Monday, October 20, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

The soul? It may all be in your mind

by The Boston Globe

Reposted from:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/18/the_soul_it_may_all_be_in_your_mind/

Everything you think you know about the soul is wrong.

So says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, who researches why people are religious. Bloom has written that humans are "natural dualists," seeing our physical bodies as separate from our supposedly nonphysical minds and souls. It's a legacy in part of the great French philosopher René Descartes, a religious man who believed our thoughts survived the death of our brains, says Bloom.

The problem, Bloom believes, is that this dualism is inaccurate. Brain science increasingly shows that "the qualities of mental life that we associate with souls" - memory, self-control, decision-making - "are purely corporeal; they emerge from biochemical processes in the brain," he wrote in a 2004 piece for The New York Times. That holds for morality, too; work he has done with Yale colleague Karen Winn shows that babies have some understanding of right and wrong even before they learn to speak. Our physical brain, in short, is our soul.

Dualism doesn't explain everything about why religion arises, but it explains a lot, and it need not discomfort religious believers, says Bloom, who describes himself as culturally Jewish but religiously atheist. His latest project: a book on pleasure. Excerpts from a recent interview follow.

Q. What's the evidence that we're "natural dualists?"

These sorts of views are universal. In every society, the vast majority of people believe in supernatural beings, spirits without bodies. And in every society, the vast majority of people believe that they'll survive the death of their body. There are a lot of studies on children's beliefs about life after death and supernatural beings like God. What we have so far suggests that these [beliefs] come in very early, as early as you can study them.

Q. What evidence proves dualism is wrong?

To study dualism need not presuppose that it's mistaken. Some people in the cognitive science of religion are themselves people of faith. I don't believe dualism is true, because there's a scientific consensus that hard-core dualism, which says that people can think without using their brain or that memories will survive the death of your body, is just flat mistaken. Your mental life is a product of your brain.

Q. We know this from brain scans that look at parts of the brain lighting up in response to different [stimuli] - you can watch people think about a topic and watch parts of their brain light up?

That's the most modern demonstration. But the idea that thought is the result of the physical brain comes from work that's hundreds of years old. We've known that a blow to the head can affect your memory, your willpower, your conscience, your sense of right and wrong. We know that Alzheimer's, strokes, and diseases of the brain can profoundly affect your mental life. It's a tenuous view to say that the part of me that chooses right from wrong has no physical basis. If that were true, you wouldn't expect getting smashed on the head, alcohol, or heroin to affect your will and your knowledge of right and wrong.

I think there is a right and wrong. I don't think you need to appeal to a supernatural capacity to explain it.

Q. You view the possible existence of a soul [as], "I don't think it's true, but I have to keep an open mind?"

Yes. It's like saying, cars don't run by gasoline; cars run by a hidden power we don't know anything at all about. Well, it could be true, but it sure seems like gasoline. Is it possible, in a scientific conference a thousand years from now, we discover it's not the brain at all? Yeah, it is. We could discover it's not gasoline at all, either.

Q. What are the implications of this dualism, and its limitations, for religion? Obviously, you're not suggesting theologians hold a going-out-of-business sale.

In fact, some theologians respond to this research with delight. According to many theological views, we have an inborn appreciation of God and souls. This is part of God's gift to us. There's nothing in my work that in any way should trouble anybody who's theologically inclined. Though often, they say a belief in a single God is natural, and that's probably wrong. Many more cultures believe in multiple gods.

Q. How's your book on pleasure coming?

I hope to get it to my publisher in about six months. I have a lot to say about the pleasures of religion. I talk of the social functions of religion, the reassuring function of religion, the rituals of religion that give many people great joy. And the experience of transcendence. Religions give you a feeling of going beyond the material world.

Comments, questions and story ideas may be sent to spiritual@globe.com.

Posted: Monday, October 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 99 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #267305 by mr-zero on October 20, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Yep. There's no ghost in the machine.

Other Comments by mr-zero

2. Comment #267310 by Wosret on October 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it's all in our minds.

Other Comments by Wosret

3. Comment #267323 by Henri Bergson on October 20, 2008 at 12:38 pm

What a retard.

He still believes in 'right and wrong' as if they're absolute facts to be discovered. Morality, like religion, is a delusion. Behaviour and emotions do not constitute morality - he should look up the 'naturalistic fallacy'.

