50 replies to this topic

[MFAHH]

Today, philosophers of the mind find themselves increasingly inclined to eschew the idea that the immaterial soul is the architect of consciousness by instead opting for a more physicalist view. Their scruples, fuelled by advances in neuroscience, have gained widespread recognition. What was once explained by invoking an unknowable, supernatural entity can now be explained to be the result of subtle electric currents pulsing through neurons in the brain. As neuroscience thrives, so to has the plethora of evidence to support it's materialistic claims. The labyrinth that is one's mind is now thought to be reducible to a crude mesh of neural networks. For many, the mind-body dichotomy is slowly becoming a non-issue as science has understood many - and will inevitably understand all - mental and psychological states in terms of material interactions only.

By no means is scientific naturalism/physicalism devoid of difficulties, in fact, many a times evidence is found to oppose it. However, if science were to answer the question of consciousness and how it could arise from inanimate matter; if it were to understand all of the intricacies of the mind - emotions, memory, rationale, experience, imagination, language and so on - in purely physical terms, where would that leave the soul?

More importantly, where would that leave Islam?

Edited by MFAHH, 06 April 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[The Canuck]

Assuming it does explain everything and it's correct/accurate (and that's a big IF), how would that negate the notion of a "soul"?  Even if science could explain consciousness and how it could arise from inanimate matter or however it could arise, I think it still wouldn't negate the meaning of "soul".  Perhaps it may even explain "soul" better, or some aspects and/or mechanisms but I don't see how it could have a negative impact on our definition of "soul".

[Quisant]

Mujahid, on 06 April 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Assuming it does explain everything and it's correct/accurate (and that's a big IF), how would that negate the notion of a "soul"?

'Soul' is quickly becoming an idea which is dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science.

http://blogs.scienti...ty-of-the-soul/

wslm.
*

[Gypsy]

I remember asking atheists questions about the soul; the existence of the soul and what happened to the soul when someone is medically dead. Their response can be summed up in one sentence. Soul doesn't exist.

Why would people who disbelieve in God would believe in Soul or anything supernatural?

I found a web pagewhere an atheist answered some questions about the soul

Quote

Most atheists don't wonder about such things, but prefer to deal with the day-to-day struggles and joys of living. But a few of us do think about such things. We have researched the claims for the existence of a "soul" which can (allegedly) survive the death of the body or which can (allegedly) detach itself from the body. And those of us who have checked it out do not see any reason to believe that such a thing as the "soul" exists.
Instead, we are satisfied with the explanation that the conscious, aware "Self" is established by the structures and the processes of the nervous system, particularly the brain, but working in conjunction with the nerves and the sensory organs. We may not know exactly what is going on or exactly how it works, but we don't see anything that even remotely points to the possibility that a supernatural "soul" exists.

When we use the word "soul" in English, then, we mean a synonym for "person": "Not a soul was at the beach this evening." Sometimes we mean "mind" when we use this word. Only religious people mean "disembodied spirit"; only religious people give this word a supernatural, life-after-death meaning.
As materialists, we atheists hold that matter is fundamental. Whatever else may exist, if it exists, it depends on matter. Thus, if mind exists, it must be a function of matter.

I prefer the materialistic view of consciousness for two reasons. First, we have not found any reason to believe that anything other than particles exist; this is the view of the physicists who study physical matter down to the particle level: all is the matter-energy continuum. Secondly, we have not found any way for a "soul" to interact with the physical brain. Other reasons which push me to lean in this direction include the fact that when a human sustains certain specific brain damage, we can predict how this will affect that person's personality and that person's ability to function.

You can continue reading the page. He quoted some opinion from philosophers.

[Lanatin]

Your only salvation is cartesian dualism.

[MFAHH]

Quote

Assuming it does explain everything and it's correct/accurate (and that's a big IF), how would that negate the notion of a "soul"? Even if science could explain consciousness and how it could arise from inanimate matter or however it could arise, I think it still wouldn't negate the meaning of "soul". Perhaps it may even explain "soul" better, or some aspects and/or mechanisms but I don't see how it could have a negative impact on our definition of "soul".

