A quick comment on "Defending the Soul".

I've just read this. 

Defending The Soul

It was hard work reading this. The author needs to learn to communicate in clear English. And it's all just a confused mess from beginning to end.  Just a couple of comments.

He says:

If one is forced to believe a soul is a separate form, that it has its own identity and personality, then of course Sullivan’s assumptions may have some merit. But this assumption is at best, based on a reductionist, materialistic view of science.

I'm not sure what is meant by a soul if it doesn't have its own identity and personality. And how on earth does the author imagine that such a conception is based on reductive materialism?

He says:

The reality is that we are all a sum total of all memories.

This is the standard materialist assumption, so why on earth someone who believes that our essence is a soul would have such a belief is beyond me. I think he's been influenced by materialists and he hasn't understood what is being claimed here. His understanding of personal identity and anything else philosophical is as bad if not worse than even that of the author of The Soul Fallacy!

And all this evidence for an afterlife is an irrelevance. If the original author's (Bill Sullivan Ph.D) arguments work, then at the minimum, they make an afterlife an extraordinary claim if not outright refuting an afterlife. But I've already in my own fb group partially addressed the article the author of this article is addressing. Go here: My thoughts on Souls: It’s Time We Give Up the Ghost

I was actually thinking of writing my own blog post addressing Bill Sullivan's article.  But I think that would be largely redundant, since I've addressed most of his arguments in my own The many Fallacies of "The Soul Fallacy"