Bad things/Good people when all else fails explanation

When free will fails to explain unpleasant events and evils, another popular explanation arises. “We (humans) are unable to know and understand god, therefore trying to understand certain circumstances is pointless.” this argument is delivered in many shapes and sizes, but no matter the shape, results in the destruction of monotheistic mythology. Such an argument reduces a believer to an agnostic (the impossibility of acquiring the necessary knowledge to answer certain questions), because religion teaches us how to understand god. He (not her) has anthropomorphic characteristics, emotions, and a rulebook on how his creations are to conduct their lives. If that is not enough information on how to understand god, what about a history spanning thousands of years on how he reacts to those very same rules he provided (Koran, Bible, Torah)? The point is, believers claim to understand god, but when things get rough claim it impossible to do so. At best this is a discussion stopper and accomplishes nothing. When we do not understand something fill the gap with God instead of honest inquiry and then when we find a contradiction to that very same established truth, claim that god cannot be understood. Which is it? Do we know and understand god, as dogma lays out for us, even if the concept fails to stand up to logic and reason? Or should religion be brought down from the look with your eyes and not with your hands shelf of truth and be reduced to the friendly world of speculation? Although this claim in itself can be extensive the purpose of this piece is to supplement the previous discussion with an additional perspective plus bridge the gap to future articles concerning modern hybrid concepts of religion and gods, specifically how individuals create personalized gods loosely based on traditional dogmas, yet still label themselves as Christians Muslims and or Jews.

Free will and why bad things happen to good people

First of all, readers, we apologize for the long hiatus since our last post. Sometimes the rigors of medical school get in the way of debunking dogma online.
Yet now that we've got a little down time, we bring our attention back to obliterating some of the more significant pillars of the argument for god according to the major monotheistic traditions.

The non-believer is often asked what he or she would do if, upon dying, he/she were to discover that there really is a god (and heaven, devil, hell, etc.) after all. The question is meant to strike fear, or at least doubt, in skeptic's very soul (brain); the same fear/doubt which motivates most believers to do the things they do in an attempt to reserve their seat at god's feastin' table. The easy response to the believer's question is simply: "I'll do the same thing you will in the event you discover there is a god, but not the one you worshipped your whole life." It's unlikely one would get very far with such a response however, for as we've pointed out in earlier posts, a believer's faith that his god is in fact the right choice out of hundreds, is surprisingly, and unreasonably, strong.

Yet, there is another way to answer this question that, frankly, cuts through the bull. In speaking for myself (Steve writing) I can say that yes, were I to die and find myself standing at the pearly gates, I would most certainly be surprised. Incredibly so. However, would I regret living my adult life as a non-believer and subsequently beg god's forgiveness for my indiscretion? No. On the contrary, if I had the chance to speak with him before being shipped off to eternal damnation, I would spit in his face. I would not be doing this out of anger over my fate (though I'm sure I'd be pretty pissed about that part, too), but rather for the billions of people he allowed to suffer through this so called gift that is life.

This brings us to the issue of bad things happening to good people. Like the skeptic, the believer is also asked her fair share of questions (whether she responds with anything of value is another issue), among them is a classic: if god is so benevolent and kind, why does he allow evil to exist in the world? This question is frequently equated with the query as to why bad things happen to good people. They are essentially the same, for evil and evil deeds would not be a conceptual reality were they not being directed toward the innocent and good.

The religious community's traditional response to this troubling reality is simply and seemingly flawless: man has free will. You see, god loves man above all other things. Thus, in his infinite wisdom he realized that it would be cruel to forcibly ensure man's adherence to certain rules; it would be too limiting to deny Adam his own will with which he could choose right from wrong. By providing man with free will god endowed his greatest creation with the power of choice, but at a cost: the inevitable reality that some men would choose to do evil things. Therefore, the little boy who must endure years of beatings by his alcoholic mother's hand, or the undergraduate who is gang raped after being drugged at a party both must recognize that were god to have interfered and preventing these tragedies, he would have to deny free will, and to do such a thing would be utterly cruel and unloving. Moreover, the reward for those who choose righteousness will be that much greater after having resisted years of temptation.

