3 ms·

" The concept of a soul is an abstract non-scientific belief, so given its an abstract concept with no scientific basis, why do we make a distinction between on

" The concept of a soul is an abstract non-scientific belief, so given its an abstract concept with no scientific basis, why do we make a distinction between one form of life and another?" A 'soul' is a rational and scientific concept, it's just not materialist or rather, the kind of science we are used to daily. As far as souls, more complicated, but maybe one simple answer is that more complex and intelligent forms of life have a deeper access to 'the soul' and that it's not like a step function, rather ... some kind of increasing gradient from inanimate matter, to plants, to animals, to humans, to the 'next level' of life. My second answer relates to the first, i.e. 'Scientific' in sense that his is literally how we divide the universe at least biologically, i.e. life/not life, then domain, kingdom etc.. Please reconsider the notion that 'soul' has no scientific basis, as many would consider that the 'soul' or 'spirit' or 'animus' or whatever is literally the thing that distinguishes us from inanimate material - otherwise - according to a purely materialist perspective you cannot be alive i.e. there is no such thing as life - you are merely a random bag of particles that appears to be alive :). If you believe that you are alive, that there is love, intelligence, happiness, experience, consciousness, and that you are not simply a purely random bag of particles, then it logically follows you must 'believe in something' that is not bound by strict materialist ideals. This metaphysical concept is not new, and we have some words for that, usually: 'soul' or 'animus' or 'spirit' or whatever. It's not irrational and it's not unscientific, it just by definition does not fit within materialist framework. And to be more clear - materialist science holds as a presupposition that 'everything is a random wave/particle/big of energy' - it is not a 'proof' kind of thing. It holds as a presupposition that 'there is nothing more'. In essence, materialist science starts with a premise of denying all other views, and then goes on to try to explain everything through the lego-blocks of matter type theories. Which don't explain life very well at all. Sorry for all that. Short answer: Animals are on the spectrum of life, as are we, and there's clearly a relationship there and we can therefore infer a degree of their experience and status in all of this to some extent.

coginawheel 8y ago
As a sidepoint, I'm going to have to argue that while a soul can be considered a rational concept, it is by know means scientific. I have not aware of any peer reviewed research utilizing the scientific method to show that a soul exists. But to get to your main point, my question again is why are plants excluded from this state? I really don't get it. You call out that animals are different because they aren't inanimate beings, but neither are plants. Plants are complex, highly evolved multi cellular organisms that are certainly not inanimate. If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. It's a similar moral argument for why you shouldn't eat humans. But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't. From any biological perspective plants are just as alive as animals. Plants communicate, respond to touch, many even actively kill other organisms (venus fly traps, bird catcher trees, etc.), they've been experimentally verified to exhibit some type of memory, and they respond to all sorts of stimuli (for example, turning towards the sun). Rationally, isn't that pretty darn alive? It seems shortsighted to think that plants lack a spirit/soul.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. ... But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't" It's not, it's pretty close to the same thing as we pragmatically view life as something beyond material. In Scientific Materialism - you are merely a random bag of particles. There literally can be no 'life' in randomness. By very definition, you cannot exist in those terms. 'Soul/spirit/animus' etc. are crude words we all use to describe that which animates life beyond the pure randomness of our material explanations. Though you can try to describe life in biological terms, and it's practical ... it's has some major flaws. Surely, after 4 decades of Star Trek we can all cognize forms of life which don't fit our classical biological view. More abstract notions of life would therefore have to be designed and they inch closer and closer to a metaphysical perspective that just doesn't work as Materialism. So, if you consider the word 'Soul' to mean some concrete idea, but which is totally imaginary, like 'some God' or whatever, then sure - I see your point - but really, the existence of the terminology 'Soul/Spirit' etc. is simply grasping at something more meta, they are used to describe effectively life. Ergo - 'same scale'. We've used and understood gravity in very crude terms for 1000's of years and yet we did not specifically understand the mechanics of it. It didn't mean we were wrong so much as we just had a crude grasp of it. Scientific Materialism is a really useful tool, but it's not a Truth. It has it's limits and these issues highlight those limits quite well.

coginawheel 8y ago

As a sidepoint, I'm going to have to argue that while a soul can be considered a rational concept, it is by know means scientific. I have not aware of any peer reviewed research utilizing the scientific method to show that a soul exists. But to get to your main point, my question again is why are plants excluded from this state? I really don't get it. You call out that animals are different because they aren't inanimate beings, but neither are plants. Plants are complex, highly evolved multi cellular organisms that are certainly not inanimate. If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. It's a similar moral argument for why you shouldn't eat humans. But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't. From any biological perspective plants are just as alive as animals. Plants communicate, respond to touch, many even actively kill other organisms (venus fly traps, bird catcher trees, etc.), they've been experimentally verified to exhibit some type of memory, and they respond to all sorts of stimuli (for example, turning towards the sun). Rationally, isn't that pretty darn alive? It seems shortsighted to think that plants lack a spirit/soul.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. ... But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't" It's not, it's pretty close to the same thing as we pragmatically view life as something beyond material. In Scientific Materialism - you are merely a random bag of particles. There literally can be no 'life' in randomness. By very definition, you cannot exist in those terms. 'Soul/spirit/animus' etc. are crude words we all use to describe that which animates life beyond the pure randomness of our material explanations. Though you can try to describe life in biological terms, and it's practical ... it's has some major flaws. Surely, after 4 decades of Star Trek we can all cognize forms of life which don't fit our classical biological view. More abstract notions of life would therefore have to be designed and they inch closer and closer to a metaphysical perspective that just doesn't work as Materialism. So, if you consider the word 'Soul' to mean some concrete idea, but which is totally imaginary, like 'some God' or whatever, then sure - I see your point - but really, the existence of the terminology 'Soul/Spirit' etc. is simply grasping at something more meta, they are used to describe effectively life. Ergo - 'same scale'. We've used and understood gravity in very crude terms for 1000's of years and yet we did not specifically understand the mechanics of it. It didn't mean we were wrong so much as we just had a crude grasp of it. Scientific Materialism is a really useful tool, but it's not a Truth. It has it's limits and these issues highlight those limits quite well.