Secondly, consciousness is of course part and parcel of the brain, but it is a different category to corporeality: imagining a blue triangle does not create a blue triangle in physical space.

When people speak of delusions, they should first rid themselves of them.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

4. Comment #267328 by tvictor on October 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

"I think there is a right and wrong. I don't think you need to appeal to a supernatural capacity to explain it."
Not just morals, but pretty much everything else

Other Comments by tvictor

5. Comment #267332 by Wosret on October 20, 2008 at 12:52 pm

3. Comment #267323 by Henri Bergson

You project more meaning on to "right and wrong" then he offered. I find it strange to condemn his position on the subject when he hasn't even outlined it.

Saying morality is an delusion is asinine, you haven't even defined it. Is having a system of ethics based on hedonism and utility a delusion? If that is what I mean when I say "morality", then your monstrous brush hits me too.

Aren't you suppose to be a philosophy professor or some such? You don't seen to have an interest in eloquence, or semantic precision.

Other Comments by Wosret

6. Comment #267333 by the great teapot on October 20, 2008 at 12:53 pm

No way.
So is he suggesting if you removed half my brain I wouldn't function in the same way. That can't be right can it?

Other Comments by the great teapot

7. Comment #267338 by D'Arcy on October 20, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Brain science increasingly shows that "the qualities of mental life that we associate with souls" - memory, self-control, decision-making - "are purely corporeal; they emerge from biochemical processes in the brain,"

The materialist in me can't but help agree with this. Brains reside in humans. Humans are social animals, so it's hardly surprising that human brains are affected by the expressed thoughts of their fellow humans. To use Richard's word, the social memes of religion, politics, morality or whatever, can be passed on and given social encouragement. Brains don't live in isolation.

Despite what the author says, the fact that the "soul" is a product of the brain seems to completely undermine the religious view of something of us living on after death. Or am I missing something?

Other Comments by D'Arcy

8. Comment #267339 by Duarf Dog on October 20, 2008 at 12:59 pm

some good video on the subject http://www.closertotruth.com/

Other Comments by Duarf Dog

9. Comment #267366 by rod-the-farmer on October 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Well, it seems to me that this makes it official to respond to fundies...

"It's all in your head"

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

10. Comment #267414 by debaser71 on October 20, 2008 at 2:28 pm

I reject the notion that dualism or supernatural thoughts are universal. This idea simply dismisses the fact that there are always some people (universally) who aren't supernaturalists and the fact that some percentage of people are going along to get along.

US politics is making me grumpy!

Other Comments by debaser71

11. Comment #267432 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Can't see the theists being too pleased to have this guy's 'permission' to go on believing in gods while he cheerfully tosses out their cherished notions of eternal souls. Not that he's wrong, but I'm guessing the religiosites will consider themselves not just contradicted but also patronised.

Other Comments by j.mills

12. Comment #267494 by Notcrowingbutyawning on October 20, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Amongst a number of self-penned aphorisms [or at least attempts at the same] abiding on post-its on my pinboard is this one of recent vintage. "God is the refusal to accept that all that goes on inside your head is only going on inside your head." A truth I've, a little sadly, come to realise.

As for the notion of a soul, a short while back I postulated that perchance it could be a recording of all your neuronal signatures somewhere out 'there' in the 'ether'. Like a sort of back-up file. A desperate attempt to hang on to the meme, I reluctantly concluded.

But imagine if there were such a thing as 'the spirit' and after death you could wander unfettered around the universe, darting from galaxy to galaxy in an instant, situating yourself in a collapsing star then surfing on its supernova before deciding you'd stick around for a few million years haunting a particular hydrogen atom that eventually gets conscripted into a molecule of water, and since time has no meaning for the 'soul' you could, should you wish eventually be part of the first rain to fall on a new planet, whilst all the time communicating with other souls that may or may not be doing the same but all the same trully know just what it is you feel when you hear your favourite records and recognise exactly why they are so great....

But, let's face it, when die you probably just cease to be... ahhh.. B*LL*CKS! :O(

Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning

13. Comment #267502 by Steve13 on October 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm

This article is in the spiritual life section of the Boston Globe that is probably why it comes of a bit apologetic towards the religious.

