Is the soul a parasite? Why, or Why not?

Question

The human body has many parasites. Is the soul one of them? and Why? or Why not? This is a theoretical question about the nature of the human body.

Joan H: I agree with you that it is simply wishful thinking that our essence will continue after our physical death. I do not assume the immortality of the human mind. In fact, I believe that IF our bodies have soul parasites, they most likely are not us. They would have a different mental identity and sense of self, if any.

The only thing I assume here is that it is possible that the soul is a corporeal nomadic parasite, one that can somehow move from body to body.

Sub7ime: This is not necessarily a theological question. You implicitly assume that the soul always has to be defined in a religious way. So, you give a question begging response. Your answer question begs by definition.
Here, I am exploring a different type of definition for 'soul.' As a non-religious person, I refuse to accept the religious definition that most persons assume is true.

My question asks about one type of living organism (soul brain parasite?) within another type of living organism (the human being). So, it is a BIOLOGICAL theoretical question.

Sub7ime: By the way, I am completely opposed to scientology.

Answer 1

It really depends on if you think the soul gives the body life. If so, then the answer is logically no.
The other way around is difficult to assess: if the body gives the soul life, does the soul reciprocate? You must also answer the question of whether it is the soul that makes certain decision (getting married; forgiving; working out; drinking alcohol) or if these are merely biochemical responses to external stimuli based on previous experience. If you this it's based on biochemistry only, then the soul would be parasitic. If the soul chooses, then it is not necessarily a parasite (though you can't prove that it isn't).
Next consideration: if what the soul chooses is harmful to the body, does that make it a parasite, or was that consequence unavoidable? First, if the soul decides to go to the gym, this is beneficial for the body, and the two are mutualists. However, if the soul decides to do marijuana, which is bad for the body but immediately beneficial for the soul, the soul might be a parasite. Again, you can only come to this conclusion if you think that the body gives the soul life. Otherwise, the soul can never be a parasite.

Answer 2

No- I don't think that a soul would fit the classical definition of a parasite. souls are an integral part of us, and without them we would in many ways cease to exist; in contrast, without parasites we would be much better off as they steal energy and nutrients from us. I wouldn't even class mitochondria as parasites although others may do so.

I suppose you could argue that we live in a symbiotic relationship with our souls, but personally I believe that souls are as much a part of us as our hearts and minds.

Answer 3

I would say no, because a parasite needs a host in order to live. It's been said however, that the soul lives on even after the body of a person has expired.

Answer 4

Parasites are living physical entities and are able to reproduce themselves and form new generations of parasites.

Does that sound like a proper definition of a soul?

I personally don't think there is such a thing as a soul. It is more wishful thinking that somehow our essence will live eternally.

Answer 5

Nope.
A parasite "steals" materials, nutrients, and energy-bearing carbohydrates from the host. The soul doesn't do those things.

Answer 6

The Scientologists have strikingly similar beliefs (instead of the "soul" as a parasite, they claim that there are "Thetans" which inhabit your body).

The question that you've posed is theoretical, but it's not a biological question so much as it is theological or philosophical.

Answer 7

No. Because there is no such thing.