In a way, he’s answering his own question without realizing it.
Looks that way to me too, djf — great catch! For as you explain
If a theory of everything can explain everything, but they still don’t know the purpose of a soul, then the theory would seem to be deficient. The belief or actual existence of a soul would be by itself something that was OUTSIDE the bounds of a simple theory based on mechanics, no matter how complex those mechanics are.But it's even worse than that. The way such "thinkers" set up the problem, they don't have to ask what the "purpose" of the soul is, because they outright deny the existence of the soul in the first place.
So the unarticulated first premise of this operation is "no soul." In order to hold this premise it is necessary to hold seven millennia (at least) of universal human experience as "no data."
The "existence of the soul" is not something that science can directly prove. And yet we know from the archeological and cultural records that human beings everywhere, at all times, irrespective of geography, had and have funerary customs and rites. The common-denominator here is that all these peoples were engaging in practices designed to help the soul of the departed in its transit from this life into some other life. Human beings at all times, of all cultures and places, didn't simply dispose of their dead by dumping them into the garbage, as if they were dead "refuse." (We had to wait till the [increasingly Godless] twentieth century to see behavior like that on a wide scale.)
In short, at no time before very recent times did people think human beings were "just" their physical bodies, just a bunch of chemicals, matter in its motions according to purely natural laws.
But history can be very inconvenient for people who want to play "no-soul" mind-games like this. So they simply "dispose" of history; they drop it down the rathole of human memory, never to be seen again...they hope. :^)
Kinda reminds me of a recent interview of a doctoral candidate in geology conducted by Bill O'Reilly on his show, though in a slightly different way. Bill invited this "advanced scholar" on to discuss his doctoral thesis, which argues that extraterrestrial intelligent beings might possibly exist; and therefore we can model scenarios describing what forms "contact" by these beings with humans on Earth might take. And we should do this, simply because such contacts are "possible."
Moving from his initial premise that such beings exist, he then goes on to tell us that they would be ever so much more technologically advanced than we are. But here's the pièce de résistance: They will know that earthlings are becoming more powerful and technologically advanced simply by monitoring our carbon emissions. It is postulated that these alien beings would be threatened by a more powerful humanity on Earth. And thus they would swoop in and "punish us" — in effect, for our "anthropogenic global warming."
Both of the above "mind-games" are premised on a "what if?" But it seems to me that a "what if" is a pretty flimsy premise to hang your hat on if it has to carry the day against actual historical evidence, human experience, logic, and reason. Which IMHO is what both these "thinkers" are trying to do.
Anyhoot, the Ph.D. candidate winds up his remarks, and O'Reilly tells him that, were he grading the thesis, he'd give the candidate an "F" — largely, I gather, on the basis of the exacrable logic of the piece.
And I'm still scratching my head: What does any of this have to do with geology?
Anyhoot, it didn't seem to me that the piece re: advanced extraterrestials who fear the rise of a humanity with "hegemonic" inclinations could possibly be regarded as coming within a mile of respectable science....
Science fiction — maybe.
Back to first guy. It seems to me his problem is pretty simple. He simply, flatly denies that he has a soul; and needs to find a scientific "explanation" for how he can still function as a living being without one. And when he does, he'll let us know. Then he'll gladly preach the new, scientifically-blessed doctrine to the rest of us....
Of course, I think both these "scientists" are madmen....
Thank you ever so much, djf, for your outstanding analysis!
But history can be very inconvenient for people who want to play "no-soul" mind-games like this. So they simply "dispose" of history; they drop it down the rathole of human memory, never to be seen again...they hope. :^)
Truly man is not the sum of his physical parts.
"Information theory and molecular biology" should make it obvious but as you say, they like to ignore the inconvenient. LOLOL!
Thank you so much for all of your wonderful essay-posts!
I would assert that the notion of "just their physical bodies" is simply a statement of materialism or physicalism which denies dualism. You would agree also. However I think it behoves us to look at the roots of this weltanschauung (all-emcompasing worldview) which takes us back 2400 years to ancient Greece. Although Darwinism is a far more familiar theory than Epicurean materialism, it is clear that Epicurus was the progenitor, in every sense, of Darwinism. Epicurus provided an approach to the study of nature-a paradigm as the historian of science - Thomas Kuhn called it - the systematic and purposeful exclusion of the divine from nature, not only in regards to the creation, but also in regard to divine control of, and intervention in, nature. The secularization culminated in Darwinism because it was with Darwin that materialism, which had been slowly but surely permeating and re-forming the predessor Christian culture, finally reached and devoured God the creator and the immortal soul, leaving in its wake a completely Godless, soulless universe.