Indeed, maybe I'm going about this all wrong, but then what role would the soul play if not the endowment of consciousness? Does Islamic belief not entail that intelligence, imagination and identity derive from the soul alone? Is it not the existence of an eternal soul that allows man to excel over other creatures, if not then what does?

We believe that the soul is the stimulus for life and upon it's removal, we die. But does this view accord with science?

The soul gives an explanation for the peculiar aspects of man's being such as morality, thought and intelligence, but if (and your right, that's a big if) science can explain everything, then this Islamic (?) belief of the soul is rendered ineffectual, no?

Quisant, on 07 April 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

'Soul' is quickly becoming an idea which is dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. http://blogs.scienti...ty-of-the-soul/ wslm. *

It's not that it's necessarily incompatible but that positing it's existence, for many, seems unnecessary and even gratuitous.

Gypsy, on 07 April 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Why would people who disbelieve in God would believe in Soul or anything supernatural?

True, but if human thought can be understood in physical terms, why believe in the soul? Will it's existence be disproven?

La, on 07 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Your only salvation is cartesian dualism.

How so? Wouldn't the assumption that all mental activity can be explained through physical processes contradict the position that the 'mind' is a substance in itself?

Edited by MFAHH, 07 April 2012 - 08:32 AM.

[Ishraq]

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Today, philosophers of the mind find themselves increasingly inclined […].

I think you’re overstating the case. But whatever it may be, it’s irrelevant to what the truth of the matter is.

Quote

if it were to understand all of the intricacies of the mind - emotions, memory, rationale, experience, imagination, language and so on - in purely physical terms, where would that leave the soul? More importantly, where would that leave Islam?

Well, there would be no such thing as a ‘soul’ different from the body. There would only be the different material parts of the body, mechanically interacting to produce various other material effects. As far as Islam is concerned, if this view were true, it arguably wouldn't, it seems to me, affect it in any negative way. I say arguably because we could then just take on something like Ash’arite aqida. After all, motivated as they were by accounting for bodily resurrection, they were thoroughly materialist about the soul in thinking that it was just one special kind of material accident (the accident of ‘living’) among the various others out of which the body is constituted.

[Quisant]

MFAHH, on 07 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

It's not that it's necessarily incompatible but that positing it's existence, for many, seems unnecessary and even gratuitous.

True, "soul" has doctrinal meaning in various religions, and philosophical meanings in various discussions, but no meaning at all in biology.

An interesting quotation from  Friedrich Nietzsche with regards to the soul:

In ages of crude, primordial cultures, man thought he could come to know a second real world in dreams: this is the origin of all metaphysics.
Without dreams man would have found no occasion to divide the world.

The separation into body and soul is also connected to the oldest views about dreams, as is the assumption of a spiritual apparition that is, the origin of all belief in ghosts, and probably also in gods. "The dead man lives on, because he appears to the living man in dreams." So man concluded formerly, throughout many thousands of years.

*

[.InshAllah.]

Quote

As neuroscience thrives, so to has the plethora of evidence to support it's materialistic claims.

There is zero evidence.  All we have from neuroscience is knowledge that certain parts of the brain are involved in certain faculties.  But we already knew that.  Even Descartes believed that the soul acts on the body through the brain which works as a kind of conduit.

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Today, philosophers of the mind find themselves increasingly inclined to eschew the idea that the immaterial soul is the architect of consciousness by instead opting for a more physicalist view.  

