Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

The soul is your real self - it is not your body or brain but something non-material. Nearly everybody thinks of the soul that way which is a sign that religion is prone to badness for it degrades the body and brain.  Dualism tends to identify a person by the spiritual mind without any reference to the body and it is inhuman to do that.  You want to be seen as a person who is a body not as a mere ghost.




Somatoparaphrenia is a form of delusion.  You think you don't own or have a limb or perhaps even a side of your body.  You are immune to proof that you are wrong.  You have a complex narrative about how you got this side of your body where you deny you have ownership.  Maybe aliens put it there?  Maybe God?  In extreme cases, you may look after your side or limb as if it belonged to somebody else entirely. You may think your leg is another being attached on to you and treat it as if it were.


Some people seem to think transgenderism is somatoparaphrenia involving BOTH SIDES AS IN THE ENTIRE BODY!


Some sufferers do treat and think of their side or limb as being not connected to them but just stuck on like an alien but do not realise it.  They may not say it outright but say it other ways.


It is the position of this author that feeling you are not your body but your soul is the real you is a form of this mental illness.  Most religious experience then is a sign of mental disturbance. 


The idea of a God who is like a ghost in nature and who can override natural rules and processes is part of the confabulation process in developing and maintaining somatoparaphrenia.  The bottom line is the patient thinks a miracle has occurred.  Read between the lines. "The left side belongs to Amelie not me and she  used some machine to make that happen and to make it look like part of me."  Its a miracle machine and that implies divine agency.  Some just settle for saying God put the alien side on you. 


The risk factor alone is to categorise faith in God and the soul as a form of abuse.




People believe in souls for different reasons.


One.  Some states of awareness encourage the idea of a soul.  Certain activities and situations alter our awareness so that we feel bigger than our bodies and outside of them. Sleep deprivation can do that as can over-exercise so unless you want to think of these as a poor soul trying to escape the body they are illusions.


Two, is religious conditioning.


Three is that they want to think they and their loved ones will be together again.


Four - notions such as that you have a soul say you have a part of you that no one or anybody can change or ruin and this is essentially fueled by arrogant


Four seems to be the main incentive.  If you can be injured at your core and think you can't that guarantees that your endgame will be off the scale. It's what an enemy wants.  And there are many people whose cores are devastated and who end up worse for they feel they are at fault for they have a centre that is strong no matter what happens.  Three presupposes that God didn't just give you a soul to extend your life forever - its about empowering you to survive and grow.  It shows how an utter disgrace the soul and God are.


It sees you as a soul which denies the finality of killing your spirit or murdering you.  We need to see how fragile we all are. That is why nobody should be hated. Religion says there is a non-fragile part of us Ė our core is eternal. That encourages hate and feeds it. It takes away the finality of harm done or even killing somebody. If it is final then we need to see that.  If it is final we hope that finality can put us off hurting the other.


The concept of mind not body enables oppression and self-destructive ideas.  Making a difference between mind and body instead of identifying the two perpetrates violence against your own body and eventually that of others. Even if you see the mind as part of the body and not as a soul the problem can arise. The notion is that the mind is somehow better than the rest of the body.  The body becomes the means to serve the end: the mind.  You would be guilty of violence if you argued that only hands and feet mattered. You would be given an ideological cover for the violence and as good as trying to make sure it will arise.


Even loving your body turns it into a superior type of love where the great mind is showing how wonderful it is by loving the unworthy body. That is not love but pity.

The answer is to see that all of you is your mind. There is no puzzle about how the mind sits in the body like its king or queen or tenant. Your mind creates you and you create it with everything you do. Your body creates your mind as much as it creates things for the body.


Some teachers talk about the soul having different faculties and describe a hierarchy of them.  These often make the list.  Nutrition, perception, desire, locomotion and intellect. 


Locomotion describes the power to act.  Without it the others are no good.  You cannot perceive for perception is an action.  So the order is in terms of importance, the power to act, the power to perceive, the power to think, the power to desire.  So it follows a soul with only the power to act and nothing else is still a soul.  The notion that the soul helps guarantee personhood is bizarre.  It does not.  Who says that stones then do not have souls?  We don't go down that road for we see the absurdity of souls.


If the soul is not real and we are mistaking a part of how our brain works for it then the importance we put on the soul means we are objectifying ourselves and others.  It is objectifying to see a woman just as her breasts.  Dualists have tended to hurt people over trying to purify their souls and seen sinners as having not much of a soul.  That is not surprising.


