Does science accept the theory of soul?

Question

I find myself as soul(or you name it) beside my body just like driver(soul) in a motor car (body) drives the car the way he wants. I am really surprised when one claim that car runs by engine, oil and pertrol !!!

Answer 1

Science deals exclusively with our physical world. As such, science makes no claim whatsoever to any knowledge beyond the physical world.

Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God, the soul, angels, devils, or any other nonphysical entities.

Answer 2

Is there actually a "theory of soul" as such? If so, it is religious or metaphysical theory and not a scientific one. However the weighing of bodies at the moment of death might have one flaw--perhaps the dogs' souls just weighed less than the sensitivity of the machine on which they were being weighed...and also, how do we know this is not gaseous decomposition products coming off the body? Has anyone ever done an analysis of the change in the composition of the surrounding air? After all, bodies do decompose over time; perhaps this is a primary decomposition.

I WANT to believe in a soul in its religious sense, but I think such a thing would be hard to even define in the realm of science. Science could quantify what happens to the physical body and what electrical processes occur at the time of death or during thought processes, but whether they could equate them with the concept of "soul" is dubious.

Answer 3

There's no reason why scientists can't TRY and study the soul. It's just a difficult quarry to pursue. Because they cannot distinctively find a location or material for the soul and because it would seem to defy many apparent explanations of things, many have concluded that it does not exist.

One of the more famous studies, however, was conducted by a physician. Dr Duncan MacDougall in 1907 set out to find the exact mass of the soul by weighing patients just before and after the moment of death. Presumably, if his timing was right, the only thing that would have changed in the intervening second or so was the departure of the soul. Though the different patients he used produced slightly different results, this is the source of the oft-cited statistic that the human soul weighs 21 grams.

Curiously enough, Dr MacDougall became doubly convinced of the efficacy of his studies when he set out to weigh the souls of dogs. His particular religion believed that dogs had no souls, and sure enough he found no difference in weight as he had with the humans, seeming to verify this belief.

Do these studies have any validity? To my knowledge there haven't been any large-scale attempts to replicate and verify the results, even though it's been a hundred years. There are certainly experimental reasons to doubt the findings, but in the absense of conclusive evidence either way, I personally prefer to withhold judgement. Hope you found that as interesting as I do!

Answer 4

Science does not exclude the idea of existance beyond physical life. Many try to test the idea. The results are almost always inconclusive. It is just a hard concept to prove.

Our science has not advanced to the point that it understands the spark of life that makes us really work. The workings of the brain are still a mystery, i have never heard the soul excluded as a possible answer to that mystery.

Answer 5

Your argument is flawed in one way. The driver of a car can be seen and observed and measured. The same cannot be said of a soul, and that is why science rejects the concept of a soul.

Answer 6

Well, science can't really discuss the idea of soul because it can't be measured.

Science has to be measurable, repeatable, observable, etc. So things like spirit and soul and God aren't actually in the purview of science. They aren't neccessarily in opposition to science, so you don't have to pick between (for example) believing in God and believing in evolution.

Science can tell us how we physically operate, how our bodies work and what they will do under particular stimuli that have been studied. But science can't tell us if there's something incorporeal (like a soul) directing the whole mess.

Answer 7

if there quite have been neanderthals, then they could have first of all, evolution is an theory and not fact. the difficulty is that despite the renowned concept is, it extremely isn't any longer TOTTALY impressive. It desires to be corrected or stronger on. this scripture shows a symbolic expression helping evolution. the serpent or snake began with legs and replaced into cursed to bypass on it extremely is abdomen. Genesis 3:14 14And our lord god stated unto the serpent, simply by fact thou hast executed this, thou artwork cursed specifically farm animals, and above each and every beast of the sector; upon thy abdomen shalt thou bypass, and airborne dirt and mud shalt thou consume all the days of thy existence: Romans a million:20 For the invisible problems with him from the advent of the international are patently seen, being understood by the flaws that are made, even his eternal potential and Godhead; so as that they are without excuse:

Answer 8

Science, by definition, is the study of the natural world. Soul, spirit, angels, God, grace lie entirely outside the pervue of science. No scientist, speaking as a scientist, can make any valid statement about such things one way or the other.

Answer 9

Not that I know of. That would be an admission that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. More importantly it isn't something that can be explained so I doubt science would endorse it.

Answer 10

Science DO except the concept but they name it different & they name it "LIFE"....

If u r alive u have LIFE in you else u r dead ... same is with soul isnt it???