It might be worthwhile for all of us to get out our grade school math texts and wonder- how can the definition of a 'rational' number change from where x/y times y/x=1 if and only if x and y can never be zero.....to.....an idea that x or y can exist with a denominator of zero, as calculus tries to get us to believe. I simply do not believe it anymore. Newton was wrong...change occurs discontinuously as does light as does sensation ...they cannot occur continuously.... thus we all proceed at our own risk...if we all do not face this error.
Rationality must come down to what it means in mathematical terms only. And when you realize this, it makes you see that perception is all a rationally discontinuous process that is made to seem to be a continuous one...

I am a professional philosopher and work entirely within the analytic tradition. No I don't particularly want to discuss the soul in class, but this article is fifth-rate rubbish. The Wittgenstein-fanboi 'emovitist' approach has nothing to do with rationality. It is an attempt to bully people into allowing that statements which pretty obviously have descriptive meaning, lack it. I am distressed that analytic philosophy is allegedly represented by tripe long past its expiration date.

I absolutely cannot stand these articles by academics, intellectuals, "schoalars" who do not reference their broad statements. Stephen Asma essentially says in his first paragraph that someone (philosophers? scientists?) have proven that there is no soul. Really? Cite us the relevant papers that prove this so that we can go back and see what methods they used, determine the truth of this statement. Humans have believed in souls, spirits, demons, for tens of thousands of years, and billions still do (one billion muslims, one billion Christians, millions of Orthodox Jews, millions of Hindus, and others). I don't suppose that the experiences of billions of humans throughout thousands of years constitutes proof of a spiritual world, but I have certainly never seen a scientific paper that incontrovertably proves the non-existence of souls. Philosophers such as Asma just assume their positions, then expect everyone to believe them over their own inner lives and experiences with people they love and trust. I will take the experiences and testimony of Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Johann Sebastian Bach, Emily Dickinson, Tokien, C. S. Lewis, over the unproven theories of Asma, every day and always.

A scaled back version of the Wittgensteinian view that Asma expresses, and the view that the intent of some soul talk is referential are not mutually exclusive, unless there is some reason to think that terms are always used univocally and for a single purpose. I think the difficulty here is that the expressive functions are almost certainly intertwined with the referential functions in complicated ways. If that's right, then Asma's apparent, Wittgensteinian, hope that the referential element can be deleted and the uses he values preserved unchanged may not be in the cards. Certainly the Buddha thought that realizing you have no self can have a profound, transformative effect.

I think the religious folks who were offended are being oversensitive. The more charitable view of what he is trying to do is to say, suppose that you believe that an immaterial soul is incompatible with science. Does that mean that all the things we care about that we express through soul talk go by the wayside, or is there a way of salvaging them? Obviously if one rejects the "suppose", the project is unnecessary. Obviously it was no part of the article to prove that the soul does not exist. But apparently just broaching the topic without endorsing religious conviction is enough to send some people into a tizzy of condescension and outrage. Weird. Confidence in one's truth should look more... confident.

With apologies to Shakespeare:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Stephen T., than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Here are some other ways we can use the word "soul":
"When I say 'the soul is immortal', I'm not expressing an emotional attitude."
"When I talk about the soul, I'm not talking about my own emotional preferences."
"When I say 'Her soul is in heaven', what I mean is that a certain entity, her soul, is in a certain place, namely heaven."
"When I talk about the soul, I never mean what Dr. Asma insists that I must be meaning."
"Prof. Asma has no soul."

Even Prof. Asma admits that statements like "The soul reincarnates," or "Her soul is in heaven now" have "metaphysical connotations. Expressions like "ouch!" and "yummy" do not. In virtue of what do those statements have metaphysical connotations? In virtue of saying, of something, that it does or is a certain way. And that's a description of reality.

More importantly, the strategy of disabusing the students of their beliefs in souls in this way is self-defeating. If they actually do mean what Asma insists they mean, then they won't be surprised and won't change a single one of their beliefs. At best, he'll provide them with "reminders" of what they already know. And if they are surprised or change their beliefs, then they didn't mean what Asma assures them they must mean.

No way has positivism showed the soul's empty referential centre, no way has science shown it does not exist. these outlooks have merely defined the soul as such, by fiat and pompous pronouncments, and maintained the delusion by handwaving and special pleading.

