In article <m7zom83t8z.fsf at skaggs.bns.pitt.edu>, Bill Skaggs
<skaggs at bns.pitt.edu> wrote:
>herwin at gmu.edu (Harry Erwin) writes:
>> > Side comment: I would estimate the percentage of neuroscientists and
> > cognitive scientists who are concerned with the soul at less than 1%.
> > Why? Because there's good experimental evidence (from studies of people
> > who have had lesions due to stroke and other causes) that the soul does
> > not exist in any sense meaningful to a religious person. The scientific
> > concerns are with the mind and brain.
>> Hi Harry,
>> I'm an atheist and don't believe that there is such a thing as
> a soul, but I don't understand what evidence you are referring to.
> Can you be more specific?
>> -- Bill
I think the part "not meaningful to a religious person" is correct,
although the idea that there is any evidence that the soul doesn't exist
is false. I mean, this is a classic error in logic that positivists
make. I too am an atheist, but realise that the scientifically correct
position is agnosticism, since the ideas that the soul or God exist or
not are not scientifically testable.
