Science says, “Sorry, no such thing as soul”

Delving into a bag of books and magazines yesterday, I pulled out a 2013 issue of Skeptic. Thumbing through it, I found a highlighted article that must have been the reason I saved the magazine.

Good title: "What Science Really Says About the Soul," by Stephen Cave. Being fairly short, I'll include the piece in its entirety at the end of this post, after sharing some selected quotes.

Soul

His arguments against the existence of some sort of non-material bubble of divine consciousness are pretty darn good. I've made most of them myself in my own highly-persusive blog posts during the past 10+ years. 

They're difficult to refute. 

One is what I like to call the Baseball Bat Argument. If an eternal non-physical conscious soul is our genuine essence, why doesn't some sign of it manifest when the brain is injured, like after the head is hit with a baseball bat?

Cave says:

The evidence of science, when brought together with an ancient argument, provides a very powerful case against the existence of a soul that can carry forward your essence once your body fails.

…every part of the mind can now be seen to fail when some part of the brain fails.

…But if we each have a soul that enables us to see, think and feel after the total destruction of the body, why, in the cases of dysfunction documented by neuroscientists, do these souls not enable us to see, think and feel when only a small portion of the brain is destroyed?

…But if the soul can see when the entire brain and body have stopped working, why, in the case of people with damaged optic nerves, can’t it see when only part of the brain and body have stopped working? In other words, if blind people have a soul that can see, why are they blind?

…In fact, evidence now shows that everything the soul is supposed to be able to do—think, remember, love—fails when some relevant part of the brain fails. Even consciousness itself—otherwise there would be no general anesthetics.

Cave goes on to present an oft-heard explanation for why damage to the brain results in malfunctioning consciousness: soul consciousness is like electromagnetic waves, and the brain is like a television. The waves are separate from the television, but can't be received/perceived without a TV as long as we are alive.

Not a good argument, as Cave demonstrates.

Most believers expect their soul to be able to carry forward their mental life with or without the body; this is like saying that the TV signal sometimes needs a TV set to transform it into the picture, but once the set is kaput, can make the picture all by itself. But if it can make the picture all by itself, why does it sometimes act through an unreliable set?

…Second, changes to our bodies impact on our minds in ways not at all analogous to how damage to a TV set changes its output, even if we take into account damage to the camera too. The TV analogy claims there is something that remains untouched by such damage, some independent broadcaster preserving the real program even if it is distorted by bad reception. But this is precisely what the evidence of neuroscience undermines.

…Which suggests we are nothing like a television; but much more like, for example, a music box: the music is not coming from elsewhere, but from the workings within the box itself. When the box is damaged, the music is impaired; and if the box is entirely destroyed, then the music stops for good.

Not good news. But reality isn't set up to deliver what humans prefer. Reality is what it is. Understanding that "it is" is the goal of science, whereas religion specializes in "what we'd like to be."

For many years, 35 or so, I managed to be semi-scientifically-minded while still holding to a belief in soul and spirit. Why? Because it felt good to do this.

I didn't like the idea of dying and being gone forever (still don't, for that matter).

So I embraced the feel-good stories told by a mystical Indian teaching and rejected the evidence of science in this regard. Now, though, I resonate with Cave's final paragraph.

There is much about consciousness that we still do not understand. We are only beginning to decipher its mysteries, and may never fully succeed. But all the evidence we have suggests that the wonders of the mind—even near-death and out of body experiences—are the effect of neurons firing. Contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of people on Earth, from Hindus to New Age spiritualists, consciousness depends upon the brain and shares its fate to the end.

The full Cave article can be found in a continuation to this post.

Hurting children in the name of religion — unacceptable

I dislike faith-based religious belief for lots of reasons. A big one is that innocent people often are hurt by irrational, science-denying dogmas. Like, the crazy notion that vaccines somehow are ungodly. Or even that all sorts of medical care are.  Driving around yesterday, I was channel-surfing on satellite radio and came across an interview with pediatrician Paul Offit on Radio Times. He's written a book called "Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine."  What he said pushed the child-protecting buttons in me. I'm OK with people endangering their own health (physical and mental) in the name of religion.…

