Why does the soul need the brain?

Posted on by

Why does the soul need the brain seems like a logical question especially in the context of the belief held by the leading ID proponent of the Discovery Institute Michael Egnor. He has written extensively on the theme of the immaterial soul that, in his view, is an independent entity, separate of the human body. What Dr. Egnor consistently fails to acknowledge is the obvious connection or interdependence between a functioning brain and self-awareness or consciousness. I wrote about it here.

If certain parts of human brain are damaged or disabled, just like in case of general anesthesia, the human brain loses the sense of consciousness or self-awareness either permanently or temporarily. The immaterial soul fails to make up for the damaged or disabled brain…

Dr. Egnor’s personal experiences (and he has many) as a neurosurgeon convinced him that many people, including many of his patients, with the great majority of their brains missing have developed and function normally. Egnor is convinced that an immaterial soul makes up for the loss of brain mass that is responsible for normal brain function in people with normal brain size or no damage to any of the brain parts.

It appears Dr. Egnor believes that unlike a computer software that can’t function without the computer hardware, human brain has an ability to make up for the loss of the hardware with the computer software – the immaterial soul.

Is Dr. Egnor’s view consistent with the readily available facts?
I personally see Dr. Egnor building and supporting a strawman by his selective choice of facts…Hey! That’s my opinion and that’s why we have this blog full of experts to disagree with me or Dr. Egnor…(I kinda like the guy though).

Let’s see…First off, not all cases of patients with missing parts of their brains experience the supposed miraculous saving powers of the immaterial soul. It appears that the amount of the missing part of the brain mass doesn’t seem to matter… What seems to matter more is which part (s) of the brain is missing and not how much of the brain mass is actually missing. Some parts of the brain seem essential for consciousness and self-awareness and others do not.

However, the main point of this OP is:

<strong> Why does the soul need the brain? Or why would human body need a brain at all, if the immaterial soul has an ability to compensate for the brain losses?

If the software (the soul) can operate without the hardware (the brain) why do we even need the brain in the first place?</strong>

It seems like a faulty or at least a wasteful design to me…

1,372 thoughts on “Why does the soul need the brain?”

  1. BruceS: Well, that footnote was meant mostly in jest, which I tried to flag by saying the GR/QM integration was a “niggling detail” which I would leave to the reader.

    I find a lot of J-Mac’s posts to be incomprehensible.I suspect almost everyone at TSZ finds my (attempts at?) humor to fall into the same category.

    But, no worries, for as far as I know there is no rule at TSZ against humor so obscure that it is not funny.

    I have a solution for you BruceS…
    Why don’t you do an OP on the theme you feel so strongly about and we will promise you to withhold the humor, won’t we bloggers? 🙂

  2. Bruce,

    Well, that footnote was meant mostly in jest, which I tried to flag by saying the GR/QM integration was a “niggling detail” which I would leave to the reader.

    But that didn’t stop you from applying the label to J-Mac in a subsequent comment. Can’t say that I blame you. If the shoe fits…

  5. Erik: Says the guy who only read Descartes. And I’m pretty sure you didn’t even read Descartes directly, but what others write about him.

    But this is not the main problem with you. The main problem is that you really don’t comprehend what immaterial (as substance) is and you don’t want to. As a PhD, you should feel obligated to.

    My thesis was on Spinoza actually. Fwiw, i think your batting average on tsz is about .004. For many, being so constantly wrong about everything would make them a bit more cautious in bloviating.

    But not our erik!

  6. BruceS: I thought of your interests when reading this 2018 paper Rethinking Causality in Biological and Neural Mechanisms by Bechtel.It updates his description of mechanisms to account for constraints, controllers, dissipative systems, free energy, autonomous life and other topics in that neighborhood.

    If you have a PDF of that, could you send it to me?

    I liked Juarrero’s book but found to Deacon’s Incomplete Nature, which covered the same topics and more, to be almost unreadable.I saw a nasty review of by Fodor which said the same thing.

    To be honest that was my experience of it, too. I barely got started on it before I got frustrated. That was really disappointing to me because I loved his The Symbolic Species. Somewhere along the way Deacon got high on his own supply.

