Do we have an immaterial soul?

There is no evidence to suggest that a soul exists, so I disbelieve it for the same reason I disbelieve that there is an invisible dragon in my garage.

Are We Souls With A Body?
It is beneficial and in our best interest to understand and think of ourselves as "souls with a body" and not bodies with a soul. When we leave the earth and arrive out there, we are the same person out there that we were while here on earth. Nothing much has changed during that process with the exception; we are telepathic but this is just a computer facilitated form of communication. Telepathy is basically the same as verbalization and we get used to it very quickly once we arrive out there, Solamenta.

It is from much hard work in learning to see ourselves for who we truly are that we also, finally understand that our beliefs are the bane of mankind! Our primitive beliefs keep us from the truth. Truth can only be discovered by the exploration and hard work of the individual. However, when we leave the earth and for those whom have committed horrible crimes… particularly against the innocent, it is not a happy homecoming as they are met, by their victims and their families.

Read article in its entirety…
http://www.divineadvancedhumanbeings.com/are-we-souls-with-a-body/

While I cannot rule out the existence of a soul separate from material reality, the soul has no shred of evidence in its favour and must contend against everything we know about modern neuroscience.

The human experience is a pattern of fluctuations in the state of the physical reality. It is independent of matter in the same way a computer program is independent of electrons (and could be replicated, albeit inefficiently, with stones on sand, water in pipes or graphite on paper instead of electrons in semiconductors), but to claim it immaterial adds an unnecessary level of complexity that has no predictive power whatsoever.

We have a personal identity, but it is not a soul.

The word soul is that thing which every man refers to when he says "I". I agree it is immaterial and its immateriality refers to the fact that it is not material thing, it is neither divisible nor governed by time and space.

No doubt, I conceive in myself a concept which I refer to as "I"; and it is equally certain that every man has a similar conception about himself and it is a conception which we are never oblivious of - as long as we are alive and conscious. In short, it is not like our external limbs which we feel with our senses nor is it like our internal organs which we know by senses or experiment. Sometimes we become oblivious of one of the limbs or even the whole body. But we are never oblivious of "I" and this proves that "I" is other than the body and its parts.

One of the characteristics of matter is gradual change, dissolution and divisibility. If soul were body or part thereof, it would have been subject to change and division - but it is not so.

Also, this notion of "I" is simple and one; there is no plurality or parts therein, nor is there any extraneous ingredient mixed with it; it is an absolute one. Every man finds it in himself that he is he and not someone else. Therefore this notion or vision is a concept which subsists by itself and distinct; it is beyond the definition of matter and is not subject to its characteristics and properties, it is separate from matter; it has a connection with the body which makes it identifiable with the body - and it is the connection of management.

It is true that science, based on senses and perception and experiments, with all its minute, delicate and in-depth researches, has not come across a "soul". Also, it is correct that it has not found any phenomenon which irresistibly led one to the soul and its cause. But these two premises do not prove that there is not an immaterial soul. The natural sciences which discuss the laws of nature and properties of matter, are by definition limited to the researches concerning matter only, which is its main subject. The apparatus and chemicals, etc. which sciences use to conduct and complete their experiments, may throw light on matter and material affairs only. But by the same token, these, sciences and their tools, etc cannot pass any judgment - for or against - on metaphysical and immaterial concept and beings. Utmost that a natural science can say is that it did not find a soul. But not finding something is not non-existence of that thing. Besides, we do not expect them to find within their subject something beyond the limit of matter and physical nature.

Comments on the above are most welcome!

Thanks

"We are literally soulless machines made of meat, honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution."

Nature is both cruel and kind. If it wasn't for the random mechanism that causes horrible genetic mutations we'd never have breathtaking beauty. Myers, at least in this comment, seems to focus on the negative side of the equation of life. In addition, his use of language has nasty connotations. Whether it's "correct" for people to do so or not, people hear "soulless" as "heartless" and "not soulful". And referring to humans as meat...? The only time that language would have positive connotations would be if you were marketing to cannibals or death metal fans.

As far as consciousness and personal identity go, I suspect that the patterns are more important than the substance, but those patterns nevertheless run on an entirely biological substrate. There are no special rules for it.

Trying to explain human behavior with a soul is rather like trying to explain chemical reactions with phlogiston - you can make up reasons why your theory fits any observation, but you can't predict any of them in advance. Worse, the things you would predict from such a theory, for example, ghosts and reincarnation, are fairly well refuted. Contrast with neuroscience, and you can see that there's no adequate argument for souls.

To the extent that a person can be said to have soul, it is implemented by neurons and other physical structures.

The existence of ontologically basic mental things is a complex hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

The fact that we have a soul is just a matter (no pun intended) of experience. Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas dealt with this philosophically way before Descartes, and did not rely on some magical material "anchor" for the soul.

Most of the arguments against this basic evidence actually assume the soul must be material, then, when they don't find it, they claim to have demonstrated the soul does not exist.

C.f. the pinneal gland bit; there need not be material "anchor" for an immaterial soul. This argument is a straw man.

A bit like when Russian astronauts left the Earth's atmosphere and didn't find God sitting up there waiting for them.