Talk:Soul

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alternative medicine      (Rated B-Class)
Complementary and Alternative Medicine portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Echo      (Turkish)
WikiProject Echo has identified Soul as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Turkish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Agnostic beliefs

"Agnostics believe humans cannot come to know whether God(s) or soul(s) exist." Hm, that sounds POV to me. From what I've seen, agnosticism never has anything to do with a soul. Agnosticism could mean that you don't think you can know if there's a soul or not, but i suspect that the majority of all agnostics doesn't think the existance of a soul has anything to do with agnosticism. Saying that all agnostics doesn't think you can know if there's a soul or not would probably be wrong. I changed the text to "Some Agnostics believe humans cannot come to know whether soul(s) exist.". The whole god-part was left out, since that has nothing to do with the soul-part. Ran4 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Etymology

I recklessssly entered a section on etymology, since I thought it was significant. Feel free to improve on it, but please let some of the original intent stay put. The word "soul" did not exist in the times of Jesus, Socrates or Aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations into the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that since the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic, and only partly in Greek, that the word should not exist in the bible. I will not go that far, since all translation is a matter of interpretation, but this detail becomes significant if one insists that the original scriptures are the source of the meaning of the words.


Nice job!

I've removed this section:

"Also, Jesus said, "He who saves his life will lose it", which means that a faithful believer must be ready to sacrifice his life in order to preserve his soul."

I did so because I don't think it adds to the article, whereas the Bible quote that I left does add to the discussion. If you feel strongly it should be there, by all means reinstate it, this is just my opinion...

I added:

"The word "soul" did not exist in the times of jesus, socrates or aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations into the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that since the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in hebrew or arameic, and only partly in greek."

Because I think it adds well to the consideration of the section (again in my opinion), however, is it possible to find a citation for this?

Cheers, --Arkayik 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ______


The stuff about Greek not having a word for soul is absolute nonsense. In both Ancient and Modern Greekt the word for soul is Ψυχη. I looked up the Bible quote mentioned and Ψυχη is the word used, not ζωη (spiritual life) or βιος (physical life.) The person who wrote the nonsense about the world soul in Greek clearly does not speak any Greek. -AlexiusComenus

[edit] Souls immortal?

Yep, a can o' worms.

Actually, I know some Christians who deny that everyone's soul is immortal. In fact, they have quite a few scriptures that they use to support their position, but it basically is based on the idea that an immortal soul was not a Christian concept originally, but rather a view based on Greek Philosophy. In fact, the argument is actually integral to an answer to the question 'Why would you want to become a Christian?', since it says 'because only Christians have eternal life (given to them by God)'.

Sure. Ask the average Christian what will happen after death and they will reply that their soul will rise up to heaven. But Chistian dogma has always taught the resurrection of the body. The whole "soul" notion is technically speaking a manichaean heresy.
Just a comment. resurrection body according to the Apostlic Creed? Then I added the Orthodox Faithful don't confess, although its content they are agree. They confess the Necean Creed which says "the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come". And the eternal life is a gift in the world to come according to the dogma. As for "rising up to the Heaven" it is a preveledge for saints and blessed.
Don't Christians hold that EVERYONE has a soul, it is only the fate of that soul that is dependent on accepting Christianity (plus certain other conditions that vary from sect to sect)?

Exile 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Christian Bible states at genesis 2:7 that man became a soul when the breath of life was breathed into him. at genesis 1:29 and 2:19 it is evident that the writer considers animals to have life as a soul. genesis 19:19 Lot asks that his soul be allowed to live on. exodus 4:19 God told Moses to return to Egypt since those who were hunting for his soul were all dead. exodus 12:16 God told the Isrealites to do only what every soul needs to eat. there are hundres of references in the bible that point to the soul being not an immortal separatable part of the human body but actually being the living body.a person. Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

see also ecclesiastes 9:5 Kljenni 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other comments

Hey! Somebody should really expound on the word pneuma, which I think is another Greek word for "soul", which also means "breath", but may be a different connotation.

This corresponds with the Egyptian Ka. The ancient Greek concept was the "psyche", more like the Egyptian Ba.

For all I know, it could be the Hebrew word which is associated with "soul", but I am obviously an amateur and don't know the biblical languages.

The tripartite soul, which is Plato's doctrine, should be mentioned, as should Augustinian doctrines of the soul, the Hellenistic doctrine of the perturbations of the soul, and the influence of all of these on subsequent religious thought. That is, someone who is not so uneducated, young, and secularized in education as myself. --JQ

Another idea for views to mention are the ancient Chinese notions of hun and po.