Best statement about reality, in just thirteen words

Back in 2006, I called my post about it "The best one-sentence metaphysics ever written." I still feel that way. But if anyone has another contender for this honor, share it in a comment. Dick's adage came to mind today when I gave some thought to another quotation by Gregory Bateson that I see mentioned fairly often in science books. Information is a difference which makes a difference. So let's ponder the notion of "God" a bit from the perspectives of what Dick and Bateson said. Or, if you like, of supernatural religiosity in general. What difference does the divinity so…

Leaving religion can be like dogs facing imaginary doors

Recently I came across a couple of videos that reminded me of (1) how hard and scary it can be to leave religious beliefs behind, and (2) how easy and joyful it can be. There is nothing preventing you from walking through the empty door of freedom from dogma, blind faith, and moralistic confinement. You just need to take a step or two. Be confident that the only thing holding you back is a false belief that something is. Then, rejoice in your newfound freedom. See how these videos strike you..    

Consciousness is a fundamental property of matter

After attending a talk in Portland, Oregon by neuroscientist Christof Koch (see here), I've been re-reading his book, "'Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist." In his talk, as in my blog post about it, Koch emphasized his search for the neural correlates of consciousness. That is, the specific goings-on in the brain that produce a specific "percept," like seeing the color red. A few commenters have correctly noted that this doesn't answer the Hard Problem question: how and why we have phenomenal awareness in general, leaving aside the question of how and why this particular bit of awareness comes to…

Christof Koch’s brain talk points to the material nature of consciousness

Last night my wife and I, along with two neighbor friends, attended a talk in Portland, Oregon by neuroscientist Christof Koch. Title: "The Quest for Consciousness." What is consciousness? What is hiding in our unconscious mind? And how can you harness both for a more fulfilling life? Consciousness is like an orchestra, and our brain is its conductor. Stemming in part from a long-standing collaboration with the late Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, Christof Koch, Ph.D., will be exploring how the flickering of nerve cells in the brain leads to information processing and the unforgettable experiences that make us who we…

Timeless naturalism vs. temporal naturalism? I like temporal.

I'm still making my way through a thick, serious, thoughtful, well-written science/philosophy book, "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time."  (Previous posts about the book are here and here.) The authors, Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin, wrote different parts of the book. I've just started reading Smolin's chapters. He's a philosophically minded physicist, while Unger is a scientifically minded philosopher. A couple of topics particularly interested me in Smolin's opening Cosmology in Crisis chapter.  First, the notion of naturalism -- which he says comes in two flavors, timeless and temporal. Smolin defines naturalism this way: Naturalism is the…

Religious people have no right to discriminate against gays

Oh, man. As if I needed another reason to hate religious bigotry. But there it was, couldn't be ignored... a New York Times story that got my moral blood boiling: "Anticipating Nationwide Right to Same-Sex Marriage, States Weigh Religious Exemption Bills." So what do these religious jerks want to be exempted from? Treating homosexual people with the same dignity and respect due everybody else.  As it looks increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage later this year, state legislatures across the country are taking up bills that would make it easier for businesses and individuals to opt…

Rejoice! Your essence is brain-meat, nothing more

I guess this shows how I've really dived into the churchless, irreligious, naturalistic deep end. Reading the current New Scientist issue last night, I came across an article, "Meet your other brain."  Online version has a different title and subtitle. Brain boosting: it's not just grey matter that matters. Inside your head, another brain is hiding in plain sight – one that responds to your cognitive needs and self-heals. It's time to make the most of your myelin Myelin, I learned, is "the fatty sheath that envelops most neurons." Rather than it merely being like cable insulation, scientists have found that…

How to talk about spiritual experiences

Talking is good. Face to face, or otherwise. One of those other ways is through what I like to call "comment conversations."  These frequently happen on this blog -- where people exchange a series of comments on some blog post subject. A recent post, "Modern mystics, why should anyone believe your 'vision'?", elicited some comments from me and others that got me thinking. Also a good thing.  Below I'll share my comment that is a less organized form of what follows in this post. Which is, a schema that describes how I've come to view the more desirable and less…

Modern mystics, why should anyone believe your “vision”?

