Comments on: Do Atheists Believe in the Existence of a Soul?

By: What Does the Atheist Say to a Sneeze | Skepticum

What Does the Atheist Say to a Sneeze | Skepticum — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:54:35 +0000

[...] is post 3 in the What Would the Atheist Say (WWAS) series. Read part 1 and part [...]

By: Announcing 'What Would the Atheist Say?' Series | Skepticum

Announcing 'What Would the Atheist Say?' Series | Skepticum — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:10:45 +0000

[...] on my earlier post on “Do Atheists Believe in the Existence of a Soul,” and “Professor Says There Are Atheists in Foxholes,” I decided to start a series called [...]

By: Mind and Brain, Soul and Consciousness, Religion and Science | Skepticum

Mind and Brain, Soul and Consciousness, Religion and Science | Skepticum — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:27:46 +0000

[...] an earlier post, “Do Atheists Believe in the Existance of a Soul,” I discussed the difference between soul and consciousness. My take is that a strong atheist will [...]

By: postifthen

postifthen — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:51:45 +0000

Mana,
The only soul I have is this one. When I die my soul will be dead.

P.S. If the “old ones” return to claim earth, please take refuge in Chuck Norris. A brick house or potassium iodide will not help you at this time… only Chuck Norris.

By: johnny

johnny — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:55:11 +0000

I agree with VJack. For example, Platonic atheists reject the existence of a God, but are not materialists because they believe in the existence of abstract immaterial objects. A platonic atheist could agree with Plato that there is a soul, but deny the existence of God.

I think one of the confusions that often surrounds the term “atheism” is conflating it with materialism or naturalism.

By: Mana

Mana — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:34:24 +0000

Heather, thanks for your comment. “there’s always a danger of forgetting its a metaphor and absent-mindedly pick up the religious or romantic baggage that goes with it.” This is a very valid point. I would never use the term soul in a discussion about consciousness, because ’soul’ is a vague concept for one, and as you said, carries enough theistic baggage do open the door for paranormal interpretations.

But I’d say we agree, atheists can believe in love.

By: heather

heather — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:27:43 +0000

Good post and good discussion in the comments.
It must be down to definition.
We don’t have any other words to describe the essence of people’s being so I suppose it’s unavoidable to think of people having metaphorical “souls” or “spirit.” As you say,
“On the other hand we have the philosophical concept of soul, in the Socratic and Aristotelian tradition, as mind, reason, intellect, emotions.”
When we think in terms of “soul”, though, there’s always a danger of forgetting its a metaphor and absent-mindedly pick up the religious or romantic baggage that goes with it.

By: Mana

Mana — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:17:48 +0000

Cel, I think you’re right in that this discussion depends on how one defines soul. And this idea probably applies to vjack’s comment as well. How can one define” an intangible non-experienced belief of a soul”? Scientists have measured all sorts of intangible things, such as particles, and even brain chemistry, but yet there is no scientific proof for a soul. There is consciousness, and cognition, could these be the modern interpretations of soul?

Vjac, I agree that the concept of soul does not have to be associated with religious belief and in that sense it’s not theistic. I would argue though that the concept of “soul” has two faces, one is theistic and one is philosophical. The theistic set of definitions is mythological and involves the supranatural–it includes the Roman concept of “anima,” the greek “psyche” both used to represent spirits of the dead that are the dominion of one god or another. The concept of the soul doesn’t get any more theistic than when used to represent spiritus dei. On the other hand we have the philosophical concept of soul, in the Socratic and Aristotelian tradition, as mind, reason, intellect, emotions.

So, as an atheist I don’t believe in the existence of a soul in the theistic tradition, but I accept the existence of a biological set of rules and mechanisms that create cognition and consciousness.

By: vjack

vjack — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:57:05 +0000

Since “atheism” simply refers to the lack of theistic belief (i.e., that a god or gods exist), belief in a soul is not necessarily excluded by atheism. In addition to being an atheist, I am a materialist in the sense that I do not believe in any sort of spiritual entities, souls, angels, demons, etc. But I could imagine that some atheists might believe in souls just as some atheists believe in ghosts.

By: Cel

Cel — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:28:08 +0000

Would you also agree that humans are composed of physics, therefore energy and matter? Conversely what would be the definition of a soul? Could someone argue that a soul is also energy with lack of matter? Soul mates then being the merge of previously combined energy sources? As spatial energy matters circle one another throughout time.

I know this is stretching it a bit, but I would argue nothing can be definite before first defining the subject matter. To that end how can one accurately define an intangible non-experienced belief of a soul?