Catholicism teaches another form of dualism.  Catholicism teaches a form of additional dualism where the body is not its physical components.  You see that in the doctrine that though the communion wafer does not change physically it is still the body of Christ.  Its substance is turned into the substance of Jesus' body.  Jesus' body then is not its size or colour or shape or even physical.  It is bad enough to be dualist but this is salt on the wound.  The Catholic Eucharist degrades Jesus' body and the human body.


Is this doctrine of a soul that has no material side or body but just controls a body sensible?


Religion argues that there are strange things about how we know we are alive and how we function so they say that means there is a soul. But maybe we do know how it works but don't know how to show it scientifically.  But maybe there is a natural explanation.  Maybe if we don't have one we can have one even if we will never find it.  It is a fallacy to say that "I don't know how this is done so it is supernatural or non-natural."


Religion says that evil is that which destroys and the soul that makes evil damages itself.  That implies that evil is defined by what it does to your soul.  If the soul is the real you then evil is self-abuse.  If that is all that evil is about then the soul doctrine is poison. 


The soul doctrine is used as an excuse for saying your real self is a child of God so if you sin you are not being you.


Nobody can make up their minds but either interpretation is just an excuse for interior narcissism. 
You feel safest with what you are used to so look at everything and make sure you realise what you have and how good it is. Look after your body more than your soul for at least you can see the body and touch it so looking after the body should help your mind get healthier for you feel safer and see the results. The Church has always said that looking after the body and the mind is less important than the soul which exposes it for the anti-happiness rip-off that it is. The soul is thought to be whatís left when your body and mind perish in death and it can only be looked after by prayer and religion! How good for the market that is religion!
We only know that we are aware that we exist and that we are having experiences. We do not know how. We only experience what our minds do and think and perceive but they are not like objects we can examine like a stone or flower.


Descartes said that the only thing you are certain of is that you are aware now.  Thus there is no way to know if the you that existed a moment ago is really  you.  Maybe its just a memory you got and the self is constantly replacing itself.  This is like the Heraclitus suggestion that you never enter the same river twice for all is change.  So you never get the same self twice either.  Berkeley because of Descartes suggested that logically it makes sense to deny that matter is real - its all in the mind. I am me now but I was not me a moment ago.  Self is not real but a momentary thing that uses memory to look real.  Camus then ended up saying life is more than meaningless but absurd.  Derrida agreed with all these people that self, everything, just just change and transition and there is no real unity.  The self is a succession of selves not a united thing having different experiences. 


Sarte ended up saying life is meaningless for there is no fixed self.  "Man does not exist first in order to be free subsequently; there is no difference between the being of man and his being-free".  So the human person is freedom - the human person is not something that can be free.  Sight is sight and sight is not something that is just there to see.  It is seeing - it is not to be mixed up with a faculty.  Seeing is what it is not what it does though it does see.  For Sarte, freedom is why the human person has no fixed nature or substance.  A person is fluid and is not a fixed power - a person to be free has to be always literally becoming somebody else.  "Human freedom precedes essence in man and makes it possible; the essence of the human being is suspended in freedom".


All these people were just repeating what Hume said - that if you look within you can find no self and no fixed self.