Now, while the above paragraph is saturated with sarcasm, it does accurately represent the religious assertion that man's free will accounts for the evils of the world, and essentially god had to weigh the benefits of man's freedom against his potential for cruelty; freedom evidently won. The believer's solution is full of holes from point A. One need only consider disease to realize that not every instance of bad befalling the good can be blamed on someone else's free will.

If a woman has a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, that reality is completely out of her control. Yes, her very existence is the result of her parents' free decision to procreate and pass on potentially flawed DNA. However, even if we follow her family tree all the way back to its roots, the ultimate blame for her genetic disadvantage lies with faulty DNA replication rather than some ancestor's conscious decision. There is no free will to be found in the realm of chromosomes, and therefore, the buck of any disease which has a genetic cause cannot be passed off on free will.

Further, the free will theory is a blatant contradiction of another religious favorite: the belief in miracles. If god truly chooses to stay out of human affairs, leaving us free to make our own choices, than how can anyone claim that some occurrence of great fortune is the result of "god's plan." The mere idea of a divine plan doesn't jive with free will, for how can one be both free to do whatever he pleases yet all the while progressing along some predetermined path?

However, the ultimate weakness to be found in the free will solution lies in the fact that it doesn't actually solve the problem at hand. To refresh our memories, the theory goes as follows: god loved man, and because god loved man so much, he realized that man needed to possess his own will rather than be slave to the will of god. Unfortunately, by giving man free will, god also gave man the potential to do evil things, and therefore, the evils of the world are the result of certain individuals' misuse of god's gift. The problem lies in the unwarranted assumption that god's giving man free will necessitated his giving man the ability to do evil.

If the incongruity is not yet clear, consider this: I cannot turn myself invisible; does this mean I lack free will? Further, I can not remove my own head; does this too mean that I lack free will? The answer in both cases is no. Freedom of will simply refers to one's ability to choose how he utilizes his built in capabilities, not his ability to do anything imaginable. Therefore, the fact that I cannot fly like a bird or breathe under water like a fish simply illustrates two of the myriad of limitations that come with being human.

Now if we, like the believer, are assuming that man was designed by god, and if we are further assuming that god is benevolent, then why would he not create man, the being after his own image, with a limitation that prevented evil. Just as he failed to endow Adam with gills, claws, wings, eight arms, the ability to morph into different shapes, etc., god needed only make the man incapable of murdering, raping, stealing and the like. Humans would still be free to choose what kind of foods to eat, or what sort of clothes to wear, but when it came to murder and torture, such deeds, like flying, would be imaginable but impossible.

I can sense that some will disagree and simply insist that man's ability to become a killer or a rapist must come with his free will to do other things; if we are to be free to swing an axe, how can we not be free to swing it wherever we please, like into someone else's head? This is a classic example of the illogical argument that current circumstances stand as evidence for their inevitability; that things had to turn out the way they did, because, well, that's how they turned out. However, this simple is not true nor does it jive with the concept of god. We are asked to imagine a being with unlimited knowledge and power, and yet we must accept that he failed to come up with a design that somehow prevented evil deeds? Such a creator would be neither perfect nor very smart.

The believer must come to terms with at least one of three possibilities: a) god failed to realize the simple fact that if he didn't want men to do evil deeds he simply needed to make evil one of the many things men can't do, and in failing to realize this god demonstrates himself to be a moron unworthy of worship; or b) that god, knowing full well that, if given free will, men would commit all sorts of evils (many in his name) resulting in the suffering of billions, still chose to proceed accordingly, in which case he is not benevolent and thus unworthy of worship; or c) that god does not exist, the evils and misfortunes of the world are simply bad luck, and by not existing, god is unworthy of worship. I'm personally circling choice C, but since the result of all three is the same, be my guest and choose freely.

Heath Ledger and Westboro Baptist Church

We don't normally use this blog to comment on current events, however, the recent announcement by the Westboro Baptist Church concerning Heath Ledger's funeral provides a lesson too valuable to be ignored. As many know, the WBC is a Kansas based church that has set out on a mission of fighting the evils of homosexuality and "fag enabling" which are running rampant in this country. WBC members frequently protest the funerals of gays, allies, and fallen soldiers, the latter falling under the category of fag enablers, men and women who fight under the banner of a fag-loving nation. As such, this group plans of protesting the late Mr. Ledger's funeral because of his sympathetic portrayal of a gay cowboy. Ignoring the glaring fact that America by and large openly hates homosexuals, the WBC raises an important issue.

