Regarding The Soul
There was a request that I ask Dale McGowan in his interview if he believes we have a soul, and if so, where it goes when we die. The question didn’t really fit with the others so I am posting his answer here in a new post.
The concept no longer makes sense in light of evolution, unless we are willing to grant souls to chimps, dogs, sea sponges and celery. Since species evolve incrementally over time, insisting that we have souls, but other living things do not, requires us to come up with some pretty unlikely scenarios. At what point in evolution did the soul suddenly appear — and why didn’t the previous generation qualify?
Whatever sense of self and personal identity we have springs entirely from the constantly recomposed electrochemical symphony playing in our heads. Some find that horrifying; I find it utterly amazing. And asking where our “self” goes when that electrochemical symphony stops playing is just like asking where the music goes when an orchestra stops playing.
What a great analogy. Really, there is no more evidence or reason to believe in a soul than there is evidence or reason to believe in gods. Over time, more and more of what we have attributed to the soul falls to the wayside as scientific research finds that chemical reactions within specific areas of our physical brain are responsible for everything soul-oriented. Neurologists can even stimulate an area of the brain to cause many people to have “out-of-body experiences. Of course, they are not actually having them. The brain is just really good at deceiving.
I don’t find life any less amazing or beautiful for our lack of a soul. What do you think?
52 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
March 6th, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Noell,
Thank you so much for asking and for posting the answer. This was an important one for me. This is why: When I was very young and starting to think about belief, I asked myself why any one would make up a god. The answer I came up with (now I realize a very biased answer, but heck, I was just a child…) is “fear of death.” I still don’t think I’ve gotten over my fear of death. I like living. I like thinking that perhaps something supernatural happens to my thoughts, feelings, etc when my symphony ceases.
This is something I’ve struggled with deeply. Someone very close to me also has mini panic attacks when he starts to think of death, so I’m constantly having the fear reinforced. (He is an atheist and therefore does not have the cushy comfort of faith)
I suspect my fear of death will eventually dissipate and I will be able to accept death for what it really is; the symphony’s end. I envy anyone who is already past this point in their journey.
March 6th, 2007 @ 7:44 am
The thought of no afterlife depresses me. I was much happier when I was a Christian.
March 6th, 2007 @ 8:38 am
I don’t think the lack of a soul or an afterlife diminishes the beauty of life, but I think I’m in the minority there. Most people I know, even atheists, still speculate about the afterlife. The finality of death is pretty hard to accept.
I think that’s a big part of the evolution/creation argument. If those who believe we were created in God’s image accept the possibility that we evolved from other creatures instead, that puts the existence of the soul in doubt, and that threatens to knock the whole house of cards down.
March 6th, 2007 @ 8:53 am
[...] good little post on Agnostic Mom today: Regarding The Soul (Poor woman–her really cool blog appearance keeps going away and defaulting to the plain [...]
March 6th, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
I keep it simple. Soul is what we are: in a complete and honest whole picture of our nature, which means of course then everything has a soul
It’s just ego has a habit of mucking things up, making us to appear both as more and less than our full nature…
peace
March 6th, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
The following paragraphs are excerpted from an article I wrote for “Blog Critics Magazine” regarding Joan Didion’s book A Year of Magical Thinking. I think they have relevance here and they are in basic agreement with Mr. McGowan.
A belief in eternal life – a life in another realm sans our physicality – is based on exactly no evidence beyond fantasy. It is truly irrational. Near death experiences offer no proof of anything beyond. The “white light” and other sights and sounds experienced when one has a brush with death, no matter how visceral, are simply manifestations of the brain. It is what the brain “does” in those instances. The brain is “programmed” if you will, to protect us from physical and emotional trauma when it can.
Regardless of what tradition one follows, a belief in a life beyond, and the consequent devaluation of our earthly existence is contrary to reality and to progress. If the masses believed that this life is all there is, the value of it would soar. Wasted, aimless effort would likely diminish (not disappear, of course — we would still be human, and fallible, after all.) We could certainly better focus our attention on the here and now, on improving our earthly existence. We could make greater strides against ignorance and disease. We could reduce suffering, and perhaps extend our lives by years, maybe decades. Such efforts are ongoing, but often are stifled by those who position themselves against science and against the intellect.
Believing that my death totally and unequivocally ends my existence is not a particularly happy prospect. It is certainly attractive to imagine that the essence of “me-ness” could live on for eternity. But, as I have often stated, such a notion is nothing more than a human conceit. We find it hard, nearly impossible, to accept that we are of no more importance to the universe than our brief stay on this little planet. We, in our fantasies, dreams, and nightmares can imagine a vast array of life, and after-life, scenarios. We are free to believe these phantoms, or dismiss them as we choose. I once believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but, alas, I came to the unavoidable conclusion that they are simply attractive myths (although I must admit to appearances as the Jolly Old Elf on a couple of occasions).
I know, I go on and on, but when it comes down to it, this is really the essence of what it means to no longer believe in a god or an afterlife. This is what we must deal with in our own lives and, of course, in the lives of our children if we take it upon ourselves to raise them without a religion as Noell and others visiting here have.
I like the ceasing symphony image, as well. Of course my “symphony” is more of a cacophony, but that’s another story.
TLS
Oh. I attempted to use some HTML code to put all of my excerpts in italics. If it worked then there will be a sea of italicized drivel above. If not, then there will be a # of
March 6th, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Hmmm. The above got cut off. But it matters not. It worked, it worked. Woohoo! I got my italics! Does that officially make me a computer whiz? That’d be great.
March 6th, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
I recently joined an organization for seniors age 50 and older. I would say the median age is closer to 70 with at least three of the 800 members being 100 or over. In a recent forum regarding making preparations for death ( wills, trusts, personal stories, cryogenics, etc.) the question was asked, “How many believe in an afterlife?” Of the 40 or so in the forum I only saw 3 hands raised. I would like to have seen the qustion asked the other way, “How many don’t believe in an afterlife?” My point is that here we have a group that have obviously given such an issue serious thought (and I can assure you it is a group of very bright, very well educated people) and the concept of soul seems to be held by a very small percentage. I have no idea what their religious affiliations are. My attendance was by accident. The forum I had intended to participate in had been moved to the next day. I was quite amazed at the very rational, look-it-in-the-eye attitude toward death. As one said, it is simply like an orchestra when everyone stops playing.
March 7th, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Terra said ” still don’t think I’ve gotten over my fear of death.” Please stay afraid of death! The Bible refers to the fate of the unsaved with such fearful words as the following: Shame and everlasting contempt†(Daniel 12:2), Everlasting punishment†(Matthew 25:46), Weeping and gnashing of teeth†(Matthew 24:51), Fire unquenchable†(Luke 3:17), Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish†(Romans 2:8,9), Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord†(2 Thessalonians 1:9), Eternal fire…the blackness of darkness for ever†(Jude 1:7,13) Revelation 14:10,11 tells us the final, eternal destiny of the sinner: “He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone…the smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day or night.”
