this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
74 points (81.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44135 readers
850 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think so, but, to be fair, it simply isn't a question that science could ever actually answer.
Until there's a good definition of a "soul" that's based in the natural world, there's nothing to even evaluate. If it's a definition based in not the natural world, then there's no evidence that it even exists to begin with.
Do you have a working definition for a "soul"?
You're right that we need a definition, but that doesn't mean it has to be based in the natural world. Science could never conclusively prove/disprove the existence of a soul because it's inadequate in this context.
The only scientific way to do it would be to compare a large group of people who definitely didn't have a soul with another large group too see if there's any consistent differences. Given that the experiment itself implies the existence of a soul it all becomes a little circular.