Hume made the mistake of thinking the mind (what he meant by self) was an illusion for he could never find it like he could another object. He was wrong for he assumed that it is an illusion just because it is not an observable object. He didn't see that it could be an unobservable object. People who have never observed or seen their own eyes are not entitled to assume they have no eyes.
Perhaps the mind is an object albeit one that is only detectable by experiencing it. Hume failed to see that it is the subject of feelings and actions and experiences. If it is an object we cannot know or prove that for we only experience the subject side of it. And only a mind could have the illusion of there being a mind. So Hume's insistence that there is no self or mind is suspect.
"I know I exist. I cannot know anything unless in some sense this knowledge is me. This is supernatural for how else could I be my knowledge?" This argument says I am me but I am also my knowledge that I exist. But this is contradictory. It is like saying my lungs are my breath. It is one thing to argue that I have a supernatural soul but it is another to argue that I have a contradictory soul!
The Christian religion thinks itself to be very clever when it says we have immortal souls which are purely spiritual entities, entities without parts. A soul is like a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. It is one substance which has no parts or components but which is self-sufficient. It is only beings that have bits and pieces that are not self-sufficient for they depend on things to protect them and on forces to hold them together. A soul is thought to be spirit - spirit means a non-physical reality. Its there but it is not made of matter or energy as we understand them in physics.
Believers know that you can still be alive though unconscious. So they have started to say that the soul's consciousness is not the same consciousness as the brain. That way they argue that if a person is severely brain damaged and barely conscious, their soul is still as conscious as ever. I like Peter Atkins's declaration in his book On Being that believers in the notion that each of us has an individual soul are saying it is "a consciousness beyond consciousness" (page 89). When we are unconscious or are in an extremely deep coma, believers say our brain is unconscious but the conscious soul is still there. This doctrine contradicts our experience. When you fall asleep you don't know if you are dead or alive. And the doctrine is wholly incapable of being supported by evidence. If we are conscious without knowing it then why not say your soul is in your dog or your child?
The doctrine of the soul makes it plain that the law of the land is wrong to say that if you are brain-dead then you are dead. No true Christian can support such a law. It follows that it is a sin to turn off life support when a person experiences brain-death as that could be killing them. You ignore brain death and treat them as if it never happened. If a person is stabbed to death nobody can say they were stabbed to death. The real killer is the person who does not treat them as alive.
It is odd that we say we have souls. We should say we are claiming that we ARE souls.
Some religions claim that the soul is really God bundled into your body. The thought that your soul is God is a delight to those mystical people who can be described as religious narcissists. The Christians pretend that it is enough to assert that the soul is not God. But it would be our inability to be God and God's inability to be us that is holding us back. It is not humility that restrains us. It is nonsense to associate humility with the doctrine that your soul is not God.
The Christians claim that the atheist disbelief in the soul is demeaning. They think we have a higher status if we have immortal souls. But they should realise it depends on the evidence. Having a soul or not having one is irrelevant in relation to humility. What is prideful is to say we have a soul when there is no adequate evidence for it. The narcissism of thinking you are too good to be matter is behind belief in the soul. Catholicism would collapse if it dropped the concept. The centre of Catholicism, so it says, is the sacraments. The sacraments only have meaning if they are going to put powers in the soul. The real centre then is the soul. The sacraments reflect and induce Catholic arrogance. If a scientist reveals that we are not ensouled entities, the Christians often get mad at this. They are afraid of their indulgent little fantasy being challenged.
Matter imposes restrictions. If I have a spiritual or supernatural soul, it follows that my soul is more free than my body. It is the real seat of freedom. The Church deduces that as well for it says the soul has the power of free will. The soul transcends matter. The soul and its freedom is magic even if it cannot do magic in the sense that a cat can be turned into a dog with a snap of the fingers. The magical soul is the true cause of what I freely do, the source of my freedom. Clearly to say you are a soul or have one is to insult the body. It places the soul above the body in importance. Death is to be welcomed as it gives release to the soul. Some argued that as the body is bad, suicide is a virtue. Others said that as the body deserves no respect you may have all the promiscuous sex you want. The Christian should logically adopt one view or the other. But because of the laws of the Church they refuse to have the integrity to. Its a case of putting rules before logic!
The soul if it exists would be a conscious entity. But we never experience consciousness in its purity. We have different kinds of it. The consciousness of a sound is not the same as that by which a light is perceived. So there is sound consciousness. There is sight consciousness. There is touch consciousness - and taste and smell. Consciousness is never independent. Even when we think of something abstract, we use all those kinds of consciousness to help us think of it. So do we have a hearing soul and a seeing soul? Why say we have one soul?
The Catechism of Christian Doctrine says the soul has three powers. The powers are memory and understanding and will. Nonsense. The main power of the soul if it exists is awareness. It knows it exists and may be aware of other things. A soul without memory and understanding would still be as aware as ever. If we deny that then we are saying that forgetful people and those we consider to be stupid are inferior souls to the souls of the intelligent memory masters. They are less important souls and may be discriminated against. The power of will - the power to intend is also an extra power. You don't need it to be aware. You will be conscious whether you want to be or not. Your memory and understanding and your will are not part of you if you are a soul. In no sense, are they you.

A soul is an entity without parts. It is a whole. If a spirit is love then it is wholly love. If a spirit is cruel then it is wholly cruel. The spirit is a power that is perfectly one because it is partless. For it to be a mixture of qualities would meant that it has some power to be bad and some to be good or some to be clever and some to be stupid or whatever. That is impossible for it is one power. The ability of the spiritual soul is not something that is distinct from its awareness but is its awareness. So, if you are a soul and think of a picture at one moment and a dog in the next there is not one consciousness but two. It follows that every moment and every time you have a new thought you are becoming a new person. The person who thinks of the picture is not the person who contemplates the dog.

