Souls and the Afterlife
Yet another topic on which everyone seems to have a very well-defined opinion, even those who have very little basis for their beliefs. I’ve argued this one on a number of occassions to those on all sides of the debate, and I have concluded that the idea of life after physical death is invalid and adequately disproved by science.
While the idea of the soul varies from culture to culture, it can generally be summed up as the belief that an individual has an essence which persists indefinitely despite death. This essence is generally ascribed their personality attributes and often their appearance, such that nothing is really lost.
Let’s examine the separation of the physical from the aspects of the soul. It is a proven scientific fact that changes to the brain can and do produce changes in personality. This cannot be argued, as there are numerous historical examples (e.g. Phineas Gage’s famous railroad spike accident). Which conclusion, then, is more feasible? Does brain damage harm the soul, or is personality based on neurology, which is purely physical? Even if you agree with the former, how can you say that the soul persists when the brain is decaying in the ground?
Belief in this phenomenon appears to derive primarily from antiquated religious arguments. It’s understandable to a point. Nobody wants to think that they are a vulnerable, finite organism that will eventually end. We value ourselves in the highest possible manner and want desperately to believe that our most important qualities will survive no matter what. The prospect of oblivion is absolutely terrifying to us. So much so, in fact, that many would rather embrace the beautiful lie than the harsh truth.
My opinion is that all good things must come to an end. While we perceive that we are constant beings, we are, in fact, slightly different from one moment to the next. Qualities ascribed to the soul fail to persist in exactly the same form even during life. We grow, change, and eventually die. If that is the end of it, then there is no reason to fear. After all, if you no longer exist, how can you be around to be concerned about it?
It is a difficult truth to accept. In contrast to religious views, it makes the world seem like a hollow and empty place. However, the truth is often ugly and hard to accept. What we can do is take joy in that which is real without resorting to supernatural illusions. We can enjoy life as a series of precious moments that can never happen again. And when we die, we can die without regret, knowing that we have spent our lives well.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I just found your site through Carnival of the Godless and am quite impressed. As far as this post goes, I have always taken comfort in knowing that I don’t have to worry and fret about what will happen to me after I die. One less thing to be concerned about. Also this juvenile idea that you are “yourself” in the afterlife just evaporates under any amount of basic logic. We all want to remain “ourselves”. If we are just some sort of spririt communing with God–so what? It is completely irrevelant to our daily life isn’t it? Glad I finally came to understand the whole thing is silly. It seems to me that once you step out from behind the curtain–it is very odd to see the world listening to the great OZ and doing whatever it says no matter how obviously made up it all is. I find it weird and have spent years reading books on religion trying to understand it. I think I now understand well enough to live with it–but OZ is still a failed conjurer and I think we would all be better off if we did the good things religion does under a cloak of reality rather than a cloak of Emerald City green smoke. Thanks for letting me comment. I will enjoy coming back here—but I am almost always a lurker so you may not hear from me often.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn my friend. Well, first of all, the notion of heaven and hell is complete based on the principle of an immaterial entity, much like the mind. How is the mind separate from this “material substance” of the brain? Your notions on what the soul is are completely based on the body. Is body the enduring self? If I forget who I am, or if I begin to change my life, does that completely prove that everything I did before was not me? The soul exists much like our emotions. Are these triggered from biological stimuli, or is it that we can only experience these feelings without ever understanding why they are triggered?
One interesting concept was suggested by Socrates, who much like Descarte, emphasized his “innate ideas” which are ideas that are already in our head, without ever having been conceived of in the real world. We have little know how on where they come from, but that doesn’t prove that they are not there. These are things such as having the concept of something that isn’t perfect. We all know what a perfect circle would look like right? However it is physically impossible to draw one, or even a perfectly straight line for that matter. The very fact that nothing is absolutely perfect, shows that we got this idea through our own mind; completely distinct from any material sense at all. And yet isn’t perfection considered a real thing, “to strive for?” (some suggest that human cant exist in a real world, which is why it isn’t perfect: “the matrix” for one) It is actually your dear friend science that introduced quantum mechanics, which is also beginning to disprove allot of the dictations of a completely material reality as well. Matter is actually made up of energy, and that is considered an immaterial thing.
