This website often has good stuff, but its perspective (the site appears to be connected to the ID blog EvolutionNews, et al) is marred by the obsessive diatribes against materialism, not surprising if you promote religion.
But materialism has many varieties and we have often explored the version given by J.G.Bennett who made clear once and for all that universal materialism is appropriate even for spiritual s0-called discussions. That springs from the tradition of Samkhya with its universal materialism of triads and consciousness. A muddled subject but the echo of an very ancient now lost ‘spirituality’. Many philosophies are themselves ‘triadic hybrids’, as in Bennett’s Being, Function, Will. Note that for him ‘matter is merely an aspect of being, and ditto for spirit, which is non-such, another form under the being aspect, the mirror image of the material. The dividing line here is Kant who breakthrough distinction of noumenal/phenomenal is a still better hybrid, and the key to the confusions of soul-man and matter-man, viz the noumenal aspect of man lies in the ‘soul category/confusion/muddle. Noone can make use of the work of Kant which throws the whole question of soul into a new mode. But it is clear that the noumenal aspect divides the body-soul into false duality, the soul as metaphysical. In any case there is no reason the ‘soul’ can’t be considered material, but not in the usual sense. Be skeptical here, but the muddle of current scientism is almost pathological. The ancient soul of man was a material entity of mysterious origin. The tradition still exists in some forms of sufism where the ‘soul’ in some new form is injected into the solar plexus region, somehow. This is a different brand from the common soul-state of homo sapiens. Most sufis and moslems are themselves ignorant here, and one suspects the whole spiritual technology and its mysterious got ripped off somehow and is in the possession of dark side rogue sufis, Gurdjieff being an example with his incessant discussions of body energies and soul.
Why If man always had a soul, would he need to also acquire one? I have no idea. But there is the obvious difference between the ‘soul/mind’ in reincarnation and a spiritual soul going beyond space-time./???? The species ‘soul’ of man is something like his larger ‘mind’ as it emerges as complex package complete no doubt with spooky physics: at the noumenal/phenomenal greyzone. The other soul is who knows, but I suspect this doctrine was present in early christianity and then died out, and that, a guess, it first appears in Egyptian religion, and before that in Gurdjieff’s ‘pre-sand Egypt’, the neolithic. Buddhism’s ‘no soul’ teaching is no doubt connected in some mysterious way.
Try trotting over to sufi land and ask/harangue to be included, be loud and obnoxious, thence from blank stares to the Big Blob. Worth a try.
But in the ten thousand years of human civilization since 10K BCE not a single civilization or religion has been able to provide man with a definition of who he is, his psychology and being. None. Not even Buddhism. Christianity was a mysterious fake, as Islam, and the whole esoteric tradition can’t show any real exemplars, our front. Garbage in, Garbage out, all the way. The age of science has proven no better, and somewhere between rat psychology and psychoanalysis a new and more studied incoherence has taken center stage with high hopes for a science.
If this is wrong, say so, and prove it wrong. J.G. Bennett suggested the obvious reason here: man’s psychology is so complex he can’t decipher himself. A psychology of man has to be more complicated than quantum physics, no doubt. But physics just goes into a funk on consciousness.
A cynical neurosurgeon colleague told Michael Egnor that he could not account for how a child patient’s NDE account described the operation accurately. Source: The Brain Does Not Create the Mind; I…