    Dennett cites the Deacon book approvingly in From Bacteria to Bach and makes some remarks about the claim Deacon plagiarized the main ideas from Juarrero at the end of his review of Deacon’s book. From the evidence online that I saw, the plagiarism claim was supported.

    I remember hearing about that, and finding it frustrating that Dennett is dismissive of the allegation.

    And, of course, the Wallace quote about emergence is a version of Dennett’s real patterns, and Wallace calls it “Dennett’s criterion” in the book.

    I thought there was some Dennett going on there.

    I haven’t worked out all the necessary details, but let me put this way: if all real patterns are dynamical processes and stances are embodied social practices of engaging with them, then I’m happy to see that as being the best we can presently do about clarifying the relation between fundamental ontology (real patterns) and practical ontology (social practices).

  7. Kantian Naturalist: First, appealing to “physics” doesn’t distinguish between fundamental physics and physics that is not fundamental. Second, we have at least two theories of fundamental physics — QM and GR — that are conceptually incompatible. (I say “at least” because there’s also the question whether thermodynamics is fundamental or emergent.) Third, there are multiple “interpretations” of QM that are logically incompatible and empirically indistinguishable.

    What conceptual incompatibility of are you talking about Kantian?

    Timothya is certain that QM and GR are going to be unified soon and BruceS seems to agree with his concepts… Finding evidence for their strong beliefs is another story but they only demand evidence from others…as they should… 😉

  8. walto: My thesis was on Spinoza actually. Fwiw, i think your batting average on tsz is about .004.

    It does not matter what your thesis was on. It matters whether you are competent on the topic.

    Non-spatiality (anciently: omnipresence) of the immaterial is as easy (or as difficult) as non-locality in quantum mechanics. Due to non-locality, would you say the relevant quantum effects are nowhere?

    Do with it whatever you wish.

  9. BruceS: So are you saying that souls are the same thing as the minds of the science of psychology?

    I would say the mind and the soul are roughly synonymous.

    I’m not familiar enough with psychology to make that statement definitive. Perhaps there is some aspect to a mind seen from a psychological perspective that I’m not aware of.

    In your view what are the differences between a mind and a soul??

    peace

  10. newton: In your view does mater affect the immaterial as well as the reverse?

    I’m not WJM but I would say of course matter affects the immaterial.

    For instance I get hungry when no food is ingested by my body for a period of time.

    peace

  11. fifth:

    I’m not WJM but I would say of course matter affects the immaterial.

    I get hungry when there is no food available for instance.

    Nice question beg. Do you have the slightest evidence that hunger is a non-physical phenomenon?

    I would say the mind and the soul are roughly synonymous.

    I’m not familiar enough with psychology to make that statement definitive. Perhaps there is some aspect to a mind seen from a psychological perspective that I’m not aware of.

    In your view what are the differences between a mind and a soul??

    Educate thyself. There are many different soul concepts, few of them believable (except maybe Flanagan’s view of the soul as naturalized, physical, and impermanent).

  12. BruceS: ‘Imagine two exactly similar minds M1 and M2 and the bodies B1 and B2 to which they are “attached”, that is, the bodies with which they directly interact. In virtue of what is M1 causally paired with B1 and M2 with B2?

    Better yet assume that the mind is materiel and b1 and b2 are exactly similar and the share exactly similar memories.

    Are there two persons or just one?

    peace

  13. J-Mac: What conceptual incompatibility of are you talking about Kantian?

    The Standard Model of particle physics describes the electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force in terms of interactions of fermions and bosons. But there’s no explanation of gravity in terms of fermions and bosons. There are no “gravitons,” sci-fi notwithstanding — nor can the mathematics of gravitons be made to work out, for well-known reasons.

    In GR, gravitational attraction is explained in terms of how mass distorts space-time. But there’s no way to explain the other three forces in terms of topological distortion, despite the initial flurry of activity in superstring theory and folded higher dimensions.

    That’s the major incompatibility had in mind. I’m sure there are others.

  14. Erik,

    Non-spatiality (anciently: omnipresence) of the immaterial is as easy (or as difficult) as non-locality in quantum mechanics.

    And:

    As I said, if one thing is next to another, then why would they NOT interact?

