Neuroscience can teach us about the soul through its exploration of the brain

The argument

Most neuroscience evidence and knowledge assert that there is no such thing as a soul. If the soul is defined as the spiritual essence that makes up our personality, defines who we are, and allows us to perform high-level functions, it does not exist. Neuroscience has shown that these processes are easily explained by the brain; the prefrontal cortex controls rational decision making, reasoning, and thinking, and many areas of the brain perform immensely complicated and varied functions. Personality comes down to brain chemistry and structure; there is no need or evidence for the soul. However, a minority of scientists propose neuroscience evidence that does support the idea of a soul. A primary supporting fact for this viewpoint is that neuroscientists cannot explain the cause of consciousness. Consciousness as a concept is almost identical to the soul; what causes and controls our subjective and unique individual experiences and self. We all experience the world differently, because of what makes us the person we are. This essence is consciousness and the soul, and neuroscience cannot figure out its inner workings. Many believe that the science of consciousness cannot be explained because consciousness results from the soul, not the brain. One major piece of evidence for the soul is that people with brain damage or in a vegetative state still exhibit consciousness. If physical brain evidence points to these people as not possessing the machinery needed to function, and yet they can still exhibit personality and human qualities, the best explanation is that they have retained a soul.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Neuroscience should not even provide commentary on the soul. The soul is a divine, spiritual essence that is far beyond the physical and scientific world. The soul is far too separate from the physical world to ever understand in a physical sense. Therefore, neuroscience has no grounds in which to speak on the soul because it is not studying the plane of existence in which the soul resides, such as religion and philosophy do. Whatever neuroscience has to say about the soul is ultimately irrelevant.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Showing that the brain performs the functions once ascribed to a soul removes a reason to posit one; it does not show the question is answerable by neuroscience, which is what this position claims — and "personality reduces to brain chemistry and structure" is asserted rather than demonstrated. [Rejecting P2] The body's own second half runs the other way, treating unexplained consciousness as evidence for a soul, so the argument supplies material for both positions; and calling an open question a scientific problem assumes the answer rather than establishing science as the ultimate arbiter, which is precisely the counter's objection.