Many religious moderates are standing on the side of reason in regard to the WBC and its protests, calling members of the group extremists guilty of misinterpreting the bible. Here arises a serious problem, one which has been mentioned previously on this blog. For functional atheists, which is to say those who lead their everyday lives in a completely secular fashion save for the occasional prayer for assistance, holiday celebration, or reference to an anticipated eternity of bliss, there is this idea that the bible is open to interpretation, and moreover, the proper interpretation is one that ignores most of the rules contained therein. Therefore, in the minds of functional atheists (better known as religious moderates), the members of the WBC are indeed extremists who have taken biblical text too far, out of context, and what have you.

I would argue that the bible was not intended to be interpreted; it is not presented as a poem or a story in the literary sense of the word, but rather as a historical account of god and his instructions to man. Interpretation has stemmed only from cognitive dissonance as believers struggle in vain to reconcile their desire to believe in an afterlife with the fact that time and time again science has demonstrated the bible to be filled with utter nonsense.

Yet for the sake of argument, let us imagine that the bible indeed is open to interpretation as the religious moderate would believe. Certainly, a reasonable interpretation would consist of reading the text as is. No one pretends to imagine that when Frost claims to have taken the road less traveled he really means the beaten path, and here we are discussing metaphor-filled poetry. Accordingly, we cannot in good faith pretend that when god declares lying with mankind as with woman to be an "abomination" there isn't the slimmest chance he means just that. If such is the case, it would follow that the WBC is not in fact a cult of extremists, but rather a church of righteous crusaders doing their damnest to save Americans from eternal torment. Certainly no religious moderate would complain if one were to protest the funeral of a mass murderer, for god tells us that "thou shall not kill." In the same vein, the WBC takes god at his word and acts accordingly.

Now, is the WBC in fact a group of fanatics, bigots and hate mongers? Most certainly. They ignore the fact that their supposed god also stresses the importance of forgiveness, fail to fuss over the myriad other inane rules god arbitrarily laid out, and, through the fervor with which they've latched onto one biblical line, reveal themselves as nothing more than backwards bigots capitalizing on the fact that outward gay-bashing goes unpunished in a nation which refuses to allow two tax-paying, law-abiding citizens to enjoy the legal rights of a married couple. However, it is only we secularist who have the right to point out such things. For anyone who goes to church on Sunday or prays at night or lights a certain candle for a certain period of time all because the imaginary man in the sky told him so is barred from the conversation, unless of course, he's calling to WBC to say "hello pot, just wanted to let you know that you're black."