You, the author, still want to use the idea of "soul" in discourse after denying its meaning and existence? that is merely a piece with the thinking of religious liberals who want to continue whistling in the dark, using religious language after denying its meaning: lazy thinking

Of course Mr Asma has defined his terms in the logical positivist manner. He assumes that the narrow definitions of science as it stands are axiomatically true, so all he is doing is rolling out the implications of his own thought system. As cheerleading this is all very well and good, but he gives no reason, compelling or otherwise, why anyone not of his religion (and scientism is a religion) should believe him

I do have a Self. That is for sure. It can be inferred because I think and I act, seemingly with free will. What has free will? It must be my Self. What else could it be?

This Self while changing some of its priorities and beliefs seems to have some sort of unchanging core because I continually identify with my Self, exactly as I had done so previously. Therefore, despite changes to my personal situation, my aging body, for example, or my changing personal environment, or changes to the outside world, my Self continues in some unchanging form.

If I have a Self, as do you, as does everyone, and that self continues to exist despite changes to physical, measurable things on what apparently to my Self is the surface part of life I think it begs the question do I therefore have a Self that might live on past this body? How connected, for that matter, is my Self to what seems to be another part of me, my body?

The issue is not whether you have a Soul. I don't see how one can determine whether you have a Soul until you determine what is your Self. How can you decide whether a part of you lives on until you really know what is you? I think dismissing the Self is absurd and the question of how to define Self and what Self actually is is a matter for critical scientific enquiry. So far science has seemingly avoided the question of Self. So, it gets to avoid the question of Soul. Of course students want to talk about Soul, because they want to know who and what they really are.

I'm not a philosopher, but my request to all the pro-soul commenters trying to "open Dr. Asna's mind" by criticizing this article: Why not let academics be academics? Even if you choose to hold beliefs that aren't backed up by science, you must concede that there is still a need in the world for purely rational scientific thinking, even when it comes to the issue of the soul.

What is upsetting about this article is not so much its absurdly dismissive tone ("no self-respecting philosopher..."--really? You just called a significant number of academically serious philosophers fools), as it is its naive treatment of this subject. Nobody who has ever taken seriously so much as a single page of any philosopher except for a logical positivist will find the "argument" in this article silly at best. But then again, it is not as though The Chronicle is striving for anything like logical rigor in its pieces - what more should we expect than to find out-dated, naive, not-much-better-than-freshman-philosophy reflections?

Ah, soul a mia!

Comments 2, 24, 26 & 28 are sensible and on target. Yes, there is an emotive/expressive charge often associated with the word "soul." But this is a silly reason to claim that it is not used referentially.

Lots of emotionally charged words refer, e.g. prison, divorce, cancer (to take some negatively charged words -- my apologies for the bummer). And yet there are (really) prisons, divorces and cancers.

Asma's analysis is eccentric by the standards of mainstream philosophers of mind (yes, I am one of them), in agreement with many non-professionals here. This encourages me.

However, I am disheartended that many here are also scandalized by philosophers daring to be (1) boring (2) in definance of mass opinion or (3)religious orthodoxy or (4) having the gall to think that scientific knowledge needs to be squared with our other beliefs.

It's true that the ancients didn't worry too much about the problem of how there could be souls -- the problem of how to fit souls into the scientific world-view, doesn't (can't) arise until there's a scientific world-view available to fit things in. This, of course, didn't happen until somewhat recently (i.e. >400 years ago), but trust me, the difficulties long predate positivism (I hope Dr. Asma realizes that Princess Elizabeth was not a positivist!).

The soul is the essence of the person, the 'heart' of what he or she is. To say that their 'soul' lives on is to say that what they essentially are lives on.
But then how can one define that 'essence' without reference to a 'body', to a physical reality? And how can we relate that 'essence' to a life- history, to a story of change, of growth and development and decline?
How can we have a coherent and sensible sense of the 'soul's' continuing, and our own future life?
One way of thinking would say that we cannot , and that the whole process involves in impossibility and logical contradiction. Another way of thinking would say that Divine Mystery is beyond human understanding, and human Hope too has to be beyond our own full understanding. This way of thinking which is my own is to then think, hope, and even believe that the answer is with God, and nothing we humans can surmise.