    Let’s explore the implications of your goofy premises:

    P1. Erik’s immaterial soul is omnipresent and is therefore next to everything material.

    P2. If one thing is next to another, they must interact.

    Conclusion: Whenever Erik gets the urge to say something goofy, everyone’s lips move in unison (or their fingers fly to their keyboards in an orchestrated clatter).

    Brighter people can see the problem, Erik.

  16. Kantian Naturalist: The Standard Model of particle physics describes the electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force in terms of interactions of fermions and bosons. But there’s no explanation of gravity in terms of fermions and bosons. There are no “gravitons,” sci-fi notwithstanding — nor can the mathematics of gravitons be made to work out, for well-known reasons.

    In GR, gravitational attraction is explained in terms of how mass distorts space-time. But there’s no way to explain the other three forces in terms of topological distortion, despite the initial flurry of activity in superstring theory and folded higher dimensions.

    That’s the major incompatibility had in mind. I’m sure there are others.

    Thanks! There is more obviously… but my point was humours in nature, because neither timothya nor BruceS can grasp the nature of the chasm separating GR and QM… There is simply no way around it unless one of those theories is wrong… There is resistance to claim GR is wrong because Einstein is worshiped by the scientific community and yet, QM has been proven to be 100% reliable…

    They are simply incompatible like you had written…

  17. J-Mac: Is there a difference?!

    In the Bible the word for soul can also be translated “self”.

    I think that is a good way to look at it.

    The mind is not all there is to the self/soul but it serves as a good placeholder in my opinion.

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman: In the Bible the word for soul can also be translated “self”.

    I think that is a good way to look at it.

    The mind is not all there is to the self/soul but it serves as a good placeholder in my opinion.

    peace

    Apparently the Bible also says that animals have souls. Or, just like you have written–are self/souls… This would contradict again Dr. Egnor’s notion that humans are special in comparison to animals when it comes to immaterial mind/soul, like say monkeys. Yet we know well that monkeys are totally dumb…

  19. J-Mac: Apparently the Bible also says that animals have souls.

    In less I’ve missed it somehow the Bible says no such thing.

    J-Mac: This would contradict again Dr. Egnor’s notion that humans are special in comparison to animals when it comes to immaterial mind/soul, like say monkeys.

    According to the Bible what separates humans from the animals is that we were created in God’s image with the special responsibility of overseeing creation in his behalf as his representative.

    AFAICT this is consistent with Egnor’s ideas.

    peace

  20. J-Mac: Thanks! There is more obviously… but my point was humours in nature, because neither timothya nor BruceS can grasp the nature of the chasm separating GR and QM… There is simply no way around it unless one of those theories is wrong… There is resistance to claim GR is wrong because Einstein is worshiped by the scientific community and yet, QM has been proven to be 100% reliable…

    I’d put it this way: if there is a single comprehensive theory of fundamental physics then at least one of them must be false. They very well might both be. Granted, it’s hard to see how a theory as empirically well-confirmed as quantum mechanics could be false — but the same is true of general relativity.

    And also to emphasize that what is empirically well-confirmed are the calculations resulting from the axiomatized mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. There’s no consensus on what those equations mean, and I don’t see how we’re going to arrive at one any time soon — not when the interpretations themselves are empirically indistinguishable.

    I think that fundamental physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, are in a state of sufficient disarray and confusion that there’s no hope for insight or understanding into thought or consciousness by bringing physics into the conversation. Whatever it is that we can understand about thought or consciousness will have be done without consideration of fundamental physics.

  21. walto: I’m sorry, but your post is completely wrong, erik. Descartes is actually pretty clear on this in the principles.

    I should have answered differently to this one. The answer is that we are discussing Egnor’s concept of the soul, not Descartes’s. According to KN, Egnor is a Thomist, which should make him (Egnor) scholastically informed, which in turn should make his concept of the soul close enough to how I explained it, not subject to the interaction problem at all.

    And even with Descartes, if you consider everything he has written about the soul, which includes plenty of scholastic ballast, he is quite confident of interaction and sees no problem.