The Imaginary Dominion of Man

According to the monotheistic tradition, god created the Earth and all the plants and animals which fill it prior to creating man in whom he endowed dominion over all the aforementioned creations. This concept of dominion is intimately tied to the idea that we humans were made in the image of the divine creator, which is to say that, in a microcosmic sense, god's dominion over all worldly and extraterrestrial creation is analogous to our "rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Genesis 1:26). We could easily point out the fact that, once again, monotheistic dogma reveals itself to stem from the minds of arrogant, simple men attempting to explain their wondrous control of planet Earth. However, it is just as simple to demonstrate that human beings possess anything but dominion over this planet.
Let us first look at our rule over the animal and plant life mentioned above. We will grant that in the year 2008, it would certainly seem as though mankind does indeed exact a significant degree of control over the rest of the Earth's flora and fauna. We have the power to genetically engineer livestock to better suit our dietary taste, the ability to slaughter creatures of any size using our advanced weapons, and even the capabilities to level entire habitats when we so choose. However, this control is a very recent development. Our present ability to manipulate plants and animals to suit our needs has been a long time coming, and for millions of years prior to this age people were nothing more than another type of creature struggling to compete with the myriad others. Early man was lucky to live into his ripe old thirties, and only did so through surviving his fair share of potentially fatal injuries (archeological evidence demonstrates that your average adult "caveman" usually suffered numerous fractures over the course of his/her life).
Even today, a solitary person stripped of the technology others developed over millennia stands little chance in a show down against most other animals; our bodies are soft, our muscles weak, and our agility and senses laughable. And even with all our modern technology at hand, man's dominion is at best transient and at worse a facade. We need only look to any one of the many instances in which a "domesticated" animal decides to show its true colors and attack its master.
As we turn to man's supposed "rule...over all the earth" in general, the monotheistic theory truly begins to buckle. If there is one thing than humans have failed to control, even today, it is the Earth itself. At present, we have zero ability to regulate climate or geologic phenomenon. Humans can only do their best to shield themselves from the onslaught of Mother Nature, and these efforts are by and large pathetic. The recent tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina provides a vivid reminder of our crippling limitations.
When one takes into account the existence of extraterrestrial threats, the situation becomes far grimmer. For example, were an asteroid of sufficient size to happen upon a course intersecting our orbit, mankind would be helpless to do anything but patiently await its destruction. Our chances of diverting the rock prior to collision are abysmal, and once it struck we would almost certainly go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if a few straggling tribes were capable of eking out a living, who could call such an existence evidence of dominion?
Yet, we really need not look to the catastrophic as evidence of the reality that man lives thoroughly under nature's thumb. Simply consider the fact that the Earth is 70% water; salt water no less! This means that the majority of the Earth is utterly uninhabitable by the human race; when taken into consideration, this fact makes it much more likely that god, if he exists, is either a fish or a sea mammal.
The final consideration takes us back to the issue of controlling animal species. It is no surprise that the authors of monotheism failed to consider the most glaring contradiction to their dominion theory, for said contradiction was unknown to mankind 2000 years ago. The existence of bacteria and viruses are highly suggestive that mankind is anything but the dominant species on earth. Not only are these creatures many times more versatile and adaptive than humans, they are capable of bringing entire continents to their knees. Only recently have scientists been able to wrest some control from the microvilli of the microscopic, and even so, our efforts fail more frequently than they succeed.
Before closing, we would like to address one counterpoint we foresee the believer raising. It is highly possible that our reading of this passage is skewed by god's lack of temporality. For, while god may not have endowed man with dominion over all of nature at his (man's) inception, perhaps there will come some time in the distant future when such unequivocal dominion shall be a reality. Certainly, god will still be "living" in the present a billion earth years from now. Thus, perhaps this dominion is more a promise than a present reality. In this regard, we the nonbelievers would level the following charge: how is it that god, in his infinite wisdom would fail to recognize that, unlike himself, his greatest creation is anything but timeless, and thus would go through a great deal of suffering at the hands of nature prior to realizing its ultimate dominion? Either he somehow failed to recognize this fact, and is thus reveals himself to be rather unintelligent, or he did perceive this unfortunate reality and yet proceeded in spite of it. If the latter turns out to be true, than god is not quite the loving father men like to imagine him to be.

Complexity Continued

As we have discussed in the last post, the atheist is often asked by the believer how he can possibly look at the complexity of the universe and imagine that it all came about by some sort of cosmic accident. As we have endeavored to point out, in regard to the universe itself, complexity is far more stable, and thus energetically inevitable than simplicity. And yet, if we are to be really honest with ourselves, the believer's question stems not only from the universe around him, but to an equal if not greater extent from his very existence. We humans, vain creatures that we are, find our bodies to be quite marvelous entities indeed; so marvelous that we find it hard to imagine they came to exist outside of some creator's grand scheme.

Before getting to the fallacies inherent in this line of thinking, it should first be pointed out that said theory is so rife with selfish motivation it almost need not be considered. Human beings spend very little time marveling at the complexity of a rooster or a palm tree. Likewise, we rarely concern ourselves with the possibility that the universe in its entirety was created so as to provide a home for black holes (which I should say are equally if not more impressive entities than human beings). Granted, all of the non-human pieces of the universe are supposedly part of God's overarching creation. However, the general religious theory holds that this myriad of parts exists merely to support and supplement human life, thus suggesting that ultimately it is the wonder known as man which begs the issue of a creator. This would be akin to one particular American citizen imagining that the entire historical course of the particular land mass now known as America was but a lead up to his personal, somehow uniquely significant existence. Such a theory is so obviously, pathetically arrogant that one could easily dismiss it as a vain mussing unworthy of logical consideration. Yet, for the sake of argument, we will consider just such a position.