[edit] Otherkin/therianthropy

I've just added the note (in the Other part) about Otherkin/therianthropy; however, I'm very concious of the fact that I worded it extremely badly and as if the phenomena are considered invalid/delusional. Which is most certainlly not what I'm trying to convey- not only because of the "no bias" policy, but because I'm Otherkin myself! Kistaro 22:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, some people are now deleting the mention to otherkin from the article. They made no mention of it on this Talk page before doing so. I can't think of any valid policy reason for removing it.
Some idiot said that any mention of otherkin should be removed because it's a mental disorder. That's not exactly an argument that Wikipedia is interested in. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] belief in Purgatory wacky?

Is Wiki a Protestants-only club? I find it very INTERESTING, to say the least that Purgatory and "soul sleep" are brushed aside as mere wacky, loony, minority fringe beliefs in Christianity. Dogface 14:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I agree. Regardless of one's opinion of the idea of an intermediate state between death and final beatitude, it does rest on a reasonable idea. The Catholic idea of purgatory was developed to answer the problem of how those who die in grace, but without having paid their debt to justice may be saved.

Gax 21-6-06

Another partisan viewpoint surfaces in the very first sentence of this article, which identifies the "soul" as "the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being". There's not a general agreement on this. Many sectors of Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, consider the soul as universal, immanent or transmigratory. It does not serve the reader well to begin with a sectarian concept.Fconaway 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bodies cease to exist at death?

"people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death" ... this needs better wording (and I can't think of a satisfactory way to do so offhand, without making the sentence very bulky) but I think it is quite rare for bodies to "cease to exist" at death. Muke Tever 06:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) True - however it is even rarer for bodies to remain intact - and any one of us contains a number of atoms that once were part of Caesar. Exile 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Immaterial"

What on earth are you talking about snoyes? I see no references suggesting the "immaterial" property of the soul here. I don't know anyone who thinks the soul is immaterial. Quite to the contrary, there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person. there have been a variety of films regarding this topic. Please cite your sources, and do some research before undoing others work. thank you. Sam Spade 08:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person."
Sources? I don't deny that some people believe this, what I do deny is that the common definition does not include the "immaterial" property.
I added a cross-ref to the "soul has weight" wiki article. See also my comment below. Whether "many people believe the soul has weight" or not, this seems to be a strong meme that derives from the same 1907 source. --Psm 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"Please cite your sources"
[1], [2], [3], [4], etc.
"do some research before undoing others work"
Throwing stones in glass houses.
- snoyes 09:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your citations. I appologise for insinuating lack of research on your part. Sam Spade 09:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Scientists have tried to measure the soul." Soul is religious term and religious terms cannot be used in science. So scientists have tried to measure what? Please explain in scientific terms. Tkorrovi 22:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] citations

why did you remove the citations? Please review wikipedia:verifiability. Sam Spade 10:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It makes the page ugly, harder to edit, is distracting while reading, and basic facts such as the fact that "soul" is commonly defined as being immaterial don't need to be referenced to outside sources on the page. They are referenced on this talk page, and that is good enough. I would be embarrassed to see wikipedia relying on "verifiability" by linking to a ghost-busters website. - snoyes 10:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean a tertiary source. Danny 10:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It means whatever sources are available. if you have a better source, provide one. Sam Spade 10:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

The idea of the soul goes much beyond religion, which is what I see this article is primarily focused on: religious viewpoints of soul.

Two additions: The classics idea - Plato's idea and arguement for the existance of souls, and some current arguements from philosophy about the nature of soul, if it exists, etc. --ShaunMacPherson 06:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) _____

Did some editing on the Buddhist handle on the concept to make it a little plainer and remove some of the all too common (in writing about Buddhism) padding words that detract from the meaning and make it all rather enigmatic.

Also replaced the word 'energy' with 'essence' in the initial definition as this was a misuse of the word.

Fleshed out the Atheist section a little with a link to the wishful thinking fallacy. Perhaps the Atheist section should be included in the sections of all the other phillosophies and religions rather than get special treatment in the definition. I did however leave it in the original place

Sorry to all for the multiple editions, these are just minor corrections and improvements on my first take.--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam's removed that wishful thinking link twice now, calling it POV. I disagree; that line is describing what some atheists believe to be the basis for widespread belief in souls, which is IMO a relevant fact to include in this article. It would only be POV if the article stated that belief in a soul was wishful thinking. Bryan 06:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone has now moved the atheist section down to the section on other beliefs. I think that's the wrong place too because the whole point in the atheist stance is lack of belief. Many if not most atheists are sceptics and their reason for lack of a soul belief, just like their reason for lack of god belief is lack of evidence.

