Your Soul on Trial In the novel “Challenging Nature” the author, Lee M. Silver, puts the beliefs of every modern-day religion on trial. One particular accusation puts the concept of a soul under a microscope. He states, “most of the attributes once considered unique to animal minds or souls have already been reproduced in electronic machines and robots.” (Silver 56). Silver claims that the soul is no longer given to man by God and in actuality it can be reproduced into non-living machines such as robots. Despite these claims, science will have little effect on the concept of a spiritual soul. It is important to differentiate between Silver’s definition of a soul and the actual definition of a soul. Silver describes the soul through a robot called Aibos; he says that Aibos has “a sense of self-survival, curiosity to investigate novel objects or situations, a desire to interact with people and animals…” (Silver 56). Since these are characteristics of a human being that must mean that Aibos has a soul, which proves that a soul can be manufactured. Even though these attributes are characteristic of living animals, they still lack the true defining characteristics of a soul. The soul is a sense of moral value that dictates your actions, thoughts, and emotions. The robot Aibos has no sense of right or wrong and does not have the capacity to understand the magnitude of its actions. The lack of compassion, or any other true emotion means that Aibos does not have a soul. Humans, however, are able to love, hate, and experience every other emotion. That being said, Silver’s allegations that religion will ultimately become extinct become false. Unlike genes in natural selection, the concept of a soul does not depend on the passing of D.N.A to live on. Say, for instance, every major religion was eliminated. This includes the faiths of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and every other religion not mentioned. The theology of soul may be dead but the soul will never truly become lifeless. People will always feel compassion and will know the difference between right and wrong even if there is no set dogma to follow. This allows the soul to not only endure the test of time but to live on for an eternity. Going back to the previous example, imagine a world of atheism with no belief in a higher power. Would the world become an empty vacuum full of hate and chaos? The answer is no. Despite the lack of religion, the world would remain as hectic as it is today. This is due to the moral contributions of the soul. Even those who don’t believe in a higher power are compelled to an unwritten code of behavior. This is why murder is wrong regardless of your religious viewpoints. Investigating the matter further, the topic of the soul was discussed with an atheist friend. She said: “ I think that the body and the soul are two different entities. They are separate but connected in one body. They both exist and have different functions but work together as one…” (Kirsten Hankinson). Remember, this is coming from an atheist for five years now. Even Hankinson agrees that the soul exists even though there is no proof for it. Silver claims that the soul can be manufactured and put into a machine. This is due to his erroneous definition of a soul. The soul is the moral compass and the values that we hold true in our heart. The soul completes a human-being and regardless of how technologically advanced society gets the soul will always remain a constant in every-day life.
Try to put another sentence after the introductory to give an example or explain.It is important that you explain that Silver says we can put the concept of the soul into a machine, not an actual soul for he states they do not exist. It was confusing at first and i had to read it over, because i thought you were saying something false.
Again u need to put characteristics of a soul, instead of saying soul because it makes one think you mean a tangible soul. Without knowing where your definition of a soul came from it seems like you are putting your own, which you can not do. YOu should have used a quote that stated society's generalized view of a soul from Silver's book, that way it would be the same one that Silver argued against. And you failed to mention that Silver said they will eventually come up with an artifical intelligence that could experience emotion, although u shouldnt quote me on that(im not 100% sure).
Again I stress the need to say concept of a soul, it really is confusing and if perceived as is can make your paper seem like a whole different argument. THere were some quotes in the book that explained how the different religions now and of history all had a concept of a soul, by showing that every era had or has a concept of a soul, u could then show that the idea of a soul does not die. Instead of just saying it doesnt.
I dont see how the quote from the atheist was relevant, she believes in a soul even though there is no proof just as many people do. Silver covers this in talking about the new-age philosophy we believe in these things because it is ingrained in us and it seems to make alot of sense even though we are never shown evidence, or question it.
You never showed that your definition of a soul was a universally held viewpoint. So it doesnt prove your thesis statement, unless you mean personally it will have no effect on the concept of the soul.
Giovanni - Two detailed critiques in one week? Nicely done.
Jason -
Nitpick - it's not a novel.
This is a good introduction, the most relevant and focused I've read so far today (yours is the fifth, for whatever that's worth).
I like how you go immediately to Aibos - maybe because I find this to be possibly the silliest argument in the entire book. As a dog person, I strenuously resent his claim that Aibos are smarter than actual dogs! Anyway, I liked this, but your definition of "soul" deserved more explanation. I like it, but it's a little abrupt.
Silver would obviously have a counterargument here: he would probably argue that people really aren't driven by morals, either. We just think we are - that's the whole thing of consciousness as an epiphenomenon again.
What follows after that - your discussion of a world which is emptied of religion, but still full of souls - is smart and focused (you open the way to all of this well in your introduction). I like it a lot, but there is one real lack in this paper. You assert that your definition of soul is better than his, but you needed a paragraph or so of justification; to get a 10/10, you would have also needed to imagine and deal with Silver's likely counterarguments.
This was a good paper and a good approach - I'm just touching on some possible areas of expansion.