Here is a quote from Dr. Lewis' conclusion in The Abolition of Man

"If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race. If the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a real value, then so is conjugal fidelity. The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in."

Good Sunday to all!

It's a matter of speaking. I get where he's going with this--to be inclusive of all perspectives for their aesthetic worth--if only a linguistic trope. I would be remiss to say that both Religion and Science don't both inform and counsel our lives. These are matters of expression, even if antiquated or imperfect in their semantics, (just like language never can accurately convey the thingness of things or the metaphysics of non-things, wasn't that Roland Barthes?) These are lenses through which we view the world. But, like James Joyce said, "Wash thy glosses with knowledge..."

I personally think that to "do" philosophy, you have to leave the classroom. There are no solvable philosophical problems that do not require the existence of a body in motion.

The problem with academic philosophers is they don't, figuratively, want to leave the hallowed halls of Truth they haunt.

To be specific, you speak of a belief in a soul as either a misunderstanding of science, or some form of chosen irrationalism. Yet, to make this claim you need to have actually evaluated the evidence in favor of a soul--defined here as that which remains conscious when your body ceases functioning.

Patently, you have not done that. The evidence is clearly such that an educated, reasoning person is justified in believing something survives. The trick of Scientism is not to rely solely on physical evidence, but rather to define in advance what CAN be true. Once that is done, whole realms of potential evidence are removed from the table, at which point you can simply point to their absence. This is irrational. It is inconsistent with an empiricist mindset, which is that of SCIENCE, not Scientism. REAL scientists are skeptical. Skepticism means refusing to believe OR DISBELIEVE in any phenomenon for which evidence exists, prior to careful evaluation.

You have not done that. Rather, you have mistaken an assumption for a fact, then proceeded from there. Wittgenstein, by the way, was no atheist, as far as I can tell. He simply felt you could not speak coherently about internal experiences, which was a perfectly congruent position. He also had a distaste for religiosity, which was equally reasonable.

Without a concrete problem to solve, some plan of ACTION to initiate, philosophy is worse than useless: it detracts from our potential knowledge. This is my understanding of Wittgenstein's underlying worldview, and I share with him a distaste for ungrounded navel-gazing.

If you are going to think, ask yourself what problem you are trying to solve. What problem are you trying to solve here? Understanding your students? You have not done that.

I think that it might helpful to point out that "soul talk" is not as dead as logical postivism.

If you deny the existence of the soul, there are still many questions to be answered: how is there personal identity through time, what makes humans inherently valuable (if you want to say that they have inherent value), how do you explain the existence of qualia and an account for near death studies needs to be given. (tossing them aside as rubish without giving reason is just as irrational as postulating that a soul exists without giving reason.)

If belief in the soul "dead" why does one of the leading North American Philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, affirm dualism? Furthermore, philosophical greats, Aristotle, Plato, Descartes and Kant all believed in the existence of the soul. I could name other modern philosphers who are respected and affirm a belief in the soul, but is that really necessary?

Thomas Nagel, John Searle and David Chalmers, well known philosophers, though they don't believe in the existence of a "soul," they are highly skeptical of the present materialist accounts. All three have brought forth telling criticisms of materialists accounts.

That being said, please be respectful of other people's views. Your rationality and respectability is in the end.

I must be missing something here. It seems the author's points are:

1. Souls do not exist.

2. People use the word "soul" to express lots of things, many of which have nothing to do with the literal meaning of the word.

I agree with both points and I don't understand why it took an entire article to express them. Of course, I never did get philosophy. It always seemed to me that philosophers use a lot of words to say either nothing of significance, or something that could be said much more concisely and clearly.

When you mix theology with philosophy, you get stuff like this:

"the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a individual intervention into the natural world; 'raising' up the man, correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Ths infusion of insight into the 'soul' intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this personal experience of transcendent power and moral purpose is our 'Resurrection', and justification for faith."

Huh?

Hmm ... some seem to share a belief that if one can't 'prove' something via a 'scientific' method, then it doesn't exist. If one can't measure it then it doesn't exist is the practical corollary for many.

However, absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. And just because we haven't (yet?) found a way to measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

BTW - for those of you who 'believe' in modern medicine - try this on for size. Most of modern medicine practiced in the United States today is NOT based on evidence. This is the prime finding of our evidence-based movement. So, do you then disregard your doctor's advice because not based on rigorous scientific method? No? I didn't think so ...

