Do Humans Have a Soul? My argument follows:

[emprworm]

Here is my personal argument that I composed myself for the existence of a human soul. It was inspired by work from C.S. Lewis. Please read it if you are going to respond to it.

Moral Law

All of us have common impulses pertaining to morality. Someone cuts in front of you in a line. You feel an impulse of anger and say "hey buddy, get to the back of the line" A bully starts picking on someone who replies "hey, cut it out." When you make a comment like this, you are not just stating something about the offending behavior, but you are making an appeal to some sort of standard that you expect the other person to know about.

This is not learned behavior, it is seen in children who are not even able to speak, and accross any culture (basic anthropology). One child takes the toy from another, and suddenly some sort of "fair play" rule has been broken. The child may retalliate or cry. When this act is reciprocated to the child who stole the toy, then that child too can sense that a "fair play" rule was broken. We see this everywhere with people. In fact, this is the guiding principle upon which the science of anthropology operates. It is observable, it is repeatable, and it is testable. This principle of human behavior is well documented and substantiated through the scientific method. If I came in here cursing you out, and I get a ton of responses (rightly so) about how my rude behavior will not be tolerated. But each time an atheist says "you are a troll" they are not just commenting about my words, but they are appealing to some sort of standard regarding human curtosey that I am supposed to know about. All of us understand and make appeals to this standard, yet none of us are able to keep this standard. We find ourselves breaking this "fair play" standard all the time. And whenever we go against the standard, we find ourselves making excuses, or justifying, why our actions were a special case. (i.e. I cut in front of the line because I'm in a hurry and i have critical business to take care of). Constantly we are making appeals to this standard, and we are making justifications whenever we break the standard. We get a set of impulses in a situation. Moral law is that which tells what we ougt to do, which impulse to follow.

The argument from the atheist is that this moral law- the thing that tells us what we ought to do, what we expect others to do, and causes us to make a justification when we fail to do it- is a process of natrual evolution, with no real explanation for how it could have possibly come into being.

The "Third Thing"

Herd Instinct??

I would like to challenge the concept that morality derives itself from a herd instinct, as is frequently argued by atheists and all evolutionists (herd instinct is the explanation that evolutionists use to try and explain how moral law "evolved"). A mother lion and her cubs are being harrassed by hyenas. Now, if you know anything about hyenas, a ratio of 5 hyenas to 1 lion is enough to overcome the lion. If the lion does not flee, it may well be hyena food. Now, the lion and her cubs start running, but the hyenas are able to isolate one of the cubs. Now, the mother lion can either put herself in danger and attempt to save the cub, or run to safety. The mother lion has 2 impulses. One impulse is what is called the "herd instinct"- which is a desire to help. The other is self-preservation. Which impulse will the mother lion follow? The strongest one. If two instincts are in conflict, then the strongest one will win. In the case of 5 hyenas, the mother lion will most likely put up a fight. In the case of a very large pack of hyenas, the mother lion will abandon her cub. This behavior is predictable with all lions, thus it is easy to conclude that the lion will always follow the strongest impulse.

Now suppose we have a human that hears a screaming from inside a burning building? Immediately there are two impulses. The impulse to help (herd instinct) and the impulse to flee (self-preservation). But there is a third thing, something that tells you to suppress one impulse and act on the other impulse. Often times this third thing tells you to supress the stronger impulse in order to act out on the weaker impulse. This thing that tells you to supress a stronger impulse to act out on a weaker impulse cannot itself be the herd instinct. It is not self-preservation. It is the thing that judges between the two impulses, yet it cannot be either of those impulses. When you run into the burning building to help a stranger you hear screaming you make the choice to supress the stronger impulse to

preserve yourself, and make the weaker impulse - to help- the stronger one.

Yet this internal judge itself cannot be an instinct. It must be something that exists independent of the instincts in order to be able to judge them and manipulate their strengths. The man who volunatrily lights himself on fire to protest a government has to immensely supress not only the instinct to self-preserve, but also the instinct to put the flames out once they begin. But again, this third thing cannot itself be part of those instincts. It must be a seperate thing that exists independently of the instincts, always working to balance and judge, and weigh the plethora of impulses we receive every day. if all a creature had were instincts alone, then there would be no possible way that creature could suppress a stronger instinct and act on a weaker instinct- it would always just act on the strongest instinct.