    The discussion was likely derailed when KN mentioned substance dualists, which normally refers to Cartesianism. Even though I deny any interaction problem even on Cartesianism, Cartesianism is not the topic. I blame KN.

  22. Erik,

    The discussion was likely derailed when KN mentioned substance dualists, which normally refers to Cartesianism. Even though I deny any interaction problem even on Cartesianism, Cartesianism is not the topic. I blame KN.

    Why blame KN? The confusion is yours.

    Your views regarding the immaterial don’t work. They clash with observation.

    Why not set your ego aside, acknowledge your errors, and learn from others who understand this stuff better than you do?

  23. Erik: Non-spatiality (anciently: omnipresence)

    That’s a very bad start right there. If you mean ‘omnipresence’ by ‘non-spatiality’ you’re (as per usual) not speaking the same language as anybody else here. By non-spatial I don’t mean (and scientists don’t mean and philosophers haven’t meant since before the rationalists) ‘omnipresent’. If you think we all still should, you’ll need an argument, not a notation that you’re fond of a weird archaic usage.

    This is your marriage bullshit all over again.

  24. J-Mac:

    Apparently the Bible also says that animals have souls.

    fifth:

    In less I’ve missed it somehow the Bible says no such thing.

    Ecclesiastes says that humans and animals are in the same boat (and no, it’s not Noah’s Ark):

    18 I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. 19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?

    Ecclesiastes 3:18-21, NRSV

  26. Erik: The discussion was likely derailed when KN mentioned substance dualists, which normally refers to Cartesianism.

    The idea is to pigeon-hole the opposition’s position into a handy category that can be disposed of with a wave of the hand with out engaging it in any meaningful way.

    KN is a master of it.

    peace

  27. fifthmonarchyman: In less I’ve missed it somehow the Bible says no such thing.

    According to the Bible what separates humans from the animals is that we were created in God’s image with the special responsibility of overseeing creation in his behalf as his representative.

    AFAICT this is consistent with Egnor’s ideas.

    peace

    I found this in 30 sec:

    Ecl 3:19

    “19 For the fates of both men and beasts are the same: As one dies, so dies the other—they all have the same breath. Man has no advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. 20 All go to one place: All come from dust, and all return to dust. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and the spirit of the animal descends into the earth?…

    I guess this is inevitable:

  28. Where is the part about animals having a soul???

    The book of ecclesiastes is one of my favorites.
    It’s philosophical gold. 😉

    peace

  29. Kantian Naturalist: I’d put it this way: if there is a single comprehensive theory of fundamental physics then at least one of them must be false. They very well might both be. Granted, it’s hard to see how a theory as empirically well-confirmed as quantum mechanics could be false — but the same is true of general relativity.

    And also to emphasize that what is empirically well-confirmed are the calculations resulting from the axiomatized mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. There’s no consensus on what those equations mean, and I don’t see how we’re going to arrive at one any time soon — not when the interpretations themselves are empirically indistinguishable.

    I think that fundamental physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, are in a state of sufficient disarray and confusion that there’s no hope for insight or understanding into thought or consciousness by bringing physics into the conversation. Whatever it is that we can understand about thought or consciousness will have be done without consideration of fundamental physics.

    I agree with you 100%!!!

    I was just reading on an attempt to build an specetime to accommodate quantum entanglement…or I should rather say, how spacetime is built by quantum entanglement. This attempt is to unify GR and QM…
    While the idea was intriguing, it all boils down to the assumption of the holographic principle…which I think either you or VJ wrote about here… please correct me if I’m wrong…

  30. fifthmonarchyman:
    Where is the part about animals having a soul???

    The book of ecclesiastes is one of my favorites.
    It’s philosophical gold.😉

    peace

    Good point fifth!
    It doesn’t say that humans have a soul either but it does say both humans and animals have the same destiny….

    BTW: Sorry keiths. I Just noticed your post that is similar to mine…;-)

  31. J-Mac: It doesn’t say that humans have a soul either but it does say both humans and animals have the same destiny….

    Yep that is correct.

    Ecclesiastes examines the world from the perspective of “under the sun” where “all is vanity”.