As a matter of fact, this is false.  Philosophers today are increasingly inclined to reject materialism.  Support for materisalism is waning.  That's not to say that the majority believe in the soul (I dont know the numbers), but the percentage of materialists is probably falling.  There are prominent philosophers who reject materialism without having any particular relgious faith.  Take a look at The Waning of Materialism (Oxford University Press) for a over 20 articles by different philosophers against materialism.  For an introduction to contemporary philosophy of mind by someone well informed who rejects materialism take a look at Philosophy of Mind: A beginner's guide.  As a general rule, don't trust scientists on the philosophical implications of contemporary science.  What usually happens is they presuppose materialism, do some experiments with this presupposition, naturally conclude that materialism is true (because they presupposed it) and then take that as proof that we dont have a soul.

Edited by .InshAllah., 07 April 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[MFAHH]

Quote

I think you’re overstating the case. But whatever it may be, it’s irrelevant to what the truth of the matter is.

I completely agree, in fact, I have yet to come across a competent scientific and/or philosophic argument against the existence of the soul which doesn't appeal to a narrow-minded and warped reading of experimental data.

Quote

Well, there would be no such thing as a ‘soul’ different from the body. There would only be the different material parts of the body, mechanically interacting to produce various other material effects. As far as Islam is concerned, if this view were true, it arguably wouldn't, it seems to me, affect it in any negative way. I say arguably because we could then just take on something like Ash’arite aqida. After all, motivated as they were by accounting for bodily resurrection, they were thoroughly materialist about the soul in thinking that it was just one special kind of material accident (the accident of ‘living’) among the various others out of which the body is constituted.

An interesting idea, I'll need to delve more into ash'ari theology..

Quote

True, "soul" has doctrinal meaning in various religions, and philosophical meanings in various discussions, but no meaning at all in biology.

An interesting quotation from  Friedrich Nietzsche with regards to the soul:

In ages of crude, primordial cultures, man thought he could come to know a second real world in dreams: this is the origin of all metaphysics.
Without dreams man would have found no occasion to divide the world.

The separation into body and soul is also connected to the oldest views about dreams, as is the assumption of a spiritual apparition that is, the origin of all belief in ghosts, and probably also in gods. "The dead man lives on, because he appears to the living man in dreams." So man concluded formerly, throughout many thousands of years.

*

I wouldn't go so far as to say that metaphysics came about as a result of contemplation on the realm of dreams but there is no doubt that it incited rich discussions on the issue and provided ground for a 'split' in our understanding of reality, but is that so wrong?

.InshAllah., on 07 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

There is zero evidence.  All we have from neuroscience is knowledge that certain parts of the brain are involved in certain faculties.  But we already knew that.  Even Descartes believed that the soul acts on the body through the brain which works as a kind of conduit.

Of course, even the ancient greeks were aware of correlations between the brain and the mind, what I meant was that as greater details of the neural functions which cause emotions, dreams etc. are becoming known, many assume that these pieces of the puzzle amount to a physicalist reality underlying nature. The evidence supports their claims in as much as they want it to be supported. I completely agree that the evidence against the soul's existence is virtually non-existent which is why my question lies on the assumption that science will explain everything in terms of bodily functions.

Quote

As a matter of fact, this is false. Philosophers today are increasingly inclined to reject materialism. Support for materisalism is waning. That's not to say that the majority believe in the soul (I dont know the numbers), but the percentage of materialists is probably falling. There are prominent philosophers who reject materialism without having any particular relgious faith. Take a look at The Waning of Materialism(Oxford University Press) for a over 20 articles by different philosophers against materialism. For an introduction to contemporary philosophy of mind by someone well informed who rejects materialism take a look at Philosophy of Mind: A beginner's guide. As a general rule, don't trust scientists on the philosophical implications of contemporary science. What usually happens is they presuppose materialism, do some experiments with this presupposition, naturally conclude that materialism is true (because they presupposed it) and then take that as proof that we dont have a soul.

Personally I believe that people are getting fed up of materialism with it's incredulous implications and undeniable misgivings which is why these views are becoming more outspoken, however, I still feel that their is an increasing majority of people who accept materialism and make the unwarranted jump to denying the existence of the soul from, what I believe to be, frankly unrelated empirical evidence.