You are only conscious of the present moment and you donít know for sure if you were really conscious a second ago for you could just be tapping into a reservoir of memory from the preceding consciousness if you think you can remember being you. If you came into existence a second ago complete with a memory you would not know. Thus, if you have a soul there is no proof that you are not changing into another person every second.  My memory is a sense. It is the power to sense that you experienced the past. But senses can be deceived.

The doctrine of a spiritual soul leads to these shocking conclusions. The doctrine tells us that God cannot exist because there is no point in him sending or permitting suffering when one person is just replacing another inside each body. The person lives but a moment and is annihilated. The substance is used to create a new person.

The person who falls asleep dies and somebody else rises up in the morning. Buddhism says you are seven things. Consciousness is one of them. Are you a person when you are asleep and not dreaming? Think about that. Is it murder to kill a sleeping person? Buddhism teaches that since you are a collection of seven things and none of them is you but together they make you you that you doesn't really exist. In their idea, if you think of a car as a unit you will make the mistake of thinking the car exists. It does not for its a collection of parts. Its just a bundle you put a label on. In the same way, for Buddhists, the label person is just a name you give to a bundle of seven things. It would seem that if you are a soul then the soul is essentially consciousness and is dead when you are asleep. It must be immoral to fall asleep.
Religion teaches that life is absolutely valuable. They reason that this is so because it is stupid to say that happiness should be promoted if persons are not important. To say happiness should be worked for is to say that human life is more important than happiness. If that is true then though you are alive when you are asleep your consciousness is dead if you are not dreaming. Life is no good without consciousness. So it is conscious human life not just human life that is valuable. Falling asleep then is murder and denying the value of life. Its wrong to take a nap for you can do without a nap.
If life is absolutely valuable and if I am a soul in a body, then it follows that souls come first. The death of the body does not affect the life of the soul. Such a doctrine is essential fanaticism. If, hypothetically, we were required to kill bodies so that one soul could live then we would have to kill the bodies. The only thing then that is stopping religionists from doing this is that there is no need to. They have to still intend to do it if there is need.
The religious cannot explain some things about our minds so they assume that a supernatural soul is the explanation. But why not just say its inexplicable? And indeed that is what we should say for consciousness in all its mystery is somehow rooted in the physical brain.

The doctrine of a spiritual soul is deadly indeed and is as absurd as it is evil.
On Being, Peter Atkins, Oxford, New York, 2011
TEACH YOURSELF PHILOSOPHY OF MIND, Mel Thompson, Teach Yourself Books, London, 2003 seems to offer evidence that immaterial or non-material souls do exist.

Consider Platoís thought in Timaeus that the psyche is self-moving. Plato saw the psyche as the power to move things without being controlled by the physical. When the psyche goes away from the body only a corpse is left (page 7). Plato then thought that the soul pre-dated the body. It was like it went into the body and controlled it and when it left the body was just an object, a dead thing.
REPLY: Things move without being moved by anything conscious. The psyche could have hidden physical forces that make it move. To say that the consciousness gives life to the body and that something goes away from the body when it dies is as silly as saying that something goes away from a clockwork toy when it stops moving around.

A surgeon replaces your entire body with new parts. You will still be the same person. The soul is the form. It makes you, you. The form is something that doesnít depend on what parts you have got. Form is what makes you what you are. It defines your essence (page 13).
REPLY: This might only work if the surgeon doesnít do it all at the one time. But consider this. There is John and there is Simon. If a surgeon puts Simonís leg on John and soon John is entirely replaced by Simonís parts, the result will not be John but Simon. All you will have done is taken Simon apart and reassembled him in the operating theatre where John was.
The argument violates our commonsense feeling that X's body is X.

Most philosophers believe that mind and body are real and that dualism is true but how the mind works the body is a matter of debate (page 20). However it is possible to be a dualist without holding that mind and body are totally separate (page 43).
REPLY: There is a link between mind and matter in the sense that if your brain is damaged you can become like a different person. This makes it possible that mental states are ultimately physical forces caused by the brain. We cannot explain matter for there is so much we cannot understand. So why should the mind and exactly what it is be clear to us?
When we don't really know what the mind is or how it is, we cannot endorse any form of dualism.
You can close your eyes and try to imagine that consciousness doesnít exist but you will fail. This is because thinking or consciousness is an experienced process. The problems for mind body philosophies are the questions of,


Does this process have a physical origin?


Is it a substance?


How does it relate to the world of matter?


