tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post6138854553408855719..comments2023-07-18T08:00:22.009-05:00Comments on Steinblog: The Existence of Souls and EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-68760287323311969352013-12-08T20:40:58.071-06:002013-12-08T20:40:58.071-06:00In the last sentence of my comment above, I meant ...In the last sentence of my comment above, I meant to write that someone could argue that "holding some responsible for her actions" <b>doesn't necessarily require </b> the responsible person to have a free choice.Zach Wrublewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653985715207538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-36045801292302821532013-12-08T16:06:28.374-06:002013-12-08T16:06:28.374-06:00I share your general confusion about souls, mostly...I share your general confusion about souls, mostly because I don't understand how an immaterial substance can affect a material substance. While interesting, I don't think the idea of an evolved soul escapes this problem. <br /><br />Generally, I think you're right about belief in God (or reincarnation, or some other religious belief) grounding the idea of a soul. It seems to me that some sort of argument or reason to believe in a specific version of the "afterlife" is the only intelligible grounding for a belief in souls.<br /><br />On your other discussion (of inherited souls, genes, traits, etc.), I think there are several ways to argue for holding someone responsible for her actions. They could deny that decisions are determined in a way that eliminates free choice. Also, I think someone could argue that "holding someone responsible for her actions" requires the person responsible to have a free choice (they could argue, for example, that the point of "holding someone accountable" is not to uphold some sort of justice, but instead to mold behavior).Zach Wrublewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653985715207538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-7239165327389640992013-12-08T07:56:53.432-06:002013-12-08T07:56:53.432-06:00I don't see why you would think that souls mig...I don't see why you would think that souls might be a result of natural evolution. Souls are supernatural, whereas evolution deals only with the natural. I don't see any connection between the two. This confusion also seems to extend into your discussion of genes and being able to place responsibility on people. I once again see a confusion between the supernatural nature of souls and the very natural domain of genes.Alexander Lairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768949195872760856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-86275290311816256802013-12-07T09:26:34.803-06:002013-12-07T09:26:34.803-06:00In regard to whether souls are logically possible,...In regard to whether souls are logically possible, the Steinberg and Steinberg article is intended to show that the concept of a soul is incoherent. It does this by showing that we can't make sense of individuating or differentiating among such presumed entities, and that without such criteria, we don't really understand the concept. This is in contradistinction to claims that the notion makes sense but that there is no suficient evidence to warrent belief that souls exist. Evolution may play a role in why this notion, incoherent as it is, is so prevalent across cultures and religions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com