I've actually been reading some of the articles in 'The waning of materialism' and 'the soul hypothesis'; very thought provoking reads
on the issue of mind and body.

Edited by MFAHH, 07 April 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[macisaac]

Ishraq, on 07 April 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Well, there would be no such thing as a ‘soul’ different from the body. There would only be the different material parts of the body, mechanically interacting to produce various other material effects. As far as Islam is concerned, if this view were true, it arguably wouldn't, it seems to me, affect it in any negative way. I say arguably because we could then just take on something like Ash’arite aqida. After all, motivated as they were by accounting for bodily resurrection, they were thoroughly materialist about the soul in thinking that it was just one special kind of material accident (the accident of ‘living’) among the various others out of which the body is constituted.

Not just `Ashari, as the earlier Imami mutakallimeen seemed to hold such a view, particularly Sharif Murtada, who defined the human being as being the jumla that you see before you.  The "ruh" he did not believe in as being some separate immaterial and immortal substance (a view that is ascribed to being from the Greek philosophers), but at least in place I've seen from him he says it's the breathe.  Agree with the latter or not (or say you would want to regard the ruh as being some more like the principle of life rather than a separate substance), his view of the human being seems to have been thoroughly materialistic.

From what is in the Quran as well, I find the idea of there being a separate soul as such a difficult one to reconcile.  If the human being truly is simply this body, it would explain why it's so important for the body itself to be resurrected.  And when you look at the presentation of resurrection from death in the Quran, it comes across as the person having no idea how much time has passed, like they were just recently alive in their view.  Where then a soul continuing on past death?  (If you point out the idea of the martyrs still living, Shaykh Mufid said that they were created new bodies to live with in the interim before the general resurrection)

[MFAHH]

Quote

Not just `Ashari, as the earlier Imami mutakallimeen seemed to hold such a view, particularly Sharif Murtada, who defined the human being as being the jumla that you see before you.  The "ruh" he did not believe in as being some separate immaterial and immortal substance (a view that is ascribed to being from the Greek philosophers), but at least in place I've seen from him he says it's the breathe.  Agree with the latter or not (or say you would want to regard the ruh as being some more like the principle of life rather than a separate substance), his view of the human being seems to have been thoroughly materialistic.

From what is in the Quran as well, I find the idea of there being a separate soul as such a difficult one to reconcile.  If the human being truly is simply this body, it would explain why it's so important for the body itself to be resurrected.  And when you look at the presentation of resurrection from death in the Quran, it comes across as the person having no idea how much time has passed, like they were just recently alive in their view.  Where then a soul continuing on past death?  (If you point out the idea of the martyrs still living, Shaykh Mufid said that they were created new bodies to live with in the interim before the general resurrection)

Interesting, Sheikh Mufid's view sounds not too dissimilar with the idea of reincarnation. Are there any books or anything which elucidate the views of the early Imami scholars?

[Gypsy]

MFAHH, on 07 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

We believe that the soul is the stimulus for life and upon it's removal, we die. But does this view accord with science?

The soul gives an explanation for the peculiar aspects of man's being such as morality, thought and intelligence, but if (and your right, that's a big if) science can explain everything, then this Islamic (?) belief of the soul is rendered ineffectual, no?
True, but if human thought can be understood in physical terms, why believe in the soul? Will it's existence be disproven?

Science doesn't work on a non-physical world. Science doesn't acknowledge soul. It only recognise human biology. Also, according to science, there is no such thing as removal of soul. Life cease to exist when human cease to breath.

Thinking is function of the brain and not of the soul. One of the interesting discussion in the medical field is the issue of the brain death. According to medical science brain dead people are dead.

Quote

Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation.

Brain death, either of the whole brain or the brain stem, is used as a legal indicator of death in many jurisdictions.

But based on a fatwa from Sayyed Sistani, we do not accept brain dead person as dead.