Ways out of this include re naming the headning to 'Other views on the soul' or giving the atheist position its own section heading like all the major religions, mindful of the number of atheists in the World perhaps these infidels deserve their own section!--Nick-in-South-Africa 05:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow I miswrote my edit summary. I should have written "put it away" instead of simple "put". KIZU 14:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Could anyone please give me some refrences of actual experiments, proving the existance of soul? or some other super natural thing for that matter?

[edit] Wishful Thinking

I can accept it as it now stands. I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts, so I don't see a need to go on at great length about it, and I think the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists, somewhat different from the soul itself. Funny that by eastern thought (particularly buddhism) an afterlife/rebirth is seen as an unfortunate circumstance resulting from lack of enlightenment, and parinirvana isn't so very different from the atheist conception of death. So maybe rather than wishful thinking, the concept of the soul is more based in cynicism ;) Of course buddhists don't necessarilly agree that their is a soul per se either, tending to reject the Hindu concept of Atman. Sam Spade 06:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam >I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts< I disagree, it may be obvious to you but this is most certainly not the general case; I posit that to many or even most theists there is nothing obvious about atheists reasoning at all. In many communities the idea of atheism shocks people to the core and they have no way of mentally dealing with it or the atheists reasoning >the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists< Yes and it is the soul that is the supposed entity that lives the afterlife or is the mechanism that transmits the essence of the deceased to another body or to some ethereal state. So the concept of soul and the concept of afterlife are inextricably linked and both are rejected by thinking atheists as wishful thinking motivated by simple fear of annihilation. >Of course Buddhists don't necessarily agree that their is a soul per se either< This is one of the major problems many have with Buddhism, how does the concept of anatta (no self) square with re-incarnation. If there is no abiding self what is it that gets reborn. Some modern atheist followers of Buddhist teaching reject re-incarnation.--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam you reverted my edit and restored >Many atheists reject the concept of a soul as they reject religious concepts generally< The problem I have with 'as they reject religious concepts generally' is Firstly that it's not true. Atheism is nothing more than being without belief in any deity. It's perfectly consistent to be an atheist and be a follower of a non theistic religion such as certain sections of Buddhism which have religious concepts which said atheists do not reject. Even some theistic religions have concepts that many atheists do not reject, so your generalisation is inaccurate. Secondly this article is about soul not atheism, so the atheist position on other religious concepts, especially unnamed ones is not relevant, the proper place for this sort of thing is in the atheist article.

I'll leave your compelling evidence phrasing, even though I think it reads badly as it seems you have an attachment to it even though it means exactly the same as my amendment.--Nick-in-South-Africa 22:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC

[edit] The philosophical view

OK, so my long addition in the intro. on Aristotle's view was a bit much. But his view of the soul is very influential, and reasonably straightforward, so why not start with that? Then the various religious views of the soul can be compared and contrasted with it. Also it is a powerful, and to me convincing, non-religious conception of the soul and has an equal right to appear in the introduction as the religious concepts. Wouldn't at least my fellow atheists agree with that? I've added it back as a one liner taking up less space than the religious views, no one outside the Spanish inquisition could disagree with that could they?

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, bring me the comfy chair...!" I was the one who moved the Aristotelian stuff downward. You raise a good point, that there are two distinct user groups making hay with the term "soul," the religionists/spiritualists and the philosophers. Each camp should be discussed. If you and the philosophers would like to go first, that's cool by me, so I moved the Aristotelian stuff back up to the top. However, an encyclopedia article cannot start in anyone's corner, but must start with a generalized and contextualizing introduction, so I reinstated the introductory paragraph, adding a reference to both the philosopher and spiritualist user camps. I left atheism in the religion section because their thoughts about "soul" are not being discussed as being within a particular philosophical school but rather as a reaction to the religious view. --Gary D 19:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Francis Crick

This article should have some mention of Francis Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. —Rory ☺ 15:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you can add it to the References section. --Gary D 18:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
References should be a list of materials used in compiling the article, not a list of further reading. Unfortunately I haven't read the book, but as a nobel-prize winning chemist's view of the soul I think it probably merrits mention by someone who has read it. (Francis Crick was co-discoverer of the significance of DNA, in case anyone questions his credentials.) —Rory ☺ 00:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting; I don't know if Wikipedia maintains that distinction in its references to References. --Gary D 00:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Types of souls

The following is from the essay referenced. Some food for thought...