God is teaching me all things when I continue my walk in life 1 john 2:27. I am very humble and grateful that I was chosen and I wanted to tell every one of you that I found something wonderful and God loves you this much.
Are you ready to face God if he were to judge you based on his commandments? Did you all do your blasphemy challenge to get your dvd’s?
March 7th, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Wow. I’ve been giving this a great deal of thought over the last couple of years. The reason is that I became a father two years ago, to the most beautiful child in the universe (naturally). I want to do everything I can to protect her from harm. That’s hard to do if you die.
Thinking that has then brought me to fear death greatly. Prior to this it didn’t scare me at all, most likely because I didn’t think about it one way or another. Now I’m scared. I don’t like the thought that there may be nothing left of me past death. It seems like a horrible waste! Part of the problem is that I can’t imagine it. How can one imagine total and absolute nothing, non-existence? That’s the advantage that theists have. One can easily imagine the goodness of heaven, or the badness of hell. Maybe that’s the real problem with theism, it’s too easy.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with fearing death. That should “force” me to enjoy living more shouldn’t it? I only just thought of that. Still the idea of simply not existing anymore is terrifying to me. I can think of no way to feel comfort in it.
Beyond that, the post above by Dan exemplifies why I’m much more of an atheist than a theist (I’m not totally convinced either way.. does that make me Agnostic?). I wouldn’t want to find out that a God like that exists. Who wants to deal with a nasty entity that would punish you for not believing in something that can’t be proved. Seems rather retarded to me. Oddly enough Gods opposite number seems more honest to me.. isn’t that odd?
March 7th, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Dan,
What?
March 7th, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Terry,
What, what?
March 7th, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Mike,
If you run out in the middle of the highway and say I don’t believe in trucks it doesn’t mean you will not get run over. If you jump out of a window screaming “I don’t believe in gravity” doesn’t mean you will not get hurt. What matters is the truth. God does exist and He came as a man here on earth to pay for all of your sins. By sins I mean the Ten Commandments which are God’s law. The law was made as a mirror for us. In the same way, we don’t realize what a bad state we are in until we look into the “mirror” of the Ten Commandments. Have you stolen, lied, dishonored your mother and father etc. then you broke his laws and the penalty is death. Rev 21:8 all liars have there part in the lake of fire. But God doesn’t want that to happen to you and I don’t either. I don’t want you to drink and drive but if you do then you will go to jail, and if you lie then you will spend eternity in Hell. Now someone came to pay your fine so you wouldn’t have to spend time in jail. Jesus came to pay your fine for you so that justice would be satisfied and you could go free. All you have to do is Repent which means turn away from sin and trust Jesus like you would a parachute. Pray to God and ask his forgiveness and he will give you a life without death and you will not spend forever in hell.
For Him,
Dan
March 7th, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Dan said: “If you run out in the middle of the highway and say I don’t believe in trucks it doesn’t mean you will not get run over. If you jump out of a window screaming “I don’t believe in gravity†doesn’t mean you will not get hurt. What matters is the truth.”
I think your heart is in the right place, Dan. You don’t want anyone to come to harm. However, trucks and gravity, and the damage they can do, are verifiable without engaging in any death defying stunts; but God(s)? I agree, truth does matter, but I don’t think your arguments proposing that an invisible deity is as plainly observed, or as dangerous, as speeding vehicles or the laws of physics gets us there.
I’m not absolutely sure what happens to human consciousness at death, but the scientific evidence so far points to extinguishment. So, I’ll have to go with that for now.
MikeE: I know what you mean about fearing death now that you have a child; I have two young children of my own. I just resolve to do my best every day, as a loving father and their primary educator about the world, and hope I can stick around for awhile to help them get through some of the tougher spots in life.
March 7th, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Does belief in god come with an automatic non-understanding of logic? I ask this because I’m losing the logical thread of the “I don’t believe in trucks…” argument. It kinda does work to suggest the non-existance of god…
1: “I don’t believe in trucks”->play on highway->get killed->therefore trucks exist
2: “I don’t believe in gravity”->jump out of window->get killed->therefore gravity exists
lets add in another one
3: “I don’t believe in god”->blaspheme, sin, become an apostate, sin some more, mess up some churches, desecrate some scriptures->DO NOT get blasted by bolt of lightning (I haven’t tried it, but I guessing this is what would happen)->therefore does god exist???
OK, it isn’t tight logic either, but it does show the fallacy of the previous argument.
Again we see another logically flawed argument designed to discredit the non-religious stance followed by a totally unsupported statement tthat essentially says, “god exists, so there”.
It just so convinces me that god is real.
March 7th, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
But meanwhile, in the actual subject of this post….
I too belief that once we die, that is it: we are nothing more than the physical body left behind with no life left. We are as a computer that once had a massively complex program running in its memory circuits, now shut off and barren of any action. The end.
This worries many. I, like McGowan, find it amazing.
For what does go on is the effect of all our actions and behaviours have had on the living. What we taught our children and others around us, the joy (or not) we brought to others, the memories of us and what we did, how we lived our life and what we brought to the lives of others. Our record in history (distorted as all that usually is).
The lessons for others because of our life (as opposed to the lessons we learned) transcend time….assuming of course anything we did was worthwhile to someone else.
I recall a sad epithet, it went something like “here lies a truly impoverished man: remembered by no one, mourned by nobody, missed by no person”.
Would we call that man souless?
March 7th, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
I’ve always enjoyed Mel Blanc’s epitaph: “Thats all folks!”
March 8th, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Greg,
I’m sure if you looked around you could find that on a number of tombstones. I haven’t seen that myself, but I did see one that said simply “I’m outa here!” Not profound, perhaps, but certainly succinct.
Another common defense of god’s existence I hear is “It says so in the bible.” I won’t complete the circle around this bit of illogic, but it is illustrative of the disconnect believers maintain between their faith and rationality. It is their faith that they believe is the ultimate virtue.
Another good epitaph which was, I believe, the sign off of an old radio personality or news man. I don’t remember who coined it, but it fits. It went, “That’s all there is, there isn’t anymore.” I tried Googling it to no particular avail. But, nevertheless, as an epitaph it pretty much says it all.
Death is a bitch. I don’t look forward to it. I rue the possiblity of not being around to see my kids come into their own. I’m jealous of younger, healthier people who will likely out live me.
Actually, though, it’s not death that frightens me. It’s dying. Once dead, it will be totaly indifferent. I will be just as I was before I was born: Non-existent. Yes, in my wake there will be memories, good and bad. Some of my stuff will still be lying around, most of which will likely get pitched or given to Goodwill or Amvets, left out on the front porch in a paper bag to be picked up. A few things will survive, at least for a time as remembrances, or simply because they might be useful or attractive in some way.