3 comments:
Jason Miller
Group 1 Blog
9/16/08
Your Soul on Trial
In the novel “Challenging Nature” the author, Lee M. Silver, puts the beliefs of every modern-day religion on trial. One particular accusation puts the concept of a soul under a microscope. He states, “most of the attributes once considered unique to animal minds or souls have already been reproduced in electronic machines and robots.” (Silver 56). Silver claims that the soul is no longer given to man by God and in actuality it can be reproduced into non-living machines such as robots. Despite these claims, science will have little effect on the concept of a spiritual soul.
It is important to differentiate between Silver’s definition of a soul and the actual definition of a soul. Silver describes the soul through a robot called Aibos; he says that Aibos has “a sense of self-survival, curiosity to investigate novel objects or situations, a desire to interact with people and animals…” (Silver 56). Since these are characteristics of a human being that must mean that Aibos has a soul, which proves that a soul can be manufactured. Even though these attributes are characteristic of living animals, they still lack the true defining characteristics of a soul. The soul is a sense of moral value that dictates your actions, thoughts, and emotions. The robot Aibos has no sense of right or wrong and does not have the capacity to understand the magnitude of its actions. The lack of compassion, or any other true emotion means that Aibos does not have a soul. Humans, however, are able to love, hate, and experience every other emotion.
That being said, Silver’s allegations that religion will ultimately become extinct become false. Unlike genes in natural selection, the concept of a soul does not depend on the passing of D.N.A to live on. Say, for instance, every major religion was eliminated. This includes the faiths of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and every other religion not mentioned. The theology of soul may be dead but the soul will never truly become lifeless. People will always feel compassion and will know the difference between right and wrong even if there is no set dogma to follow. This allows the soul to not only endure the test of time but to live on for an eternity.
Going back to the previous example, imagine a world of atheism with no belief in a higher power. Would the world become an empty vacuum full of hate and chaos? The answer is no. Despite the lack of religion, the world would remain as hectic as it is today. This is due to the moral contributions of the soul. Even those who don’t believe in a higher power are compelled to an unwritten code of behavior. This is why murder is wrong regardless of your religious viewpoints. Investigating the matter further, the topic of the soul was discussed with an atheist friend. She said:
“ I think that the body and the soul are two different entities. They are separate but connected in one body. They both exist and have different functions but work together as one…” (Kirsten Hankinson).
Remember, this is coming from an atheist for five years now. Even Hankinson agrees that the soul exists even though there is no proof for it.
Silver claims that the soul can be manufactured and put into a machine. This is due to his erroneous definition of a soul. The soul is the moral compass and the values that we hold true in our heart. The soul completes a human-being and regardless of how technologically advanced society gets the soul will always remain a constant in every-day life.
Try to put another sentence after the introductory to give an example or explain.It is important that you explain that Silver says we can put the concept of the soul into a machine, not an actual soul for he states they do not exist. It was confusing at first and i had to read it over, because i thought you were saying something false.
Again u need to put characteristics of a soul, instead of saying soul because it makes one think you mean a tangible soul. Without knowing where your definition of a soul came from it seems like you are putting your own, which you can not do. YOu should have used a quote that stated society's generalized view of a soul from Silver's book, that way it would be the same one that Silver argued against. And you failed to mention that Silver said they will eventually come up with an artifical intelligence that could experience emotion, although u shouldnt quote me on that(im not 100% sure).
Again I stress the need to say concept of a soul, it really is confusing and if perceived as is can make your paper seem like a whole different argument. THere were some quotes in the book that explained how the different religions now and of history all had a concept of a soul, by showing that every era had or has a concept of a soul, u could then show that the idea of a soul does not die. Instead of just saying it doesnt.
I dont see how the quote from the atheist was relevant, she believes in a soul even though there is no proof just as many people do. Silver covers this in talking about the new-age philosophy we believe in these things because it is ingrained in us and it seems to make alot of sense even though we are never shown evidence, or question it.
You never showed that your definition of a soul was a universally held viewpoint. So it doesnt prove your thesis statement, unless you mean personally it will have no effect on the concept of the soul.
Giovanni - Two detailed critiques in one week? Nicely done.
Jason -
Nitpick - it's not a novel.
This is a good introduction, the most relevant and focused I've read so far today (yours is the fifth, for whatever that's worth).
I like how you go immediately to Aibos - maybe because I find this to be possibly the silliest argument in the entire book. As a dog person, I strenuously resent his claim that Aibos are smarter than actual dogs! Anyway, I liked this, but your definition of "soul" deserved more explanation. I like it, but it's a little abrupt.
Silver would obviously have a counterargument here: he would probably argue that people really aren't driven by morals, either. We just think we are - that's the whole thing of consciousness as an epiphenomenon again.
What follows after that - your discussion of a world which is emptied of religion, but still full of souls - is smart and focused (you open the way to all of this well in your introduction). I like it a lot, but there is one real lack in this paper. You assert that your definition of soul is better than his, but you needed a paragraph or so of justification; to get a 10/10, you would have also needed to imagine and deal with Silver's likely counterarguments.
This was a good paper and a good approach - I'm just touching on some possible areas of expansion.
Post a Comment