Can religion be practice rather than belief? + Do animals have souls?

[Syne]

I was hoping someone could give us the science proving a soul's existence just to see how credible it is. I've been waiting my whole life to see scientific evidence for unsubstantiated claims.  Don't you get tired of hearing about things beyond our comprehension every time there's no scientific proof? Wouldn't such a claim require scientific evidence that there are things beyond our understanding?

The soul, being immaterial, is only evident in behavior. So even if science did address it, it would be on par with sociology/psychology, nowhere near as rigorous as the natural sciences.

[Zinjanthropos]

The soul, being immaterial, is only evident in behavior. 

IMHO, this is no different than believing in a god, afterlife, pixies, etc. Assuming you mean spiritual and not physical, to say a belief is immaterial or has evident behavior is too much bogus information. These are also beliefs, not facts, and should never be stated as such. There shouldn't be anything substantive associated with a belief. Is propping up primary beliefs with secondary beliefs necessary and if so then for what reason?

[Syne]

The soul, being immaterial, is only evident in behavior. 

IMHO, this is no different than believing in a god, afterlife, pixies, etc. Assuming you mean spiritual and not physical, to say a belief is immaterial or has evident behavior is too much bogus information. These are also beliefs, not facts, and should never be stated as such. There shouldn't be anything substantive associated with a belief. Is propping up primary beliefs with secondary beliefs necessary and if so then for what reason?

Your consciousness, sentience, sapience, virtue, etc. are only evident in behavior. Would you consider those bogus as well? If so, do you consider yourself a philosophical zombie?

If you don't consider those bogus, can you point to the specific physiological structure responsible for your compassion, affection, imagination, etc.? You know, something that could be cut out to remove only that said trait...and not leave you otherwise disabled. If not, then where is your evidence that these things all have a physical origin?

You are free to call it soul-of-the-gaps, but without evidence otherwise, you are forwarding science-of-the-gaps. Neither has any definitive evidence, but you're the only one claiming it needs to. So whose view is more consistent? That we don't know because there is no evidence, or that it's all physical despite no evidence?

[Zinjanthropos]

Nothing against believing in whatever you wish. Just no need to add 'facts'. Hell if you want to believe in zombies then be my guest.  Claiming they're philosophical, now my guard goes up. The zombie you refer to, is that the movie genre dead guy walking or the informal real person who feels basically nothing even if you stick him with a pin?

Isn't believing in something the same as not really knowing?

[Syne]

Nothing against believing in whatever you wish. Just no need to add 'facts'. Hell if you want to believe in zombies then be my guest.  Claiming they're philosophical, now my guard goes up. The zombie you refer to, is that the movie genre dead guy walking or the informal real person who feels basically nothing even if you stick him with a pin?

Isn't believing in something the same as not really knowing?

What "facts" are you talking about? Either read the link for philosophical zombie I already gave, or I'll just have to assume you too lazy for reasonable discussion.

[Zinjanthropos]

Nothing against believing in whatever you wish. Just no need to add 'facts'. Hell if you want to believe in zombies then be my guest.  Claiming they're philosophical, now my guard goes up. The zombie you refer to, is that the movie genre dead guy walking or the informal real person who feels basically nothing even if you stick him with a pin?

Isn't believing in something the same as not really knowing?

What "facts" are you talking about? Either read the link for philosophical zombie I already gave, or I'll just have to assume you too lazy for reasonable discussion.

Making up a term for something hypothetical, not necessarily real or true, and then adding attributes to it is what? Zombie a term for the hypothetical and philosophical an attribute or fact about said hypothetical being. How is that different from belief in a loving god for instance?

[Syne]

What "facts" are you talking about? Either read the link for philosophical zombie I already gave, or I'll just have to assume you too lazy for reasonable discussion.

Making up a term for something hypothetical, not necessarily real or true, and then adding attributes to it is what? Zombie a term for the hypothetical and philosophical an attribute or fact about said hypothetical being. How is that different from belief in a loving god for instance?

If humans are wholly physiological then we would not be able to tell a philosophical zombie (one that acts human) from an actual human (one that experiences qualia). It's a thought experiment. Einstein used such cognitive devices to learn quite a bit.

[Zinjanthropos]

Isn't philosophy a thought experiment?

[Syne]

Isn't philosophy a thought experiment?

No. Look it up.

[Zinjanthropos]

Isn't philosophy a thought experiment?

No. Look it up.

And religion isn't the ultimate Cow in the Field?(speaking of facts)

Views and theories that act as guidelines for life and the study of them. You could throw in some theoretical notions about the nature of reality, existence, etc.