If existence of the soul cannot be proven empirically, is this adequate reason to concede there is no soul?

Question

If existence of the soul cannot be proven empirically (i.e., through the scientific method) is this adequate reason to believe there is no soul? If the soul is something that cannot be demonstrated on an empirical basis, is that enough "proof" that it doesn't exist? Are the only things in the world that exist the things that can be demonstrated through the scientific method, and if something like the soul is not supported by the scientific method (observable evidence) it should be said to be non-existent? All these questions are asking the same thing.

student_of_life: Nice try, but you are borderline contradicting yourself. To sum up your "answer" : No, not having empirical evidence for something doesn't make it not true, but then it also means there's no reason for me to believe it. And by the way, belief in the soul is self-evident, but once many people learn an empirical form of reasoning they make this more important than knowledge being "self-evident." Instead, they demand proof for everything or refuse to believe. That's the approach of the ardent empiricist, which your roundabout answer indicates you've become (no offense, though you may find "evidence" that I'm being offensive in this reply).

Answer 1

The entire argument rests on the definition of a soul. Some definitions can be proven, some cannot.
A name is a name and to it may be ascibed whatever characteristics that are deemed necessary. As a concept for a way of thinking, whether or not it exists, is immaterial. i.e what is a lap? Or a conversation?

Answer 2

Here are the facts accepted by most peoples of this world.
1. The Soul or Spirit of man...is a spirit. Spirit is something that we humans have not been able to prove because it does not exist within the Physical realm of physical laws, which would not be as something that can be proven by physical laws that science can only follow. Yet it does because we find spiritual happenings in the world unexplained by physical means all the time. This in its self is a fact.
(Pro 20:27) The spirit of man [is] the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.
(1Cr 2:11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
So you see the physical is the physical and the spirit is the spirit and they are separate. The Spirit dose not rely upon the physical but the physical relies upon the spirit.
Two different kinds of things in existence. In a way the physical could not exist without the other. Spirit maybe a mirror image of the physical and vise versa. This has been an argument for centuries.

Answer 3

Not really! In the Western context the Soul is a necessary ingredient in the evolution of the culture of Faith and Atonement. Then too the concept of karma found in Eastern Religion relates to the notion of the soul but here it is an illusion of something greater, and as a continued concept, faith is replaced with the more critical realization of forbearance.

As for the supremacy of science, we can prove nothing beyond the present ! That is to say tomorrow scientifically is a probablity not a given, thus it can't be proven either but we don't sweat it!

Answer 4

the existence of the soul has been demonstrated or at least it gets you thinking about its existence, the fact that you were looking somewhere else when the test was done or you haven't heard of it it doesn't mean that it wasn't done. This people build a bed very sensible to small changes of weight, I believe it happened at least once circa1946, a person close to dead was put in it, when the person died it was found a change of weight o about two ounces, it happened with every person; when the same was done with animals no change of weight was detected,so the humans had something that the animals didn't, it was speculated it was the so called soul, I don't even has proof that the test was really done and about the results, something I read somewhere

Answer 5

To argue the non-existence or existence of something just because it isn't proof is a fallacy. You can't not argue that unicorns exist because nobody has proof that they don't or reverse the argument. The existence of a conscious soul cannot be proof due to the lack of ability to measure it. It also boils down to the definition of a soul. Everything contains energy and as we learned nothing is destroyed or created in this world. An energy signal left by something may be considered its soul. I believe in the conscious soul. I have no argument for it. So I don't argue against those who don't believe I just believe.

Answer 6

roughly speaking, yes. lack of proof of something is not proof that it doesn't exist, but it is a good reason to not believe something. Of course not everything needs to be empirically proved. We believe many things that have not been proven, but this is where things like occam's razor are useful to separate likely beliefs from unlikely beliefs. Insisting on empirical proof for everything is impossible, but this isn't a reason to adopt beliefs which have no empirical evidence (or empirical evidence that can be better explained by other hypotheses.)

Generally I think there are three categories of things that should be believed:
-things that have evidence, either empirically or logically, and for which there is no simpler explanation
-things that have not been proven, but which are pragmatic to believe in
-things that are self-evident

A belief in the soul is none of these.


I think an example would be useful. I just used the example of invisible leprechauns in another question, so i'll use it here too. Let's say i'm trying to decide whether or not i should believe that indetectable leprechauns pull my car around whenever i drive someplace. There is no evidence for this belief, but lack of evidence for a belief does not mean that that belief is not true. Does that mean this belief is just as valid as the belief that the car goes because of its engine? You could never empirically disprove my belief since causality cannot be empirically observed. Pragmatism and using occam's razor is how we save ourselves from having to concede that all beliefs that lack empirical evidence are equally valid.

So, in itself, lack of empirical proof doesn't automatically eliminate the possibility of there being a soul, but that doesn't mean there is good reason to believe in the soul. Lack of proof is not the same as proof of lack, but that doesn't mean lack of proof is the same as justifiable belief.

Answer 7

How if feels to kiss cannot be proven by the scientific method either. Nah, that's not proof. furthermore, we have sensing instruments. Each other. We can sense the goings on in the souls of our friends and loved ones let alone our own selves. Sensing a thing ourselves is no less valid that being able to build a machine that sense it, but we haven't figured that out yet, even tho we use drug sniffing dogs - we're not like, too bright yet, on this stuff.

Answer 8

No....the quest for knowledge does not stop if an empirical reason is not NOW known. Perhaps, in the future, with better recording or observation devices, it can be proven. Science is not static and is always subject to change as new evidence is found.

Answer 9

It does not 'prove' that there is no soul.

It fails to support the hypothesis "there is a soul" - which should be rejected in the absence of evidence.

You would need empirical evidence of the absence of soul to 'prove' its non-existence. This is not the same as absence of evidence.

Answer 10

Of course not. I don't happen to believe in them. However, it's impossible to disprove existance of something per scientific methods. I can't disprove leprechauns just because I haven't caught one, either.