    Like I said it’s philosophical gold

    peace

  33. fifthmonarchyman: Ecclesiastes examines the world from the perspective of “under the sun” where “all is vanity”.
    Like I said it’s philosophical gold

    I guess you think that’s the reason why Ecclesiastes omits such a fundamental point as the drastic difference between the destiny of an animal and a human, even though it says clearly it is no different?

  34. J-Mac: I guess you think that’s the reason why Ecclesiastes omits such a fundamental point as the drastic difference between the destiny of an animal and a human, even though it says clearly it is no different?

    When did I ever say that there is a drastic difference between the destiny of an animal and a human???

    We were discussing whether the Bible teaches that animals have souls, not what it says about their destiny or the destiny of humans.

    peace

  35. fifthmonarchyman: When did I ever say that there is a drastic difference between the destiny of an animal and a human???
    We were discussing whether the Bible teaches that animals have souls nothing about their destiny or the destiny of humans.

    Okay,
    So… based on these verses that both keiths and I quoted, what should the logical conclusion be about the soul since you have said it yourself that soul=self?

  36. J-Mac: So… based on these verses that both keiths and I quoted, what should the logical conclusion be about the soul?

    1) I have no idea what keiths has quoted. I’ve chosen to ignore him because he is willing to lie to to win an argument.

    2) The verse you quoted is completely irrelevant as to the question of whether animals have a soul/self.

    It does not even mention the concept.

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman: 1) I have no idea what keiths has quoted. I’ve chosen to ignore him because he is willing to lie to to win an argument.

    2) The verse you quoted is completely irrelevant as to the question of whether animals have souls.

    It does not even mention the concept.

    peace

    You are kidding, right?
    Don’t answer that! I just realized something…

  38. J-Mac: You are kidding, right?

    not at all.

    If you are interested in the Bible’s take on the soul here is a good place to start

    quote:
    And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
    (Mat 10:28)
    end quote:

    peace

  39. fifthmonarchyman: not at all.

    If you are interested in the Bible’s take on the soul here is a good place to start

    quote:
    And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
    (Mat 10:28)
    end quote:

    peace

    Bible is also a good place to end the search for the immaterial soul that supposedly survives death:

    Ecclesiastes 9:10 “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.”

    You don’t have to answer this one fifth…

  40. Fifth is obviously wrong.

    Ecclesiastes says that “man has no advantage over the animals”. Fifth believes that humans have souls, and that having a soul is an advantage. Therefore animals have souls, since otherwise man would have an advantage over them, contrary to Ecclesiastes.

    It’s simple logic, which is why fifth is struggling with it.

  41. J-Mac: While the idea was intriguing, it all boils down to the assumption of the holographic principle…which I think either you or VJ wrote about here… please correct me if I’m wrong…

    It might have been Torley — it definitely wasn’t me.

  42. J-Mac: You don’t have to answer this one fifth…

    Why do I need an answer??
    It perfectly reflects my sentiments. All I can say is amen

    It’ does not mention anything about the soul though immortal or otherwise

    peace

  43. keiths:
    Fifth is obviously wrong.

    Ecclesiastes says that “man has no advantage over the animals”.Fifth believes that humans have souls, and that having a soul is an advantage.Therefore animals have souls, since otherwise man would have an advantage over them, contrary to Ecclesiastes.

    It’s simple logic, which is why fifth is struggling with it.

    It’s pointless to try to reason this with the believers of the soul… They have a really hard time accepting that on subatomic level (or even deeper) we are just information…as if the soul would be something beyond that…

  45. J-Mac: They have a really hard time accepting that on subatomic level (or even deeper) we are just information…as if the soul would be something beyond that…

    You must have me confused with someone else.

    I quite like the idea of the soul as information.

    Information is immaterial. Information makes the world go round.

    Information is not medium dependent but can be expressed in a variety of mediums. Sounds “soulish” to me

    however

    I’m not sure what to make of talk of the “subatomic level” when it comes to information or the soul.

    That sort of thing sounds like so much mumbo jumbo to me.

    peace

  46. Erik: I should have answered differently to this one. The answer is that we are discussing Egnor’s concept of the soul, not Descartes’s. According to KN, Egnor is a Thomist, which should make him (Egnor) scholastically informed, which in turn should make his concept of the soul close enough to how I explained it, not subject to the interaction problem at all.