"Soul" is a blatantly overused term that conflates the following completely independent conceptual entities:

  • Immortal soul: An entity generated by forces within the brain, which survives the destruction of the neurons that originally generated it, and is in some formulations intrinsically indestructible under the laws of the ultimate reality. (If this soul continues independent, internally generated cognition equalling the capabilities of a physical brain, someone has a lot of explaining to do to with respect to split-brain patients, lobotomy patients, amnesiacs, and other forms of brain damage.)
  • Extraphysical soul: An entity which operates outside the laws of physics. (Strictly speaking this doesn't make logical sense, since anything that affects physical reality is part of physical law, but under some circumstances we might find it useful to separate that law into two parts - for example, if some physical patterns obey mathematical rules and others are totally resistant to rational analysis.)
  • Weird-physics neurology: Neural information-processing that uses the "weird" laws of physics. "Weird" is any physical pattern not visible in everyday, macroscopic life, or any pattern which isn't Turing-computable. We generally don't use the word "soul" in discussing this possibility.
  • Morally-valent soul: A physical entity representing the atomic unit of decision-making and moral responsibility. I'm reasonably sure this doesn't exist except as a high-level game-theoretical abstraction embodied as an "atomic" element of social cognition.
  • Qualia: The basic stuff of conscious experience, redness of red, etc.
  • Theological soul: A piece of God integrated into the human mind.
  • Mind-state preservation: Let's say our descendants/successors invent a time machine (or a limited version thereof such as a "time camera") and read out everyone's complete neural diagram, memories, etc. at the moment of death. That would be one form of mind-state preservation; any immortal soul that preserved memories, or information from which memories could be reconstructed, would also count.
  • Self-continuity: "If you go into a duplicator and two beings come out, which one is you? Is a perfect duplicate of your brain you? Does continuity of identity require continuity of awareness or just continuity of memories?" Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. I don't think such questions have real answers; or rather, the answer is whatever you decide it is. Though John K Clark's decision is worth mentioning: "I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am anything that behaves in a John-K-Clarkish way."

It's at least conceptually possible that we have all these things, each as separate entities. For example, our brains might generate a structure of ordinary matter and energy that survives death but doesn't contain any useful information; our brain might also utilize noncomputable physical laws, simply to speed up information-processing, without that being intrinsic to qualia; we might have qualia generated by ordinary information-processing; our mind-state might be preserved by friendly aliens with time-cameras, or preserved at death by beings running our Universe as a computer simulation; God could place a part of Verself in each of us but translate it into ordinary neurocode running on a neurological module; and so on. Unfortunately, the confusion on these issues now runs so deep that any discovery in any of these areas would be taken to confirm the existence of an immortal extraphysical morally-valent et-cetera soul. [5] Adraeus 22:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "Atheist views" section

Adraeus, I think I should just revert what you deleted since your edit comment was rude and unconstructuve (you can't just say "fallacious" and "ingorant" and skip off). However I'm sort of okay with the removal of the Atheist view section altogether; I think it's fairly obvious that an atheist isn't going to believe in the religious definition of souls. How do you imagine a "the atheist view" section of this article going?

First of all, an atheist is merely a person who lacks theistic beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. There are two types of atheists: weak atheists and a strong atheists. Strong atheists actively posit a disbelief in the existence of gods while weak atheists neutrally lack belief in gods altogether. Whether or not an atheist believes or disbelieves in the concepts of soul is not a component of the definition of atheism. There are some atheists which reject the concept of soul altogether and there are some, like Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, whom are informed enough to know of the various types of soul concepts and are tolerant of the possibility of a "soul" existing. That said, there are also theists that believe or disbelieve in soul concepts but that does not make belief or disbelief in souls a component of the definition of theism or atheism. I don't think a section that describes atheists as lacking belief in souls would be fair or accurate. Certainly a section regarding organized forms of belief or disbelief in souls would be appropriate though. Adraeus 20:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you could put some of what you've written here into a new "Atheist views" section; revision, even wholesale revision, usually goes down better than deletion. --Gary D 20:54, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
To the extent that the word "soul" has acquired a religious sense (if not, this Wiki article would probably not exist) over the years, I think it's perfectly accurate and fair to state something like "atheists do not as a rule believe in the soul". From there you can go into "well, some do for some definition of the word 'soul' and/or some definition of 'atheist'" and enlighten us with your great learning, Adraeus. --Fleacircus 22:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't tolerate the possibility of souls existing. --EliezerYudkowsky (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is important to have a section detailing skeptics' criticism of the concept of a soul. This seems obvious to me. JmalcolmG 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC) JmalcolmG 6/18/07

[edit] Aristotle's view on soul?

Hello, I thought I'd bring up a few things here that I'd like someone (who knows a little better) to add. In the section on aristotle's view of the soul, the term "core essense" I think is a little vague; it may be a little easier for some readers to understand if you were to use a final cause to describe what the soul was (i.e. "animating principle" .... as stated in De Anima, although I can't remember where). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Aristotle believe in the immortality of the rational soul?