But the memories will fade. I’ve never accomplished anything individually that would be noted in anyone’s history books, not even as a footnote. My blog and comments will disappear into cyberspace. My stuff will eventually disappear as well, it’s relevance to me unknown.
I suppose some reading the above will think it sad or more likely pathetic, but I don’t see it that way. It’s just how things go.
I was an auctioneer for a number of years. I handled a number of estate sales. On site sales – sales being held at the decedent’s home – usually drew a lot of family, friends and people from the neighborhood. We would typically bring most everything outside and line it all up in rows and place smaller items on folding tables. This was the “stuff” of someone’s life, and it would all disappear in the course of an afternoon. Perhaps later, the house is sold and everyone moves on.
It’s not a happy prospect, but neither need it be a sad one. It is simply the way of life, and, of course, death.
TLS
March 8th, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Noell,
I find the best analogy with my 3 year old. He hates to go to bed at night, because he know that we stay up after he is asleep and he doesn’t want to miss out on anything good.
Probably the greatest reason that I cling to my identity as a “hopeful agnostic” is that I am reluctant to accept the “Big Bedtime” of death. I hate to consider that one day I will be gone – and the world will continue going on without me. I don’t want to fall asleep forever, end my particular symphony *(which I think of more as a really hot jazz riff, really)*, and miss all the good stuff that is sure to come after.
The challenge, then, is to retrain my thinking patterns to revel more in the moment and worry less about what I may miss out on down the road. I don’t want to waste what precious time I have thinking about what I’ll miss later, and the struggle to learn new functional mental processing routines is a huge challenge.
The only trick I have found so far is to hold one of my babies while they’re sleeping. It’s the one time I am guaranteed to be absolutely present in a moment for as long as it lasts. Maybe a trifle cliche, but only because mothers seem to have a few things nearly universally in common….
March 8th, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Dan, based on your posts on this blog and some you have posted elsewhere, I come away with the conclusion that you have accepted and embrace the concept of a soul that continues to exist and function after the death of the body. I would not argue with that belief. I am interested to know if you can describe your view/belief of what such an existence might be like.
March 9th, 2007 @ 9:37 am
My initial reaction to Greg’s question to Dan was certainly not “good question”, but after a few moments I think it is a really good question, and I look forward to his answer. My response to those with anxiety about a lack of “afterlife” is that one thing we know for certain is that there is nothing “after” that intersects with this life. It is this life for which we feel we will miss loved ones, and don’t want to leave or give up our present influence in this life. But that is a fact folks, we will be gone… even if you believe in your soul continuing on somewhere. It won’t be here. I really like what Martin said about “what goes on is the effect of our actions…” and yes it is amazing, and we really must do our best with the miracle we have. Imagine what we could all leave behind in a tiny book that had a page for each year, or even each decade. In it you handwrite a line (or two) about what you were most passionate about. Now there would be a disembodied spirit with real meaning!
March 9th, 2007 @ 9:50 am
[...] Agnostic Mom Raising a Healthy Family Without Religion. « Regarding The Soul [...]
March 9th, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Well, I fed the troll (Dan) on my own blog so I guess I can continue that thread here.
Dan: If you think that you can take my fear and use it against me in order that you can convert me, you’re going to be sorely mistaken. Yes, I have fear, but that doesn’t mean I need to run cowering into the arms of faith. Let me tell you why. I’m not prepared to shut down so many of my other facilities; reason, intellect, thinking, questioning in order that I release my fear of death.
I once dated a guy who was way too touchy feel-ey on the first date and then later wrote me a long email about how much I needed him. He tried valiantly to tear me down and take away my power in order that he could have power over me. (I suspect he knew I was uncomfortable with his inappropriate advances on the date and knew I was probably going to tell him to bugger off, so he was hitting his last resort…) I was never so satisfied as when I told him to fuck off, that I didn’t need his particular brand of “You’re nothing without me.” mentality. This feels very much the same.
Ignoring the absurdities of your post (which I addressed on my own blog) (Yes, folks, he basically cut and pasted everywhere…) The reaction that I feel to your brand of, “You better be scared…” is nothing short of utter revulsion. I don’t know if you were consciously trying to tear me (and fellow non-believers) down or not, but if you did, you failed miserably. Just for future reference: for people like me, when you try to take away power, you will only be empowering us more.
March 9th, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
People who incessantly proselytize to others do so, ostensibly because they are concerned for your soul, that they want to save you from the eternal fires of hell. And individually, they may believe that. They are, after all sent on a mission to gather more souls to ride on the paradise express.
However, in my opinion it is all totally self-serving. God expects his minions to recruit for him. Failing to do so can land one in hell. In the end it is all an effort to grease the slide as it were.
The well schooled evangelical is heavily armed with a plethora of arguments to entice you into the fold, and ready to parry your every counter thrust, while shaking his or her head and smiling in sad condescention. In other words, they really piss me off.
TLS
March 9th, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Er, I mean “in sad condescension.
TLS
March 10th, 2007 @ 9:32 am
I answered the “A Question about the Soul” post before I read this one so now it looks to me like I plagiarized Mr. McGowan. If I did so it was unconsiously and I apologize.
Your question “I don’t find life any less amazing or beautiful for our lack of a soul. What do you think?” reminds me of a poem I read on another site (http://www.jhuger.com/tdwl):
The day we learned that
The Sun doesn’t go around the Earth,
The sunset was still beautiful.
The day we learned that
Evil spirits don’t make us ill,
The sick still suffered.
The day we learned that
Our hearts are not where we feel,
We were still in love.
Our world is not a conjurer’s trick.
Knowing how it’s done
Doesn’t make the magic go away.
For myself, I think it is a waste of time to try to argue the Universe into the state we would prefer. I find it much more productive and satisfying to use the tools I’ve been given (including my brain with all it’s quirks and suboptimal functionality) to find new ways to experience and interact with the Universe as it is.
Thanks for putting up such good questions.
Skysinger
March 10th, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Skysinger–Very cool.
March 11th, 2007 @ 6:46 am
I’m going to the funeral home this afternoon. A fellow band parent passed away suddenly at 41. She left a 16 year old, 3 year old and 2 other children she was raising. It is sad and unfortunate she is gone, especially for her children. As an atheist, death to me means the end of this life (for the person who dies). However, there are ways one lives on. Almost 2 years ago, I lost a very dear friend and co-worker to a sudden, unexpected, too early death. She was 33 (the same age of Jesus, ya know). However, she had educated and changed many people’s thoughts and (mis)conceptions about gay people. She placed over 20 children for adoption. She was smart, funny and a terrific friend. I know my life was changed/altered because she touched it.
Anyway, there is no soul, except in the living. I try to live my life to the best that I can each day. No one knows when life will end. I try to love and appreciate family and friends. I try to leave a positive impact on those around me and help those in need. That is how one’s “soul” can continue after death.
