The purpose of this presentation is to explore varying viewpoints on whether or not the soul exists and come to a conclusion on the issue. We will look at arguments for the existence of the soul from both secular and Christian sources as well as arguments against the existence of the soul in the form of naturalism. Let’s begin with arguments against the existence of the soul. For the most part, arguments and reasoning held by those who do not believe the soul exists have a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism by definition is a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. From this definition we can see why people who believe naturalism is true to believe the soul does not exist because the soul is not physical nor natural, but instead spiritual and supernatural. Because Naturalists discount spiritual and/or supernatural explanations for anything, they are subsequently atheists as well. Belief in the existence of the soul is rooted in the belief of the existence of God, therefore arguments presented against the existence of God are also arguments against the existence of the soul. For this reason we will examine arguments against the existence of God.
Some of the brightest minds in our world today are atheists. Names such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and Sam Harris are interwoven into popular culture. Let’s look at some of their arguments against
René Descartes believed that the mind and body are separate; that the senses could not always be trusted, but that because we as humans are able to think about our existence, we possess some sort of entity separate than our fleshly body. I believe this separate entity to be a soul”an immaterial and
1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)
In the Myth of the Soul, Darrow argues against different conceptions of immortality. One of the arguments that he presents to us is that we have a soul that can survive our death. Darrow argues that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul and questions where the soul stays within our body and when it enters our body. His arguments are to be further evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses as he tries to counter a belief with a long history particularly, in religion.
One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this
Religious individuals are viewed as illogical and even delusional, while those who claim to be atheists are seen as more intelligent. Sam Harris, a prominent atheist, made a statement reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson’s view on Christianity in a recent podcast. “It would be possible for you and I to invent a religion, right now, that was better than any existing religion.” His ‘religion’, he continued on to explain, would simply be a collection of benevolent rules to enforce moral behavior. To Harris, while the the majority of religious beliefs are outrageous, the moral framework they provide is beneficial to society. Another prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, took a stance much closer to Thomas Paine’s in a speech titled Militant Atheism. Faith and reason, Dawkins argues, are incompatible and completely destructive to each other. “Not only is science corrosive to religion, but religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural, non-explanations, and blinds then to the wonderful, real explanations that we have within our grasps,” (Dawkins). Whether Dawkins chooses to recognise it or not, the modern Catholic Church is still using logic to find its own wonderful, real
Wendell Berry in “God, Science, and Imagination” condemns the central theme – nonexistence of God of Steven Weinberg’s essay “Without God”. The critique is all about his discontentment of Weinberg’s argument and says it is just Weinberg’s opinion and everyone has right to put forward his/her opinion but he refuted the notion of nonexistence of immaterial soul and God when science is just to prove or disprove the material existence of the universe.
Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist. This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question. McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.
Although explicated on many occasions and by many different authors, the teleological argument for the existence of God provides the best springboard from which to launch contemporary convictions of faith. In the revised edition of his earlier The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne constructs a solid outline that reveals the exact structure of the teleological argument. He presents both forms of the teleological argument , holds each under the light of skeptical review and then provides insight and defense that allows for careful philosophical review.
Summary: The problem of the soul continues as Descartes suggested that the human is composed of two completely different substances; a physical body which Descartes compares with a machine, and a non-physical mind, related to the soul, that allows humans to think and feel even if it has no “measurable dimensions” (67). But Elizabeth put in doubt his ideologies when she realized that a non-physical thing doesn’t have the strength to push and move the body. This led to several questions unanswered and also let space for other materialist theories such as behaviorism, mind-brain identity, and functionalism, which also fail in offering an explicit solution.
Does God exist? This question has been in debate for centuries with many opposing views, some arising from philosophers on the same side while others refute Gods existence altogether. However for this particular paper I will be taking the best explanations approach. What I mean by this is I do not have proof of God’s existence but the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe around me. With this statement in mind we will discuss arguments in support of God’s existence as well as philosopher H.J McCloskey’s article On Being an Atheist.
In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’
In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.
The philosophical thought is that the mind and body are two separate things; with one being able to exist without the other has caused much discussion and debate among philosophers and theologians over the years. René Descartes and Plato, two well-known philosophers, argue that people have a mind or soul, which is somehow connected with the body, but the mind or soul can exist independently from our body. Descartes introduces the mind-body argument while Plato presents the soul-body argument. Although the arguments differ in some ways, Descartes and Plato also have similar opinions on the issue. As a person of faith, there is some difficulty in explaining to a non-believer that when a person dies, the soul does not perish with the body. While siding with Descartes and his belief in a perfect God, this essay seeks to review the issues of dualism and meditation, through the eyes of Descartes and Plato.
The idea of the soul varies widely in religious tradition. While these variations exist, its basic definition is unvarying. The soul can be described as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The soul is seen as the core principle of life or as the essence of a being 1. Views on the permanence of the soul vary throughout religious tradition as well. While some view it as a mortal entity in flux others believe the soul is an immortal and permanent unit. These interpretations vary from time period to time period and between religions. These characteristics of the soul are interpreted differently through an Eastern or
I believe there is a soul, which also is the mind, and a physical body. The argument that supports my belief the best will generate from the concept of a persons thoughts. I reject the belief that everything that is real must be in physical form.