Sorry, but that's misuse of occams razor.Blind Sight said:I don't think so, I think that people just regularly confuse their 'minds' with their 'souls' (and even then, your mind is just a bunch of electrical and chemical responses in gray mushy matter).
Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is the right one. We have no solid evidence to support the existance of a soul, and therefore, at this time we must accept the fact that it probably doesn't exist.
It's only intended to distinguish between equivalent theories, not two ideas that have different consequences.
Also, it is essentially a mathematical convenience, since the simpler theory is easier to work with. NOT a statement of truth about how reality functions.
OT: Do we have a soul? Well, you'd first have to define what a soul is, and what it would mean to have one compared to not having one.
And since that's a question religions have a hard time agreeing on, it's almost impossible to answer.
More generally, I suppose you could argue that the 'soul' is simply a way of expressing the consequences of chaos theory and emergent behaviour.
Ie. That the behaviour of the whole cannot easily be predicted from the sum of it's parts.
But that's really just another fairly arbitrary statement that sounds interesting but doesn't really mean anything.