March 11th, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
I think Dale McGow(e/a)n is begging the question (by which I don’t mean “inviting” a question, but rather “arguing in a circle”):
Since species evolve incrementally over time, insisting that we have souls, but other living things do not, requires us to come up with some pretty unlikely scenarios.
How about looking at it the other way around? Common experience indicates that there are some fundamental and drastic differences between human beings and all other biological entities; these differences might best be summed up, at least anecdotally, in one simple observation: human beings blog; plants, animals, and bacteria don’t.
Or, to put it more generally, human beings have the capacity to talk about the differences between themselves and other living things, and to try to account for these differences in myriad ways; human being also have the capacity to develop systems of worldwide instantaneous communication so as to talk about these differences more often and with more people. Does any other living thing, at least that we know of, engage in activity even remotely similar, or give evidence of having anything like these capacities?
Assuming (as I do) that the answer to that question is “no”, we could call the locus of this difference between humans and other living things the “soul,” or the “intellect,” or the “radically developed brain,” or really whatever we want to call it. But it seems to me that to deny this drastic difference altogether, or to reduce it to a difference in degree — we just have a lot more, for whatever reason, of what all the other living things also have — this denial or explaining away of such a radical difference, it seems to me, is in fact “what requires us to come up with some pretty unlikely scenarios.”
March 12th, 2007 @ 6:43 am
I’m standing on shaky ground here as I haven’t done enough research on this, but what about reincarnation? In the West we have a strong tendency towards thinking linearly. That there is a finite beginning and end, life and death, the start of the soul and the end of the soul.
This is terribly unscientific and untheological, but perhaps the whole ‘cycle’ of life, death and the soul is a lot more complex and interconnected to a lot of other things than we may realise.
Although it sounds like I’m arguing from/for mystery, perhaps someone a little cleverer than I could draw this back to something a little more concrete. For example, what about Dawkins’ idea of memes. Memes live on after the people who passed on those memes have died. Somewhere, all our many thoughts, ideas, feelings and lives are interconnected and recycled, and relived.
Perhaps the idea of starting and ending is far too linear and defined to effectively explain reality. Perhaps the ‘electrochemical symphony’ doesn’t really stop…
March 13th, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
I’ve been reading through this blog, and I have to admit, there is a lot of fear and pain being communicated here. But even worse, I was saddened to see the “Christian” responses posted here and there on the site. Nearly every such response I saw was harsh, demeaning, and filled with judgment. Those qualities are far too often espoused in popular Christian churches and communities.
Even worse, such opinions are NOT biblical, deny the ENTIRE overarching message of Jesus ministry, the new testament, AND the old testament message of a loving God who is working to redeem a fallen creation.
To any Christians out there who occasionally frequent these forums, can you hold off on your judgment, fire, brimstone, and threats for just a second? The people writing here, including myself, are seriously concerned and asking HARD questions about the nature of the cosmos, creation, the supernatural, and the value and meaning of life.
These are questions at the center of every faith tradition, INCLUDING Christianity. If more conservative Christians were asking these questions seriously within their own traditions, maybe they wouldn’t be quite so quick to send a message lacking grace or compassion to folks on these forums.
Finally, I also find it surprising that the writers of these forums really value each others experience so highly when it comes to issues of belief and faith, and yet are also disregarding 2000 thousand years of Christian history. The apostles were either very deluded or very stupid to have stubbornly preached their message of a risen dead man claiming to be God until they were killed for it. Not to mention the experiences of humans in 7000 years of faith traditions around the world and throughout history that acknowledge the soul, SEPARATE of psychology.
I hope those of the agnostic belief might consider extending an open ear to those within faith traditions, including Christianity, and value the personal experience of those people as well.
My own experiences have convinced of the truth of Jesus claims, even though I’d prefer to not believe. I’m unable to rationally, intelligently deny the Gospel, and I’ve suffered the derision of my peers, family, and former friends for it. Much as I would expect many here have suffered for their own beliefs. I saddened that some writers have responded to these messages of exploration, fear, hurt, and hope, with messages of judgment and condescending evangelism.
March 14th, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Chris,
You say in your comment above:
I’m unable to rationally, intelligently deny the Gospel
It is somewhat surprising to read this statement in that it is generally the agnostic/atheistic view that faith is by its very nature irrational.
Faith is irrational in that it is based on exactly NO evidence that any god exists anywhere. A myth remains a myth regardless of how long it is believed.
The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians among others believed in their plethora of gods for centuries. Yet, today, such beliefs are looked upon by most people with bemusement. Now most people believe in one god. You and other monotheists are in fact atheists as regards all gods but one. We have just taken it one more god. (I must give Richard Dawkins his due. I believe that last description of atheism came from his pen. In any event, it did not originate with me.)
I would say that your concern regarding the nature and tone of some of the judgemental comments above is appreciated. Such comments border on being rude, and are, at best tiresome.
TLS
March 15th, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Terry S.,
Faith is irrational in that it is based on exactly NO evidence that any god exists anywhere. A myth remains a myth regardless of how long it is believed.
I don’t think “irrational” is the best word to describe a system of thought that’s based on a principle that’s taken for granted.
Otherwise geometry would be irrational, because it has nothing to do with evidence in the sense that you use the word, but takes certain definitions and postulates for granted, and then proceeds logically and rationally from them to build up a complex system. You can change one or two of the basic starting points and come up with a completely different and weird system, like Non-Euclidean geometry, but it’s still a rational system, in the sense that it’s logical and coherent.
In the same way, faith, or at least theology, may start from certain principles that an atheist/agnostic denies or at least is unwilling to affirm, but that doesn’t make the whole system of thought irrational. It’s just, well, based on faith.
It’s interesting to examine any system of thought to find what its basic principles are, and then to try to determine the origin of those basic principles. In your statement above, for example, what precisely do you mean by “evidence”, and, if I may be just a little cheeky: what evidence do you have that your notion of evidence is the correct one?
March 15th, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Ben,
What is the nature of the “principle that’s taken for granted?” It is the principleall the answers does not then necessarily, or even likely point to a god as the ultimate answer to our questions.
Geometry is far more consistent and predictable than how some ethereal god works his particular magic.
While we do have a far greater understanding of human behavior, it remains unpredictable. The notion that some god is overseeing and directing the course of the universe is ludicrous. The common defence that we cannot hope to understand the mind of god is simply a way to deflect incredulity.
The “evidence” I refer to is that which is presented to us in everyday life. It is the stuff of sensory perception and rational deduction. Faith in a phantom being which no one sees, hears or touches is irrational. That people claim to have seen, heard or touched some god is only testament to the level of their delusion.
Your suggestion that my “notion of evidence” may not be the correct one I liken to philosophical hacks telling you that a chair is not a chair. It is a bogus argument meant to send one off into an air of confusion. I don’t take the bait. And, yes, it was cheeky. I can envision you typing out that sentence with a wry smile on your face, pleased with your own cleverness.