We first must clearly establish two essential elements of the theory to be evaluated. First, man is such a wondrously complex, functional unit that he simply can not be explained, or is at least best explained by the actions of an intentioned creator. Secondly, this creator is an omnipotent being, perfect himself, and in accordance with his omnipotence, the greatest engineer the universe has ever or could ever know. One may take issue with the second essential element, claiming that he could easily imagine a supreme being who is not omnipotent, but only powerful enough to create the universe and man. This is most certainly true, but since this is not the supreme being passed down by religious dogma, nor the creator who plays a functional role in people's lives, it need not be considered at this juncture.

Unfortunately for the theist, the two elements which, supposedly when taken together logically point to the necessity of a creator, in fact do just the opposite. Let us first consider the marvelous complexity of man. Proponents of the intelligent design (ID) theory (which it should be noted is really no more than an idea) point to human experience with complexity as evidence for design. For example, we all know that working television sets do not simply come to be. The probability that all the requisite components of a television set would simply fall together, and in the proper configuration without the goading of an external agent, such as a TV manufacturer, is absurdly unlikely. Likewise, why would one ever imagine that the pieces of a human being would just fall into place, and in working order, without an equally necessary designing force. First of all, the ID theorist fails to recognize that evolutionary biology has provided a perfectly feasible and logical external agent: all those natural forces which exist outside of an organism or population of organisms. No one pretends that the individual cells of an organism simply coalesce into its ultimate form; rather a billions of years long process of external and internal (for let us not forget that organic compounds, unlike the parts of a TV, interact with each other according to their respective properties) influence gradually shapes the ultimate product.

Yet more important than the above consideration is the fact that the complexity of a television set is a glaring demonstration of the limitations of its designer. The skill of a designer is found not only in his producing a functional object but also in the deftness with which he produces it. Who is the more skilled engineer, he who makes a toaster of 300 parts or he who produces one made of only 3? Clearly the latter, assuming that the toast is equally delicious. Apparently, there are two ways to go about making a toaster, and one of these is one hundred times more efficient. More importantly, the latter design has 297 less pieces to be worried about replacing or fixing. Every engineer knows that the more parts a machine has, the more likely it is to break, for not only must he worry about the failure of each and every part, but also the failure of each and every connection between adjacent pieces. The complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than my example toaster, begs a creator only when we are assuming that this creator's skill is in many ways limited. The omnipotent creator is capable of doing anything, and in recognizing the dangers of overly complex machinations, would logically design his ultimate project to be as simple as possible.

It makes sense to imagine that the incredible complexity of the human body was the best that nature, a nonthinking force, could come up with, especially considering that the building blocks of life must interact with each other in ever more complex manners rather than morph into simpler structures possessing more complex functions. However, to imagine that a omnipotent, thinking entity's best shot at the human body would be as convoluted as it presently is would be utterly absurd. If the creator truly were all powerful, a man would likely be no more than a solid figure with an attached soul. Thus, in regard to man's complexity, we must either accept the reality that such complexity is much more likely to come about by accident rather than intention, or endow our creator with limitations and flaws. Neither of these outcomes sits particularly well with religious dogma.

Lastly, it should be pointed at out that, if one attempts to cast his vanity aside, he will quickly realize that the human body is really not that much of a marvel. Modern medicine provides plenty of examples of just how flawed our bodies really are. Take birth defects for example. How can we call our bodies miraculously well designed when the reality is that they very frequently come out wrong. If one were to lump all birth defects together, she would quickly see that the odds of developing as one should are just as good if not worse than ending up with some horrible defect. Further, in the event that one does survive prenatal development unscathed, there are a myriad of conditions she can acquire in postnatal life which demonstrate the body's propensity for "screwing up." Autoimmune diseases, inflammatory disorders, cancers, and sensory deficits name only a few categories of diseases in which one's own body turns on itself and wreaks havoc from inside out. The point is this: if a manufacture produced a product with as high a malfunction rate as the human body, you would be hard pressed to find anyone preaching the godlike merits of his company. Rather, we would probably consider the manufacture a dolt and his products, well, crap. This is not to say that I consider the human body crap, however, if this thing we call man is the best that a supposedly all-powerful being could come up with, than I'd like to make a return.