Oh and if Paul Bloom's theories sound familiar they feature quite prominently in The God Delusion, the section entitled "Psychologically Primed for Religion"

Other Comments by Steve13

14. Comment #267515 by Dhamma on October 20, 2008 at 4:02 pm

"The soul? It may all be in your mind"

Where the hell is it else supposed to be?

Has any proper scientist ever suggested else wise?

Sure, this article is angled to people drawn to the supernatural, but I'm still annoyed the topic suggest the soul doesn't need to be part of the brain.

Other Comments by Dhamma

15. Comment #267525 by Daniella on October 20, 2008 at 4:13 pm

I think the author is suffering from dualism. He has different concepts that don't mesh together.

culturally Jewish but religiously atheist

What?

There's nothing in my work that in any way should trouble anybody who's theologically inclined

What?!
Yes I'm sure they like the idea that they don't have a soul and won't get to go to heaven and see god et al. and recieve all the things promised to them for living the pious life. Might actually have to start living for this life not the next...that would be a shocker.

I have a lot to say about the pleasures of religion

WHAT??!!
Of all things in the world to write a book on pleasures about... he chooses religion???

Other Comments by Daniella

16. Comment #267528 by MaxD on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Dhamma,
I think traditionally the soul was not thought to reside in the head, brain whatever. At least not in Christian doctrine.
Is the term sould even descriptive of anything important is what I would like to know.

Other Comments by MaxD

17. Comment #267529 by Steve13 on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Yes this article doesn't set out his views very well. The view is not that the soul/mind is separate from the brain but that we intuitive think we and others have minds, like we intuitively think of objects a solid rather than atoms we vast spaces between them.

He expounds his views here better
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom04/bloom04_index.html

Other Comments by Steve13

18. Comment #267536 by Dhamma on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 pm

MaxD: No, sure, but no one apart from the religious are suggesting the soul is more than your brain, so I just thought it was a ridiculous topic from a scientific viewpoint. And the article claimed "everything you think you know about the soul is wrong" - Really? I didn't learn anything new.

When I talk about the "soul" I simply use it as a synonymous word for consciousness. Even if they're not synonymous :)

Other Comments by Dhamma

19. Comment #267549 by notsobad on October 20, 2008 at 4:42 pm

May?

Eduardo Punset: The soul is in the brain

All right, we knew it. But now we have the whole picture of the molecular process through which past and future link; how the germinal soul, rooted in brain matter and memory, allows for new perceptions, for the future, to emerge. It is both simple and terrifying at the same time.

When the mind is challenged from the outside universe, it searches in its accumulated archives in order to make sense of this new stimulus. This screening of our memory -of our past- produces an immediate answer: the new stimulus either leaves everyone indifferent, or else it blooms into an emotion of love, of pleasure or of sheer curiosity. These are the three touchstones of creativity. So basically, science has discovered that at the very beginning at least, only the past matters. And that holds true also of our future creativity.

Then a process more akin to alchemy than science sparks off and develops into social intelligence. The imitation process, based on mirror neurons, interacts with the corpus of accumulated knowledge -of one´s own species, and of others- which, combined with a good stock of well preserved individual memory, explode into new thinking.

Until very recently, we were missing a fundamental step in the process of knowledge- namely, how to transform short term memory into long term knowledge. At last we are taking into account the detailed contents of durability, specific proteins without which there is no learning and affection in childhood, no schooling at a later stage, no socialization in adult life. The roots are in the past; but there is no knowledge if we hide in a cave alone, with no windows to peer from and no shadows dancing outside.

The past has to be worked upon from the outside in order to transform into the future, and this has brought about the second main discovery in the molecular process of creativity. The so called "technology transfer" from old to new generations is a two-way process: matter, mind, soul, past, memory, future, and also startling new ways of looking at old things, are all marvellously intertwined in the evolutionary process.

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_9.html#punset

Other Comments by notsobad

20. Comment #267566 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I think we'd do well to avoid using the word 'soul' altogether, just as a great deal of argument would have been avoided if Einstein hadn't used the word 'god'. 'Mind' or 'consciousness' describe what we're talking about.

Brevity is the consciousness of wit. Marvin Gaye was a great consciousness singer. Hmm, well, maybe there are some contexts where it's okay...

