All of us will die some day. That's one certainty about life we can count on--it ends. This article is for people who will die. But it's not about death. It concerns life, here and beyond.
We've all been confronted with our own mortality at some time. We're lying in bed at night, thinking about life, the lights are out, and all the distractions of our day are gone. What questions linger and bother us? What's going to happen to me after I die?
Am I just a material being--composed simply of a body, a brain, and a central nervous system--or is there something more to me? Is it possible that I have an immaterial component, such as a mind or soul, or is that just the stuff of myths and legends; something our culture still talks about, but science did away with a long time ago? Are all those religious people crazy, or is the existence of the soul probable? If I do have a soul, what are the implications for the decisions I make today?
As the Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out, all of us, by our very nature, desire to know things. We want to know what is true and what is false. We want to know if we are rationally justified in our beliefs. We want to know the answers to what appear to be unsolvable mysteries, such as, do we have a soul? If you want to know, keep reading.
Body and Soul
If we are simply material beings, then when our bodies die, we die, because we are our bodies, nothing more, nothing less. This is physicalism. There is no difference between the mind and the brain. Chemical reactions governed by physical processes are all that really goes on inside your head. What we mistakenly understand to be the mind or the soul is simply the brain. Consciousness is a mere property of the brain. It is produced by the brain and is dependent on the brain. The physical world is all there is.
On the other hand, if dualism is true, then we are both bodies and souls. There is an immaterial side of life that cannot be tested scientifically--observed, measured, quantified, and so on. The physical body houses a soul that animates the body--it gives the body ultimate life and unity.
Let's assume for now that you only have a physical body, a complex collection of matter. If the matter configured into your body ceases to be, then we would have to say that you cease to be. Sounds reasonable, but check this out.
Science tells us that approximately every seven to nine years, all the matter in your body changes at the atomic level, including your brain. Think about it. You probably look significantly different now than you did eight years ago, and will probably look even more different eight years from today. This would mean that every seven to nine years "you" cease to be and another person begins.
But this is absurd. To accept this, we'd have to reject many common sense ideas. For instance, we can't look at our baby pictures and call them ours because many years ago that baby was a different set of matter--different body--and therefore a different person. Ten years from now you won't be able to say that you worked hard to earn a college degree, because by then there will be a different body, a different person. And why plan for retirement? "You" won't be there.
This doesn't seem right!. You are the person in your baby pictures, you remember your eighteenth birthday, and you look forward to your retirement. But this can only be the case if there is something that remains the same throughout your whole life, not something material, but immaterial. This enduring immaterial reality that makes you the same person throughout your whole life is your soul.(1)
Objections Anyone?
At this point you may have some objections with this argument. "Surely there must be some way of accounting for our identity over time from a scientific (physicalist) perspective without the need to invoke a soul. After all, we have no physical evidence that there is a soul. We cannot look inside our brains and find a soul. If we cannot sense it, why should we believe it exists?"
This response assumes that the only valid category of evidence is empirical evidence (based on experiments and observations, i.e., the scientific method), and the only knowledge we can obtain is that which is supported with empirical evidence. But this can't possibly be the only evidence we have for our knowledge. If so, we are severely limiting our capacity for knowledge and understanding.
Suppose that the only things we can know are those things supported with empirical evidence. That means we can have no knowledge of things such as mathematical understanding or our own internal mental states.2
In the case of mathematical knowledge, we rely on evidence of reason based on certain universal mathematical principles, none of which are empirical. When we deal with knowledge about our own internal mental states, we know them based on introspection or self-examination. For example, I am in pain simply by feeling hurt. Most of our internal states are simply self-evident.
So what sort of evidence should we consider for the soul? Should we look for empirical evidence? The answer is clearly, "No!" And so it is not an objection to the existence of the soul (dualism) that there is no empirical evidence for it, any more that it is an objection to mathematical knowledge claims to say that there is no empirical evidence for them. The soul, if it exists, is not physical. We cannot scientifically measure and observe a soul. But this does not mean, as has been stated, that there is no evidence for it. This only means that there is no physical evidence for the soul.
Just the Facts, Please
So what kind of evidence is there for the soul? Let's look at three forms of evidence (although there are more) supporting the existence of the soul. First, there is the evidence based on the experience of ourselves, second, the evidence based on free will, and third, the evidence based on near death experiences.
Experience of Ourselves
It is clear we are conscious. We are conscious of ourselves, as well as the world around us. But what is consciousness? Could it just be a complex physical state of the brain? Again I would say no. Consider the following argument from philosopher Thomas Nagel:
It is not a far stretch at all to suppose that bats are conscious. Suppose someone had perfect physiological knowledge of bats. It would follow, then, that if consciousness were merely a complex physical state, then that person would know exactly what it would be like to be a bat. However, it seems clear that all the knowledge in the world about bats could not tell someone what it is like to be a bat.
The reason is that while physiological facts are objective -- i.e. they are accessible to anyone, what it is like to be a bat is purely subjective and can only be known by the bat who is that bat. Our consciousness is not something accessible to anyone but ourselves. But if we were merely a complex physical structure, surely it would be accessible to anyone with enough knowledge. But it is not. Hence, this is evidence that the mind is not physical.3
Free Will
Freedom. It's one of humanity's highest virtues. It seems clear from our awareness of our choices that we are free to move our wills in any way we choose. We can choose to have chocolate ice cream, or to have vanilla instead, and such a choice seems quite undetermined. At least we'd like to think so. But all physical states are determined by other physical states, governed by physical laws. If our minds are simply physical states, then we are not free. All of our decisions are determined.
So what does this mean? Think of all the choices you have made in your life that have developed you into the person you are; where you went to school, who you associate with, how you spend your free time, who you enter into relationships with. Are you willing to accept that these are simply random events that you had no control over? That's what a purely materialistic view of ourselves limits us to believe. It robs us of any purpose or meaning to life. It says that all you are, and all you will become is merely the result of a physical process that you have no power over.
And if there's no control, that means we aren't capable of choosing a good idea over a bad idea. Thus rationality is eliminated, because rationality means that we evaluate ideas and choose the one that makes the most sense, given the evidence.4 If we get rid of rationality, then our whole system of government, justice, and morality is flawed and without a basis.
But this too is incorrect. Surely we have free will, and it is we who make our choices. These choices are not determined. We are free beings that make decisions based on reason. Our free will choices make us unique and give us identity.
Page 2 >> More than Material >> 1.2
Copyright 2000 EveryStudent.com. Used with permission.
Related reading:
