Expert: Philip A. Stahl - 4/8/2008

Question
QUESTION: Do athiests believe that humans have eternal souls? Why or why not?

ANSWER: Hello,

The Atheist neither "believes" nor "disbelieves" there is such an entity as a soul -eternal or otherwise. We simply (as Materialists-Physicalists-Naturalists) assert there is no evidence at all for such, and no one has provided even the minimal evidence to support it.

In this regard, let's be clear that for us "soul" represents an extraordinary claim. It is much in the same league as someone telling me that invisible aliens from a distant planet inhabit his attic. It is not my job to disprove the claim, but the claimant's duty to substantiate it (independent of any "alien" books he may possess) to the best of his ability.

If he can't do that, I am free to ignore the claim. But please be clear, ignoring the claim is not the same as active disbelief. This same rubric applies to claims of any supernatural entity, whether "God", "angels", "demons", "Hell" or whatever.

In the absence of hard evidence, the soul claimant has another option - by way of argument - which he can make. That is to give the necessary and sufficient conditions for an "eternal soul" to exist.

In this regard, a necessary condition is one for which - if it is missing - the entity cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which - if it is present - the entity MUST exist.

Take as an example, a hydrogen emission nebula (radiating cloud of hydrogen in space).

A necessary condition is that a cloud of hydrogen exists at all. Without the hydrogen cloud, one cannot have a hydrogen emission nebula. The sufficient condition is that a source of radiation or radiant energy exists which is able to excite the hydrogen atoms into emission - that is: exciting the electrons of the hydrogen in the cloud into higher energy levels, then dropping to lower - with the emission of photons.

Now, in the same regard, the Atheist asks what exactly is the necessary conditon for "soul"? HOW does this permit me (especially) to distinguish "soul" from ordinary human consciousness? What properties are there that allow this? Once one establishes such a necessary condition, then what are the sufficient condtions?

What conditions must be present in the human, or for humans collectively (as a species) - which dictate they possess "souls"?

These conditions must be such that they also allow me to understand WHY iguanas, spiders, monkeys, snakes, and cockroaches are said to lack souls! What is it humans have that these other species don't? (e.g. the special condition for soul to exist in us and not in them)

Until such necessary -sufficient conditions are put forward by theists, it is difficult to take their claims for "soul" in any way seriously.

We simply attribute the claim to an overactive imagination, and mayeb a desire to exist forever!

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I see. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

So, just to understand better, do atheists believe that in order to believe that
something (big bang theory, gravity, magic, tooth fairies, supernatural
entities etc.) exists or is real (justified true belief), it must be proven first? For
instance, you said that athiests don't necessarily "believe" or "disbelieve" in a
soul, they just realize that the existence of a soul has not been proven yet,
and therefore can't believe. If this is so, is there anything that you can think
of that athiests do believe in that has not necessarily been proven yet?
Thanks again for your time.

Answer
Hello, again

Re: "proof", let us get this out of the way first! As anyone who does scientific research knows, it is quite impossible to "prove" a particular solution to a scientific problem to be "true" (that is, true for all times and conditions).  Solutions of scientific problems are instead assessed for adequacy, that is, in respect to the extent to which the researcher's stated aims have been carried out.

  Two categories of criteria are those related to argument and to the evidence presented.  To judge adequacy then, we look for the strength and consistency of logical/mathematical arguments, and the goodness of fit of the data in a given context.  By "goodness of fit" I mean that two different datasets on comparison are either strongly correlated or anti-correlated.  As an example, the rate of growth of tree rings is strongly correlated to the level of activity of a particular sunspot cycle.  There is agreement and an excellent "goodness of fit".

All such determinations of adequacy perform the same function for scientific research that quality control does for industry.  Most importantly, no determination of adequacy can be rendered until and unless the research is published in a refereed journal. If I am asked to invest mental and emotional energy in some extraordinary (e.g. “supernatural”) claim or other, then what exactly are the rational criteria of adequacy by which I can judge that claim?

Can it be set against original and actual scientific hypotheses? Can it admit the basis of numerous empirical tests- and moreover- can it be susceptible to any form of prediction?

If the answer is ‘No’, then we cannot place it into any scientific context. It will then have to be admitted that “faith” be enjoined to embrace or accept it, since no scientific rationale will permit true scientific inquiry. Since there are no genuine objects of scientific inquiry.

This surely applies to "soul" (which, btw, I dispute any quality evidence - far less proof- can ever be forthcoming).