"[...]This is a state, or a potential for actual, or 'second', activity. "The axe has an edge for cutting" was, for him, analogous to "humans have bodies for rational activity," and the potential for rational activity thus constituted the essence of a human soul" ... wouldn't it be a little more accurate to also make the distinction of the different types of souls (i.e. vegitative soul, animal soul, and rational soul), and state that the Human, rational soul also contained characteristcs of the animal soul?

just a few simple questions, sorry if you've already been over this. Peace. -Cripps


[edit] Typo at Socrates and Plato?

  1. the logos should be alias of superego
  2. the thymos - of ego

OK with my corrections?

-mingis

[edit] Christians without souls

Concerning these points from the article:

  1. A few Christian groups do not believe in the soul, and hold that people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death;
  2. Another minority of Christians believe in the soul, but don't regard it as inherently immortal.

Anybody know the names of some of these groups? I have definitely heard of the first one and maybe the second. Names should probably just go right into the article.

Seventh-day Adventists would go into the first group. I know that there are a few others that would go into that group as well, but I couldn't tell you who. In searching for other denominations that believe in Conditional Immortality (a term commonly used by those who do not believe in an immortal soul), I did find a rather highly cited page called Champions of Conditional Immortality. Also here are several verses commonly used by people who believe in "Conditional Immortality". There is also the wikipedia page on Annihilationism. Maybe including at least some of these could help remove the bias in the christian section of this article. Korbenrusek 20:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelical Bias

Personally, I think that this early part of the Christian section of the article is clearly biased and should be changed: "Different Christian groups dispute whether this reward/punishment depends upon doing good deeds, or merely upon believing in God and in Jesus - although the Bible is clear that salvation itself is a gift, and 'cannot' be earned by good deeds. Salvation of the soul happens simply by acknowledging that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins and is your personal Lord and saviour."

In this section, the author leads us to believe that we are about to be treated to an evenhanded treatment of the various views on issues of the soul and salvation within the group that the public refers to as "Christianity." Alas, we are almost immediately assaulted with the notion that Evangelical Christianity is the claimant to the "correct" view of soteriology--complete with evangelical phrases. ( To add insult to injury, the author doesn't even address one of the main problems of that view, which is the Bible's treatment of choice itself.To what extent, if any, are we free to make choices? Does the concept of our acting as an agent in our own salvation not meet direct opposition in the concept of grace? Such questions are just ignored ... it's outright "I'm right, you're wrong!" fundementalism.)Eskatos 10:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and recent edits have made the section seem even more POV and perhaps even include original research (although I have to admit to not being an expert on Christianity so I can't say for sure, but some of the things seem original enough to me). -Parallel or Together? 10:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The entire Christian section is seriously deficient in my opinion, if it an attempt to discuss the range of Christian opinions on the Soul. As noted above by others, it displays marked bias; furthermore no mention is made of some key doctrinal areas relating to the soul, such as the resurrection of the body, and how that relates to doctrines of the soul. The section on Valentinus is heterodox to say the least, too.

Much of this article's Christian content is denominationally (I have no idea if this is even a word, but it should be) biased and should be revised. I tried to do a little by adding in the parenthetical about Hell being an eternal torment, but maybe others can help in checking the rest of the biases. Very tricky situation. Psychophant 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comments relating to Dr Ian Stevenson

I removed the following piece:

"Dr. Ian Stevenson results could also be discredited as a form of cold reading where the child can make any claims, and with all the cases of deaths in human history to search through the chances of finding a match to those claims are very likely."

There is clearly a lack of NPOV in this addition. Dr Ian Stevenson has no alterior motives. If you wish to comment on him, at least do some basic research beforehand. --Redxela Sinnak 13:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned you may be pushing a personal agenda there, Redxela. Dr. Stevenson's research is interesting but he is still outside the mainstream of science and criticism of his personal techniques must surely be permitted... 193.129.65.37 10:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Brain Experiments

How would advocates of the soul respond to evidence from the split-brain experiments?

