Meeting on "What is a soul?"

We had our discussion last night on "What is a soul".

It was a very lively discussion,  separated mainly by the rationalist against the other side that believe in experience.  Analysis versus feeling.

While my original intention was to explore the difference between a living person and a corpse and I define "soul" as the abstraction for this difference,  just about everyone else have the concept of the religious soul or an entity that leaves our body when we die.

The linguist in our midst pointed out that we have difficulty nailing the definition of soul, spirit, and even consciousness and that the discussion is confusing when these meanings overlap and we have different takes of it when we express ourselves.  Moreover,  just because we have a word for something does not prove its existence.

Wendy thought that we should not restrict the meaning of these words as we are discovering these entities and it depends on how we feel and experience the presence of our soul and spirit.

Shula pointed out that the rationalist aim to categorize and understand while there is another segment of people who seem to be impressed by what we do not understand and almost actively try not to understand it in case we break the mystery.

Bruce related what he heard from the Messy lectures from CBC and that science is not always the right tool to explain faith and spiritual matters and that using science to analyze faith is like trying to have soup with a fork.

Sandra and Stuart mention several examples of where they feel the presence of someone else around them,  either from some one who passed away some time ago or when alone out in the wilderness.  They just know from this strong feeling that someone else is present.

Rafi said that he felt his grandmother's presence when he entered her room even though she is in another country.  He knew that she is not there and therefore explained his feeling of her presence as a mental trick our brain plays on us.  Much like the feeling of deja vu which have been scientifically explained to be a mistake in our thinking.

Rafi further felt that while everyone have their experiences and strong feelings that these experiences are very true for them,  it does not advance the understanding until we can have a rational explanation and evidence to back it up so that it extends beyond a personal belief.

Several people in the room had near death experiences where their hearts were stopped in surgery or where they were declared clinically dead before being resuscitated back to life. Sherry raised the interesting question of whether the "soul" would always return to the same body after such an occurance?

On the one hand, I can appreciate the rationalist side of not wanting to accept anything that is not evidence based and insisting on better definitions.

However, from brain activity scans, there is evidence that we have the ability to feel the pain and joy of those around us, and further more there is some evidence (perhaps not very strong) that we have more than a 50-50 chance of knowing that someone is watching us. Suggestions of telepathy. 

Can we rule out all our feelings such as the presence of others, our heart felt connectedness to them as all tricks our brain is playing on us or is there something we do not know yet?

A lot of people last night would go with what they feel and "know".

Shula pointed out that knowledge is true belief plus evidence. I am assuming that evidence is something that is acceptable to others as well as the person with the experience.

The discussion did not go where I intended but it was interesting never the less.  Leaning towards the rationalist but find it hard to close the door on the other side.