People get this “religaphobia”, and I think that is derived from the fear of being judged. Anselm’s definition of god, is that “it is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived of, and since something real is greater than something that is not real, than that thing must truly exist. This definition only works for god, and if you honestly stop to think about it, a god must actually exist. Maybe when we die, we are released from the limitations administered by these “chains”. Maybe a mentally challenged person becomes the person he would have been if his brain had developed maturely. Have you ever wondered what a person with those disabilities would be like if they were not mental. Well, I am all for evolution as well, and as a great man once said, “The bible explains how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
Lastly, how did the universe get here. If it made itself, then it completely contradicts the “logic” of cause and effect. You don’t get, “the effect made by the causeâ€, because it doesn’t make “sense”. The universe has not always been here, because if it did, than right now all the energy that went into making it would practically be depleted, since as “science says”, it is expanding at an exponential rate, and therefore it becomes colder and colder every year. This is because it has to use whatever energy it has left to fill in the space.
So the logical fallacy in your reasoning, which is appealing to authority, is very ignorant, and your giving science a bad name by saying that it proves the nonexistence of god. Who is to say that god doesn’t exist, and who is to throw truths in places where we just can not know, due to the fact that we as a human race are to stupid to get beyond our own circular arguments? I believe in perseverance, and the existence of god.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
In response to your comment, Betsy, thanks very much for your candor. It’s always nice to know that one’s work is appreciated.
As for your comment, Joe, let’s see if I can piece through your rhetoric.
You begin your argument by noting that the soul is an “immaterial” entity, and therefore completely separate from the body. The problem with this argument is that it is unfalsifiable. You remove the soul from any physical context and expect others to believe that it exists “on faith” without a shred of measurable proof. The soul becomes an magical object that somehow assumes a person’s selfhood without being affected by apparent changes to the self. As a man of science, I respect the scientific method as the best method for obtaining knowledge, and I recognize your logic as the most popular escape of the dogmatist. If you intend to convince me on the basis of reason, you’ll find your efforts in vain if you ignore the physical world and speak only of a arbitrary and unprovable spiritual world.
That’s not to say that I disbelieve in alternate or coexistent realities. As you point out, quantum physics suggests their existence. However, we are not currently capable of proving their existence or probing their properties. You assume that, because alternate realities might exist, there must be a life after death. Needless to say, this is an unscientific leap of faith that I am unwilling to take.
As for your argument of “innate ideas,” this is easily explained by science. People are not born as blank slates. Babies have inborn instincts and preferences, as well as predispositions to develop certain fundamental concepts (e.g. your mythical perfect circle). Your concept of perfection can equally be described as a simplification of patterns, a conceptual shortcut ingrained by evolution to make adaptation easier.
Concerning your last point, I will note that the discussion of how the universe came to be and whether or not god exists are related but completely separate debates. To indulge you, you are making the same logic error as above. Namely, you are assuming that, because science does not understand the creation of the universe, god must exist. This is yet another leap of faith favored by the dogmatic philosopher and shunned by the scientific one.
On the note of god, I find the first sentence of your concluding paragraph to be somewhat amusing. To quote you:
At what point in my original post, exactly, did I say anything about god? My rhetoric, as the title suggests, was about souls and the afterlife. If you’ll go back and read it, I think you’ll find no mention of god anywhere.
I think the true ignorance in this debate is quite clear. Perhaps I have a lot to learn and perhaps I don’t, but it’s clear that you’re not a good teacher. If you intend to post here again, I suggest you set aside your dogmatic “reasoning” (I use the term loosely) and phrase your debate in logical terms.