Humans have this ability- humans have this "third thing" that exists independent of our impulses. All humans have it. (sorry, for lack of a better word, im calling it the "third thing" hehe)

But do animals have it? I contend they do not.

No observation has ever shown such to be the case.

"But how could we ever prove this? You cannot possibly know if an animal has that 'third thing' which judges and supresses impulses, because you cannot look into their mind."

I contend that we can observe externally creatures that posess this "third thing" which judges and supresses impulses. I cite again the case of a man who volunatrily lights himself on fire to protest a government and sits in an cross-legged style position as he is consumed in fire without screaming in pain, and without attempting to put out the flames. This is an amazing example in humans of incredible amount of strenght this 'third thing' has to supress very very powerful instincts and make weaker instincts extremely strong. We see humans all the time behave not just differently, but radically differently given the same circumstances- all due to this "third thing".

When observing animals, this is not the case. We can predict with extreme accuracy exactly how an animal will behave in given circumstances because over time and through observation, we can define the impulses of these animals, and the strenght of them. And we know that the strongest impulse wins out. We do not see an animal supressing a strong impulse to act on a weaker one. no animal could sit still while being burned alive, I propose it is not even within their capacity as animals simply because they do not have a "third thing" that can suppress the impulse to put the fire out or to scream in pain.

Though most humans would also try to put the fire out, we know that those humans (if they were dedicated enough), DO have the ability, by use of this "third thing" to overcome this impulse and endure the torture. I will stop here, because perhaps an atheist has an example an animal exhibiting the

characteristics of this "third thing".

I propose that this "third thing" that humans have, which cannot be an impulse itself, could not have evolved. For, how could you possibly evolve an awareness of impulses that is not itself an impulse strictly from impulses itslef? This third thing, which understands moral law, which makes appeals to right and wrong is not adequately explained by evolution...in fact, it is not explained at all. It is only explained by the existence of a human soul.

many of you are going to just hit the "reply button" without reading my argument. Don't bother a response from me then.

please, before you respond to me: read my argument. dont just skim it or reply without actually reading it. Once I know you actually read my argument, then we can discuss it. Let me know your opnions. Thanks.

[BRAVO]

hmmm

[Cyborg]

Whoa your post is just too long for me ::)

[Caid Ivik]

Who needs to ensure such facts?

[IxianMace]

I would explain this "third thing" simply being a case of humans being self-aware, and having consciousness, instead of just basic primitive animal instincts, which defines humans from animals as far as the mind goes. I think the 'soul' (as emprworm puts it) is simply sentience in the human mind. Self awareness of a higher level. The ability to think and make judgements based on what you've been taught is morally correct/incorrect would be explained by this. If you took a normal human being, put him/her in a cave, showed him/her where to find food and water (along with all the necessary basic requirements for survival) but you did not teach him/her any morales, or exposed him/her to interaction with other people, do you think this individual would have morales to act upon? If this individual saw a person dying, do you think he/she would consider it food, or do you think this individual would think about helping the dying person lying on the ground?

[Anathema]

Ixianmaces post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

I hate resorting to the word "soul", because it is so vague. Most people I know describe it as the essense of your being, or something. IMO the soul is your mind, your conciousness and nothing more.

Moral is both learned and passed on geneticly. Even a caveman that lost his parents while he was young will not kill someone without a reason or torture someone just for the fun of it, but will not likely put himself on the line for a total stranger.

[emprworm]

how does self-awareness and morality evolve?

I argued that the "herd instinct" could not possibly evolve into self-awareness & morality.

[TMA_1]

what book of C.S. Lewis inspired the essay? I think its a sound argument myself.

[emprworm]

mere christianity. a great book - esp the first few chapters.

[Caid Ivik]

Christianity solves everything.

[nemafakei]

This 'herd instict' in a sound enough idea. It could be argued that: [Of course, most, if not all animals won't extend the philosophy to one of fair play. They simply do not have the capacity to think in abstracts.]

