| In this dissertation, I will defend dualism against scientific defeaters. More specifically, I will argue that one has good reasons for believing in an immaterial soul despite the advancements and evidences in natural science. I will argue that natural science, as construed by materialists and naturalists, is immoderate or incapable of affirming or analyzing nonphysical (or immaterial) souls. To defend this claim, I will explore various materialistic, naturalistic assumptions and stances, including some scientific experiments used by materialists to defend their view.;The various counter arguments to dualism abound, but many arguments using science or scientific evidence as defeaters against dualism follow a standard pattern. A summary of the arguments (something like a Master Argument) generally proposed (implicitly or explicitly) is:;1. If there are good philosophical reasons for believing in an immaterial soul, then, it is rational to believe in an immaterial soul. 2. There are good philosophical reasons for believing in an immaterial soul. 3. Therefore, it is rational to believe in an immaterial soul. 4. A rebutting defeater to the existence of an immaterial soul comes from science. 5. If a rebutting defeater to the existence of an immaterial soul comes from science, then all things considered, it is not rational to believe in an immaterial soul. 6. Therefore, all things considered, it is not rational to believe in the existence of an immaterial soul.;This project will counter that such scientifically primed arguments are inadequate at rebutting or undercutting belief in nonphysical souls. Thus, I will be countering premise 5 (and tangentially 4) in this dissertation. |
