Philosophy Term Paper by Do My Statistics Homework

Introduction

People who believe in the existence of the soul often have different definitions of what the soul really is. Some define the soul as a distinct entity that is separate from the physical body as the principle of life, thoughts, and feelings of humans. In many religions, the soul is viewed as the non-physical essence of a human being that has been given to them by God. According to philosophy, the soul is defined as the immaterial aspect that is regarded to be interchangeable with the brain as it plays an important role in conferring humanity and individuality. Finally, in theology, the soul is believed to be the entity that survives after the death of the physical body. The reality of the soul and its existence or non-existence is among the critical questions of life. Philosophers and researchers have often had many views on this controversial subject of the existence of a non-physical soul. On Descartes’s view, our mind or soul (the only essential part of ourselves) has no spatial location and yet it directly interacts with but one physical object, the brain of the body with which it is, as it were, intermingled so as to form one unit (O’Connor, 2001 pg 1).

Therefore, it is crucial to define the soul so as to understand the insights on the soul from different perspectives so as to better tackle the question. I argue that there is no good reason to think or believe that we have a non-physical soul as neuroscience and psychology dispute the claims that the soul really does exist by mainly making arguments that attribute all functions of the body to the activities of the brain. The lack of clearly defined and tangible evidence to support the existence of the soul is a huge determinant that the soul does not really exist. My argument, that there is no reason to believe the existence of a non-physical soul, will be supported from a scientific and psychological point of view as well as in terms of how the soul has been defined from different perspectives.

Argument

Science has been proven time and again to be the most reliable guide when discovering important truths and the way in which the world works. For instance, people rely on and trust science when it comes to curing illnesses and discovering new diseases, predicting natural disasters such as hurricanes and building bridges through scientific engineering. Science surrounds a broad framework of evidence that is mostly collected through experiments and observations that have been conducted repeatedly. There is convincing scientific evidence from neuroscience that proves the soul does not really exist. Neuroscience shows that the causes of everything done by human beings are usually as a result of the neural firings found in the brain and not really as a result of the activity of the soul. For instance, when explaining the process of heat, the process can be entirely explained in terms of particle movements. Similarly, behavior and actions in human beings can be explained in terms of the brain’s activity. I object to the soul hypothesis which assumes that the mental activity of a person is usually separate from the brain activity. This is because neuroscience shows that the existence of mental activity depends on the existence of the brain. The brain usually contains neurons that create mental states in human beings. Brain activity is what essentially gives people an awareness of their own existence. For instance, a psychologist known as D.O Hebb made claims in 1949 that the mind is basically the integration of the brain’s activity. Over the years, many neuroscientists have also come to a similar conclusion. Those who believe in the existence of the soul claim that it is located in the part where mental activities take place, storage of memories, reasoning, and sensation take place. However, the brain is already the organ that that performs the above functions among many others. The evolution of our knowledge of the structure and function of the brain has been amply documented such as Mc Henry’s revision of Dr Fielding’s work in 1969 and we are now more aware of nerve cells, their connections and their modes of communication amongst themselves and with a variety of other structures (Pandya, 2011 pg 129). (Need Assistant with your Assignment, Order Custom Paper )

In addition, some believers also blame the soul for the mood, emotions, and behaviors exhibited by an individual. For instance, a person who does wrong things is considered to have no soul. However, there has been evidence that shows that the act of manipulating the brain can alter the emotion and mood of a person. For example, the administration of psychotherapeutic drugs can alter an individual’s moods and emotion. Similarly, people who are depressed can be helped to alter their moods by using drugs that are known to increase the function of the neurotransmitters present in the brain. Therefore, this means that the belief that the soul is what alters the moods and emotion of a person cannot be relied on as a fact.

The soul hypothesis also predicts that when a person’s brain is damaged, their personality cannot be affected. However, there have been cases that have made it clear that this prediction is not quite true as it has been proven that brain damage can indeed affect a person’s personality. For example, in a case study involving Phineas Gage, who was a construction foreman who survived a horrible accident in which his brain was damaged when a large iron rod was completely driven through his head. Most of the left frontal lobe of his brain was destroyed. His case was typically the first to suggest that the brain had a role in determining a person’s personality. The damages to specific parts of the brain can greatly induce some changes in a person’s personality. Gage’s personality changed tremendously after the damage to his brain. Before the accident, Gage was described by employees as a hardworking and responsible man but after the accident, the same people stated that the change in his state of mind and personality was so drastic that it was not possible for him to be given his place back as he had exhibited some inappropriate characters. Therefore, the soul hypothesis ends up not holding up and it is quite irrational for a person to believe a hypothesis that shows cracks in its assumptions.

Another possible argument against the existence of the soul lies in the definition of the soul as an immaterial entity. In the universe, everything is usually made up of matter which refers to anything that takes up physical space and has mass. The soul is defined as an immaterial thing which means that it has no physical attributes. The internal structure of the soul is also not defined. An immaterial thing is usually not made up of matter which means that it does not really exist. Therefore, the question stands, even if the soul, an immaterial object was real, how can an immaterial object or thing apply force on a person, who is a material thing? For example, a person can be inside a car but unless one has the key and ignites the engine, then the car cannot move. Similarly, there is no proof that a non-material entity such as the soul can interact with the physical body. There is no evidence of there being a connection between the soul and the physical body. Those who believe in the existence of the soul in regards to religious teachings believe that animals don’t have souls and that only humans do. However, since there is no evidence of the evolution of souls and when it began, there is also no evidence for the delimitation in the evolutionary line to show when living things started to possess souls. There have not been concrete demonstrations that can answer questions such as; how did the soul come to exist in humans and at what point? Are people born with souls or is the soul inserted into a body supernaturally? The fact that those who believe in the existence of souls cannot show evidence or clear logic of the origin of the soul, then how can we believe in its existence?

Philosophy Term Paper by Do My Statistics Homework