After more than ten years of blogging on this here Church of the Churchless -- 2,410,012 page views; 2,036 posts; 29,750 comments -- I'm still asking this question. Why should the claims of "modern mystics," who claim to have personally experienced God, spirit, heaven, or some other manifestation of divinity, be taken more seriously than the countless similar claims that have been made by innumerable others throughout recorded history? I keep on asking this question in various ways, both in blog posts and replies to comments, because it seems to me that those alive today who would have us believe…

“It is what it is” actually is a profound scientific statement

As irritating as it can be to hear it is what it is uttered so often by athletes after a loss, I find this phrase appealing.  I described why in a blog post a few years back, "The profundity -- or not -- of 'it is what it is'." Me, I like the phrase's meaninglessness. Zenlike, it points to the this'ness of is'ness (a truth'ness that will make a lot more sense to you if you're stoned or drunk, which is the best state of mind to read Church of the Churchless blog posts like this). ...The author of the Slate…

No U.S. President should attend prayer breakfasts

A few weeks ago I said that I agreed with Obama's statement at a prayer breakfast regarding wrongs being committed by adherents of all religious faiths. But a Salon article argues for a broader conclusion: no President should be attending prayer breakfasts, since this supports the ridiculousness of religion.  Check out "Faith-fueled forces of hatred: Obama's religion speech was troubling -- but not for the reasons the right alleges." What, some might ask, could be wrong with prayer? By common definition, prayer entails someone sitting for a quiet moment and beseeching his or her Lord for intervention in matters of…

Here’s a science book with a radical view of reality

Oh, man. I'm so glad I got pulled in by the Book Magnet.  That's how I explained my purchase of two thick, serious books to the cashier at the Book Bin in downtown Salem, Oregon. I'd parked my car in front of the bookstore, gone to my Tai Chi class, and was all set to drive home until, poised to unlock the car door... Go inside and check out the new books, the everpresent voice inside my head told me. Must obey, I happily told myself. "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" stared me in the face almost…

Oregon should eliminate non-medical reasons for not vaccinating

People who irrationally fear vaccines shouldn't be allowed to opt out of vaccination laws for either philosophical or religious reasons. After all, a lot of scientific research shows that vaccines are safe and effective. Sure, there are some risks. But there are risks in everything, including wearing seat belts. Once in a while you hear of someone dying after being trapped in a burning car by his or her seatbelt. Seat belts save many more lives, though. Same is true about vaccines. There are occasional mostly minor side effects, yet clearly the benefits both to the individual and to society…

Ten modern atheist non-commandments

A few months ago I wrote about Lex Bayer's and John Figdor's atheist manifesto in "Halfway through 'Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart,' I love this book." Having finished it, here's their full list of ten non-commandments (I'd only gotten to six at the time of my first blog post). 1.  The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.2.  We can perceive the world only through our human senses.3.  We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.4.  All truth is proportional to the evidence.5.  There is no God.6.  We all…

Dissolve life’s imaginary problems. Don’t try to solve them.

The best way to resolve a problem is to realize that it doesn't really exist. Poof! Gone. Problem isn't solved; it is dissolved.  More and more, I'm concluding that this is a big drawback with religions. They want us to believe in problems that aren't evident to a non-believer. Like: (1) How does one come to know God? (If God doesn't exist, this isn't a problem)(2) How can our sins be forgiven? (If sins are imaginary, this isn't a problem)(3) How can we be sure of going to heaven after we die? (If there is no heaven, or life after…

“Boyhood” and big bang stir thoughts of religious ridiculousness

Last night I experienced an interesting juxtaposition of two disparate events: watching "Boyhood", via a Netflix DVD, and reading an article in the most recent issue of New Scientist, "Big bang discovery crumbles to dust." Both made me think about the ridiculousness of religion. In Boyhood -- a great movie, by the way -- there's a scene of a Christian minister doing his thing at a church service. He's preaching about the part in the Bible where Jesus asks Thomas to touch him after his resurrection. (This is where the term "doubting Thomas" comes from.) The preacher says that when…

Obama is right: religious believers of all faiths commit wrongs

Yesterday President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. Here's some of what he said -- the part that deeply irritated dogmatic Christians in this country. Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years.  But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil.  ...We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in…

Humanism is way better than religion. Yet mystery remains.

On the whole, I'm pleased to call myself a humanist. As noted in this post about a humanist book, someone called me this during my sophomore year in college --  before I even knew what humanism was. This is one of the points made in an interesting You Tube video a regular Church of the Churchless visitor told me about today: "Christian man says humanists are debauched. Andrew Copson explains what Humanism is really all about."    If you're like me, you'll find the preachy Christian guy who speaks at the start of the video to be irritating. But here's…