165.230.149.175 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read 'Mysteries' by Colin Wilson - or for that matter, any other book on the occult by Colin Wilson. He looks into both 'split-brain' and 'the soul', and finds that they are NOT mutually exclusive. Oh BTW, your comments do not contribute to the article :) Redxela Sinnak 06:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PubMed reference

In the "Science and the soul" section there is extended discussion of a survey from PubMed, but without a reference or date. Can these be provided? Halcatalyst 05:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible quotes

The section marked "In favor of a conscious non-material entity ("soul") that survives bodily death" is just a large chunk of quotes (some very long) form the Bible. How does this represent a case in favor of there being a soul? It's just a long list of references to it from one (unscientific) work. I'm all in favor of some of these quotes being here but shouldn't they be a little more selective and under a different heading (say: References to "souls" from within the Bible)? 193.129.65.37 10:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm in favor of the quotes being pared back. --Smithfarm 13:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Have done this. In fact there is no need for any of these quotes. The article is simply about the concept of soul as held, in this case, by Christians. There is no need for the justification for those beliefs (ie. the quotes from the Bible). So you could remove all of those quotes unless someone objects - with good reason - as to why this should not be done... Marcus22 10:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned sentence from Islamic beliefs section

The following sentence doesn't make any sense and appears to be orphaned so I removed it:

"in the name of God" :"They ask you about soul say that soul is secret of God and you are not given of science except too little"

If anyone can provide some background on this and a reference to where the quote is from, please do so. --Smithfarm 13:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference is Quran, surrah Bani Israeel, (17:85) The exact meanings by Yusuf Ali 017.085 They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit(cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)" Here he have used the word spirit instead of soul. In Quran, the word used is "Rooh", which means "soul".

[edit] Science approach to soul is nonsense

Please modify the revelant chapter. No serious modern scientist (including many religious people) is interested in research, proof or discovery of the soul. This is held as concept of personal beliefs, not verifable and not influencing medicine or science, except through ethics or psychology. --anon.

Well, not quite. While scientsts do not pursue research into the soul as distinct from the mind, many scientists believe in a soul as meaning something other than "mind". Science, however, is by definition concerned with material explanations of replicably observable phenomena. The soul as something distinct from the mind thus is not the object of scientific inquiry, although the concept of a soul and the belief in that concept are, as the paragraphs on Wilson's, Crick's, and Dennett's work and positions discuss.--Atemperman 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the bit about Carruthers's work is psychotherapy, not methodologically-naturalistic science. While interesting, it doesn't belong in this section.--Atemperman 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Second on the rewrite. The whole section looks suspiciously like pseudoscience. -- 212.213.204.99 12:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A scientist will not declare 'soul' to be nonsense without a provable fact...currently none exists...only circumstantial evidence...most famous that of Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp ...yep lost quarter of a ounce or 21 grams...now soul is postulated to exist as pure energy ie without earthly material...so 21 grams is a lot of energy...hiroshima was produced by only 600mg...so some scientist would have to conduct a research in a closed and carefully weighed room at time of death to detect even the smallest of change which occurs repeatedly in all subjects and reproducible...should happen soon...

Well, strictly speaking, that 21 grams is some kind of strange American mystic belief that has no known scientific proof behind it. (Please read to the end of the Snopes article.) Modern scientific explanations of consciousness do not require any mysterious 'soul matter' or 'soul energy'. Please see Cartesian theater for an example where using normal matter for a soul leads to. ;) -- 212.213.204.99 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The "soul has been scientifically weighed" is covered in the wiki article on Duncan MacDougall (doctor). I updated the intro accordingly. There have been many efforts by folks to find any other published work to replicate this work, and they've come up empty. So don't change this to "many people" because as best as anybody can tell, the "21 grams" meme comes from the 3/4 ounce measurement in the good doctor's 1907 experiment on a tuberculosis patient. Also, I removed the reference to "mass" because the doctor in question was specifically confused about the difference between mass and weight, and his measurements were on weight. --Psm 05:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The soul is an imaginary concept. It is not scientific. This article should start with the line "the soul is concept imagined by various religions and, while probably most humans would argue for its real existence, does not, in fact, exist as an actual entity" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrealtime (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure you're not mistaking the soul for Bigfoot? :) 204.52.215.14 (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal soul?

Beliefs about whether animals have souls should be included, too.

in Genesis of the Bible God created the living souls (animals) of the earth see genesis 1:24 Kljenni 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism entry

This section seems to have been re-written/amended recently by quite a biased source, that I would imagine is Theravadin. It is now a bit of a mess! There are several statements added to this section that are biased expressions of opinion, or unclear arguments, or simply contradictory.

The views expressed in this section that the author has passed off as the official Buddhist position include: "Nirvana is solely recognized as being distinct", which is not particularly apt for some Mahayana and Zen schools; the 'three-minds' theory, which is not found in all Buddhist schools but is presented as such, and is in addition poorly explained and confusing for the lay reader; in this poorly-written sentence, the author states "Buddhism's stance on many beliefs of soul after Death was explained in Brahmajala Sutta", implying that Buddhism has a singular, unified opinion that stems directly from the Pali canon, which is certainly not true for all Buddhist schools. The worst of these is the statement towards the end of the entry; "Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes. Both are wrong and their error is most grievous". This is not contextualised as (Theravadin) Buddhist opinion, but rather stated as fact, which is against Wiki impartiality.