So much for stated belief, actual belief based on acts ('acts speak louder than words'), and man's proclivity as a rationalizing being, not a rational one. Plenty of accumulating evidence that many decisions are based not on rational analysis, but 'gut' feelings then rationalized.

Such as statements that souls don't exist, and we have to square everything with 'science,' as if science has an answer for everything that counts -- anything that can't be measured doesn't count ;-)

"However, absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence."

This is true, although trivial.

I want to believe that there is a planet in our corner of the galaxy that is filled with brilliant, beautiful, athletic, creative women who have decided that I am the only male they want or need on their magnificent planet. They have developed a treatment that will make me immortal and they are have just developed a process by which they can transport me to their planet.

No one can prove that my little fantasy doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to quit my job, say goodbye to my wife and kids, and start packing.

Right on, "navydad"! Your fantasy does exist and is shared unwittingly until now by many of us fellows-without-fellowships. By describing it you prove it does exist. Alas, the things within our fantasies exist only inside them.

WE ARE THE COMMUNALLY REINFORCED FANTASIES OF OUR INDIVIDUAL SOULS, WITHIN WHICH "COMMUNAL SOUL" MAY BE A FANTASY FOR SOME AND A JOKE FOR OTHERS. Jung, of course, took it seriously, together with a notion of trans-communal or cosmic soul, which is referable to Jung's elegant fantasy.

It interests me rather humorously that (l) my comment #13 above, was followed by another thirty comments prior to this one (#44), none of which evidences its author having read, comprehended or found interest my post. This highlights the problem: minds turned inward on their own contents too intensely to find interest elsewhere, or to be prepared to actually learn something new. They expect themselves to have already thought of everything. ;-) Is this the fruit of great elevation?

Right on, "navydad"! Your fantasy does exist and is shared unwittingly until now by many of us fellows-without-fellowships. By describing it you prove it does exist. Alas, the things within our fantasies exist only inside them.

WE ARE THE COMMUNALLY REINFORCED FANTASIES OF OUR INDIVIDUAL SOULS, WITHIN WHICH "COMMUNAL SOUL" MAY BE A FANTASY FOR SOME AND A JOKE FOR OTHERS. Jung, of course, took it seriously, together with a notion of trans-communal or cosmic soul, which is referable to Jung's elegant fantasy.

It interests me rather humorously that (l) my comment #13 above, was followed by another thirty comments prior to this one (#44), none of which evidences its author having read, comprehended or found interest in my post. This highlights the problem: minds turned inward on their own contents too intensely find interest nowhere else, and are unprepared to actually learn something new. They expect themselves to have already thought of everything. ;-) Is this the fruit of great elevation?

Thanks Dr. Asma - don't let the haters get you down. I'm not an academic, or a philosopher by any stretch of the imagination. Nor do I believe in the existence of a soul or an afterlife; I'm not remotely religious, and neither is my wife.

I had a very influential professor as an undergrad who was a student of Richard Rorty's, and the introduction I received to the Wittgensteinian language game approach to understanding things like "soul talk" has made my life immensely easier. I think I understand what you're saying, and I like it. Instead of feeling like my family, many of my friends, associates, etc are alien creatures because of their belief in things that I just can't swallow, my limited exposure to Rorty's pragmatism and spin on Wittgenstein has allowed me to look at statements that I might find highly objectionable, and just let them slide. I use a tool box analogy. The language of science and empiricism is like a dental pick. Something I use more often than not to make sense of the world around me and get through the day. The language of faith and metaphysics on the other hand are more like a paintbrush - a tool that comes in handy for a certain type of person in certain situations, but a tool I just don't have much use for. It's not like one is right, while one is wrong. And we shouldn't even compare the two of them.

Before I was introduced to this concept and its background (several years ago) I used to take a pissing-match approach to what I regarded as silly and fruitless metaphysical conjecture. If someone presented me with a statement that I found to be highly objectionable, I was inclined to question and hammer away at it in an attempt to disprove it. Now I look at these things and say, "hmmm! How interesting - how do they get value out of this? How is this useful to them?" There's no need to challenge it, and no need to cause a ruckus. It has actually engendered a level of respect for things that I don't think I would have ever valued had it not been for a handful of philosophy courses with this professor. It makes for a very pleasant and fulfilling way to go through life, especially when you're in such a small minority. I'd also like to add that this toolset has allowed me to pursue a marriage and child's baptism in a church despite my lack of belief - something incredibly important to my parents and inlaws, and to achieve levels of solidarity with people who would otherwise have probably wound up as "too other" to really get along with and relate to.