Other Comments by j.mills

21. Comment #267567 by theonlybap on October 20, 2008 at 5:40 pm

One of my professors suggested that Descartes actually didn't believe his own dualism stuff, but created a falsifiable hypothesis for it (if the soul/mind is separate from the body, then anything done to the body would not affect the soul/mind). He just made it seem like he believed it so the Church wouldn't kill him.

Would be an interesting research project to see if this is really what Descartes intended.

Other Comments by theonlybap

22. Comment #267606 by Dr Doctor on October 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

My wife is "culturally" (racially- if we even accept that classification) Jewish but religiously atheist. Being born of a long line of Cohenim, which of the latter generations don't believe in adherence to religious law nor the cods-wallop that is the Judaic deity. She sometimes describes herself as pantheistic. But she is still, firmly, a Jew.

Or are you upset with the term "religiously atheist"?

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

23. Comment #267620 by Acitta on October 20, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Buddha Shakyamuni figured out that there was no such thing as a soul 2400 years ago, without having the benefit of brain science. I don't know why the adherents of other religions can't figure it out.

Other Comments by Acitta

24. Comment #267622 by Bonzai on October 20, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Er? I think that is old news. I wrote something like that in a philosophy essay more than 10 years ago when I was in first year university.I have also made that point in many posts here: If there is a "soul" what is it consist of now that everything that is corperal,--memory, sensal experience, personality, etc,-- has been emptied out? What is "pure consciousness" like when everything that defines its content has been subtracted away?

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #267624 by Daniella on October 20, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Dr Doctor:

It is interesting that Jews consider their ethnicity and religion one and the same but not mutally exclusive.

What is "Jewish culture" that stands alone from religious law and cods-wallop (as you so rightly put it.) It is just heritage, family, blood line etc? Is is the same as I call myself Australian?

I doubt there is any atheist that would call themselves "culturally catholic" or similar.
I certainly wouldn't.

I'm not taking the piss - genuinely interested. I don't know any Jews - culturally or otherwise.

Other Comments by Daniella

26. Comment #267651 by Dr Doctor on October 20, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Well she gets quite heated when I ask about this. The problem is the ethnicity and the religion are often used interchangeably.

You are ethnicly a Jew if your mother was a Jew. Religiously, that might not be sufficient if your father was Goyem.

The other way to become Jewish is if the London Jewish Chronicle is having a slow news day, and wants to promote its thinly veiled "success gene" agenda and you are successful. They will hunt through your ancestry to find the one Jew (or part Jew) and then promote you as Jewish in their pages everafter.

There is an unseemly "master race who has been kept down" undercurrent to Jewish culture. Whether they use the "Gods chosen people" or the "success gene" term doesn't matter. It is still undeniably racist and supremacist.

Fortunately, a lot of Jewish people don't subscribe to that unproven codswallop, yet others do. Often surprisingly intelligent people.

Tastes for certain food, ceremonies and music also come with being a Jew from where she was born (North London).

But the comparison is really with "Italian American" rather than "Catholic American".

My wife had to fight against bigotry about marrying out (of the Jewish "race") not from her own family, but Jewish people at her place of work and in conversation with fellow Jews ever since. There is a certain look, a worried question, a concern.

She has also been asked if "Jews aren't good enough for her", "Would her father have approved" and "When you break up, perhaps you will find a nice Jewish boy". When she announced our engagement she was met with shock, surprise and one person, her boss, called her a traitor. He said he was joking, but I saw his face.

I'm projecting from my experience here, but getting to know a lot of Jewish people has been an education! There are more schisms than in Christianity, a sense of belonging (helped along by exaggeration as well as true stories of oppression) to a group and in no small part a large swathe of resentment and snobbery towards non Jews. This is most prevelant, in my experience, amongst the religious Jews.

Even amongst my friends, in my company, such statements are made as "Who ever heard of a Jewish plumber? That kind of job is for the ...." that they think are perfectly innocuous, I have bite my tongue. The implicating being us lesser races fill the crappy jobs. On that occasion I got up the guts to get the Yellow Pages out and prove them wrong, to be met with the response "oh well you can tell from the name that they are [sneer] Safadic...".

(No, I am not a plumber)

Jews act as one large extended family, that family is quite dysfunctional. Like everyone else, in fact. Perhaps as a result of lengthy, vile oppression resentment, snobbery and racism come with the territory for the weaker minded.