The author's positing of a "Buddhist orthodoxy" and "original teachings of the Buddha" is also questionable, since different Buddhist schools have different orthodoxies and Buddhist hermeneutics allows for an ahistorical approach to Buddhist teachings. The author's suggestion that modern, Western Buddhists are conditioned by materialism implies that they have been indoctrinated by a false ideology that prevents them from seeing the 'true' Buddhist position - this seems a rather arrogant and again biased point of view. The author fails to fully address the arguments of contemporary Buddhist thinkers, stating merely that "There is very little ground for [their] argument to stand on".

Overall, I think this entry is inappropriate for Wikipedia in that expresses a series of biased opinions, having erased the previous much more balanced, scholarly and equivocal entry. Whilst I am a scholar of Buddhism, I do not feel qualified to re-compile this entry and I appeal to anyone with the knowledge and ability to do so. Jamiego 11:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Very messy section on Buddhism, IMO. It needs cleaning up and revising. I'll try to work out the differences later on in few days and then edit if I can to make it cleaner and neat. In the meantime, feel free to edit to make it more cleaner, i.e. Cut long paragrahs into smaller paragraphs.. Oh and btw, please leave us your signature so that people can distinguish between stances/views of each seperate person. Monkey Brain 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I've had made a few nips and tucks, hopefully putting some biased views into context and correcting a few mistakes. Still don't like the entry, the Tibetan 3 mind bit is really woolly and comes across as the orthodox position, and the ending of the entry is terrible.

Also, I've removed references to Buddhism from the Pantheism entry as they were erroneous. That section is quite bad too, but I'm definitely not going to get involved with it! Jamiego 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have flagged this section for the reaons previously outlined by the above editor. Overall, this section presents sectarian doctrines and positions as definitive or universal views throughtout Buddhism, both ancient and modern. It fails, for example, to mention the possibility accepted by a number of reputable modern scholars that the "not / no self" doctrine in early Buddhism etc only applies to conditioned, impermanent phenomena, allowing for the possibility for the existence of an inexpressible real and permanent "self".--Stephen Hodge 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes I must agree - this entire section *needs to be rewritten* be someone who understands the various positions and debates on the 'self' that exist and have existed in the various buddhisms. 86.145.189.101 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing part of the Research section

I'm cutting the following out of "Research on the concept of the soul":

"But as several theologians and philosophers have noted (e.g. Keith Sutherland), claims by Dennett and his ilk are prompted by the philosophical agenda of pure materialism. One counter-argument points out that just because the brain has regions that deal with colour and other aspects of vision, one does not argue that the genes produce an area to promote the illusion of a blue sky. By analogy, if there is a 'God sense' just as there is a sense of vision, it seems to argue for the objective existence of an extra-mundane reality. Finally, claims of genetic determinism have suffered a serious blow after the human genome project reduced the number of genes to fewer than 25,000. There is thus no longer sufficient information content in the genome to determine such details. Dennett has been accused by his arch-rival in philospy, John Searle, of implying that only he amongst modern philosophers does useful research, whilst others such as Searle philosophise into a vacuum. This self-praise has resulted in Dennet being widely seen by the media as the sole researcher of the soul. However, David Chalmers might make a stronger claim for this, as he has by calling attention to the existence of the hard problem of consciousness pointed out the yawning gap between physicalist research and the subjective homonculus or soul."

This section has a biased tone and is not particularly comprehensible. Additionally, the last section doesn't seem relevant to the topic. Is anyone familiar enough with the positions advocated here to salvage something out of this? Scherlin 05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scherlin, I agree with you. The paragraph seemed antagonistic, and was very muddled, but I think the article would benefit from including some of the topics of the paragraph, such as: discrete brain regions and their relationship to the concept of the soul (brain lesion studies discredit the concept of a unified soul); whether there are enough genes to regulate a "God sensation." (a counterpoint to those who say they aren't would be that that sensation, indeed consciousness as a whole, may be an emergent property, or that the sensation could be formed from the *interaction* of the genes. (( I believe most enzymes etc. are a conglomeration of more than one protein)) ) The last section is indeed irrelevant, belonging perhaps in the bio. pages of Dennet and Searle.--JmalcolmG 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I tagged the following session as original research: "A search of the PubMed research literature database shows the following numbers of articles with the indicated term in the title:

1. brain – 167,244 2. consciousness – 2,918 (842, 29%, of these articles also include “brain” in the database entry) 3. soul - 552 (40, 7%, of these articles also include “brain” in the database entry. Many of these articles deal with medical ethics issue such as the implications of religious beliefs on decisions about life support for people in persistent vegetative states)"

This data must be cited. --Elrafael 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


My research indicates that we are all eternal souls who plan our lives, including our greatest challenges, prior to birth for purposes of spiritual growth. For more information, please see [6] Robert Schwartz

[edit] major query on "science and the soul"

This currently reads "Science...is silent on the question of whether non-material or supernatural entities, such as the soul, can or do exist". Wikipedia's own article on science describes it as "any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means", but anything supernatural is by definition unverifiable.