Darwinists all too often hold to materialist principles even when their own science turns up startling evidence questioning those very materialist principles. This refusal to see what is before them is a priori, evidence of their own making, is what will allow intelligent design theorists question whether there is something else motivating the materialist scientists with whom they debate, something that makes them resist them mounting scientific evidence for a designer.
Epicurus was motivated to remain a steadfast materialist specifically with the goal in mind of driving the divine from the universe. A godless, soulless universe is one without judgements, without peril, one in which rather than our every thought and movement being watched by an omniscient diety whose claims for absolute justice are unremitting, we instead, is free of a brooding, unblinking divine eye. Epicurus' goal was to close that eye. That Darwin's evolutionary arguements are novel is a notion that is far from the truth. Modern evolutionary theory is not modern in the least. It is found full-blown the the first century B.C. in the Roman Epicurean poet-philosopher Lucretius and its rise was assured with the victory of materialism in the seventeenth century. Darwin is not the beginning of evolutionary theory but rather, the culmination. There is a full cosmological framework which Darwinism presupposes, and those presuppositions lead straight to the door of Epicurus.
Briefly, Epicurus believed that "freedom from disturbances" and "secure conviction" was the goal to reach for and defines his whole system. Ataraxia, freedom from disturbances" was the Epicurean goal of science. He deplored the notion of meterology (disturbances of the heavenly bodies, lightning, thunder, stars, comets, and even the gods were the greatest sources of those disturbances, and the second cause of those disturbances was concern of the afterlife. He sought to rid the universe of these disturbances. He did this by teaching that "everything was made up of atomos (a-tomos=not divisible) which could not be divided beyond these atomos. All matter, even the make up of the gods, were made of those same atomes. By making this assertion he simply stated he believed in materialism. It was a short walk from there to redefine gods, though immortal(in Greek mythology), were made of the same thing as everything else in the universe, thus removing fear of the divine, and thus the afterlife. He then asserted that everything which comes to be, is by random chance of those atomos, and asserted the philosophical principle that "nothing comes to be from nothing" affirming the Principle of Causality. This allowed Epicurus to assert that the universe did not exist ex nihlo but rather affired the eternality of the universe. With this proviso, Epicurus did away with the Creator of the universe. The shift of the eternality of the divine to the eternality of the universe fit well withing the paradign of Epicurus, and subsequently, Darwin. To put it another way, the faith in the existinence of eternal atoms defines both nature and science as essentially materialism. These eternal atomos make a creator God unnecessary. Epicurus essentially stated that the choice of worldview was between materialism and mythology. For Epicurus, the gods were rendered harmless, because they were part of nature, made of atoms, just like everything and everyone else in the universe. He referred to the gods as blessed animals (zoon aphtharton kai makarion) He classified them as animals because as indestructibility was the result of their being part of nature. If otherwise, the universe would not be reducible to atomos and the void.
So here is the seedstock of Darwinism - God does not exist as omnipotent - materialism is all that there is - the random movement of atoms come together by chance to produce animals, plants, gods, rocks,..not the creation of a designer creator God. There is nothing beyond death - just random momvement of atomos, thus releasing the "disturbances" of concerns of the afterlife.
Most people equate Epicureanism with hedonism, but Epicurus was an ascetic, saying "the greatest pleasure is the absence of pain", futher stating that this pleasure is at its zenith eating barley cake and water. However, regarding sexuality Epicurus stated that it was the result of the unnatural desire of ther body for unlimited pleasure. But,there were no intrinsically evil acts. He said, no pleasure is bad in itself. Because nothing is evil in and of itself he said 'we must emphasize any pleasure'. Nature has no 'intents' of placing a limit, moral or otherwise on itself. "Atomos, themselves, by their random motion, did not impose limits on our actions and desires; such limits and the pain that reinforces them were only the result of chance."
So,(fast forward 2400 years) the true test of the merit of a hypothesis is that it passes the test of nature. Is nature really as Epicurus describes, or does nature simply shoe-horn itself in on an acient theory revived by Darwin, and today conform to the materialism of today. This type of faith in materialism can become bad faith, if, upon examination, it ceases to work. But, a good working hypothesis can be adjusted around the edges without being fatal to the theory. But after probing deeply into nature,..after science contradicts the theory, when we find adherance to a failing theory of evolution, we simply assert that Darvinianism is not 'bad faith'....it is enough to affirm that it is their faith.
My greatest concern is that the 'keepers of the culture' are completely entrenched in buisness, universities, public educaiton, and media. Their efficacy to suppress and ridicule intelligent design and the creator is entrenched and is moral in origin.