The existence of the soul has been subjected to much
speculation, with some scientists attempting to prove its ‘non-existence.’ Many
religious doctrines (if not all) acknowledge the existence of an immaterial
substance within humans, something intangible and invisible, yet present with
much importance.
The soul is usually regarded as immortal. If you have
read my first blog (‘What is the meaning of life’) you will have been
acquainted with my thoughts on immortality. For those of you who have not yet
read this, I will oblige you by reiterating my ideas dealing with immortality.
A vicious vice in my opinion, every human has an innate yearning to remain
immortal- it is ingrained in our psychological constitution and our
inclinations as (intelligent and sentient) animals. It is therefore possible
that the existence of the soul was fabricated by our very, very early ancestors
to comfort themselves deceivingly with their supposed immortality. Personally,
I do not believe this is so. Our earliest ancestors were much more religious
than our modernised and secularised selves, and as mentioned before, the
existence of the soul does seem to stem from religion. Our ancestors believed
in god(s) and therefore, by proxy, in the existence of the soul. Many of us
nowadays cast aspersions on the concept of religion, thinking that it must have
been invented a very long time ago. But, as Descartes said, the very idea of
a god is so complex, it is impossible that a human invented it. The idea must
have therefore been put into man’s brain by God.
Mechanistic brain science proceeds on the working
assumption that every bodily event has a physical cause in the prior state of
the central nervous system (CNS). On the other hand, traditional moral thought
and religious thought has always presupposed that at least some of our
behaviour is determined by our thinking and deciding. This conflict has born
suggestions that unless some parts of our CNS are found to be open to
non-physical influences, brain science will effectively discredit all talk of
man as a spiritual being, and oblige us to accept a purely materialistic view
of our nature. Even Descartes, whose philosophy depended on the existence of an
Omnipotent Figure (i.e. God) held that the soul would be powerless to influence
bodily action unless some part of the brain acted as a transmitter-receiver for
its controlling signals. ‘In man’ he says:
...the brain is also acted on by the soul which
has some power to change cerebral impressions just as those impressions in
their turn have the power to arouse thoughts which do not depend on the
will...Only [figures of excitation] traced in spirits on the surface of [the
pineal] gland, where the seat of imagination and common sense [the coming
together of the sense] is...should be taken to be...the forms or images that
the rational soul will consider directly when, being united to this machine, it
will imagine or will sense any object
Here we have science and religion working together.
Descartes’ hypothesis is indeed feasible. Now, putting science and religion
aside, how do you feel personally about the existence of the soul? Do
you believe that you are merely a body and organs devoid of spirituality? I
believe that every living animal has a soul, and it is the soul’s presence that
differentiates us from robots. Indeed, without our souls we would be mere
robots, albeit extremely intelligent ones (in fact, not unlike the robots from
the movie ‘I, Robot’). It is the soul working harmoniously with our physical
selves and the CNS that defines us. It is the soul that is responsible for our
individuality and personality, working with the amygdala.
Naturally, discussion of the soul leads one to discuss
the nature death. If regarded as a materialistic thing, at death, the body
simply decomposes over time, and eventually, all that is left of you is dust.
However, religious thought and some philosophical thought suggests that at
death, the soul remains intact. It departs the physical body and continues
living in The Afterlife.
In this age of advanced science, visible proof is
needed to acknowledge the validity of a proposed hypothesis. But this is only
because we have convinced ourselves through ‘learning’ that a thing can only
exist if it can be logically explained with visual evidence. We find the idea
of unseen forces unfathomable. That’s just it. We cannot fathom the
possibility of supernatural phenomena so we declare that there is no such
thing. We are so convinced with our own intelligence, that we do not try to
think outside the box in the most literal sense. Let us take the topic of God.
The argument against the existence of a deity is usually the fact that the
three main religions agree that God was not created. He is the Creator. Nothing
came before him. As mere humans, the thought of something not having a
beginning is incomprehensible. Our brains are not wired to accept the existence
of anything without a beginning, but that does not necessarily mean it is
impossible.
I will stop here and allow you to digest what you have
just read. I will not write anymore on this topic, but hopefully, what I have
said has triggered something in your minds. I hope I have a planted the seed of
doubt within your brains and that this thought of “everything having a
beginning” consumes you (he says as he wears an evil smile).
Anyway, I must succumb
to the seductions of this hot chocolate on my desk. Mmhm! It’s quite simply a
symphony of flavours.
No comments:
Post a Comment