Anyway, thanks for not turning your class into a metaphysical pissing match and for looking for a way to elegantly navigate this thorny issue. Some folks get pretty bent out of shape when there's a disagreement with their notion of reality, even or maybe especially when it relates to questions as inconsequential as "do I have a soul." I don't know much about philosophy, but my feeling is that if people want to use the discipline as a WWF-style cage match, or go down metaphysical rabbit holes that bare few fruits for the rest of society, it's a doomed branch of academia. It's far, far better I think to give us regular folks tools that we can use in the real world. The few classes I had that gave me exposure to these concepts have stuck, have been far, far superior to anything picked up during 12+ years of Catholic school, and have served me well as a military officer and business person. A good deal of life happens outside the ivory tower, and lessons in pragmatism like this have the potential to travel farther I think than introductions to elaborate metaphysics, logical proofs for/against the existence or a higher power, and what most philosophers engage in with each other and their students. *Caveat - ethics in general, business ethics in particular are also incredibly applicable I think.

Please read some Kant, for God's sake. My response here: http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/05/12/an-analytic-philosopher-grapples-with-soul/

Despite being a rather one-dimensional and tone-deaf materialist myself, this article strikes me as not only completely missing the point about soul talk in general but also being almost unbelievably patrionizing to ordinary people ("you're not REALLY saying what you THINK you are saying, dear"). In my experience, even fairly non-denominational persons without academic backgrounds do in fact use the term "soul" in a robust literal sense, and to suggest otherwise is no less problematic than the old "false consciousness" model which Marxist intellectuals used to beat the great unwashed with over their collective heads...

Cognition is a human based term that derives its 'meaning' from the mathematical 'idea' of a set as derived from Set Theory whereby what matters is the infinite sum of the parts of brain function. It derives its very 'existence' from the mathematical idea of 'zero' as the start of both perception as well as the REAL number line. It only can exist as a basis of a 'material brain' if the number line gives human beings a reasonable basis to believe in continuity...in math...and in perception...and thus in reality itself. It comes down to zero being a truly true 'real number'...and that is what modern math has brought to us. And it works out that irrationals even bury rational natural numbers in sheer quantity...just as we try to bury away the idea of a singular and rational soul that Socrates described so well in Phaedo. And how we all forget Socrates warning..."to be good for something and not just good for nothing."

I think what we do with zero and with calculus is simply wrong. The brain's sensory systems have discrete pathways of incredible order and yes there is communication between all these senses but only early in the chain of sensory function. Vision never gets mixed with sound etc. There is no place they all come together except within our 'idea' of cognition. It just does not happen in reality for the EEG tells you that you are dealing with discrete waves that can never allow a zero into its pathways.

Furthermore, you must never EVER forget what comes first in the chain of events- sensation is always before perception. It is what matters in regard to mathematical reasoning versus how we measure perception. Calculus absolutely works well with perception for it is a study that has zero as a denominator whereby event 1 to event 2 occurs continuously. And thus we can believe in our calculus and our materialism and our facts and our philosophies and sciences whereby you can LAUGH at those who believe in an eternal soul. But you fail to grasp the absolute truth that sensation comes in an equation that can never admit a zero just as light itself cannot. Speed of light can never have a frequency of zero while calculus allows it. Both answers cannot be right.

I would recommend that all of us should go back and read Phaedo very carefully. It is a mathematical treatise whereby zero cannot exist. Socrates starts with one and he is amazed that he can both multiply and get 2 as in 2/1 and he can divide and get 2 as in 1/2. He grasps that zero cannot be allowed as the basis of existence. It is now 2400 yrs later.....Planck showed us that the energy unit comes in quanta that cannot admit zero. Bohr did the same with the particle. Einstein did it with the light wave. None of these can come into contact with zero yet how we love zero for it gave us the basis of the Enlightenment.