I long since tired of being told "He is a Jew" and "She is a Jew" about some actor/tress constantly whilst watching TV programmes or after films and nipped that in the bud with "Do you think I care about whether someone is Jewish, Hispanic, Black, White, Purple or Republican?".

But it isn't just Jewish people this goes on with, I dated a Iranian girl for a while and she was exactly the same.

There is a strong identity there, perhaps originating in shared misfortune.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

27. Comment #267652 by Nefrubyr on October 20, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Daniella:

One "culturally christian" atheist you may have heard of:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

28. Comment #267654 by pattara on October 21, 2008 at 12:11 am

reply to comment#267620

No, Buddhism preaches about afterlife (heaven and hell) like other religions. And please don't forget its 'cycle of rebirth' and 'nirvana' concepts. Soul is everywhere in Buddhism's teaching.

Other Comments by pattara

29. Comment #267659 by Steve Zara on October 21, 2008 at 12:35 am

Comment #267654 by pattara

No, Buddhism preaches about afterlife (heaven and hell) like other religions. And please don't forget its 'cycle of rebirth' and 'nirvana' concepts. Soul is everywhere in Buddhism's teaching.

This is wrong. It is very common in Western societies to view the concepts of Buddhism through the lens of the traditions of Abrahamic religions. This is very misleading.

The core of Buddhism is not just that there is no immortal soul, but that there is not even a meaningful "self".

Cycles of rebirth can be considered as nothing more than "life goes on", and nirvana is a state of contentment - lack of worry. Even "karma" is simply the idea that one's acts have influence in the world.

These ideas have been expanded upon and taken on supernatural aspects as Buddhism has met with other religious traditions and merged with them. (It is quite possible to be a Buddhist and Christian at the same time).

The core of Buddhism is an approach to life and thinking that allows an indvidual to attain peace and contentment within their own lifetimes.

I think there is a tendency to want to consider all sets of beliefs that are labelled as "religion" as equally silly. I am afraid that isn't the case. There are good arguments against supernaturalism that even some versions of Buddhism are hard to attack with.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #267661 by dvespertilio on October 21, 2008 at 12:37 am

Buddhism teaches rebirth which, in certain popular understandings, is interpreted as reincarnation. But rebirth refers to the experience of finding desire arising again and again in each moment. Buddha taught, among other things, the doctrine of annata, that there is no permanent, lasting entity called soul.

This article is really much ado about nothing. Although all the details about consciousness, the inherent physical basis in the brain for morality, etc., are not known, thinking people have long since decided that there is no separate, "spiritual" soul. So what else is new?
Science marches on... no soul, no heaven or hell, no afterlife, no god or gods. Doesn't matter what the majority of humanity thinks. What's true is true.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

31. Comment #267664 by Steve Zara on October 21, 2008 at 12:44 am

Comment #267661 by dvespertilio

There is a lovely metaphor that has been used to describe the core Buddhist idea of what a person is: we are like flames - we are just patterns of transient substance. When there is re-birth (either from moment to moment, or through our influence on the future, such as in children), this is like one flame lighting another. Something goes on, but not the original flame.

The idea of "soul" is like the idea of the that a flame has something extra, but there is nothing but the shape and the substance of the flame.

Gosh I'm coming over all "spiritual". I must need my first coffee of the day.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #267665 by Stafford Gordon on October 21, 2008 at 12:47 am

One of our twin daughters adores grapes. Once, while buying some for her, I suggeted that she taste one to see if they were sweet or sour.

She looked at me frowning deeply, the corners of her mouth turned down and shaking her head with great solemnety; she new it would be wrong to eat a grape before having paid for it, and was telling me as much, wordlessly, but in no uncertain terms.

She was four years old; her reaction was instinctive.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

33. Comment #267679 by pattara on October 21, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #267659 by Steve Zara

I don't know how or why western people got this 'no-soul' idea about Buddhism. I live in a country where the majority are Buddhist and they, also almost all of the monks, do believe in afterlife/heaven and hell/rebirth. If you said Buddhism doesn't teach about immortal soul, how can you explain the case of Dalai Lama? Soul in Buddhism may not be 'obviously' immortal like the one in Hinduism, but you can't say that Buddhism is a soul-proof religion. If you want to know about the real Buddhism, try come and live in the Buddhist country.

