- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Having a soul? You should first try to define what you need to prove. This is the beginning of any science.�
If we turn to the word, the soul is literally the psyche. It certainly exists. This is proven by scientists.
But you obviously have something else in mind. I am sure that in the process of creating a formulation, you will certainly come up with something like “what remains after death”, “what is, but scientists do not yet see” or something like that.
That is, in addition to the obviously existing psyche, you are interested in something else that is not reduced to the psyche, not reduced to matter and what happens to matter.�
But scientists don't do what they don't see and can't see. This is the answer of Viktor Rudenko, for example.
In principle, scientists could stop at some experiment whose results cannot be explained. But so far there are no such experiments. There are no repeatable, reproducible phenomena that cannot be explained.�
To understand how difficult it is to live without definitions, you can consider such a phenomenon as consciousness. On the one hand, it obviously exists. On the other hand, we don't have a scientific definition. And until we create consciousness “in a test tube” there will be no definition, there will be no evidence that cannot exist until there is no definition. Because it is not clear what exactly we are proving.
What does the machine have to demonstrate in order for us to recognize it as having consciousness and, importantly, recognize it as our equal, as having the same consciousness as we do?
To get into the circle of problems of the philosophy of consciousness I will offer a good article in the wiki:
Scientists only deal with material things, and the soul is by definition immaterial. Just like God. Therefore, scientists cannot investigate what cannot be examined with instruments that detect only material things.
And if the soul is considered as “subtle matter”, then science has not yet grown to the splitting of matter to this level. Scientists sometimes try to surround a person with elementary particle detectors to detect some new radiation coming from him, due to the presence of a “soul”. But so far, at the level of their existing instruments for studying matter, they cannot find such radiation.
In fact, in the seventies of the last century, US scientists, as a result of experiments with patients who survived clinical death, proved that human consciousness, after the death of the body, continues to function in the non-body. If this is not proof of the existence of a human soul, then what is it?
Science does not even try to prove the existence of a soul, since this question has no significance or interest in scientific knowledge at all, and is not applicable to any field of study, even in cognitive science and psychology.
It is also not necessary to refute, since the concept of the soul is purely speculative, and in order to try to refute something, we need to understand what a particular phenomenon does not suit us, and for this, it would be good to observe the phenomenon itself first, to have at least a number of basic ideas about its characteristics. A phenomenon that exists purely as a concept in the mind, not confirmed by anything, can not suit, and somehow can not interfere, so it is not necessary to refute it.�
When you ask theologians / theologians to provide data, characteristics of the soul, from the texts, they cannot do this, referring only to Ephraim the Syrian. The Bible simply does not describe the soul and its structure. Ancient theologians associated the concept of the soul with mental activity and feelings, but there are also no documented observations, which is understandable, only purely speculative speculative sophistry. And what are the medical characteristics of the soul? What is the soul's temperature? What is the structure of the soul? How does the soul change its aggregate state, and does it change it at all? What does it consist of? What are the processes that take place inside the soul and how do they relate to the surrounding universe? Can priests answer these questions? Of course not. And if not priests, then who are they?_O�
That is, the situation is very strange. Theologians / theologians have been pounding water in a mortar for 2000 years without having the slightest idea about this subject, about what they are talking about. If theology has not been able to study the soul even approximately for 2000 years, but at the same time firmly believes in its existence, then something is wrong here…