Well I have said enough. I could go on for days. But those who have laughed away the very idea of an eternal soul 'because everyone else in their field laughs too'....are all standing on very shaky ground..in fact you have no idea just how non-material this ground you take as continuously solid really is. Einstein was correct in his youth when he saw existence as a kind of light show. The study of sensation destroys the real number line as well as calculus as the basis of truth. May we have the courage to reconsider what we have done.

Why should a soul have weight? Have you tried weighing a computer before and after installing/deinstalling software? Does the fact there is no difference prove that software does not exist?
Not saying I believe in souls, but I definitely don't believe in really dumb arguments ...

What you can measure is only what you can perceive. Where you can sense is not able to be perceived and thus cannot be measured by any means. It is hidden away from our universe. Sensation is a 'counting' function (starts with 1) while perception is a 'measuring' function (starts with zero). It is a bit like in the Bob Dylan song, Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts where the soul has been locked away and forgotten in that safe. Rosemary represents the world. Lily represents the human being confused about life and love and reality. And the battle is over the soul. It is a battle between Big Jim and the Jack of Hearts.
here is the last verse of the song...

The next day was hanging day the sky was overcast and black
Big Jim lay covered up killed by a penknife in the back
And Rosemary on the gallows she didn't even blink
The hanging judge was sober he hadn't had a drink
The only person on the scene missing was the Jack of Hearts.
The cabaret was empty now a sign said. "Closed for repair"
Lily had already taken all of the dye out of her hair
She was thinking about her father who she was rarely saw
Thinking about Rosemary and thinking about the law
But most of all she was thinking about the Jack of Hearts.

"No self-respecting professor of philosophy wants to discuss the soul in class." Bullshit. Most any anthology of the sort used in intro philosophy courses from sea to sea contains readings from Plato to Plantinga (well, Plato more often than Plantinga), many of which deal with the soul: what is it, does it exist, if so does it have a beginning and an end, is it a substance separate or separable from the body, etc., etc. Philosophers still discuss the soul - regularly.

One last comment....why don't we put the number zero to the test and calculus to the test?
We love our invention of calculus, for it does 'work' out. It does seem to 'get the right answer'. And it is the basis of the so called 'scientific philosophy' so many 'higher learners' now rely upon. The question though is it right or wrong as Russell said so succinctly? My issue [and I believe I am far from alone here] is it requires the idea of 'zero'in order to have an infinite series at all.
And it matters because everything we do right now in science, and as this article attests to,in philsosophy, and now even in politics and on Wall Street- all totally believe in calculus and derivatives and in the number zero.
But daggone it, no one has ever explained to me in a clear manner why we really think you can do an 'infinite series' which goes between 1 and zero is not only mathematically correct but proper reasoning? Does zero truly exist or is it made up? Heck even Newton and Leibnitz only said the series approaches zero as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64... all the way to 1/infinity. And they say if you go far out enough...infinitely far out...you get close to zero and you get your answer to the infinite sum as 1. And everyone is happy and feeling very 'enlightened'...and the world becomes 'continuous' and you then can have a scientific philosophy where everyone seems quite self- confident....except maybe me...and maybe I am just a dunce. But I still am stuck where Newton and Leibnitz sort of left us hanging whereby [change in 'x'] / [change in 'y'] only approaches zero [0] and one [1] but never really ever get to zero or one ...but who really cares?...just approximate it and move forward...and kill any idea of truth.... I believe it is very wrong to not discuss this for you may be throwing truth right into the garbage can. Philosophically it matters as much as anything else. Rationality itself rests on the question- is existence continuous whereby event 1 to event 2 occurs continuously or discontinuously? As does having a soul...

Here is my dilemma... When I divide 1 by 2 it is 1/2. When I divide 1 by 1000 it is 1/1000. When I divide 1 by infinity it is 1/infinity. And my reason tells me that I can never ever get to zero. The lowest number is always 1. The rules of math where we throw in a zero don't jibe with my reason. Math has accepted zero as a number and thus will say '1/infinity is infinitely closer to zero than to 1. But my reason (excuse me for I am Irish and therefore a pain) tells me zero can NEVER exist. It is made up. 1 is always the lowest number, even when compared with its own infinity which is infinity/1 and therefore the number line, at least a number line that makes sense, cannot ever admit to the existence of zero. It is a made-up number.
And this is correct for the simplest concepts. The square must begin with the number 1 and not 1/2 or 1/4 and so on... The Pythagorean Theorem must start with 1 as the first number in a squared + b squared= c squared. The famous circle equation A= Pi r squared only works with 1 as the lowest number. Einstein's light equation works the same way...you may say you are using a number nearer zero than 1 as in 1 times 10 to the -26th or 1/1 times 10 to the 26th power but to me all you are doing is making a number line that goes from 1 to 10 to the 26th power. There is no need for any zero EVER. Newton and Leibnitz were correct. They did invent an amazing mathematical tool. But even they NEVER EVER said zero truly exists...it just seemed to exist.
So to me it matters to discuss zero. Yes it has helped us go to the moon and fly planes and measure all sorts of things very accurately...but not totally accurate.