Quote

Brain death

In medical treatment, Sistani regards a medically brain dead patient as a being a person who is, "...not proven to be dead...," as per Islamic jurisprudence:

Question: Some people believe that a brain-dead person is a dead person, even if the heart has not yet stopped and that it will definitely stop after that. This is what the doctors say. Is a person who has been pronounced brain-dead be considered dead, even if his heart is still working?
Answer: The criterion in applying the term “dead” in so far as the application of religious laws goes is the common perception of people, in the sense that they would call him “dead”. And this is not proven in the situation mentioned in the question.

While his explanation is very simple, but I am almost certain that the main reason we Muslim reject the medical definition of brain death because we believe that the human consist of material (body) and immaterial (soul).

Edited by Gypsy, 07 April 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[thecontentedself]

If you don't believe in the afterlife, what motivation is there to believe in an immaterial dimension to your existence?  

On the other hand, we believers, need science to evolve and uncover 'secrets' our philosophers and gnostics could only explain in metaphysical and philosophical terms.

[eThErEaL]

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Today, philosophers of the mind find themselves increasingly inclined to eschew the idea that the immaterial soul is the architect of consciousness by instead opting for a more physicalist view. Their scruples, fuelled by advances in neuroscience, have gained widespread recognition. What was once explained by invoking an unknowable, supernatural entity can now be explained to be the result of subtle electric currents pulsing through neurons in the brain. As neuroscience thrives, so to has the plethora of evidence to support it's materialistic claims. The labyrinth that is one's mind is now thought to be reducible to a crude mesh of neural networks. For many, the mind-body dichotomy is slowly becoming a non-issue as science has understood many - and will inevitably understand all - mental and psychological states in terms of material interactions only.

By no means is scientific naturalism/physicalism devoid of difficulties, in fact, many a times evidence is found to oppose it. However, if science were to answer the question of consciousness and how it could arise from inanimate matter; if it were to understand all of the intricacies of the mind - emotions, memory, rationale, experience, imagination, language and so on - in purely physical terms, where would that leave the soul?

More importantly, where would that leave Islam?

Islam will still be there.  its just a religion among others.

[MFAHH]

Gypsy, on 07 April 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Science doesn't work on a non-physical world. Science doesn't acknowledge soul. It only recognise human biology. Also, according to science, there is no such thing as removal of soul. Life cease to exist when human cease to breath.

Thinking is function of the brain and not of the soul. One of the interesting discussion in the medical field is the issue of the brain death. According to medical science brain dead people are dead.

Your right, science works only in the physical realm, what I sought an answer for however was that if - hypothetically -  all those aspects of humanity which muslims believe emerge from an immaterial soul were to be proven as physical accidents, then would our belief in the soul be undermined? If the 'mind' (intelligence, morality, imagination, consciousness, reason etc) comes from the brain and not from the soul as Islam requires (?), then surely we're wrong? If not, what role would the soul then play when it's other supposed roles can be scientifically accounted for?

What in fact are the functions of the soul? What is the soul itself?

I previously mentioned the religious view that the removal of the soul entails death, science concludes differently based on experimental data, but are the two views compatible? If there is a contradiction then what if the Islamic view is wrong?

That's an interesting fatwa from Ayatollah Sistani as well, thanks for that.

eThErEaL, on 07 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Islam will still be there. its just a religion among others.

I see, and what of our view on the nature of the soul? What is the soul and what are it's functions?

Edited by MFAHH, 07 April 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[iDevonian]

I see we have all the "elite" minds of SC in on this one haha.  Ill throw in my 2 cents.

Contrary to Gypsys post, i dont think scientists consider braindead people to be actually dead. Sorry Gypsy, maybe i misinterpretted your post, but even plants are alive without a brain, so humans with a non functioning brain would still fit the criteria for something that is living.

Aside from that though, its hard to use the scientific method to draw truth out of various concepts in the natural sciences, and then to turn around and to ignore the practices for the sake of believing in a "soul".  I wouldnt believe in the soul unless I had some sort of...you know, the whole objective evidence thing.