    And even with Descartes, if you consider everything he has written about the soul, which includes plenty of scholastic ballast, he is quite confident of interaction and sees no problem.

    OK. I guess I can see that. Dunno much about the scholastics so I’ll take your word for it. And I appreciate the admission.

    Erik: The discussion was likely derailed when KN mentioned substance dualists, which normally refers to Cartesianism. Even though I deny any interaction problem even on Cartesianism, Cartesianism is not the topic. I blame KN.

    I blame him for my spelling errors too. They should get him the hell out of here for all our sakes!

  47. Erik,

    And even with Descartes, if you consider everything he has written about the soul, which includes plenty of scholastic ballast, he is quite confident of interaction and sees no problem.

    It’s a problem for Descartes just as it is for every substance dualist. Limiting interaction to the pineal gland doesn’t make the problem go away. It just localizes it.

  48. fifthmonarchyman: I suppose you are right.

    Every two weeks it is confirmed for me.

    So you agree the immaterial entity interacts with mater using it’s physical manifestation.

    In the case of the legal fiction of a corporation the artificial, intangible “ person” seems more descriptive rather than interactive. The group of individuals is treated for legal purposes as if they were the artificial ,intangible entity,

    I do think that matter can create the immaterial. Words printed on paper, sanctioned by an authority created the artificial ,intangible, and legal aspect of the Cleveland Cavs. A legally, binding analogy. Can an analogy interact? Maybe ,maybe not. A best guess how was my question.

    It works exactly the same way with the immaterial soul.

    The soul is a artificial, intangible entity?

    That wasn’t so hard now was it.

    Just like fishing with dynamite.

    Teams and corporations and meadows and rain showers are only fictional to materialists.

    Not being a materialist , I can’t say for sure ,but I bet that is an incorrect summary of the materialist view. Any but the most dimwitted materialist might point out the team is not fictional, a legal description of the team for tax purposes of it is. No one pays thousands of dollars to watch a legal description play ball.

    As for meadow ,a piece of grassland is pretty material as are showers. You seem to be tilting with windmills.

    The rest of us have no problem understanding that they actually exist and interact with matter.

    The material aspects do for sure, you have yet to do anything but assert the immaterial aspects do. How does it work? You because you just know it does?

    So you are saying that corporations are fictional entities yet can interact with funds.

    I am saying the the physical manifestion of the corporation interacts with funds. The fictional part is an analogy. But legally it can exercise free speech, so you could make the argument the physical manifestation uses the intangible aspect to exercise the physical manifestation’s preference in campaign donations. So that would be a mechanism.

    Not sure that helps the soul.

    This is the sort of confusion that results from your worldview.

    I would be very interested to hear your speculations concerning my worldview and what results from it.

    The owner is not the team but the owner has a job that he performs on behalf of the team

    Part of the team actually.

    Now replace owner with brain or neuron and team with person you get an idea of how the immaterial soul interacts with matter using it’s “physical structure”.

    Fictional legal person.

    simple is it not?

    At long as you just assert it and provide no evidence beyond an analogy.

    peace

  49. fifthmonarchyman: The idea is to pigeon-hole the opposition’s position into a handy category that can be disposed of with a wave of the hand with out engaging it in any meaningful way.

    KN is a master of it.

    Everything looks like a hammer to a nail.

  50. Here is the link to Dr. Egnor’s original article:” Science and the Soul”

    https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

    Here are some highlights:

    “Some people with deficient brains are profoundly handicapped. But not all are. I’ve treated and cared for scores of kids who grow up with brains that are deficient but minds that thrive. How is this possible? Neuroscience, and Thomas Aquinas, point to the answer.

    So, it would be interesting to know what the % of the handicapped with deficient brains are actually unconscious, lacking self-awareness…

    Thomas Aquinas has the answer to the brain deficiencies mechanism-the soul?

    I’m just curious where Thomas Aquinas got his idea about the soul from? Wasn’t he obsessed with Aristotle’s teachings? It was once said that Thomas Aquinas “baptized” Aristotle into the Christian faith… but is it really true?

Leave a Reply