The Natural Nothing to Something

Common sense would tempt humans to ask: "how can something arise from nothing"? The simple religious remedy to such a perplexing problem submits by the will of a Creator. As it turns out modern science provides a simpler suggestion. It is clear that particles of simple systems most often are unstable. Such systems naturally undergo phase transitions to a lower energy state self-organizing into more complex stable systems. The most direct example is water. Vapor gas is unstable when compared to liquid water, which is more unstable then crystallized water. Each stage of the phase change progression becomes not just more stable but more complex. Ultimately ending with ice or snowflakes, structures that are drastically different from the initial state. Since this is a natural phenomenon (simple system to complex structure) why would the development of our universe be so different? Try to conceive of the simplest possible system; what you should come up with is "nothing". Following the same logic that simple systems are unstable, "nothing" would have to be tremendously unstable, in turn transforming into something more complex (Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis).
At this point it is crucial to discuss the idea of nothing. One may argue the snowflake did not come from nothing in the same sense as planets and galaxies. The snowflake came from liquid water that came from vapor gas. Not nothing! The previous claim dose make a point but ignores the fact that just as a snowflake came from prerequisite particles so did matter in the universe. The nothing is actually something, the big bang theory does not support otherwise. If one were to still be desperate to find absolute nothing, it may be suggested that the nothing we are searching for preceded the big bang singularity. This is one speculation of many, one of which (concerning evidence/experimental progress) pales in comparison to others such as the “no boundary model” presented by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle and “The tunneled” theory presented by Victor Stenger. Consider a tenacisous debater who just was not convinced by developing scientific research dealing with time before Planck Time and pushed the issue of absolute nothing. The question must be raised, why would the solution point to a creator. Using this concept of nothing, no human creator has ever created anything from absolute nothing therefore where would the inspiration for a divine creator come from? Such an argument would begin to fall into the field of the ontological argument. The argument in summary states. 1. God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. 2. Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination 3. Therefore God must exist in reality. The destruction for the ontological arguement has been shown by many philosophers, but the following example is presented by Douglas Gasking :
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist
(Grey, Gasking's Proof. Analysis 60 (4): 368-70).
Since something coming from nothing has been reduced to a natural event, it may be conceded that the only possible situation calling for a supernatural creator is one so eliquently put by Victor Stenger the event in which nothing was forever maintained in the universe (meaning no matter, no order, no big bang). In conclusion it is safe to say the only plausible creator possiblity did not occur, nothing in fact became something.