TLS
March 15th, 2007 @ 8:08 am
Ben,
First: Something happened with this comment that I can’t altogether explain. I somehow posted a hackneyed version of it above. I apologize. This one, hopefully makes more sense.
What is the nature of the “principle that’s taken for granted?” It is the principle. that is irrational.
Rationality operates from a core of reasonable deduction. Every day we come to a deeper and greater understanding of how the universe works. None of the answers so far discovered point to any omnipotent presence. That we don’t as yet have all the answers does not then necessarily, or even likely point to a god as the ultimate answer to our questions.
Geometry is far more consistent and predictable than how some ethereal god works his particular magic.
While we do have a far greater understanding of human behavior, it remains unpredictable. The notion that some god is overseeing and directing the course of the universe is ludicrous. The common defence that we cannot hope to understand the mind of god is simply a way to deflect incredulity.
The “evidence” I refer to is that which is presented to us in everyday life. It is the stuff of sensory perception and rational deduction. Faith in a phantom being which no one sees, hears or touches is irrational. That people claim to have seen, heard or touched some god is only testament to the level of their delusion.
Your suggestion that my “notion of evidence” may not be the correct one I liken to philosophical hacks telling you that a chair is not a chair. It is a bogus argument meant to send one off into an air of confusion. I don’t take the bait. And, yes, it was cheeky. I can envision you typing out that sentence with a wry smile on your face, pleased with your own cleverness.
TLS
March 15th, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Terry,
I apologize for the cheek and for my poor phrasing of the question. I meant the question sincerely and in all seriousness.
Here’s why: there is a long and venerable tradition of thought that holds that the existence of God — at least in the limited sense of an immaterial supreme being — is not a matter of faith at all, but a reasonable conclusion drawn from sensory perception and rational deduction. The same can be said for the concept of an immaterial human soul, to tie this back to the topic of the thread.
This tradition of thought goes back at least to Plato and Aristotle, who lived hundreds of years before Christianity, had no contact with monotheistic religion, and whose ideas on this topic contradicted both the received scholarly wisdom of the time, and contemporary popular opinion. These were not clever hacks; they were towering intellects who thought long and deeply about pretty much everything.
Whether this tradition of thought is right or wrong, it is respectable and worth engaging on its own terms. My sense of much recent thought on these questions is that it ignores, sometimes knowingly but often unknowingly, this older tradition completely. And the reasons for this seem worth discussing.
And, at least one of the reasons, I think, is the contemporary scientific notion of “evidence”. So I did not mean at all to bait you, but rather to go right to the heart of the question that I think is at the heart of this thread.
Ben
March 15th, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Ben,
It’s not as if the notion of soul, afterlife and god are neglected subjects. Most of us here whether believers or no have given a great deal of consideration to these matters. The fact that this and other blog sites of similar nature exist at all provide further testament to that.
God, as an answer to life’s bewilderments certainly did seem rational at one time as man had no means to say, understand the flow of day into night into day, the rising and setting of the sun, the sun itself.
But as we’ve progressed, so too have we come to understand those things and more. As time moves forward, the liklihood of god recedes. It matters not that hundreds of millions of people still cling to their faith. Believing in something does not make it real or true.
For some at least, the discussion is moot. I proceed through my daily life with no belief in a deity, afterlife or soul. It is the pervasiveness of religious faith, and in many instances, the intimidation and violence perpetrated in its name that necessitates its consideration, not its truth or viability. As I believe Richard Dawkins stated in The God Delusion [He] was not sure that theology was a subject at all.
TLS
March 15th, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Terry,
I’m honestly not trying to talk about religion, faith, or belief here. I’m much more interested, at the moment, in the categorical exclusion of certain ways of thinking — an exclusion that seems so often to underlie discussions like this one.
The same philosophical tradition I alluded to above developed four concise questions for investigating a thing: (A) what is it? (B) why is it? (C) what is it made of? and (D) how did it get that way?
In contemporary discussions, though, it has become unacceptable to ask the first two questions (”what is it?” and “why is it?”) — apparently because these questions do not contribute to the technical progress of the hard sciences.
Ultimately, all inquiry is then reduced to biology, chemistry, and physics. Ethics becomes rootless, and philosophy is derided.
But why must this be so? That’s really what I’m asking.
March 15th, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
I found the last few posts interesting and they reminded me of a Star Trek episode in which the medical doctor on board the starship Enterprise was a hologram programmed by a hologram programming genius. The genius also programmed a hologram that looked the Enterprise and a portion of its crew. It became quite confusing as to which were the real and which were hologram crew members. At a point in the program the doctor tried testing himself to see if he was a real person or a hologram. In part of the testing, he injured himself and felt pain and was bleeding and concluded he was not a hologram but a real person. Unfortunately the genius programmer convinced him that he had programmed him to feel pain and bleed.
Why is this relevant to the posts? In the episode, no matter what the doctor came up with for a test, the genius programmer one upped him by saying he had programmed that feature. Isn’t this like the claims that there is a supreme being? It is impossible to ever come up with any kind of evidence that is convincing that the Universe could be the way it is without a supreme being. No matter the argument, the theist simply says,â€Of course it is that way, the supreme being made it that way.†He is the genius, omnipotent programmer, just like the episode.
I go back to what I have said in several posts, it is a waste of time to debate the question. Some simply believe it and others do not. Only one is right but we will never know which one. In the meantime, it is most beneficial to look for common ground and move ahead with beneficial projects. E. O Wilson, the famous biologist, says that species are becoming extinct at a rate 100 times greater than at the beginning of the 20th century. One common project that could be joined by both theist and a-theist could be saving Creation, however it came about.
March 15th, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Gregg100,
No matter the argument, the theist simply says,â€Of course it is that way, the supreme being made it that way.†He is the genius, omnipotent programmer, just like the episode.
This is precisely not what I’m trying to do. To say “God just made it that way” is a cop-out that has nothing to do with the philosophical tradition I’ve been describing.
I am actually interested in discussing and comparing the core intellectual assumptions of materialists and “non-materialists”, for lack of a better word. This is for me one of the most fascinating questions there is: namely, why do we think the way we do? And I find the apparent lack of interest in this question, or even eagerness to avoid it, frustrating and disappointing, especially in people who prize reason and argument so highly.
Noell originally asked what her readers think about the soul and what bearing it, or rather its non-existence, has on their own lives. My reading of the responses suggests that many of Noell’s readers have never heard the concept of “soul” discussed in a rational and coherent way — and in fact think that it cannot be discussed rationally and coherently.
And yet it can be discussed rationally and coherently, and has been for centuries, even completely apart from any concept of religion or belief.
I don’t see why the question should suddenly become a non-starter, or why an inquiry into the reasons for its being a non-starter should be ruled irrelevant or out-of-bounds.
