11-17-2006, 08:43 AM
I suppose it might give a few people a good laugh, particularly Ansar.Reply
That's one of the worst pieces of popularist pseudo-philosophical tosh I think I've ever seen. And that's from someone who doesn't believe in immortal souls!
Firstly, this has been one of the major philosophical arguments at least since the time of Descartes. You could probably fill a small library with volumes written on the subject and there are perfectly plausible arguments as for why there may, or may not, be a soul, what relation (if any) it may have to the brain and everything else the author adds a question mark to, presumably to suggest to the more gullible reader that such questions remain mysteriously un-answered by theists, or indeed dualists in general.
Secondly, the whole piece is founded on one huge implicit assumption that the author doesn't even attempt to justify, or indeed recognise; that personality, and indeed all concious mental activity, are properties of the soul. He even calls it a "soul/personality". There is absolutely no justification for this, but his whole case (if I can dignify it with that word) hinges on the properties he - who doesn't believe in souls anyway - chooses to assign to them.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.