> If the line between life and non-life is blurry, that means there isn't a clear place for souls to fit in
If "souls" aren't defined precisely enough that there's an experiment that give different results depending on whether they exist, then the statement "souls exist" is meaningless, and anyone saying it is not even wrong.
> This isn't a big deal for science, but it's a moral victory for atheists.
Theists won't care, although I suppose some will mutter something about separate magisteria.
The concept of a soul is a rich one, and for many people is largely metaphorical or figurative. You can subscribe to a materialist account of our cosmos and still draw meaning from the idea of a soul.
Re:The Grayness of the Origin of Life
by today20201014 on Friday July 23, 2021 @08:49PM
(#27937450)
I am hesitant to agree that it's a moral victory - maybe it's more of a victory about metaphysics? (also, what is a metaphysical victory? :))
a metaphysical victory for atheists who consumes the concept of soul would be that the concept ceases, which is equivalent to its physical death in the competing theist's view, and completely unconsequential to the atheist, which only proves that atheism is at least not that bad.
Re:The Grayness of the Origin of Life
by andagainagain on Friday July 23, 2021 @08:49PM
(#27937448)
That isn't necessarily true. All you have to do to keep the concept of external soul alive is to accept the idea of simpler souls. Maybe there isn't am irreducibly complex soul.
This isn't a big deal for science, but it's a moral victory for atheists.