But surely it is also an instinct of self-interest - the child complains because they have lost something and wants it back. The man in the queue has lost one place in that queue. It is inbuilt into us because we quickly recognise if one person is allowed to wrong another, then we might be subject to being similarly wronged, so we must complain.

[Gobalopper]

mere christianity. a great book - esp the first few chapters.

Heh, I got that for Christmas actually. Haven't read it yet though.

[emprworm]

the problem with using the herd instinct to explain morality (as C.S. Lewis so adequately explains), is that the ability to balance, weigh, and judge the varying impulses on us and actually act on a weak impulse and suppress a stronger one, cannot be an instinc itself. The evolutionary model of the herd instinct is just that- an instinct. There is no ability for a primitive impulse to evolve into a thing that makes moral judgments on impulses, and itself not even be an impulse. That is like saying a 2 dimensional creature living in a plane could see a 3 dimensional object intersecting his plane. All he will ever see is another 2 dimensional plane

[Desert_Eagle25]

Souls. It really depends on your definition of one. Basicly, in my knowledge, having a soul means having feelings, having sympathy, love, hate, sadness, embarressment, and everything else. Now saying Terrorsts dont have souls is just wrong. They feel hate towards us, they love their country and people, and are going to stand by their views, which pretty means they have souls to me.

[SurlyPIG]

If it is as mathematically simple as you say it is, one could argue that animals DO have this third effect. Examples;

Though the reason for this effect is still debated, a popular explanation for the lemming suicide is for the good of the pack. When the population of lemmings grows too large, food becomes scares. Lemmings start to starve. For apparently no reason at all, entire fests of lemmings will jump into the nearest body of water and drown themselves. Some lemmings stay behind and thrive in the less competitive environment. I can't possibly see how the herd instinct could overpower self-preservation in this case.

Another one would be the praying mantis. The insects have a definate conception rate. After mating, the female praying mantis devours the male. Though the female is already larger, the male offers no resistence at all. The male is always eaten. The female needs the food and the protein to carry the freshly fertilized eggs, lay them, and care for the young long enough before she dies. In this case the self preservation instinct, which is much greater, is obliterated by the "next generation" instinct, thus the male dies. Always. Manti never mate twice. Shortly after the larvae have hatched, the female mantis dies too.

I noticed one myself, too, with dogs. My family had a female golden retriever since a couple years before I was born. I always walked her in the mornings and my sister during the day/evening. I always took her to a dog park near where we live so she could go off leash and we'd play fetch or run around for a little while. There were other dogs and people there too. She was always really well-behaved around strange people and animals. She would obediantly sit by my side while I gabbed with other dog owners, pet their dogs etc. She would sit idly by while I chatted with the owner of two massive male German Shepherds. Well, during spring break when I was 11, my mother, sister and I went to England for a few days. On the plane back we must have caught a virus because when we arrived home, my entire family was sick. I was one of the lesser sick so I stuck with my responsibility of walking the dog. I was a mess. I was already jet-lagged and tired, plus I was coughing/sneezing/aching like it was the beginning of winter. I had taken a tylenol cold daytime pill (which did little to help) so I was also pretty light-headed and not really all there mentally. We trudged along to the park but my dog didn't run ahead full force, panting like the dickens and pulling on the leash like she usually did. She walked right beside me the whole way there. Even when we got to the park I had to throw a frisbee and say fetch before she'd leave my side. It was as if she could tell I was in bad shape and not really all there. Well the guy with two huge German Shepherds came along and the dogs were their usual hostile selves. Hell, at the time they were bigger than I was. But what was really wierd was that my dog was raging rabid with twice as much as hostility. She wouldn't let anything or anyone within thirty feet of me. I mean, here's this comparitively small, thirteen-year-old girl dog completely ready to fight two massive German Shepherds to protect me. There's no way in hell she would have won a fight. She's a smart dog and she'd have known that before. So the instinct for self-preservation must be much greater, yet there she was barking and growling her lungs out at a pair of agressive thug-dogs three times her size.

