This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Surely by now we've outgrown the soul?

Laura Bow's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Laura Bow


This is quite similar to the argument I often make and I am often baffled by people who believe in soul, but can't in anyway define what it is. It implies that there is something essentially "you" that is constant regardless of your level of education, experience, trauma, brain damage, etc. Presumably, this soul would be most apparent at the time of birth, before your essential being would be modified by experience (although science seems to suggest that even experiences within the womb can effect the manner of the baby). So outside of the material world, are we all reduced to our infant state? Would those of us that have lived longer get to bring our worldly knowledge to the afterlife? Would others bring along with them their personality disorders or physical defects? It's a belief that seems to ignore the fact that we are constant works in progress/decay and that there is no definitive point at which we become our true selves.

If the soul can experience things without a brain, can the it see without eyes? Can it hear without ears? if so, why does it not step in when we are physically blinded and deafened?

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:12:27 UTC | #881544