1. Moral compass (71%)
2. Consciousness (67%)
3. Feelings (58%)
4. Free will (55%)
5. Personality (52%)
6. Ability to make decisions (48%)
7. Ability to fall in love (46%)
“Do you believe that the question of whether human beings have a soul is a question that can be answered objectively—at least in principle—and thus one that can be answered using scientific means?”
“In the beginning, I thought this seminar on human thermodynamics would be interesting. At first, I though he was going to talk about thermodynamics IN the human body as a physiological view, rather than an emotional and social view. When he started talking about finding a future spouse and morals defined though thermodynamics, things became a little funny. I believe thermodynamics can ONLY be function in man-made things: mechanical items (such as vehicles), combustion, politics, and stuff. However, things like morals and love go further beyond thermodynamics. It can perhaps be argued to a certain point that thermodynamics can explain these phenomena. But, if thermodynamics can’t even be fully explained in the body, how can it explain the mind and the soul? ”— Anon student (2010), "take home assignment", review (Ѻ) of Libb Thims’ bioengineering human thermodynamics lecture, University of Illinois, Chicago, Apr
A cartoon of god putting a free will based soul into the chemical mixture of a human. |
“Nothing gets lost, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically, by giving up our soul beliefs.”— Julien Musolino (2015), The Soul Fallacy (pg. 27)
“If such great minds—such as Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Galileo, Newton, Karl Popper, and Wilder Penfield—believed in the soul, who are we to scoff at the idea of the soul? Someone could, of course, reply that other great minds, like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, explicitly rejected the soul.”— Julien Musolino (2015), The Soul Fallacy (pg. 27)
“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.”— Benedict Spinoza (c..1675), Publication; cited by Musolino (2015) in The Soul Fallacy (pg. 28)
“No self-respecting professor of philosophy wants to discuss the soul in class. It reeks of old-time theology, or, worse, new age quantum treacle. The soul has been a dead end in philosophy ever since the positivists unmasked its empty referential center. Scientific philosophy has shown us that there's no there there. But make no mistake, our students are very interested in the soul. In fact, that is the main reason many of us won't raise the soul issue in our classes: The bizarre, speculative, spooky metaphysics that pours out of students, once the box has been opened, is truly chaotic and depressing. The class is a tinderbox of weird pet theories—divine vapors, god particles, reincarnation, astral projections, auras, ghosts—and mere mention of the soul is like a spark that sets off dozens of combustions. Trying to put out all these fires with calm, cool rationality is exhausting and unsuccessful.”— Stephen Asma (2010), “Soul Talk” (see: turnover rate) [3]
“The dualistic doctrine rests on conceptual quicksand.”— Julien Musolino (2015), The Soul Fallacy (pg. 36)
“At what point in the unbroken chain between primitive life-forms and human beings did the soul get added to the mix and why?”— Julien Musolino (2015), The Soul Fallacy (pg. 129)