In July 1995, Time Magazine made a stunning announcement. In an extensive article on the mind they wrote, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show” (July 17, 1995, p. 52). In other words, there is no soul.How do they know this? “After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.”
This is one of the silliest statements I have ever read. Your soul isn’t in your body like a pea is in a pod. You cannot open yourself up and find the spot where your soul resides. Physical things reside in physical places. But immaterial things don’t need any space to fit into. If the soul is not physical, then it doesn’t need a physical location.
Further, just because science can’t find them doesn’t mean souls are not real. It’s like saying, “You told me there was an invisible man in your house. But I went inside and I didn’t see him anywhere.”
It's the same kind of conclusion that scientists come to all the time, sometimes trumpeted in headlines. Stephen Hawking makes this type of claim about agency in his new book. Scientific experiments, he says, have proved we are only physical.This doesn’t prove souls exist, of course. It does show, though, that the failure of science to find the soul or the soul hole tells you nothing about the question one way or another.