The Soul

One of the greatest concerns of all faiths, and a primary motivator of belief, is the issue of what happens to us after death. The faithful look forward to life after death, meeting their maker in his kingdom, and living in eternal bliss. But what part of us continues to the world beyond this one? General consensus among believers is that each of us possesses a soul, an immaterial, eternal essence which, following death, leaves our body and continues on to the afterlife. The concept of a soul is almost taken for granted, as though it were a clear reality; this couldn't be further from the truth.
The most obvious objection one might raise against the idea of a soul is this: how can an immaterial, eternal "thing" be associated with a material, temporal body? Those who believe in the soul consider it to be associated with an individual, either somewhere inside of them (there was once a time when the pineal gland was the supposed soul container) or around them. Yet how could this be? By simple definition, things which are immaterial are not bound by the laws of the material world. In fact, they represent the opposite of the world we know; these objects have no substance, can not be housed, nor can they interact with those things which are material, like a human body. In a perfect world, the argument would end here, and yet I'm sure that some of our detractors would appeal to the omnipotence of god and his creations to explain that my puny human mind can not understand the complex interactions of a soul and a body. I must admit that this is possible and therefore, must appeal to more complex arguments.
Let us take a moment to reflect upon the reason why the idea of souls is so appealing. Aside from the obvious appeal to be found in looking towards infinite bliss, one must admit that every ship needs a captain and the soul seemingly provides this role for the human body. The scientifically inclined may pipe up at this moment to claim that the human body already has a perfectly good (and clearly verified) captain, the brain. And yet, the brain is no more than a collection of neurons which send and receive signals amongst one another. Physiologists have yet to discover a "master neuron" which spontaneously instructs the other parts of the brain. Therefore, one can't help but wonder, when Sally decides she would like a new dress, which particular neuron or region of the brain came up with that desire? Surely something must be in charge, and the soul concept provides us with a conductor.
Indeed, most people who believe themselves to possess a soul, see that entity as more or less analogous to their personality/consciousness/mind. The soul, simply put, is us in the purest sense; it is the thing which desires, fears, loves, becomes inspired and somehow transmits these things to our brain. This is demonstrated by the way people discuss the afterlife: they look forward to seeing deceased relatives once more, and interacting as they once did in life, by speaking, and feeling emotions. Further, those who pray or speak with the souls of loved ones who have passed on, do so as though they were talking to any living person, which is to say, using their mind to communicate with an other's. Once again, one might wonder how an immaterial thing could communicate with the material brain (who's only language is physical neurotransmitters), yet this is besides the point. The far more important issues is the simple fact that, if the soul is in anyway similar to one's "mind," than this reality raises some serious concerns about the benevolence of the giver of souls, god.
These concerns arise because, if the soul is indeed some sort of reflection of the mind, then it would seem as though a great deal of mankind has been endowed with flawed souls. Take for example, the developmentally delayed, those whose minds never develop beyond late childhood, those who are never capable of the full complexity of adult thoughts and emotions. Are these minds a reflection of these peoples' souls? If so, this means that they must spend all of eternity as an idiot angel, never to fully reap the joys of paradise. One should also consider the mentally ill. Following death must a delusional schizophrenic spend all of eternity plagued by the delusions which tormented him in life? What heaven is this? It sounds much more like eternal damnation. Those who are born with imperfect minds, and thus imperfect souls, could not have possibly committed some sin at the moment of conception that would merit god's punishment. Why then does he choose to endow some of us with flawed souls, and others with normal ones? How can we call such a creature benevolent?
Yet the concerns do not end here. After death, we are told that one's soul continues on in either paradise or hell for all of eternity (though some religions do not include the concept of hell, they do all refer to the infinite nature of souls). This concept begs a serious question: what version of our soul/mind persists for eternity? One must admit that the mind certainly goes through significant changes as one goes through life. These changes can be rather mundane, from acquiring the taste for a new dish, or changing one's political affiliation. Yet, these changes can also be much more significant. Take for example, the development of a child. At one time, each and every one of us could not help but defaecate in our own clothes, nor could we communicate to anyone around us what we had done. Indeed, our minds did not even possess an understanding of defecation, or verbal communication at that time. Hopefully as we grew, these things changed, and our minds became more sophisticated and capable of a greater complexity of thought and emotion.
Now I ask you: does the child that sadly dies shortly after birth, persist in eternity as a dribbling, helpless soul, incapable of communicating or appreciating the situation it finds itself? Consider also the man who dies after having suffered from age related dementia; is his soul to forever wander paradise not knowing its name or recognizing the souls of its relatives? Once again one must wonder, have the above two reached paradise or hell? Perhaps our souls have the opportunity to transform into the form which represents us at the stage of life we enjoyed most. Thus, the old man's soul can become that which reflects him at his most vibrant age. This would pose a problem for the infant, who never had the life experiences necessary to transform its soul. Further, what of the murderer, who when standing at the pearly gates, and having to answer for his sins declares: "No, no lord, for that was me at age 34, I would like to submit my 32 year old soul for judgement."
The concept of the soul/mind is plagued with problems, and problems not encountered when one considers his mind to be nothing more than the sum of all the neural processes occurring in his central nervous system at any given time. The brain does change as we age, as neural connections become more extensive and varied, allowing for greater diversity of thought. Sometimes, these connections are aberrant, or individuals develop without the normal density of a certain neurotransmitter or receptor. In these cases, developmental delays or mental illnesses can arise. There is no current explanation for how a soul could lead to such malignancies. Further, does one's soul "go to sleep" when the brain does? What of the comatose soul, how does it know that it is not yet time to leave the body? What does it do in the meanwhile? When one takes drugs, drugs which physically interact with the brain to cause mental status changes, does the soul suffer the same ill effects? If not, why is it somehow incapable of preventing the lapses in judgement we are so prone to during these moments?
One could bypass all of the above arguments with one simple statement: the soul is not a reflection of one's mind, but rather something else, something completely different. Perhaps they would call this something one's "essence." If this were so, I would certainly have to admit that the issues raised above would no longer apply. However, I would also have to ask: of what besides one's consciousness is he aware? I am not aware of any part of myself that would not fall under the umbrella of my consciousness or mind, and so, if some part of me existing outside this umbrella were to pass onto eternity, why look forward to it? If the soul is not the mind, this would mean that one is completely ignorant as to the nature of his own. Where is the motivation to looking towards eternity as a foreign entity? No where to be found, I would answer.