The same does not apply to the Big Bang. For example, we have the 2.73 K isotropic radiation, discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. This isotropic radiation can be explained in no other way except as the "relic radiation" from a promordial "explosion" - which we interpret as the Big Bang. So, we have coherent evidence for the claim.

Gravity - another scientific object of inquiry- is easily verified with the simplest experiments. (Indeed, all you need do is drop two objects of differing weight in a vacuum tube to see they fall at the same rate, under GRAVITY).

As for "magic", "tooth fairies" etc. these are mere macguffins of noe use or purpose to any sound scientist, or any atheist. They are inventions, fabrications of the mind...like "soul".  The funny thing is that humans possess brains that have the capacity to invent fictious words for any far-fetched entity they can dream up or imagine. Whether "tooth fairies", "demons" or "Nessie" the Loch Ness monster.

Human brains probably evolved to be susceptible to fantasies and the more the better. Hence, the biggest fantasies of all: everylasting souls and eternal "life".

Btw, when I said atheists neither "believe nor disbelieve" I was not trying to in any way leave the impression "soul" was a valid construct. It isn't, in my opinion, any more than tooth fairies. What  I was trying to oconvey is that the Atheist's position is independent of belief or disbelief, but contingent on the most rudimentary scientific evidence.

Atheists as a rule subscribe to the scientific process. This process must be understood before you can understand how the minds of most Atheists work- in terms of claims they accept and those they don't. That context presumes an approach to objective truth is by way of *successive approximations*, a concept that is totally foreign to most religionists. It works like this:

You have data, and accessory information which leads to some iniital result which tests a particular hypothesis- call it 'x'.

You then acquire better data (perhaps because of refined instruments, techniques) and are led to a modified (improved) result such that:

x (n+1) = x + P(x)

where x(n +1) denotes an improvement via iteration, with P(x) the process (acting on x) that allows it.

Later, more refined data become available, such that:

x(n + 2) = x(n + 1) + P'(x + 1)

and so on, and so on and so forth.

Each x, x(n+1), x(n+2) etc. being a successive approximation to what the objective, genuine value should be.


Supernaturalists- by contrast- simply impose their truth ab initio by fiat or decree. E.g.

"There is a soul"


There is no attempt whatever to incorporate any approximations. Or, an approximating process - in which it is acknowledged that 'truth' can't be accessed all at once.  Rather, one must set rational truth aside and succumb to ‘faith”.

"I *believe* a soul exists" etc.

This leads to the second major difference: each scientific hypothesis or theory is subjected to a battery of tests to first attempt to falsify it.

Religious or supernatural claims, by contrast, would never attempt anything so dangerous - since it might make the faithful think twice and question their faith. So, for example, Catholics will stick to their doctrines of virgin birth, immaculate conception, triune deity, transubstantiation or whatever and never subject them to the criterion of falsifiablility. By asserting these are all ‘articles of faith’ they render them de facto immunize to empirical or critical scrutiny.

Knowledge presupposes open inquiry to obtain it in the first place. Theology's multitude of dogmas and doctrines - not open to critical evaluation since they allow no falsifiability tests - forever forecloses such inquiry. Further, by doing so it abdicates any claim to being called 'knowledge'. (Since genuine knowledge can never be by decree or fiat. )

Also - as Sir A.J. Ayer has noted (Language, Logic and Truth, p 151):

"The fact that people have religious experiences is interesting from a psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply there is such a thing as religious knowledge".

Re: your question 'Is there anything atheists believe that is not yet proven?'

Again, I can't speak for all atheists - since there are different types (Some, if you can believe it - are not even Materialists!) But, speaking for myself, I do not "believe", I have instead intellectual positions I have come to via many years of research, experience, debate. I also am able (from these, and the laws of probability) to formulate future intellectual positions ....about any number of proposed occurrences.

Again, as I said before, most things are not proven for all times and conditions anyway. For example, Einstein's theory of General Relativity has had a number of challengers in recent years.

As I noted earlier - the object is not to "prove" something so much as present compelling and consistent evidence for its existence. If "soul" exists, I would not expect "proof" in the sense of the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, but only in terms of the criteria of very high QA evidence that is consistent, but also the necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence made clear.

Along these lines, and to address more specifically your question, I am of the firm (even confident) opinion that extraterrestrial life will be discovered within the next fifty years. I would put the probability at better than 60%. (> Chance of 3 in 5)

Meanwhile, I would put the probability of sound evidence for "soul" being found (even a million years from now) at less than 1 in several septillion.

Hope this reply makes sense!