I agree that theists and non-theists should seek common ground in practical matters, but why does that rule out an honest discussion of our differences in a forum like this, that is devoted to rational inquiry and discussion?
March 16th, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Ben,
I am at somewhat of a loss as to what you are attempting to do here.
Let me suggest this: State your position. You touch on it here and there, but from what I’ve so far read, it is not altogether clear exactly where you are coming from. Perhaps it is my inability to comprehend. If so, I apologize.
Of course, Gregg100 is correct in that these discussions are ultimately fruitless in that neither side can definitively prove their respective position.
But, if you clarify where it is you stand, it may serve to get the ball rolling, as it were in the direction you seek.
I think Noell would love to see this continue. She just let the dogs loose so to speak. It’s up to us to reel them in.
TLS
March 16th, 2007 @ 8:23 am
Ben– You said, “This is for me one of the most fascinating questions there is: namely, why do we think the way we do? And I find the apparent lack of interest in this question, or even eagerness to avoid it, frustrating and disappointing, especially in people who prize reason and argument so highly.”
I don’t see any evidennce of an eagerness to avoid this question. In fact, it is a question I have taken time researching. The angle with which to tackle the question that I find most interesting and promising is Evolutionary Psychology. Your favorite angle at tackling it is Philosophy.
We’re interested in the same question. Just not the same means of answering it. The reason I don’t bother too long in the form of discussion you are seeking is because I think it is mostly fruitless. There was a time I was very much interested in philosophy. After taking two philosophy classes I was disappointed because it seems more like mind games than an actual path to facts or truth. Semantics get in the way of discovering very much relevant information.
March 16th, 2007 @ 8:52 am
Ben, let me clarify that I don’t think philosophical forms of thought are totally useless. I see them more as a Plan B. Material observation is Plan A because of the amazing results and success it has given us.
Are you familiar with Daniel Dennett? He is an atheist philosopher and a proponent of evolution and evolutionary psychology. He speaks and writes much about (and in support of) biologist Richard Dawkins. In light of this discussion it might be interesting to see what Dennett’s take is the two different means for gaining knowledge or finding truth that we’re referring to here.
March 16th, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Ben,
“I am actually interested in discussing and comparing the core intellectual assumptions of materialists and “non-materialistsâ€, for lack of a better word. This is for me one of the most fascinating questions there is: namely, why do we think the way we do? And I find the apparent lack of interest in this question, or even eagerness to avoid it, frustrating and disappointing, especially in people who prize reason and argument so highly.â€
First let me say that I am afraid that my post does sound a bit defensive and maybe even a little flippant. I didn’t intend it that way but on second read I can see how anyone would have concluded that. I think your interest in some of the foundations for thought is both important and relevant. I hope you stick to your guns and demand responses to exactly what you are asking. For the most part, the tenor of this blog has been both respectful and serious and your views are important.
That being said, I would like to take a cut at directly addressing your interest in the foundations for some of the positions I have taken which have tended to be largely naturalistic, materialistic and to some extent reductionist. Note that I am NOT addressing the question of the existence of soul or supreme beings. I am addressing thought processes.
Let’s start with the processor, the brain. The brain is an electrochemical processor that research (e.g., “Are We Hardwired†by Clark and Grunstein) has shown to be mechanized to implement algorithms that are the result of successful survival of the human species. They are the basis for the nature of the animal we refer to as a “human beingâ€. This processor then is exposed to a spectrum of environments and the application of those algorithms enable the brain to learn the various activities that contribute to the well being, reproduction and flourishing (to whatever extent) of the remainder of the human being.
Those algorithms include a set of processing approaches that depend on some correspondence between mental concepts and the surrounding environment. When there is a disconnect between the concepts and the extant environment, chances for well being and flourishing are diminished; consider the case of a human being with schizophrenia.
At least a portion of those algorithms are implemented to process deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning demands that premises be true in order for conclusions to be true. In one of your comment you mentioned that assumptions can be changed and the conclusions radically change. That is why it is critical that foundations be axiomatic. As in the development of the grammar of the language we call mathematics, all is developed from axioms. As anyone that has ever taken algebra can attest, once you can “proofs†you are half way to a passing grade. (The other half being “word problemsâ€!). Proofs are applications of rigorous rules of math grammar that in many cases can be related back to an axiomatic law such the Law of Identity (A=A). My point here is that there is no such thing as “changing the assumptionsâ€. The foundation is an axiom!
If I extend this thinking to some of the ethereal questions we are discussing in this blog, I will state the following axiom: Something exists. There is no question that something exists. For someone to even state that he or she does not agree that something exists, means that something has to exist to even form a disagreement thus invalidating the position. Existence is! Not only does existence exist but one of the existents, a brain, has a capability we refer to as consciousness that is aware of existence. Something must exist to have consciousness. This is the Primacy of Existence axiom. If I combine these two axioms with the Law of Identity (an existent is itself), I have most of the basis for the development of a complete philosophy.
A key part of any philosophy is the role played in the development of ethics. I have long claimed that a secular philosophy can be developed to include a suitable set of ethics. I have recently augmented that position with a conditional acceptance of a “value statementâ€. This is in recognition of the classical “is – ought†problem. I believe that it is possible to identify/develop prescriptive statements (one ought to…) from descriptive statements (the world is described as …) AS LONG AS the following value statement is accepted. Prolonged existence and flourishing of the human species is “goodâ€.
This, of course, is a Reader’s Digest version of a very long thesis but I hope you get some insight into the thought processes I have generally followed. There are many branches to explore. How did the Universe begin, for example? I have tried to stick to mental processes that depend heavily on demonstrations of mathematical feasibility of concepts (because of the rigor of mathematics) and then dependence on some form of the “Scientific Method†to validate the concepts. This generally relates to multiverses and all the rest of the related current research topics. A demonstration of the Higgs boson will go a long way to validation of many of the claims of the existence of a “God Particle†that establishes the basis for the mass of the majority of the particles in the Standard Model of the atomic structure. (The “God Particle†nickname came about because of the view that if the Higgs boson does exist, the Universe HAD to develop the way it is and no divine intervention would have been necessary to pick and chose various mass values and universal constants just right for life to develop. Of course, God may have made the Higgs boson that way!!)
March 16th, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Greg100,
Thank you for your work on this. I felt that Ben was certainly sincere in his quest, but I was unequipped to deal with the substance of his query. While I only barely understand the science, it does seem to me that you did in fact succeed in getting to the heart of Ben’s desire to discuss the origins and mechanics, if you will, of thought and belief.
Take care,
TLS
March 17th, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Thanks all for the generous responses. I can’t possibly do justice to all of them at one sitting, so I’ll start with Terry’s and Noell’s, and then try to respond to Gregg100’s at the next chance I get. I’m a computer nerd by trade so I find Gregg100’s account of brain-as-computer exciting and want to think more about it. I agree also that ethics are crucial.