The difference? My dog knew and loved me since the day I was born. Emotion my friend. I believe, that is your "third thing". Your decisions are primarily effected by your emotions. For the burning building example, a guy who runs in to save a screaming person doesn't do so because of a soul. He does so because he's able to think "Maybe she's trapped and I can help her. What if that were me trapped in there?" Empathy. It's an emotion too. And the most beautiful and useful one there is. The child that gives a toy back might think "I wouldn't like it if he took my toy." Some of it's a courtesy dance like the line at the grocery store but I think most of it can be traced back to emotion. And in some cases we share this with some species of animals. I've heard incrdible stories about dogs or dolphins or something risking life and limb to save people.

[Desert_Eagle25]

Well said ACElethal

[emprworm]

Ace, none of your examples counter my points, simply because these behaviors are fully predictable. You are assuming that the self-preservation impulse is always the strongest in animals, and this is completely untrue. The praying mantis offers no resistance because its impulse to allow the female to devour it are greater than its self-preservation impulse. It is not sitting there supressing an impulse. If it was, then we would expect to see a large ratio of mantis defend themselves, or try to escape. Since all of the mantis just sit there and die, it is a very simple conclusion that the mantis has zero ability to "balance, weigh, and judge" conflicting impulses. The mantis just does what its instincts tell it.

All your examples behave according to instinct alone.

Read my example: the mother lion who puts herself in harms way to save her cubs is not suppressing a powerful instinct to act on a weaker one...her instinct to save the cubs IS the most powerful instinct. Thus she acts on it. The lemmings are a perfect example of my point. They are just acting on pure instinct. March, march, march...away they go...like little robots...totally unable to escape the inevitable coding that is programmed into their genes. Predictable, testable, repeatable. They act on pure instinct. THeir impulse to walk off a cliff is so overwhelming, they probably have no clue that they are even going to die. Humans, on the other hand...CAN suppress a powerful instinct and act out on a weaker one.

All your examples, Ace, are ones that actually strenghten my point. Animals behave according to the strongest instinct. Sometimes it is self-preservation, sometimes is is "herd". But whatever the case, when you see a mantis sit around and get its head eaten, we can know that the instinct to remain was far more powerful than the instinct to run or defend itself.

And a dog may have emotion, but it is not self aware. The only animals (that I know of) that possess self-awareness are chimps and dolphins. Someone add to this list if they know of another.

But even self-awareness is not this "third thing".

[IxianMace]

how does self-awareness and morality evolve?

I think I may have an answer to that. However, it involves the theory of evolution/biology, etc etc. If you do not want to listen to this theory, or you believe that it is wrong no matter what (due to your belief, or what not), then it will be a waste of time for me to explain it. The question is, do you want to hear it or not? You must be willing to accept the answer, and not dismiss it simply because it conflicts with something you believe in. If you believe that the theory of evolution is false, or that there is no evidence for evolution, then there is no point in me explaining.

[emprworm]

i'd like to hear an explanation of it.

the point is not for me or you to believe in each others side, but it is for you to defend the evolutionary view because I challenged it.

if you are able to defend how it could have evolved then I will look at your explanation to see if it is faith based, or evidence based. If evidence based, then you successfully rebutted my challenge.

[IxianMace]

Well since the theory of evolution, is simply a theory that means it is faith based right?

If the theory of evolution is faith based, in your opinion, then there no grounds for my argument.

However if you believe that there IS evidence for evolution, then continue reading:

Scientists/biologists have believed that life formed on Earth billions of years ago when lightning struck the seas that condensed out of the air when the Earth was cooling down from its' volcanic state. These life forms were simply single celled organisms, like bacteria, etc etc. Over time, these basic single celled organisms became more complex, somehow they evolved, through the passage of time, into more complex organisms, like fish. These fish then evolved into organisms that were amphibians. Eventually, these creatures moved from living in the sea, into creatures that were fully capable of living on dry land.

Having said that, these creatures evolved into more and more complex organisms, until at last, the human evolved. This has been shown through fossil samples of bones, and the discovery of skeletons that have been assembled through various rock layers. The oldest rock layers are covered by the newest rock layers, so bones that are discovered in a certain rock layer are most likely to have come from that time period (the time period being the time in which the rock layer was the top soil, most likely the top soil on a lake bed, etc etc).