The idea of 1 can be put in many ways. it can be 1/1, 5/5, rad 2/ rad/2, Pi/Pi, ....the possibilities are infinite but each one is its own case... 1/1 in a cartesian x,y graph may be 1, as is 5/5 but neither have the same hypotenuse....1/1 has rad 2 and 5/5 has rad 50... and this tells you that what is infinite is the idea of 1...1 can be represented as infinity/infinity whereby infinity can never be zero.

We 'scientists' all accept on a practical level that zero does exist and it gives philosophers the 'room' to say the soul does not exist...only continuous matter exists...and we can explore the nuclear particle and eventually find that 'smallest' one right next to zero as we are trying to do with that Hadron collider...and we can 'explore' 'outer space' too...but it all depends on as Newton and Leibnitz said...that zero can be approached. The problem is it doesn't even exist. If you put a zero in as either the wavelength or frequency of the rational number of light....the light itself goes away...therefore it is irrational to even consider zero as a 'working number'.

But we just keep thinking it is a 'real' number. Zero to infinity made Nietzsche come up with the idea that 'God is dead'. He was able to say, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” And to say,“You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.”

But if you really consider what answer you get with any infinite series of rational numbers you get the lowest as 1/infinity and the highest as infinity/1 and just like the idea of light you get a bigger and final idea of One..one is infinity/infinity...and when you subtract the lowest from the highest you do not get 1 as the 'final' answer but this infinity/infinity minus 1/infinity. We simply deny this as the answer but hey prove what i do is wrong where what I say is 1 never equals infinity/infinity minus 1/infinity...
Light (and the sensation of light) is therefore never ever a continuous function but a discontinuous one. Existence has extreme order and is not chaotic. Nietzche made a logical conclusion to what he learned in math but the math itself is not logical. It is a leap into the abyss that Nietzche and everyone else leaps into.

And just look what is happening all around us...everything is chaotic because we ALL believe in zero. Well I do not believe in it anymore. All I do believe in is that math must be logical as must everything be. If you reason in this manner, all you ever know is that your existence is very 'movie-like'...it comes into your soul in a discontinuously rhythmic manner...your soul can never reside only in a perceptual brain...it must exist in a place that cannot be perceived ......thus true reality must exist someplace else.....and I believe it is God who resides in that other place..... and all I really have is a soul......and that is the truth I live by.....we have free will to choose another explanation but I just don't think Nietzsche was correct...truth only has one place.....

One small test of logic...
Say you have 3 squares- the first with a side of 0.5, the second with a side of 1, and a third the size of 2

the area is x squared so the respective areas of these squares would be 0.25 sq units ,l sq unit, and 4 sq units

you then can convert that 0.5 to 1 and then the first 1 becomes a two, and the first 2 becomes a four and then you have 1,2, and 4
and the areas then are 1 sq unit ,4 sq units, and 16 sq units

and the logic holds that 0.5:1:2 is equivalent to 1:2:4 in 'x'
as well as in area- 0.25 sq unit:1 sq unit:4 sq units is equivalent to 1 sq unit:4 sq units:16 sq units

They seem to be the same...except how can a square with a side of 0.5 end up with an area that is smaller than its side (0.25 sq units)???

I believe the answer that is the only rational answer is this- the smallest square always starts with 1 and it can't undergo any infinite reduction from below 1

Thus in natural equations nothing is ever less than one and if you try to do math in this way you get strange results...but that is how we do math now. It makes no sense to me at all to square any unit measurement and get a number that is less than the side

no number can be used below 1 and still have a rational/reasonable answer...the smallest square, even for 1/infinity is always 1 squared unit