Terry, you’ve asked that I state my position. I’ll do my best, but it will only be a preliminary articulation. If it sounds breezy and general, I’m happy to go into greater detail on any particular point; for now, though, I want to keep my post to a readable length. I think this will end up constituting a response to Noell’s comments as well. Here goes:
I think that philosophy and science were unhappily divorced in roughly the early 17th century, and that this divorce was, and is, a great loss to Western thought.
There are probably deeper roots to it, but for lack of familiarity with any better scapegoats, I will assign the blame for this divorce to Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes — who can reasonably be identified as the founders, respectively, of modern science and modern philosophy.
I can go into much more detail if asked, but in the interests of keeping this succinct, I’ll stick with a summary:
In two bold strokes, delivered by Bacon in his New Organon in 1620, and by Descartes in his Discourse on Method in 1637, philosophy and science became separate and opposed disciplines. Bacon would not permit, in scientific inquiry, questions that did not pertain to the particular and the material. Descartes, meanwhile, threw out the particular and the material as valid starting points for philosophical inquiry, turning all of philosophy into, well, a mind game, to use your words, Noell.
But this was not always so. Take Aristotle, for example (who was born around 380 BC). He was relentlessly interested in particulars. He would cut animals open so that he could see how they were arranged inside. At the same time he did not shy away from the abstract, and — here’s the important point — he thought that the two were intimately related and that it was impossible to fully understand one without also understanding the other.
To put it more concretely: he thought that the senses were the starting point of all knowledge: not just of natural phenomena, but also of ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, you name it. And, conversely, the consideration of more abstract questions illuminated and gave coherence to his study of the particulars of nature. He was broad-minded in the best sense of the word.
My problem with contemporary science, or at least popular science, is that it comes across as narrow-minded. I would have no problem with it if it were simply narrow; that is, if it confined itself rigorously to its proper objects and method.
But then I read threads like this, where the reigning assumption seems to be that the sort of knowledge that scientific inquiry yields is the only sort of knowledge there is, or at least the only kind worth knowing — and that the rest is just superstitious gobbledy-gook at worst, or mind games at best. To some extent I think this is true: a lot of modern philosophy is just mind games, and this probably wreaks havoc on many other intellectual disciplines, from ethics to theology.
But real philosophy, which was around long before Descartes, is not a mind game; it’s rooted in common experience, logic, and above all the senses. It gave birth to modern science and, I would argue, to just about every other intellectual discipline worthy of the name. To be unaware of this is to be locked out of much of the rich treasury of Western thought.
The way I see things, Noell, there’s no need to have a Plan A and a Plan B. Philosophy and science are two sides of the same coin, and either one suffers without the other.
I’m only familiar with Daniel Dennett through reviews of his latest book. Likewise with Dawkins, although I also get a taste of his ideas when I read this blog, and I did look briefly at The God Delusion the other day at Barnes & Noble. I was disappointed.
I had hoped for something that would challenge my own convictions, make me think and perhaps even squirm a bit. What I found I can only describe as ignorance. I flipped immediately to the section where he addresses the traditional proofs for the existence of God. He starts with the “Five Ways” of Thomas Aquinas, a text I’m fairly familiar with — I spent 10 weeks in an undergraduate classroom studying it in the original Latin. What Dawkins presents as refutations of the Five Ways in fact reveals only that Dawkins misunderstands the arguments.
Or perhaps refuses even to try to understand them? I don’t think this is being unfair to Dawkins; if I’m not mistaken he makes no secret of, or apology for, his disdain for theology.
And this is precisely the problem that I’m trying to identify with this post. I have difficulties with the Five Ways, but I’m reasonably certain that I have a decent sense of the arguments involved. I’m also reasonably certain that Dawkins does not, and that he thinks that it would be a waste of time to inquire with any depth into any theological argument. I know that a number of readers of this blog think similarly, because they’ve said as much.
But here’s at least one problem with that attitude: Thomas Aquinas didn’t just write about theology. He also wrote about ethics, law, politics, and just about everything else under the sun, with unmatched subtlety and clarity. He wrote extensive commentaries on the writings of the great Arab thinkers of the early middle ages. He re-introduced Aristotle into Western thought. I said above that Aristotle’s philosophy gave birth to modern science; if this is true, Thomas Aquinas was almost certainly the attending doctor at that labor. And his thought is nothing if not coherent. To dismiss his theology as foolish is to dismiss his entire work. And to dismiss his work is to dismiss a pillar of Western rationality. Why do that?
I don’t ask that Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, agree with Thomas Aquinas, or Aristotle, or any other of the great pre-Enlightenment thinkers; just that he take them and their arguments seriously and be willing to engage them on their own terms. It’s a courtesy Aristotle and Aquinas would certainly have extended to Dawkins had he been a contemporary of either, because they prized truth above all else and searched unyieldingly for it wherever it could be found.
Above all I would like, if possible, to illuminate the value of pre-Enlightenment thought, and to oppose vigorously the notion that all valuable intellectual discovery began in the 17th century. What happened in the 17th century, though incalculably valuable in terms of technological advance, was devastating in terms of genuine intellectual progress.
Perhaps it was unavoidable and can’t really be laid at the feet of Bacon and Descartes; one gets the impression from reading Bacon and Descartes that they were both pretty upset about the way the universities of their days operated. I imagine that the custodians of the classical intellectual tradition had grown fat and happy and had effectively squandered the riches at their disposal — this was nearly four hundred years after Aquinas — and that radical revolt seemed the only reasonable course for a thinking man.
And yet I can’t help thinking of the rebellious teenager who realizes, as he begins to settle down and have children of his own, that perhaps his parents knew a thing or two after all. Not that they were right about everything, and not that he hasn’t learned wonderful things in the meantime that he may never have learned from them — but all the same he may need to draw on their wisdom from time to time.
The world these days seems much like that rebellious teenager, and I only hope that in the face of the global dilemmas of the age, he recognizes that it’s time to settle down a tad and reflect a bit on what his parents used to say.
March 17th, 2007 @ 6:03 am
Ben– great clarity in your post. Your thoughts have been consistent since you were first commenting here, something like a year ago. While I think I understood where you were coming from then, I understand it more now. I think we were polarizing ourselves more than necessary because of an inadequate understanding of your position.
And kept wanting to come back to my last earlier comment because I wasn’t communicating accurately. First it sounded like I mean to exclude philosophy, which is not right. Next I used the Plan A/ Plan B analogy, which is still too exclusive.
I do think an amount of philosophy is necessary and, in fact, intertwined with material science. If you remember back to our first discussions I tried to communicate that. But it is my opinion that philosophical thought is currently a part of science and modern thought.
Which leads to my next question. Aside from Dawkins, who is one person (some people are strong in one area, others are strong in another, and still others are strong in multiple areas. I happen to know that Dawkins gets impatient with philosophy)…aside from Dawkins himself, how exactly do you see the works of science currently lacking in philosophy? Can you pinpoint what, exactly, you think is missing?
