If you do, then what exactly defines a soul in your view?

  • ritswd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know if that’s what you were implying, but I’m not at all a theist. And as a scientist, I can remind you that the scientific method is to keep researching topics that are inconclusive. To conclude something as non-existent because the research is inconclusive is not the scientific method.

    What you are doing is listening to the science indeed, and drawing faith-based conclusions that something doesn’t exist because it wasn’t proven to exist. Which is fine, a lot of people do that to base all kinds of faiths, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that you’re not.

      • ritswd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t disagree with “why even bother”. But again following the scientific method, it wasn’t proven to be improvable. Scientifically speaking, we just don’t know.

        I realize it’s not a very comforting thought, though. And I don’t mind people who believe otherwise.

        • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          it wasn’t proven to be improvable

          If it’s something invisible with no physical manifestation (as the soul is thought to be by the believers), it’s quite literally improvable.