But even though I may not commonly beleive in such a thing, i see no reason why such a thing couldnt exist.  And even if it didnt and were found not to, Islam would find a way around it.  All religions adapt with their societies and modern forms of knowledge. More knowledge about the soul or lack there of, in my opinion would only bring about a more true form of Islam.

[MFAHH]

For clarity, my question hinges on the assumption that science will explain everything about consciousness and the mind entirely in terms of physiological states. Regardless of whether this will ever be the case or not, we should assume that it's true.

If Islam says that certain qualities derive from an immaterial soul but science proves they're derived from the brain, then surely Islam is wrong..

Two immediate solutions come to mind; either I'm wrong and nowhere in Islam does it say that consciousness, intelligence ect. comes from the soul; or, as MacIsaac and Ishraq have said, the soul isn't an independent and immaterial entity but rather the abstraction of the mind itself from material interactions and neurological states; similar perhaps to strong emergentism or non-reductive physicalism, this idea may even be able to reconcile the ideas of reductive physicalism with Islam which is intriguing.

Perhaps brothers MacIsaac and Ishraq could add to their points by explicating the position of early Islamic theologians further..

The quantum mind hypothesis also has potentially profound implications as it suggests that one's self or consciousness can endure despite the body having long withered away, a theory the results of which many religions would no doubt relish in.

Edited by MFAHH, 07 April 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[Ishraq]

Greetings,

Quote

If the 'mind' (intelligence, morality, imagination, consciousness, reason etc) comes from the brain and not from the soul as Islam requires (?), then surely we're wrong?

Of course we would then be wrong. But the important point to keep in mind here is that opinions differ over what “Islam requires” (whatever that means).

Quote

What in fact are the functions of the soul?

The functions of the soul are those which differentiate a living thing from a non-living thing.

[eThErEaL]

Ishraq, on 07 April 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

“Islam requires” (whatever that means).

It seems we need some fatawa from Ayatollah "Islam" on this issue.

[Pascal]

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Their scruples, fuelled by advances in neuroscience, have gained widespread recognition. What was once explained by invoking an unknowable, supernatural entity can now be explained to be the result of subtle electric currents pulsing through neurons in the brain.

That has been one of the prime functions of religion for a lot of human history, to explain the unexplainable. To the earliest people it explained why the sun rose (the egyptian sunworship, ect) or why the volcano exploded, why the harvest was good or bad. Obviously, we moved past that since we now know about geology and astronomy. It served as a narrative to explain where we came from, we now have evolution. It told us where *everything* game from, we now have cosmology and astrophysics. Is the mind one of the last vestieges? I dont know..

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

The labyrinth that is one's mind is now thought to be reducible to a crude mesh of neural networks.

It's far from crude, it's extraordinarily complex and amazing.

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

where would that leave the soul?

Science has long left behind the idea of the soul. Your question should be where would that leave the average person who believes in the soul? We've already seen a transition movement. People use to think the soul was an actual physical object somewhere in the body, something with size and substance. Now its a more abstract idea, its just kind of sort of somewhere...but you cant see it or anything. Even further still its just a metaphor or something non-physical.

MFAHH, on 06 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

More importantly, where would that leave Islam?

Well, its like all transitions in knowledge. The religion could cling onto increasingly outdated ideas (re evolution, big bang, ect) in an attempt to salvage the old ways or it could adapt. Either way there will be a rift. I don't see it being a blockbuster case like evolution. Most people, if you ask them, aren't even really sure at all what the soul is, what is it made out of, what it does...is it a metaphor or not? It's not like science is out there actively trying to disprove the soul, anything will just be a coincidental. It's not like we'll reach a point in our neuroscience research either where we say "Well, boys, we discovered a soul can't exist...". It's an incredibly fuzzy thing.