Other Comments by pattara

34. Comment #267682 by Steve Zara on October 21, 2008 at 1:28 am

Comment #267679 by pattara

I don't know how or why western people got this 'no-soul' idea about Buddhism.

By going to Buddhist countries and researching the texts and talking to the Buddhist monks and teachers.

you can't say that Buddhism is a soul-proof religion.

I'm not. There are some people who are Buddhists who believe in souls. There are some people who are Buddhists who believe in re-incarnation in a more literal sense, such as in the Mahayana and Tibetan (as with the Dalai Lama) schools of Buddhism.

But it is not a core belief of Buddhism.

The idea of a soul is not present in, for example, the Theravadin or Zen schools.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #267688 by pattara on October 21, 2008 at 1:48 am

Comment #267682 by Steve Zara

I understand your point of view. However, there is a problem, If you say that soul is not a core belief of Buddhism, how about the cycle of rebirth and nirvana concepts? I've lived and grown up in a Theravada Buddhism country, and believe me, they did teach us in school that Buddha had reborn again and again before achieving his last 'nirvana' stage of life. It's in the national curriculum and in all book shops here. This is why I said I didn't know how or why western people thought that Buddhism taught no non-sense.

Other Comments by pattara

36. Comment #267696 by Steve Zara on October 21, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #267688 by pattara

The issues of the cycle of rebirth and of nirvana have been dealt with in previous posts here. They have different meanings in different schools of Buddhism. They even have different interpretations within each school, or within each country.

But one can be a Buddhist without believing in a soul, or that something of the self persists past death.

Therefore, by definition, it isn't part of the core of the set of beliefs.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #267700 by Titania on October 21, 2008 at 2:09 am

Steve, have you read Buddhism without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor?

Other Comments by Titania

38. Comment #267701 by iType on October 21, 2008 at 2:09 am

I always thought that belief in a soul arose from our brain's ability to imagine or visualize ourselves in another place. The extension being a sense that part of us is actually somewhere else. The use of language in phrases such as 'he's in another world' or 'head in the clouds', it's embedded in our language. Self-delusion can be a wonderful and dangerous thing.

Other Comments by iType

39. Comment #267704 by pattara on October 21, 2008 at 2:14 am

Comment #267696 by Steve Zara

Yes, you "can be a Buddhist without believing in a soul, or that something of the self persists past death."

But that does not mean soul "isn't part of the core of the set of beliefs."

What is "core of the set of beliefs" you refer to anyway? There are many in Buddhism. Are the cycle of rebirth and nirvana concepts also one of the core set of beliefs?

Other Comments by pattara

40. Comment #267706 by Steve Zara on October 21, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #267700 by Titania

I haven't. My favourite book on Buddhism is by Christmas Humphreys.

Do you recommend the book?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #267709 by dvespertilio on October 21, 2008 at 2:18 am

It was only in "losing my soul" that I came to have real soul. My zest for life and for this existence, no matter that it be finite and brief, has never been stronger. Becoming an atheist has been a life-affirming experience for me. What more soul than that do I need?

Other Comments by dvespertilio

42. Comment #267711 by Titania on October 21, 2008 at 2:19 am

Re: 40. Comment #267706 by Steve Zara

Yes, I do recommend it. I have found Buddhism very useful in dealing with stress and this book helped me to sift out the practical stuff from the mumbo jumbo.

Edit: I'll look at the Humphreys book.

Other Comments by Titania

43. Comment #267715 by Steve Zara on October 21, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #267704 by pattara

What is "core of the set of beliefs" you refer to anyway? There are many in Buddhism. Are the cycle of rebirth and nirvana concepts also one of the core set of beliefs?

My opinion is that the core set of beliefs is the minimal set that is common to all reasonably mainstream schools. I agree it is difficult to say precisely what that is, because Buddhism is so much about the usefulness of ideas for people being happy as against the truth of the ideas - it can be very much a "belief in belief" religion. Some Buddhist leaders have even promoted other religions!

This means that there is considerable debate about the meaning of terms like "annatta" (no self). Did the Buddha mean that there really was no self, or did he mean it would make one happier if one believes that there is no self? In a Buddhist system, it is quite in order to interpret things so there is a soul if you think that will not bind you to life and the desires that make one unhappy.

The point is that cycles of rebirth and nirvana can have endless interpretations. What they mean in a Tibetan context is quite different from what they mean in a Pure Land context or a Zen context.