Because the way I see it, no one is discounting Aristotle. My experience is that everyone acknowledges his contributions and the fact that we have built upon many of his thoughts. We can also acknowledge where he was wrong. We would expect him to be.
The same with Aquinas. Dawkins refuted his understanding of Aquinas’ position on god. I don’t remember him ever saying that everything Aquinas said was worthless. And I don’t think it is necessary for Dawkins to make sure we understand that just because he is disagreeing with Aquinas’ god argument doesn’t mean other things he said weren’t valuable. Dawkins’ interest was to tackle one aspect of Aquinas’ thought. Am I wrong on this?
(And, BTW, I don’t agree with everything Dawkins asserts; in fact there is a lot I disagree with. But I don’t think I need to clarify that every time I refer to him).
I’ll take your word that Dawkins hacked Aquinas’ argument: As you said, you studied it in Latin and this is your area of expertise. It is not Dawkins’ area of expertise. But that part of the book was the part I found least interesting, and least necessary. I am wondering whether or not you would find the next sections on the improbability of god substantial. For me that is where the book got interesting. I am curious whether you would think his level of thinking was beyond the material to an adequate degree. I think it was.
March 30th, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
the thought of having no eternal soul might cause fear and anxiety for some, but to me it simply reinforces the idea that happiness is something you have to achieve on your own. There is no supernatural entity rooting for you, or waiting at the end of your life to make things right. There is only you, an animal, a human, and the billions of people like you that inhabit this earth.
Lets play nice.
March 31st, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
I don’t know if I could give in to such a bleak way of thinking, I’m saturnine enough as it is. It would seem that by setting yourself strongly against one thing, you achieve the opposite of what you have intended to achieve originally. If logic is the new God and reason the new dogma, what is achieved? If either way people fall into a pattern and refuse to think about the possibility of their truth’s failings, then we are as close minded as ever. A catalyst is always needed, neither one is to prevail if balance and the middle path are to be found. This isn’t a criticism of anyone here, just an observation.
And Ben,you are Elpis at the bottom of Pandora’s box (in the good sense), thank you.
April 13th, 2007 @ 1:40 am
Noell, sorry for the delay. I posted my last comment the night before a rare day off from work. This one will have to be short. To be honest, I’m not all that familiar, directly, with the works of contemporary scientists, popular or otherwise. Where would you recommend that I start?
My impressions of contemporary science come mostly from things I read in newspapers, or hear on the radio, or read on the web, particularly in posts and comments on this blog. Granted that’s not a very, ahem, scientific sampling.
But let me just quote a few comments from this thread that I think illustrate my point above:
God, as an answer to life’s bewilderments certainly did seem rational at one time as man had no means to say, understand the flow of day into night into day, the rising and setting of the sun, the sun itself.
For myself, I think it is a waste of time to try to argue the Universe into the state we would prefer. I find it much more productive and satisfying to use the tools I’ve been given (including my brain with all it’s quirks and suboptimal functionality) to find new ways to experience and interact with the Universe as it is.
Every day we come to a deeper and greater understanding of how the universe works. None of the answers so far discovered point to any omnipotent presence. That we don’t as yet have all the answers does not then necessarily, or even likely point to a god as the ultimate answer to our questions.
A belief in eternal life – a life in another realm sans our physicality – is based on exactly no evidence beyond fantasy. It is truly irrational. . . . a belief in a life beyond . . . is contrary to reality and to progress. . . . such a notion is nothing more than a human conceit.
I’m not absolutely sure what happens to human consciousness at death, but the scientific evidence so far points to extinguishment.
I’m not prepared to shut down so many of my other facilities; reason, intellect, thinking, questioning in order that I release my fear of death.
The general consensus seems to be that we’ve put laughable ideas like “the soul” well behind us. Dark Ages and all that. Such ideas were never anything other than feeble attempts to explain what was, at the time, beyond the reach of science. Now that we’ve made so much progress in understanding nature, we don’t need those ideas, and anyway, the evidence suggests that they were false all along.
But I have a few difficulties with this view. For one thing, it seems to impose the contemporary scientific method on ideas that arose by means of a different intellectual method. Science hypothesizes, investigates, experiments, and then refines its hypotheses. As more and better evidence comes to light, older and less-accurate hypotheses are discarded. If you view all of reality from within this model, then it makes sense that you would think of “god” or the “soul” as antiquated hypotheses that are no longer supported by the best current research.
But I’m not so sure that philosophy works this way. Philosophy deals with questions that precede the scientific method; questions like, “why is the scientific method a reliable way to investigate the natural world?” I’m not sure that you can answer a question like that with the hypothesis-experiment-refine model — for one thing, you would be relying on the scientific method to establish the validity of the scientific method. More fundamentally, though, it’s just not the sort of question that the scientific method is equipped to answer.
So if “god” and the “soul” are in fact philosophical concepts, they deserve to be examined in philosophical terms.
Which leads to another difficulty I have with the view I characterized above: that it doesn’t seem to be very familiar with the things it’s criticizing. Here I can quote from Dale McGowan, in your original post:
Since species evolve incrementally over time, insisting that we have souls, but other living things do not, requires us to come up with some pretty unlikely scenarios.
But classical philosophy does hold that all living things have souls! The classical notion of “soul” is really not all that earth-shattering, and it’s not ethereal at all; it basically boils down to “that by which a living thing is alive”. Aristotle gets more technical but I’d better not try to go there at this hour. Suffice it to say that the classical philosophical concept of “soul” could not be farther removed from Casper the Friendly Ghost!
Which then leads me to your part of the original post: Over time, more and more of what we have attributed to the soul falls to the wayside as scientific research finds that chemical reactions within specific areas of our physical brain are responsible for everything soul-oriented.
To which I can only respond that there’s nothing in the classical notion of the soul, at least as I understand it, that conflicts with the scientific research you describe. Aristotle in fact discusses this sort of thing in De Anima (his treatise on the soul), not in anything like the detail that modern neurology enjoys, of course — but as I remember it, he took it for granted that there was a physical organ essentially connected with thought, and that anything that affected that organ could also affect the human mind. This did not contradict anything else that he held and in fact dovetailed with and in some sense followed from his definition of the soul.
To sum up what was supposed to be a short post, I think we would both be surprised by how much intellectual common ground we share. I have spent much of this post accusing you and your readers of speaking and thinking breezily about things you’re not familiar with, but I’m sure I’m guilty of the same with respect to modern science. So I’ll ask again: where should I start? An essay would be preferable; I’d like to say that I’d read a book if you recommended it, but realistically it won’t happen.
April 13th, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Hmm, the “Over time, more and more . . .” in the third-to-last paragraph was supposed to be italicized, because it’s a quote from the original post that started this thread.
January 21st, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
I know this is old, but as you say the analogy is just brilliant.