I know of two sorts of argument denying the existence of a soul, where the soul is believed to exist from the beginning of the fetus, given by God (or Gods) and persisting as an unchangeable entity determining the character and behaviour of the human (or perhaps animal too).

The first counterargument is taken from physics: If the soul acts on the body, then there should be a re-action of the body on the soul possibly changing or destroying it.

The second counterargument is taken from medicine: The character of the human can be changed dramatically by drugs, electrodes in the brain and other chemical or physical perturbations.

Are there more counterarguments?

  • Check out Buddhist philosophy. There are quite few good argument to be found there. The problem here is the absence of a definition of 'soul'. Whether your arguments work will depend totally on your definition.
    – user20253
    Sep 1 '17 at 14:59
  • 3
    Well, science, in it's history, has never found evidence of a soul. Not sure what else needs to be said about this? Sep 1 '17 at 15:06
  • 1
    Think up something similar to a soul, different but with mostly the same characteristics (intangibility, etc.). Can you disprove that, even though you have no reason to think it exists? Asking for disproof is asking the wrong question. You should be asking about evidence. Sep 1 '17 at 16:28
  • 1
    @Heinrich: What would not "work" if there were no soul? What function does the soul posses?
    – Moritz
    Sep 3 '17 at 9:32
  • Come to think of it, Schrodinger wrote some useful and short arguments against a plurality of souls, albeit he did propose that we all share the same one.
    – user20253
    Sep 3 '17 at 12:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.