I see the concept of emergence as essential to a discussion like this - https://en.wikipedia...oldid=483824785

===================

I guess i would ask, where is it? If its physical surely its located somewhere, why haven't we found it yet? We operate on living people all the time, why haven't seen souls? We know all about anatomy from MRI, Xrays... ect.  So, where is it?

What is it made of then? Everything is (for all intents and purposes) made out of matter? Unless you're a physicist, which im not, we can consider everything to be made out of elements, what elements is the soul made of? Carbon? Hydrogen? Sulfur? Selenium?

Finally, this may sound crude but why should i care? A lot of scientists do very important work. Why should we drop designing proteins to fight aids to try find the soul? What practical pragmatic reason does it serve, why should we care?

I've done a bit of developmental biology and i've been lucky enough to see fetal specimens and dissect some of various species...to look at developing organs under the microscope, all kinds of things like that. Contrary to the knowledge in the time the quran was revealed, we know much much more (even though its still a very active area of research) about human development. The head of the fathers sperm contains DNA and so does the mothers egg. Is there a soul in either of these cells? Yes...no?

The head of the sperm 'drills' through the surface of the egg and 'injects' its nucleus/genetic material. The genetic material of the mother and father 'fuse' together. This is technically when fertilisation takes place? Do we have a soul yet? All i see are globs of DNA, no soul there? Not any organs, no baby, just DNA at this stage.





Later, a couple cells. 2 cells.


Still don't see any soul? I see DNA, i see a plasma membrane... i see proteins, i see no soul?

Thats what a 'baby' literally looks like for awhile...

Edited by kingpomba, 07 April 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[eThErEaL]

We need to resist this Cartesian dualism between body and soul.  The body is simply how the soul appears to us in the sensible realm. And beyond the soul is our awareness is in fact not "our awareness".  It is simply awareness or intelligence.  Awareness is not something associated with our individuality because it itself cannot be objectified.  

[iDevonian]

kingpomba, on 07 April 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Finally, this may sound crude but why should i care? A lot of scientists do very important work. Why should we drop designing proteins to fight aids to try find the soul? What practical pragmatic reason does it serve, why should we care?

I've done a bit of developmental biology and i've been lucky enough to see fetal specimens and dissect some of various species...to look at developing organs under the microscope, all kinds of things like that. Contrary to the knowledge in the time the quran was revealed, we know much much more (even though its still a very active area of research) about human development. The head of the fathers sperm contains DNA and so does the mothers egg. Is there a soul in either of these cells? Yes...no?

The head of the sperm 'drills' through the surface of the egg and 'injects' its nucleus/genetic material. The genetic material of the mother and father 'fuse' together. This is technically when fertilisation takes place? Do we have a soul yet? All i see are globs of DNA, no soul there? Not any organs, no baby, just DNA at this stage.





Later, a couple cells. 2 cells.


Still don't see any soul? I see DNA, i see a plasma membrane... i see proteins, i see no soul?

Thats what a 'baby' literally looks like for awhile...

I think people underestimate the power of their own body.  As if developing from a primordial soup would make them less human, or if evolving from a primitive ape would make them less superior.  But these are demonstrations of the greatness that is life on earth.  We need not invoke supernatural things, because the true power is right here with us in nature.

imo

[eThErEaL]

kingpomba, on 07 April 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Still don't see any soul? I see DNA, i see a plasma membrane... i see proteins, i see no soul?

Thats what a 'baby' literally looks like for awhile...

Just the very fact that you can see it shows it has a soul.  What soul it has is the question.  It is merely a vegetal soul you see right now... which will then develop into an animal soul and then into a rational soul.  You need to have a more realistic understanding of soul and self and God.  Its high time you understand what the religious traditions really mean by self, spirit, soul, body, and God.  

I recommend you read:  The Heart of Islamic Philosophy, The Quest for Self-Knowledge in the teachings of Afdal-Ad-Din Kashani.  
By: William Chittick.  

It will help you think in a different way about these issues.

Edited by eThErEaL, 08 April 2012 - 02:55 AM.