Now, since it has already been discussed that animals are not self aware, and are not able to make decisions based on moral law, and only animal instinct (herd instict and self-preservation), but taking into account that all life forms evolved from basic single celled organisms billions of years ago when life first formed in the seas on Earth, wouldn't this be enough to explain that intelligence/sentience/self-awareness etc, etc, did form from where there was no intelligence? If humans really have been evolved from simple organisms like bacteria, and humans can make judgements based on moral law, and not herd instinct and self-preservation (i.e. we are able to suppress stronger instincts and act on the weaker one), then one could conclude that intelligence has already evolved from where there was no intelligence or self-awareness at all.

Where is the evidence for evolution? Palaentologists, scientists, biologists, etc etc have studied fossils, preserved remains, and made their own deductions from it. If you have to see the evidence to believe it, then it would be impossible in this case, since no one can go back in time and actually confirm if the creatures we call 'dinosaurs' or 'wooly mammoths' actually existed, or whether or not we got the bones all mixed up and created skeletons that look like they fit, and then just imagine how the animal would look to fit that skeleton.

I've come to realize that as much as people might say that there is evidence, until you have tested it and seen it in action for yourself, you can't always be sure that it's true. The evidence for evolution has been written in numerous books for a some time, lots of research has already been conducted, fossils have been collected, etc, etc. This is your evidence for evolution, and this would explain how hmans came to be (and thusly how self-awareness evolved, since humans are self-aware). There is no way scientists/biologists can prove that everything that has been written about evolution actually existed, they can only deduce from the artifacts that they've recovered. Whether you believe this is evidence or not is up to you. Take it or leave it. I really can't explain it any other way. All I am really saying is that if the theory of evolution is actually true, then humans evolved from life forms devoid of self-awareness (including animals), which would explain where the self-awareness and sense of moral law evolved from.

[Anathema]

And a dog may have emotion, but it is not self aware. The only animals (that I know of) that possess self-awareness are chimps and dolphins. Someone add to this list if they know of another.

Whales are believed to be highly intelligent. They even have more brain mass then we do, and it is believed that they communicate with eachother, with a different language for each kind. Some even believe in different language for different packs of whales, as they tested this with killer whales. Whales from different packs emitted other sound patterns from other packs.

And animals lower on the evolutionary ladder indeed don't posses the ability to think, other then thinking "if that guy opens the fridge, maybe he does so because he is going to feed me" like you see with cats and dogs. But they can't ignore impulses.

I argued that the "herd instinct" could not possibly evolve into self-awareness & morality.

Evolve into self-awareness? We never lost our herd instinct, we gained something brand new in addition to our instincts.

And what do you think a soul is anyway?

[Caid Ivik]

If whales were so intelligent you are talking about, why they can't fly and why they senselessly die on beaches? Intelligent creature would find out how to prevent itself from i.e. dangerous steam. I think creative mind is something, what cannot be just "evolved".

[Acriku]

Caid, how would their intelligence make them fly? Lol.

Dying senselessy on beaches? For no reason? They don't just find themselves on the beaches, many things can kill them and so they float to the coast. You may think it can't be evolved, but do not dismiss what you do not understand.

[emprworm]

whales are not self-aware. to my knowledge the only animals that are self aware: dolphins and chimps. perhaps someone knows of another? But not whales. :(

[SurlyPIG]

Emp, in your post you had projected that the self-preservation instinct is stronger than the herd instinct. If in fact either can be overpowering, how on Earth would we know? We're not the animal. We're not feeling its emotions and its impulses. It's not a quantifyable observation.

And yes, dogs can be self-aware too. I'm sure of that as I've always been very fond of dogs and have researched them a lot. A perfect example was right in the story I gave you. Whatever impulse was stronger in her let be, but nonetheless she was able to reckognize changes in my behaviour that suggested I was unable to defend myself. She was both observant and able to rationalize her observations. You might say that's subjective, but in that case so is the expectation that one animal impulse is stronger than another.

I don't think any animal is smart enough to be empathetic. I seriously think that's what your third thing is. Empathy. Either that or a learned behaviour. I just don't click with the idea of supernatural explanations in biology.