But they can be interpreted in a way that deals with what happens within one lifetime.

This means that Buddhism does not require the concept of soul, or of rebirth in the sense of living again after death, or Nirvana has an actual heaven. It isn't required in the way that a belief in eternal life and supernaturalism is required in the Abrahamic religions.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #267716 by dvespertilio on October 21, 2008 at 2:27 am

I, too, have read "Buddhism without Belief" by Stephen Batchelor. It is an excellent book, although I think that it probably does reflect a largely Western interpretation of buddhism that doesn't take into account the actual day-to-day practice of buddhist believers in buddhist countries. Something like reincarnation is part of the mindset of many traditional buddhists, even though it isn't really what the buddha was teaching. I like your flame imagery, Steve, and have read it before, perhaps in the works of Christmas Humphreys, although I can't remember for sure.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

45. Comment #267717 by Kraes85 on October 21, 2008 at 2:30 am

"It's a tenuous view to say that the part of me that chooses right from wrong has no physical basis. If that were true, you wouldn't expect getting smashed on the head, alcohol, or heroin to affect your will and your knowledge of right and wrong."

I'm amazed at how the above example of how the human mind is physical had never occurred to me. In discussions I've always used the Phineas Gage case to illustrate it but this is actually much better because it personalises the point. Wonderful.

That said, I agree that it's preposterous to say that religious people should not be unnerved by the "materialization" of the soul. They may well be happy to see that we are (might have) an innate tendency to be dualists but then they are missing an important point. It casts severe doubt on the validity of their intuition that we have a soul (since we're all innately biased in this regard).
Religious people are (in my experience at least) fond of arguing that because people believe in the supernatural that makes the supernatural more likely to exist. This argument should lose any semblance of credibility considering the fallibility of our intuitions (not that it had much credibility to begin with).
The reason the 'argumentum ad populum' convinces so many is (I think) probably because of the evolutionary adaptiveness of this specific kind of credulity when you live in a social environment where (displays of) beliefs are subject to normative regulation by punishment which might itself be a by-product of the regulation of reciprocal altruistic behaviour.

Ok, enough trying to sound smart.

Other Comments by Kraes85

46. Comment #267720 by Laurie Fraser on October 21, 2008 at 2:32 am

Not sounding, Kraes85, that WAS smart!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

47. Comment #267721 by Bernstein on October 21, 2008 at 2:33 am

I know the "theologically-inclined" are constantly looking to science for confirmation of their beliefs, but the *religious* are pretty adamant that science simply has it wrong about certain things (like the soul).

How can we possibly survive death, you ask? You'll get a stern and confident answer. "Magically". Case closed. Or is that belief in gods, demons, angels and the afterlife is fine but it only gets ridiculous when that belief extends to magic?

The soul survives death magically. It's plain and simple. ;)

Other Comments by Bernstein

48. Comment #267725 by notsobad on October 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Would be an interesting research project to see if this is really what Descartes intended.

It would for it would involve a time machine :)

Other Comments by notsobad

49. Comment #267726 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 21, 2008 at 2:53 am

I'm betting Kraes85 WAS smart, but he lost me!

All I keep thinking is that removing the concept of soul is a real kick in the teeth for Abrahamic faith. I don't think many of those believers would be willing to accept there is no soul. Nothing after. No heaven. No promised land for all the good guys.

The other thing I keep thinking is, "That's not my Buddhism". Who knows what that guy really thought so long ago. Who knows whether Steve's interpretations Buddhism are what was intended. I think Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam could be useful in your life, but only if you remove God from it and so only half-believe it. A bit of cherry picking for the cultural-christian never did any harm (did it?)

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

50. Comment #267734 by pattara on October 21, 2008 at 3:21 am

Comment #267715 by Steve Zara

Yes, I agree with you that there are many schools of Buddhism and that it's hard to describe its core set of beliefs precisely. I think, when discussing Buddhism, it would be better if we could specifically say which school we're referring to. Unlike Abrahamic religions, Buddhism is very flexible and open to interpretation. But beware; it also has some characteristics of religion. Apart from teaching people how to be happy and lead good life, it offers the unable-to-proof 'ultimate truth' like nirvana and sometimes encourages blind faith.

Other Comments by pattara

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last