Can it do anything? (page 31).
REPLY: The last point is concerned with the fact that consciousness in itself does nothing at all. It is like the idea that you have a body equipped with the faculties of reasoning and free will and the consciousness needs them to do stuff. By itself it can do nothing. The body impulses force the consciousness to look at the television for example. It does nothing but is just controlled by the faculties and impulses of the body it is tied up with.
None of the questions can be answered conclusively by saying that the consciousness is some kind of non-physical thing.
The fact that an eye can see does not prove to the eye that sight exists. There could be an eye that canít see anything for there is nothing but darkness but which would be able to see things if it had light. This eye will not know that sight exists. So the eye will not know what it is. It will not know if it is spirit or matter. The argument that the consciousness is separate from the body because it is like an eye that can see itself and so is supernatural is wrong.
Consciousness or awareness is what responds to information and processes it (page 80). If this is so, then everything has some level of awareness. The thermometer for example is aware of temperature (page 81). For something to have a mind it must have the power to intend.
REPLY:  But consciousness by itself may simply be aware. The consciousness is aware of the memory and understanding and the will processing things. But it does not do the processing itself. It is those faculties, the memory and understanding and the will that we are conscious of that do the processing not the consciousness itself. For example, with brain damage a person may not be able to reason anymore but they are still conscious. Their consciousness is intact.


It has only lost some resources outside of itself.

Plato taught that all true knowledge was a matter of memory or remembering (page 84). Plato held that there are things in the mind that we know and ideas that we have before we experience them and based an argument for reincarnation on that (page 84). It has been argued against Plato that if ideas are implanted in me, then how do I know they are real?
REPLY:  The ideas could be implanted without reincarnation. If I see a pink ball that does not prove that there is a pink ball there. Insane people think God is their poached egg with equal conviction. 

Sartre argued that consciousness is always consciousness of something so it is not an entity in itself (page 146). Consciousness is total emptiness in the sense that it senses all things but itself. Once you try to become aware of your own consciousness, you are trying to see it as a thing and it isnít a thing. You are trying to make an entity, an object and a thing out of what is subjectivity or non-thing which is impossible. Consciousness is the same as an eye that can see everything but itself.  
REPLY: If you cut off all the senses, consciousness would be aware of nothing except that it is aware. Consciousness is awareness and sensation. It is a sense that the five senses feed data to. It does sense itself.
The argument is getting at the notion, "Consciousness is not an entity, therefore it is a soul." If consciousness is not an entity then it is nothing. The argument implies that the faculty of consciousness cannot be there unless it is conscious of something. That is nonsense. It is like saying there is no eye unless it can see.
Keith Ward in More Than Matter (Lion, 2010) states "What I have tried to do in this chapter is to suggest how conscious personal life and the material structure of the universe fit together in a coherent way if we suppose that the physical universe has the purpose of producing personal consciousness as the natural realization of its inherent and original capacities. Consciousness is not just an alien substance injected into the material universe at an arbitrary point - a picture which Cartesian dualism, if interpreted unkindly, may suggest. Rather, consciousness results from the natural generation of capacities inherent in the structure of matter itself, as it develops forms of organised complexity over time. A picture of cosmic evolution that portrays responsible and intelligent minds as a natural, possibly inevitable, outcome of the growth of an organic material universe could be the key to understanding how spirit and flesh, mind and matter, soul and body, can be integrally intertwined, and yet how the primacy of spirit, as the ultimate purposive driving force of an evolving universe, can be maintained" (page 87, 88).
If the universe has the power to make us, then who needs God?




Could trying to experience being a spiritual soul as if it were a ghost in your body be missing your real soul and contacting a demon?  The Bible never says man has an immaterial side but it does seem to say that there are beings around that cannot be detected such as demons.  If there is no soul then the Catholic Church sacraments which are all directed at it are scams.
There is no reason to think that the mind is some kind of non-physical supernatural or spiritual entity. 
Whether we think our minds are spirit or matter, one thing is clear. The body and matter affects how we think and feel. For example, if we are tormented by sickness our minds will not work properly and we will mentally experience tremendous unhappiness. Misery is in the mind. So matter comes first in the sense that unless we look after our bodies, our minds will have nothing to want to exist for. This is an insight that can have practical use. It is more important than the dogma that nothing exists but matter. It is good for us to believe that nothing matters but matter.


Let naturalist Steven Pinker have the last word, "Nothing that we know about consciousness is inconsistent with the understanding that it depends entirely on neural activity."
TEACH YOURSELF PHILOSOPHY OF MIND, Mel Thompson, Teach Yourself Books, London, 2003