The current wording suggests a neutral viewpoint on behalf of science towards supernatural concepts such as the soul, ie that science cannot disprove their existence - it suggests that science is silent whereas it would speak up against it if there was proof that the soul did or did not exist. In fact, these concepts such as "soul", since they lack any evidence or a provable test for their existence, are outside the realm of science altogether. The current wording comes close the the logical fallacy of negative proof, whereby science's inability to disprove their existence counts as proof that they do (or may) exist.

Further, it should be made clear that either the soul is entirely immaterial (and thus all the scientific articles mentioned are in fact pseudo-science of quackery) or else it is material, in which case fromt he point of view of science, the lack of any evidence of its existence, under the burden of proof, states that it does not exist. - PocklingtonDan 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first sentence

What is an ethereal substance, and why is it in italics? At least it implies correctly that souls don't exist.

[edit] How do we know that souls exist?

How do we know that souls exist in us? Can anyone please answer that for me - I'm just wondering about that. i know it's difficult to explain scientifically, just like how it is hard to describe the meaning of love and hate in such technical terms. At least try to explain in ur own words if u can. Thanks.

Easy.We don't KNOW that souls exist. Some people THINK they do, others think they don't, others are unsure.

Exile 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

we know the soul exists because we know that the soul is life, psyche, nephesh. the living body whether physical or spiritual is the soul Kljenni 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written an article on the soul and the resurrection of it based on Bibical scripture. If any one on is interested contact me at maranatha2@comcast.net Ray71.197.184.225 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We cannot know that souls exist through any scientific means. The burden of proof, fortunately, rests on those who claim that the soul exists. For an interesting article on why the soul and evolution may be mutually incompatible, see: Evolution of the Soul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.242.167 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know we even exist? All we see is interpretations of our sensory organs. Hell, when you come down to it, all of us are just electrons floating about. Who knows what we are, really.

[edit] Islamic beliefs

the paragraph provides totally incorrect information with respect to the Sunni or Shi'a. it could be a mystical or a Sufism view point. and in all its citations from the Qur'an it gives a different meaning !.

i ll will discuss some points as an example, the article says :

1. According to the Qur'an of Islam (15:29), the creation of man involves Allah or an Angel of Allah "breathing" a soul into him

for example, (15:29) in Qur'an actually says: " so, when i fashioned him completely and breathed to him (Adam) the soul which i created for him, then fall (talking is to angles) down prostrating yourselves unto him. "

2. his intangible part of an individual's existence is "pure" at birth and has the potential of growing and achieving nearness to God if the person leads a righteous life. At death the person's soul transitions to an eternal afterlife of bliss, peace and unending spiritual growth

there is no soul growing or nearness to Allah soul in the Islamic view. This is more like an esoteric and mystical interpretations like Sufism .

the same for the last sentence .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borhan0 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit]  ?

Who is Frank R. Zindler? (footnote 10) --VKokielov 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Formerly a professor of biology and geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a science writer. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is the Ohio Spokesperson for American Atheists.[1]

Frank Zindler is Director of the American Atheist Press, and Editor of The American Atheist Magazine. A former professor of biology and geology, is also an internationally renowned science writer and linguist. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society and the American Schools of Oriental Research. Mr. Zindler is also a member of the Jesus Seminar, and an expert in a number of esoteric, biblical-era languages.[2]

[edit] Pics?

I think this art. needs some pics, dont u? --WoodElf 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pantheism

I have removed this section. First, Pantheism as a whole doesn't speak to the question of the nature of the soul. Rather, it's a label which refers to a diverse set of belief systems unified by certain claims about god. Specific religious groups which can be described as pantheistic do have views on the nature of the soul, and some of those are dealt with in the religious views section, notably the section on Valentinus, which addresses the gnostic beliefs this section addressed almost exclusively. Secondly, what specific group of Gnostics this section referred to was totally unclear - that's another diverse group without a unified stance on the question of the soul. I would have moved the material up into the religious views section - since Gnosticism is, after all, a religious view - if I had been able to figure out where it should be placed.--